I disagree; noting a trend in argument type is not ad hominem, nor is your assumption. Both may be fallacies, but not of that type. I note all the time that Archytas is fond of long diatribes which strike one as pseudo-fictional. This is not an ad hominem attack. In our goal of maintaining open discourse, let's not swing so far in sensitivity that we shut down discourse entirely. Many types of discourse exist that may not be Pollyanna in nature, but they are not the blatant attacks that we ban for the purpose of purifying communication here. Tinker, we have spent some months dancing around your idea without ever truly hearing what it is. Are you actually capable of articulating it, or is this a niggling feeling that you have, a beginning of an idea that you have yet to actually flesh out, and that you hope to fully formulate here? I hope to see a clear and direct answer to this question, as it is a clear and direct question. I'm truly interested in knowing, given the time that you've invested in participation, without ever actually spelling it out. I think I can roughly summarize the philosophical positions of most of the long term posters on this board, who have done a fair job of stating exactly what it is that they believe. So far, this is what I gather from you (and please feel free to correct or clarify as appropriate):
1. You believe that religion is unnecessary or oppressive. 2. You believe that humanity can unite worldwide in some sort of spiritual fashion around an as yet undetermined symbol. 3. You believe that this unity will serve to replace religion in enlightenment and philosophy. ...and that's about it. Care to expound? On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Tinker tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > How so?, was a question about the statement made, followed by an > explanation of the question. That is what I don't understand, that's why I > asked the question, can you answer it? > If you would ask a question about a statement that I made, I would answer > it, not through up a smoke screen as you have. > > I did confess that, "Two separate posts.", did not compute. If you cannot > or don't want to help me to understand that, that's OK. > > It does not matter what you are relaying about the person, it is "about the > person", not an idea of the person. Considering your confessed contempt for > me it's not likely that you would be doing anything other than attacking. > Sir, you are guilty of ad hominem, again. > (and as we know the best defense is a good offense, in that vein, I am also > guilty)(I apologize) > > peace & Love > > > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:41:02 -0700 > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Non Medical Healing - The Non-Science of Life? > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Perhaps you can explain what you don't understand about it. You > > simply don't comprehend and I'd like to help you if you could just let > > me know what you don't understand about the statement. > > > > Relaying what is typical of a person is not ad hominen. > > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 7:57 pm, Tinker tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:03:41 -0700 > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Non Medical Healing - The Non-Science of > Life? > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > Out of context Tinker. > > > > > > How so? It is a reference to non-medical healing which you seem to > support in debunking the practitioner. > > > > > > > Very typical of you. > > > > > > Would that be ad hominem, sir? It does appear that you are talking > about a person with no reference to any idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two separate posts. > > > > > > I have no idea what you mean here :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > Final answer, NO. > > > > > > Was there another question and answer that I missed? And the expletive > NO, does not change what I see to be directly related. > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 5:19 pm, Tinker tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "A patient's anxiety brings about a headache, the relaxation caused > by simply "knowing" there is help available alleviates the headache, and the > patient thinks the practitioner did a wonderful job." - Slip > > > > > > > > Wouldn't that apply to taking an aspirin for a headache also? > > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:26:12 -0700 > > > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Non Medical Healing - The Non-Science > of Life? > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > In the case of chiropractic applied kinesiology, who other than > the > > > > > > practitioner can provide the care? The intent is not to send the > > > > > > patient home to perform chiropractic adjustments, self messaging > etc. > > > > > > The idea of healing through motor skill is at best wishful > thinking at > > > > > > this point in time. I think the mind takes the bulk of the > credit in > > > > > > any situation outside medicinal application. In any placebo > study the > > > > > > validity of the condition would have to be positively ascertained > > > > > > before we could attribute the change to the alternative. If the > mind > > > > > > could effect change in the cure than it could effect change in > the > > > > > > condition, as in bringing on the condition. A patient's anxiety > > > > > > brings about a headache, the relaxation caused by simply > "knowing" > > > > > > there is help available alleviates the headache, and the patient > > > > > > thinks the practitioner did a wonderful job. To correlate muscle > > > > > > coordination with spirit and free will in a healing format is > just as > > > > > > hazy as any other spiritual healing process. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 6:37 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Again, you seem to be expecting the practitioner to do the > healing for > > > > > > > you (as you think the aspirin will.) A good practitioner or > doctor > > > > > > > will teach you how to maintain peak health. > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 11:25 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Philogirl, > > > > > > > > Kinesiology is the scientific approach to analysis and > healing so I > > > > > > > > think you might be referring to Applied Kinesiology which is > basically > > > > > > > > a chiropractic application. There is a distinct difference. > > > > > > > > > > > Applied Kinesiology has recieved much criticism and is > considered a > > > > > > > > pseudoscience. There is hardly any evidence to support the > practice > > > > > > > > as being effective. > > > > > > > > > > > Studies have shown that reliance weighs heavily on the > practitioner > > > > > > > > and results are simply a game of chance, there is no real > proof to > > > > > > > > support it as a viable alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > Applied Kinesiology is interdependent with other treatments > which > > > > > > > > include nutritional, manipulative adjusting and > neurolymphatic and > > > > > > > > vascular messaging. > > > > > > > > > > > Having experience with chiropractic treatments I would have > to say > > > > > > > > attributing better health to the treatments is questionable > > > > > > > > considering the lengthy term of the treatments and all the > variable > > > > > > > > that occur during that time. No one goes to the chiropractor > and > > > > > > > > comes out healed, it takes a considerable amount of time. > However, on > > > > > > > > the other hand if I have a headache I can take an aspirin for > > > > > > > > immediate relief. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 5:29 pm, philogirl < > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What about kinesiology? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, Chris Jenkins < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's easy enough to test your theory, Molly. I can inject > you with the > > > > > > > > > > chemicals which WILL alter your mood, and you can attempt > to combat them by > > > > > > > > > > willing your mood to change the chemicals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the mood exist outside of the chemicals? The mood > IS the chemicals. > > > > > > > > > > Neurochemistry is not some dark and unexplored science. > There is much > > > > > > > > > > research available. Here's a good start > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=b... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Molly Brogan < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While chemical balance is one part of our "health," > claiming that it > > > > > > > > > > > the entire picture is a very narrow focus. You seem to > be presenting > > > > > > > > > > > the premise that our chemical balance produces our > mood. I suggest > > > > > > > > > > > that our mood effects our chemical balance. Quackery > and juju works > > > > > > > > > > > both ways, and simply can't get away with it anymore > may also apply to > > > > > > > > > > > an outdated medical model. The paradigm of science > itself is > > > > > > > > > > > changing, although mainstream is slow to catch up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Orn, you did mean posters and not posers, I take it. > Very funny. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 4:32 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The body can heal itself; this is not a revelation, > it does this > > > > > > > > > > > > continuously, every day, with the production of new > cells. The operating > > > > > > > > > > > > factor and scope for variability, and there is only > one, is the chemical > > > > > > > > > > > > balance of the body in question. Mood is part of > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why try to dress this up with quackery and juju? You > simply can't get > > > > > > > > > > > away > > > > > > > > > > > > with it any more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™. > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/ > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. > http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/phot... > > More than mail–Windows Live™ goes way beyond your inbox. More than > messages <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
