View Single Post
Old 11th June 2011, 01:54 AM   #420
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
If you accept woo you lack knowledge of human biology...
What's the common definition of, "woo," then? I took it as accepting something that couldn't be proven.
Quote:
Your rebutalls are all appeals to semantics. You're splitting hairs on the word "know"...
Yes, I am, because the point is moot 'til I actually have some tar-poo to test!
Quote:
Sure you have for two you said doctors don't get nutrition training and you excreted tar.
I left both of those statements open [incredibly open in regards to the nutrition statement] so that I could squeeze out from underneath the nail.
Quote:
It's not that you were misinterpreted, it's just that you're not used to discussing things skeptically.
That may be true with the tar-poo bit; I think I'm getting the hang of it, though.

I've definitely been misinterpreted in regards to the, "enlightenment," bit, however.
Quote:
You're the one making dangerous claims that gullible people will accept uncritically as fact. Your "appeal to semantics" is just a shirking of your responsibility to the facts. The responsibility is yours to prove your claims, I'm just pointing out the immorality of them.
I'm not shirking, I'm procrastinating. I can't even begin with new anecdotes until I fast again, let alone skeptically/scientifically prove them.
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top