Anti-Woo on Network TV: Law and Order SVU takes on HIV deniers....

[TZ]

I'm surprised and pleased to see this even if fictionalized..they are taking on people who believe HIV is harmless and a holistic doctor who doesn't think anti-virals are necessary to treat HIV/AIDS....They even got in the Big Pharma is evul myth....Man its good to see an entertainment show that actually basis their stories on scientific principles...:)

[Deep13]

1. I saw the tale end of that...

...with the kid talking about how his Christian Science parents are pissed because he opted for cancer treatment over their myths.

I thought, "I wonder what Sue would think about this?"

[TZ]

2. I really enjoyed it.

It gave a wonderful airing of how destructive medical woos/conspiroids really are.

[CanSocDem]

3. Hello!!

It's a television show. :eyes:

[Orrex]

4. No shit

But since just about every other television show takes a "let's pander to the nonsensical woo crowd," I applaud one show's choice to take the opposite approach.

Of course, maybe that's just another case of those shows making their own reality...

[CanSocDem]

8. Had you watched the show....

...you probably would have "applauded" the cops attempts at turning the child against his parent.

But then again, if you look to the television set for confirmation of your beliefs, you're already in trouble.

I watched the show, and aside from the over-the-top caricatures of the two sides, I had no problem with their conclusions; despite my beliefs about medical 'science'. It seemed to me that the writers were suggesting that some people take the word of their doctors way too seriously.

I spent time, yesterday, with a friend who has been HIV positive for over 15 years now. I would never project my fear of AIDS into his delicate mental state. Quite the contrary actually. I project my belief in his wellness every way I can.

A few years ago, I had a friend who needed emergency surgery while working in South Africa. After returning home, he never discussed an 'AIDS test' until his girlfriend was about to move in with him. Then he began to worry. Of course my position was that he not get tested and simply believe that he was negative. He got the test and it was negative, but it certainly initiated some interesting conversations about the nature of disease.

[TZ]

9. So

Letting a child die from lack of medicall attention because of his parents belief is OKAY in your book?
Where I come from thats called murder.
BTW in my state if you had asserted that your friend didn't need a medical tes and actively talked him out of the test for HIV and he had turned up POSITIVE for HIV and passed it along to his girlfriend you could be charged with a crime. Attempted aggravated assault perhaps.
You are illustrating where woo beliefs cross the line into criminal negligence. I suggest you never live here.

[CanSocDem]

10. Now what are you on about...???

If this is another feeble attempt to demonize me and raise your banner for the HealthCare system in the USA you could do better than using "television" shows as your reference point.

[Random_Australian]

11. She isn't. In case you hadn't noticed, there is a fair bit of bullshit in popular culture.

And the OP referenced skepticism (or at least not being full of shit) being in popular culture. This is considered a good thing. For instance, if my home town featured in an episode of some show, I would tell my friends who lived there about it.

However, you didn't notice that. You did, however, manage to assume that we thought it was real and a convincing argument for what we believe.

You also didn't notice that none of us ever "raise the banner for the HealthCare system in the USA", even after the stupidity of that statement was pointed out to you repeatedly. At length.

Some would call this a pattern of attempting to gain knowledge by making assumptions and then interpreting the world to be consistent with them. I would call people who make such claims "fully justified"

Hey, but at least you've learned since the last time, when you claimed that the skeptics group thought the free market was the pinnacle of humanitarianism. (No, I'm not kidding. He really did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=18345&mesg_id=18488 )

Well, except you haven't. At all. You're still pushing the same stuff, still responding to the shadows of us cast in your world of assumptions, still unaware that the people you are arguing against are made of straw. And imaginary.

And you never did answer me - given your quote,
"I think you need to be reminded that I'm really only a figment of YOUR imagination."

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=19115&mesg_id=19365

Would you mind answering the question from that,

"Please sort these into two groups - "figments of my imagination" and "not figments of my imagination"
- Gravity
- Aliens coming out of the sun, made of giant root vegetables that look like Jack Nicholson
- Other people"

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=19115&mesg_id=19378

Not being a stalker here; your views on this are rather relevant to the current discussion. :)

[CanSocDem]

12. Really.

Your point of view is, to me, irrelevant. Coming to the defense of an unbelievable ly vile attack on my character and motives, further demonstrates your inability to understand the discussion and your need to inject your own "Bart Simpson" style analysis. I'm reminded of the episode where he is sent to the slow-learner's class.....

You continually MISQUOTE me and I know you haven't read any of the Seth material so your POV is irrelevant.

.:-)

[Random_Australian]

13. Whoops! Maybe you should have read something at some point.

You: I know you haven't read any of the Seth material

Meanwhile, back in reality -

Mon Aug-25-08 10:31 AM

"I read the Seth stuff, and it basically comes in two flavours - stuff that we have no reason to believe (ie stuff there is no evidence for) and stuff that we have no reason to believe is even meaningful. (ie bullshit/tripe/things that could mean anything)"

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=19115&mesg_id=19643

In other words, I read it and found no reason to believe it. At all. At any point. Because it was another bunch of random assertions. Assertions with nothing to back them up are meaningless.

You: You continually MISQUOTE me

Meanwhile, back in reality, here are my quotes of you, FOLLOWED BY THE POST IN WHICH YOU SAID THAT.

*********************************

"raise the banner for the HealthCare system in the USA" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=20817&mesg_id=20869

Hey, but at least you've learned since the last time, when you claimed that the skeptics group thought the free market was the pinnacle of humanitarianism. (No, I'm not kidding. He really did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=18345&mesg_id=18488 )

given your quote,
"I think you need to be reminded that I'm really only a figment of YOUR imagination."

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=19115&mesg_id=19365


**********************************

I guess the question I really want an answer to (and therefore this is the question you will refuse to answer) is why, when you claim that I misquote you, can I refute you by simply reposting what I had written before, ie. your own words followed by a link to where you said them.

Well, actually, there was one I didn't source..... because it was in the post I was replying to.

This is stupid. You can keep calling my "point of view" that direct quotes of you were in fact direct quotes "irrelevant" ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=20817&mesg_id=20902 ), but in terms of this argument you've not a leg to stand on.

And what is this character attack bullshit? Take a look at what has been said. Direct quotes, in order, from upthread.

************************

CanSocDem: It's a television show

Orrex: No shit, but since just about every other television show takes a "let's pander to the nonsensical woo crowd," I applaud one show's choice to take the opposite approach

CanSocDem, ('He Who Refrains from attacking people's character') : Had you watched the show.......you probably would have "applauded" the cops attempts at turning the child against his parent.

But then again, if you look to the television set for confirmation of your beliefs, you're already in trouble.


************************

Let's see that again, this time putting things into the words that most effectively convey meaning.

CanSocDem: It's a television show.

Orrex: Obviously, but given the amount of pop-culture woo out there it was noteworthy to see someone make their fictional characters take a realistic approach. I find that enjoyable in television entertainment.

CanSocDem: You want families to fail. You enjoy watching it. Also, you use fiction to confirm your beliefs.


***********************

Wise Man Say: What the Fuck, CanSoc?

As for Turtlensue, all she did was argue the opposite side of the storyline. I admit, she was insulting about it, but after your little "you probably would have 'applauded' the cops attempts at turning the child against his parent" tantrum, I can hardly blame her.

P.S. For the record, my guess is that you will completely ignore everything except the last paragraph. But I'd love to hear your explanation of how I "misquoted" you. :)

[CanSocDem]

14. Not hard to find....

I said:

"...the notion promoted that free-market western medicine is the pinnacle of humanitarian and scientific technology is, at best, laughable."


Your mis-quote:

"...the skeptics group thought the free market was the pinnacle of humanitarianism."


Your misquote:

"CanSocDem: You want families to fail. You enjoy watching it. Also, you use fiction to confirm your beliefs."

These 2 examples are from the post directly above....






See I know you didn't read any of the Seth material or you wouldn't have been asking the questions that in your own mind probably seemed quite brilliant but were covered in the first couple of chapters of pretty well all of his books.

But, like I said, you have nothing but the devotion of your "slow learners class".

More evidence of your presumption is finding offence at what I wrote in response to Orrex. If he felt violated, I'm sure he'll respond.

.

[Random_Australian]

15. Wheeee! That reading thing not working so well for you, is it?

"...the notion promoted that free-market western medicine is the pinnacle of humanitarian and scientific technology is, at best, laughable."

Obviously it was a misquote to equivocate it with "skeptics are supposed to think that".

Since you were posting in the skepticism forum about the notions promoted by us (or maybe you were arguing with us by posting about notions promoted by the nebulous "they"), it is obviously silly to think that you were referring to skeptics.

Obviously, you were arguing against the group by rallying against the notions promoted by someone none of us know. Who lives in anatartica. And is made out of asparagus, not skeptics.

Secondly, there is the issue of the words "free market western medicine" versus "free market". In a conversation about medicine, it's really the same thing refer to the free market system in the context of western medicine or western medicine using a free market system.

Ack, though it could be taken as a literal misquote, if you'd really like.

Now, my favourite one.

Your misquote:

"CanSocDem: You want families to fail. You enjoy watching it. Also, you use fiction to confirm your beliefs."

In reality, it went a little something like this (replacing irrelevant stuff with "...").

Direct quotes, in order, from upthread. (...)
CanSocDem: Had you watched the show.......you probably would have "applauded" the cops attempts at turning the child against his parent.

(...)
Let's see that again, this time putting things into the words that most effectively convey meaning.
(...)
CanSocDem: You want families to fail. You enjoy watching it. Also, you use fiction to confirm your beliefs."

So, when I say I'm quoting you, I do so. And when I say I will rewrite your words with the same meaning, I do so.

... or maybe I'm really misquoting you, and the bit about "I'm rewriting this" just spontaneously popped in their on its own.

Next, the Seth stuff. Like I said before, a bunch of assertions with nothing to back them up is meaningless. I read the Seth stuff, and believed none of it because no reason was apparent to do so. Furthermore, it will become apparent when you answer the damn questions why I'm asking them.

"More evidence of your presumption is finding offence at what I wrote in response to Orrex"

Which is why there is such a bitter reply, by me, in response to your response to Orrex. Oh dear, the tears were rolling down my cheeks when I wrote that one.

Except for some reason it doesn't exist.

In fact, it seems that all I have written is a series of posts about how you are wrong.

Speaking of presumption, "the questions that in your own mind probably seemed quite brilliant"

No. Though your inability to answer them was almost as fun as what would happen if you answered them.

[dropkickpa]

5. .

[TZ]

6. Yes but for once a show used real FACTS.

In the world of "Ghost Whisperer" "Eli Stone" (a lawyer with "visions"--give me a god damned break!) and other bullshit its nice to see ACTUAL SCIENCE represnted, and represented well.

But I guess since people only get HIV/AIDS because they CHOOSE to you don't give a flying fuck about con artists who cause peoples deaths with their idiocy!

[onager]

7. Sort of O/T, but British DUers: what about "Bonekickers?"

Archeologists investigating the...paranormal, I guess? I haven't seen enough to know much about it.

The show just popped up here in Egypt on one of the satellite channels.

Over at IMDB, the reviews were mostly posted by Brits and they are SAVAGE. Very few kind words.

I'm a big History Geek, as most of you know. I can put up with a certain amount of stupid, gratuitous supernatural hugger-mugger for a halfway decent story with a historical angle.

And I can suspend my disbelief up to a point. (The point where it groans, creaks and finally crashes into the Chasm Of Jaw-Dropping Stupidity. See also: any movie by M. Night Charlatan.)

I also noticed the cast contains quite a few actors I've enjoyed watching in other British TV series.

So should I waste my time on it or not?

Thank you.