General Discussion

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

52. Thanks for proving my point, again.

Mon Sep 14, 2015, 05:40 PM

Sep 2015

You think that an out-of-context Gish Gallop has some validity for something. It only shows how vacant your propaganda actually is. You repeatedly push unethical propaganda with no context.

This list is meaningless. And bizarre. And we could easily play "name that logical fallacy" with your post all day long.

In other words, you really don't get it. (Anyone can make such lists. They tell you nothing. How about a list of pseudoscience scams? Of anti-GMO lies? Of climate change denial nonsense? Of anti-vaccine lies? On and on and on, it could go. And it's not how ethics or science is done because it's not how logic and science work.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Genetic engineering turns a common plant into a cancer fighter [View all] HuckleB Sep 2015 OP

Science... Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #1

On edit: HuckleB Sep 2015 #2

Perhaps I should have said, "Real Science, not mad science." Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #3

science without religion is lame SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #9

I perfer to take my science straight up Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #10

one of the many way you differ from Albert Einstein SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #13

One sure way to tell when someone has nothing to say Orrex Sep 2015 #15

Woo woo credo #36... SidDithers Sep 2015 #17

There are some clowns on this board that are so very easy SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #19

You mean you refer to science you don't like as that of "corporate shills." HuckleB Sep 2015 #21

Post removed Post removed Sep 2015 #22

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. HuckleB Sep 2015 #23

Post removed Post removed Sep 2015 #26

Awww. That's cute. Thanks for the kick. HuckleB Sep 2015 #27

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #28

No, I don't. I advocate for ethical choices, using evidence. HuckleB Sep 2015 #32

what is an ethical choice SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #33

I've done so, repeatedly. HuckleB Sep 2015 #34

It looks as if there is no philosophical rigor to your ethics SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #35

Oh, goodness. You think your choice to ignore most evidence means something. HuckleB Sep 2015 #37

you ignore reality SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #39

I don't ignore reality, and that's what bothers you. HuckleB Sep 2015 #40

Reality - Science - Ethics SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #47

Thanks for proving my point, again. HuckleB Sep 2015 #52

Science brought you antibiotics, vaccines, xrays, electricity, pacemakers, antivirals,and much more. Hoyt Sep 2015 #53

"Science" didn't "bring" us any of those things. AlbertCat Sep 2015 #63

Tell us Einstein's thoughts on Genetic Engineering Lordquinton Sep 2015 #55

Post removed Post removed Sep 2015 #60

I listen to real scientist AlbertCat Sep 2015 #62

Religion is lame MattBaggins Sep 2015 #14

. Major Nikon Sep 2015 #56

Religion with or without science is lame Orrex Sep 2015 #16

Religion is an insult to human dignity - Steven Weinberg...nt SidDithers Sep 2015 #18

Prove it. HuckleB Sep 2015 #20

I guess we'll be waiting for proof for a long time. Hmm. HuckleB Sep 2015 #24

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression & product of human weaknesses" progressoid Sep 2015 #29

Very very good SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #48

That is exactly what he is not doing. progressoid Sep 2015 #49

I suggest you read the 4 essays in his book Ideas and Opinions - Science /Religion SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #50

science without religion is lame AlbertCat Sep 2015 #58

Science is.. PasadenaTrudy Sep 2015 #4

Very nice. I love it. -eom- HuckleB Sep 2015 #5

From this.. PasadenaTrudy Sep 2015 #8

+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Sep 2015 #25

that cant be right. genetic engineering is always bad. mopinko Sep 2015 #6

But, but, but...GMOs are bad! Evil! Owned by Monsanto! Deadshot Sep 2015 #7

Great. And that also means that GE could turn a common plant into a cancer producer. pnwmom Sep 2015 #11

No work is needed quaker bill Sep 2015 #30

in principle, I suppose that's possible... mike_c Sep 2015 #51

My tiny brain is having a hard time with this one. Rex Sep 2015 #12

the researchers inserted genes for the enzymes that make podophyllotoxin into... mike_c Sep 2015 #54

I see, thanks for explaining it to me. Rex Sep 2015 #57

not really, although that's a common misunderstanding.... mike_c Sep 2015 #61

And the goats on fire brigade will appear shortly. GoneOffShore Sep 2015 #31

Great news, BigPharma can now make a common chemo drug more cheaply. RiverLover Sep 2015 #36

In other words, you're going to keep pushing fiction-based fear about GMOs. HuckleB Sep 2015 #38

Yes, the New England Journal of Medicine & I are pushing fears not facts RiverLover Sep 2015 #42

An opinion piece by an individual does not represent the NEJM. HuckleB Sep 2015 #44

I know you have trouble distinguishing, but it is a FACT that New England Journal of Med RiverLover Sep 2015 #45

Anti-GMOer Benbrook's opinion piece DOES NOT represent the NEJM. HuckleB Sep 2015 #46

An opinion piece written by a 3rd party constitutes the official position of the NEJM? Major Nikon Sep 2015 #59

Damn it! Somebody has to say the worn-out line: I welcome our Plant Overlords. BlueJazz Sep 2015 #41

That's impossiable... Lancero Sep 2015 #43

So many medicinal plants... And so little time before they fall into our commercial paths JudyM Sep 2015 #64

There are a lot of such claims, but few are supported by strong evidence. HuckleB Sep 2015 #65

That's largely a function of the economics of scientific review. JudyM Sep 2015 #66

No, it's not. HuckleB Sep 2015 #67