Thursday, October 7, 2010

Woo, Part Two

Suffragettes A short follow-up to my previous post. There was something else said to me that I wanted to address.

i would remind you that this way of dismissal has been going on for thousands of years, and thank goodness some were courageous to challenge those angry stances. and frankly beth, if it were not for open minded (alternative) expression and action, you (as a woman) would not be in a position to work in your chosen field or express your took bold action to look at alternative methods of dealing w minorities, and stop witch burnings and such...and don't tell me its apples and oranges - its not. the same stubborn, attacking, finger pointing methods were used by those in charge then, and still used today, and done so to keep things the way they are...personally, i prefer to evolve, and that means looking beyond what is on front of us...

Hey, guess what? It's apples and oranges! Seriously, what a ridiculous comparison. One involves societal changes and human rights; the other involves medical research that is reproducible and verifiable. I found this interesting on a couple of levels. The fact that he brought up the women's rights movement and said that if it weren't for that, I wouldn't be working in my chosen field or able to express my views strikes me as a subtle misogynistic remark. In other words, hush up, you uppity woman. Know your place. (By the way, women are not a minority.) Perhaps he was a little miffed that I wrote that this conversation was the funniest thing I'd seen on his page in some time. >:] Why yes, I can be a little ornery at times.

I'm not in charge of anything. I am simply someone who prefers facts over faith and science over quack remedies. It's certainly okay to look beyond what is in front of us as we explore philosophical questions, but looking beyond a well-researched and scientifically sound paper to reach for magical solutions is just delusional.

As I pondered this a bit today--I like to evolve, too, and that means examining things below the surface for a broader interpretation--I came to the conclusion that this guy and his friends were angry at me (and Darren) for questioning their beliefs. We were both told that we were "angry" and accused of name-calling. I can assure you that there was no name-calling. I may get forceful in my opinions, but I don't resort to something so childish in a debate. When I used facts to advance my Lab argument concerning vaccinations, they responded with defensive remarks about alternative methods and how they've "seen it work," or talked about bizarre things like "quantum healing." When I said that I'll take antibiotics over a prayer any day, they made false accusations of name-calling. I was accused of saying that I hope they find out the hard way, when I said explicitly several times that I hope none of them, and especially their children, have to find out the hard way. I knew this before, but this whole incident sure confirmed it: people feel threatened when anyone dares to question their belief system, no matter what it concerns. That's exactly what I was accused of, except I had research and facts to back up my belief system...they had nothing but "it's worked in my life." If that's all you've got, don't get pissed at me for being skeptical, and you sure as hell better not accuse me of doing or saying things that I did not. I will bite back. Count on it.

Okay, time to move on. As I wrote there last night, I'll leave them to their happy little world of woo. They can light candles, hold hands, and sing "This Little Light of Mine" and just have a ball. And then when they get a nasty little pustule that won't go away and it turns out to be MRSA, they will probably go to the doctor and get an antibiotic; or when their kid is gasping for breath because they never got them immunized for pertussis, they'll probably take them to the hospital for respiratory support. That's what really irritates me about this kind of thing. It's convenient for them to rail against the evils of Western medicine, but the vast majority of them will use it when they actually get really sick. It's easy to talk about alternative methods when you don't have a massive infection...probably a little harder when your kidneys are shutting down because you caught E coli O157 from that medium rare hamburger you had last weekend.


  1. You know what alternative medicine that works is called?


  2. The reason that alternative medicine that works isn't called 'medicine' by the mythologists, is that they didn't have to get any uppity book learnin' to find it. They used word of mouth and had the Lord to guide their hand.

    Nothing no so-called 'doctor' who may likely be part of the faithful, gave them did the trick. Or it could have been that whatever they think they treated is in remission and is gathering it strength so that when it does claim their friend/loved one, that they had the extra time because of faith.

    Whatever. Like my girl Astropixie says, I too, prefer the hard truth over comforting fallacy.

    One of the things that gets me about people like this is how they react to being challenged. Sort of like how bacteria in medium does when a antibiotic that works is dropped in a petri with it...

  3. I like your approach, live and let live and live and let die. Kudos to Big Mark

  4. You, girl, are a force of nature and a force for good sense!

  5. i know beth, let's give up our degrees and careers and scientific knowledge and get our biscuits back in the oven.

    *snicker* not that this is that related, but if it makes you feel better lady gaga and beyonce were voted on a poll as being more influential then sarah palin. maybe their is hope in the form of a meat dress after all.


  6. Look around. There's a lot of DE-volvement happening. I'm pretty sure Devo saw the teabaggers coming before we did.

  7. I've had this same(basically) argument over carbon dating. I'm told it isn't a fact.
    Uhm, yeah. It is. I explain just how factual it is.
    Then the person I am disagreeing with says: Well, you think that is a fact, but *I* think it is a fact that the world began 6 million years ago,so......And then I walk away. Works best for me to just venture elsewhere & read a book. Much better for the blood pressure too. ~Mary

  8. Ok, all wrong. It was 6000 years. I was disagreeing with some bloggers who believe it is a "fact" that the world was created 6000 years ago. Uhm, no. Carbon dating can easily disprove that.


I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you?