Skip to main content

View Diary: Ditching the "woo" - a minor rant (369 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Begging the question. (5+ / 0-)

    "Legitimate opinion" is an assumption you're making.

    Woo, by definition, is not shown to be legitimate.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 08:50:43 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hmm. Did you read the diary and the comments? (9+ / 0-)

      You're making an assumption about my assumptions, I think. ;)

      mouseover the bar (I'm practicing for DK5)

      by serendipityisabitch on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 08:57:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Possibly I am. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        susans, Deep Texan

        But even in full context, your statement at least presents the appearance of begging the question.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:19:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Shown to be legitimate" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          serendipityisabitch, Penny GC, G2geek

          How does one "show" an opinion to be legitimate?

          There are only two possible definitions of 'illegitimate' that could apply to an opinion. One is 'this opinion is not in accordance with reality', in which case it is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. (Because opinions are by definition a statement of personal feelings on a subject that has not yet been or cannot ever be quantified.) The other is 'your opinion is illegitimate because it does not agree with mine'.

          Alas, in dKos diaries, these two refutations of other people's honestly-held opinions are more or less used entirely synonymously and without any distinction drawn.

          •  But that's the rub. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neuroptimalian, pasadena beggar

            What is considered "woo" has to do with fact, not opinion. Homeopathy either works, or it does not. If you believe it does when all evidence shows it does not, your belief is as illegitmate as the belief that the moon is made of green cheese.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:44:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not necessarily... (3+ / 0-)

              If someone takes a homeopathy remedy then declares it works for them though all scientific evidence shows it doesn't, then presumably it is haven't a psychosomatic effect. In other words, while the "remedy" isn't triggering a physical response, it is triggering a psychological one which is having the desired effect. In that instance, the belief is legitimate in terms of experienced effect, they are just wrong about the process.

              I am aware of the dangers of the "carrot sticks for cancer" type homeopathy but I see that as a separate issue and one that should be measured against the acuteness of the illness since, for example, echinacea for a cold is not in the same territory.

              Please note that lamps in the Magic Lamp Emporium are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

              by Mopshell on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 06:54:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

                If someone takes a homeopathic remedy and declares it works for them then it may be they got better anyway, and the homeopathic remedy was incidental, and they just assumed a causation.

                The placebo effect is very limited -- and is also not a matter of opinion.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:08:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Legitimate? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      It seems to me that everyone has a legal right to hold whatever opinion they choose to hold. An opinion may be objectionable or even wrong, but it cannot be "illegitimate".

    •  So: would you treat mainstream religion... (0+ / 0-)

      ... the same way?

      Insist on de-rigeur atheism, and drop in on "mourning a dead loved one" diaries to chastise people who make references to deities, prayers, and hereafters?

      Why or why not?

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 05:39:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  unqualified generalizations again. (0+ / 0-)

      Not shown to be legitimate what?

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:07:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Semantics again! (0+ / 0-)

        In context, it's obvious -- or you could look up the definition and see for yourself. I helpfully provided one downthread, from RationalWiki.

        Jesus.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:28:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • International (18)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site