Is there a similarity between Nazism, Homeopathy, Magnetic Back Cures and Religion?

williamgrogan

Is there any similarity between Nazism, Homeopathy, Magnetic Back Supports and Religion?

A few years ago I tried to read Hitler’s Mein Kampf but it was so atrocious that I gave up. I don’t mean just his theories were rubbish but the book is pure sh1te. It is almost beyond comprehension that an entire nation would vote for the idiot that wrote this.

In the 50‘s and 60’s in Ireland everyone went to mass on Sunday, most believed in fairies, lucky people, unlucky people, lucky charms, tie pins etc. and thought that holy water cured illness. They sent a sizable percent of their children into holy orders that were so mad that they even forbade talking.

Most of this is gone by the board but has been replaced by Homeopathy, Acupuncture, New Ageism, Vitamin Supplements, Reflexology, Magnetic underwear and militant Islam that believes that upon blowing up yourself and a school bus full of children you go to heaven and are given 50 virgins.

Surely all these things are related? The notion that the Jews were responsible for the poverty of the German people is easily as idiotic as that magnetic wrist bands cure arthritis.

Is the percent of the population that believe in nonsense the same? Will it always be? Is a large proportion of the human race completely daft? Will they always be?

If the ISS manages to close down the Homeopathy con artists will they do something else? Will they get away with it again?

More worrying than the next health con, what will be the next political con? If a charismatic leader was to appear in some country (the USA, Europe, Africa, the Arab countries) and convince the Daft Ones that we needed to kill all …… will he get away with it?

GuanYin

What a generalised piece of rubbish

I'm now convinced you are a total troll.

Whatever about your ideas on other posts comparing Nazi's to christianity and alternative therapies to suicide bombers not only base and obtuse but also insulting, offensive and possibly biggoted.

I hope you get what you deserve for this thread.

williamgrogan

I take it you do not agree that there is any similarity then?

You came back so fast that I don’t think you had time to even consider the point I made.

You seem to think I said that alternative medicine is as bad as Nazism. Of course I didn’t say that at all and I certainly don’t think so. I do think that Nazism is as bad as much of the implementation of Communism and the implementation of Islam.

My question is, is the way people fall for these things not caused by the same failures that lead them to believe in any nonsense? Is the way that people think not so faulty that they will pay for Reflexology and then vote for Le Pen?

Egalitarian

I simply cannot take this thread seriously.

williamgrogan

I am a bit disappointed that the only two people who have replied have not grasped the point I have made.

Let me take it from another angle.

There are at present a large number of people fighting to keep the “right” to smoke in pubs. They are totally in the wrong. They have always been in the wrong to smoke in the company of those who do not smoke. At the very least it is extremely bad manners.

But it’s not seen as so. Why?

If smoking was invented last week and no one ever smoked until one day a group men walked into a pub smoking. They stand together blowing smoke all over the place and the people around them start asking them to stop. Then the bar man comes over, starts coughing and gets this awful pong and asks them what the f**k they are doing blowing smoke all over his bar. He would demand they stop immediately or leave.

There is no difference between the above “alternative reality” and our own reality EXCEPT we have grown used to people blowing smoke in our faces. The fact that now people are thinking about this and many think that smoking is unacceptable is interesting but not as interesting as those trying to defend the indefensible.

The ISS can tackle easy stuff like Acupuncture but is it not also important that we tackle the way of thinking that leads to Acupuncture?

Egalitarian

Posted by WG

There are at present a large number of people fighting to keep the “right” to smoke in pubs. They are totally in the wrong. They have always been in the wrong to smoke in the company of those who do not smoke. At the very least it is extremely bad manners.

The medical evidence is irrefutable, but is it? Here is an extract from an article I submitted to Irish newspapers.

“Why should bar staff have to inhale your tobacco smoke?”

This familiar refrain, of those who want a ban on smoking in public places, states that it is one thing for smokers to destroy their own lungs, but why should non-smokers face a 20-30% increase in lung cancer. The publican’s indifference to this health risk is not likely to win them many friends. However, a closer look at the scientific literature reveals a far from certain view of the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).

It was 75 years ago that Schönherr proposed that lung cancers among non-smoking women could be caused by inhalation of their husbands' smoke. Since then a substantial body of research has appeared, but the health impact of passive smoking remains in dispute.

In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published the results of a long-term follow up study, by Enstrom and Kabat, of 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study. In this large study of Californians followed for 40 years, passive smoking was found to have no association with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure.

In February 2000, Warwick University researchers analysed the results of 37 trials on the impact of passive smoking. Noting that research with findings of an increased risk of lung cancer was more likely to be published than research which did not, they refuted the claim that exposure to environmental smoke posed an increased risk of lung cancer of 24 percent - being closer to 15 percent. The findings suggest one or two non-smokers in every 100,000 may be at risk from passive smoking, and only if repeatedly exposed to smoke over many years. In contrast, RTE reported in February 2002 that 150 bar workers will die in Ireland every year from ill health caused by passive smoking: are all 5 million plus Irish residents pub workers?

In March 1998 a 10-year study of ETS and lung cancer carried out by the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated a 16 percent increased risk of lung cancer among non-smokers married to smokers, and a 17 percent increased risk for workplace exposure to smoke. Given that lung cancer is a relatively uncommon tumour, even the WHO conceded that both increased risks were statistically insignificant. Yet, Micheal Martin selectively highlighted the WHO classification of environmental tobacco smoke as a Class A carcinogen in his speech to the National Heart alliance last week.

In 1998, Professor Robert Nilsson revealed that the rise in incidence of lung cancer attributed to passive smoking is one tenth that used to justify regulating environmental risks in the USA - so passive smoking is less harmful than eating mushrooms twice a week.

Balancing the economic impact of the smoking ban and the public health risk of passive smoking can be the only sensible way to pursue the debate. Unfortunately, the refusal of anti-smoking campaigners to come clean on the unreliability of the scientific evidence may mean that jobs and liberties will be trampled under foot in the mad rush to proscribe smoking in the workplace environment.

Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ, said about the heated responses to the Enstrom findings, “I find it disturbing that so many people and organisations - including the BMA, our owners - refer to the flaws in the study without specifying what they are.”

The absence of scientific consensus, even debate, raises awkward questions about the imperative behind the smoking ban. Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and eating fatty foods all have an impact on the public purse; as do running, climbing and diving. Are we to be protected from ourselves?

Professor Luke Clancy, chairman of ASH Ireland, said: “This legislation offers a special once-off incentive to those who smoke to quit and safety to those who do not.” But what if smokers wish to continue smoking and little or no harm is done to others?

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

davros

Originally posted by Egalitarian
I simply cannot take this thread seriously.

I'm with Egalitarian on this one. And I'm not wasting my time reading a thread that has already gone from Nazis to smoking in bars.

There is a point behind the question, I believe, but it's far too general to ever come to a conclusion and it's already been posed in the context of MMR/VVAT and anyway life's too short and I've just frittered away another evening.

Thread closed.