Posts by steelsurfer42

Spin the clock back. 😁

Maybe there's something to be gained by flushing it all out with some nitro thinner, acetone, ethanol...

bluemason3 said:Look, Alternative isn't even part of the natural science PDF, so I don't see the point of the first part of that comment. Seriously? What are we even talking about here?

It’s part of spirituality. Why? I’ve already asked you that! 😉

Nobody is forcing you to stay, and nobody is kicking you off this PDF. Seriously! But what we’re seeing here is constant interference from certain people over on the main board, trying to muscle everyone else around. They want to turn forum management into their own personal ideological battlefield, and honestly, this entire thread is just another symptom of that same power trip. Is anyone actually surprised?
Stop playing the victim. Seriously. You aren't getting any special treatment compared to anyone else here who acts the exact same way. Your specific stance on this doesn't even matter—but that doesn't give you the right to lecture everyone else on how to run or moderate this place. That’s just straight-up trolling, and trolling gets sanctioned. Period. And yeah, the whole point of the penalty is to shut it down. This isn't about being "skeptical," it's about stopping someone from acting like a total troll.

Look, technically speaking, you guys are just trying to shut us up. You're pushing us away from the very topics we actually dare to speak out about—like how, yeah, drinking bleach isn't exactly the brightest move anyone's ever made. If being banned for that isn't "censorship," then I honestly don't know what is.
What’s the deal with this whole "order" and "dominance" nonsense? And this constant playing the victim act? If that's how it works, why aren't the people constantly spewing venom at Alternative getting carded? Seriously, I could pull up at least five different insults aimed at natural science nerds right now that haven't even been flagged. I have yet to see a single pseudo-intellectual get a yellow card for being an absolute jerk. It just doesn't happen. 🤔
I wouldn't go so far as to call that bias.

Sure, you can try to police the conversation, but honestly? You’re just asking to get shut down the second people start drowning out actual constructive points. What happens when those annoying trolls start overpowering the real perspectives I’m trying to push? These are good ideas—they benefit the whole group and anyone looking for an Alternative to the usual nonsense. Why kill the momentum just to play hall monitor?

Look, your behavior—and Hippopotamus's, for that matter—doesn't exactly line up with the nonsense you're preaching here. Seriously?

When it comes to religious proximity, even the self-proclaimed skeptics can't help but show exactly how narrow-minded they really are. Seriously, don't they see it? They preach this whole "rational" mindset while acting just as closed off as anyone else! 😁

Man, we could go on about this forever. Honestly? I’m dying to see how someone like Chronic Vlad or Lastan would even handle a topic like this. What would they even say?
If you're actually willing to waste your time on this, I'll go ahead and start a thread right in the middle of the Natural Science subforum. 😁

I guess I should just say it again: natural science has this one absolutely infuriating flaw when you stack it up against every other ideology out there. They’re actually right. That's the problem! 😛

bluemason3 said:What's the point? We already have a broad social group that covers all that perfectly fine. Why wouldn't someone then suggest separating the natural science sections (math, sociology, psychology...) entirely? It might even be a more logical move 🙂

I really hope you didn't take this as a provocation, because the idea isn't completely mindless. I’d actually go as far as grouping Health and Environment Together—or whatever they call those sections these days.

Then again, you guys all tend to jump in with such an ideological mindset that I honestly don't think you fully grasp what I'm saying, even though I'm being perfectly clear.
If you just look at the very top of the thread, my actual suggestion was to bundle three subforums together, maybe under one specific shared heading.
At the end of the day, you could just regroup them—basically just line them up on the forum homepage so they sit right next to each other.

bluemason3 said:No, that's just playing games because it doesn't serve the main forum's purpose. Even SM said in his last post he wasn't planning on changing anything; he just wanted to get people thinking about the sense or lack thereof in an Alternative. In other words, he's confirming he's trying to push his personal vendetta against everything Alternative onto the forum administration level, wasting the mods' and admins' time on his little power trips. 😁

By that logic, I could say the same about every other thread starter here who abuses the subforums by constantly whining that the site isn't working, when in reality nothing changes except for the site lagging even more. 😁

On another note, it's pretty low of you to twist my words like that. This whole "sense vs. nonsense" thing is something you made up. Anyone who gives a serious thought to Pseudoscience will easily see that it's basically spirituality.
So, that little bit you bolded? That's just your own little game to try and discredit me. 😛

feralpilot0 I can't even deal with this right now. Seriously? Is anyone actually listening to what's being said here? It's like we're all just shouting into a void!
Key Quote 😁

Wait, what? Are you serious right now? What am I even looking at?

People take them seriously—both the users and the ones who designed them that way in the first place. They felt like this was the only way to make things actually work, and honestly? Turns out they were right. boldsailor32 pretty much nailed it.

boldsailor32 didn't say a damn thing. Honestly, the Alternative just rounds out the whole spectrum perfectly. You’ve got everything from those completely baseless beliefs (Religion), to the stuff people actually question (Spirituality), all the way up to what's starting to emerge now (Alternative). It's a full circle, isn't it?

People will swallow pretty much anything you feed them, as long as you don't make them work too hard for it. Seriously. So, just because everyone’s nodding along doesn't mean they actually believe it—it just means they're lazy! You can't look at mass acceptance and conclude that something is actually right or good. I mean, come on! There was a time in this country when it was perfectly "acceptable" for a guy to beat his wife. Does that make it okay? Of course not! Just because it's common doesn't mean it isn't garbage.
Look, if the mainstream spiritual leaders actually sat down and engaged with the Alternative crowd, this whole debate would actually mean something. It might even get productive! If they did that, a huge chunk of the critics—who are basically just people rooted in Natural Science—would probably step up. Maybe then we wouldn't end up in this ridiculous loop where the forum moderators just kick out anyone who sticks to Natural Science? Is that too much to ask?

So, the only real issue here is those edge cases over at Alternative that might—though I seriously doubt it, since the Spirituality crowd is way too dim-witted for that level of paranoia—overlap with Spirituality. And even then, it’s got nothing to do with Religion.
We could have just gone with an Alternative that actually follows its own rules! But no, they just keep dragging their feet, stalling, and pushing everything back. So what happens? We end up right back where we started. Typical.

Look, you could basically split Alternative into two neat little piles—pure Spirituality on one side and pure Natural Science on the other. Simple, right? But let's be real: that’s never going to happen. Why? Because the "fringe" stuff has its own dedicated fan club that refuses to stay in a box. I’m not even asking for a total split here. I just want some actual, halfway decent classification! We need this so new members don't go charging blindly into the fray. They show up thinking they can debate the wild, boundary-pushing topics in the fringe section, only to get absolutely hammered by people with more rigid dogma than a medieval monk. It's a mess.

My five bucks? Seriously? 😎

Just like those damn Linden trees.

bluemason32 I can't even begin to deal with this. Seriously? Are we actually doing this now? What happened to common sense? It’s like everyone just decided to throw logic out the window at the exact same time! How much more of this nonsense are we supposed to sit here and swallow? It’s absolute madness!
This is totally secondary (how to group PDFs) and just a massive waste of time. 🙂 😬
Sal, you should probably still be in college

Ofkorzaj, honestly, once I actually get a job, I’m not going to spend my working hours obsessing over semantics like half the people here. 😛

Yeah, some things overlap, some don't, stuff could go either way, but this current layout is just the result of forum users fighting for their own little corner. It isn't random, and it wasn't always like this—I bet if things were flipped, there'd be even more unhappy people on the other side right now (total of 1 😁).

So, if the users themselves aren't pushing for a reorganization, then this whole thing feels like some kind of skeptical political move 😁

If you're happy about this (or maybe you're just being shallow), this move is basically like that recent vote of no confidence in the government. I'm not even looking for a win here; I'm just trying to force people—the ones actually capable of thinking, anyway—to realize what the so-called Alternative really is and what happens when it becomes official doctrine. We were damn close to seeing a mob lynch a few miners recently.

And yeah, that ban you slapped on me? Completely unjustified. It’s nothing but a tool to shut me up.
This whole thread is being handled poorly and clearly exists just to silence us. If they insist on forced conformity on the board we were kicked from, expect to be called out again. 😉

I already laid out my reasons, it’s not that hard to read. 😉

Look, when it comes to the edge of science, sure, it belongs in Natural Science. But let's be real—most of the topics sitting in there right now are pure Spirituality or just straight-up dogma. Trying to have a rational debate with believers in those kinds of ideas? It's a total non-starter. It’s just easier to toss the aliens, ghosts, and all those other entities into the pile with the gods and saints they’re clearly more connected to anyway.
The rest of the Alternative stuff mixed in with Natural Science doesn't even belong there, but it definitely has everything to do with Religion.

feralpilot0 said:I don't see why you're dragging Religion and Spirituality into your disagreement with the Alternative; they're kept separate for a reason, as it's clearly stated in the PDF descriptions.

I think you totally missed the point. The whole thing with the killers was just the spark—it's what forced me to actually start thinking about all of this. Besides, I checked this out a long time ago: pseudoscience is way closer to Spirituality than it is to actual science. I even started a thread about it once.
And as for the subforum description? I don't view it as some holy commandment or some divine decree from a higher power that I need to take overly seriously. :

I honestly think it would make way more sense—and be much more practical—to just bundle Spirituality, Religion, and Alternative together, maybe even as their own dedicated subforum group.

Look, it’s all basically Spirituality, so why on earth are we splitting it up? For two of them, it’s a no-brainer, but then you have Alternative getting this weird special treatment when it functions exactly the same way. It’s got its own prophets, its own dogmas, and its own set of beliefs, constantly swinging between trashing Science = Ideology and suddenly clinging to it. Besides, any sociologist studying Religion isn't going to see much difference between believing in Yahweh and believing in aliens.

P. S. Hippo tried to pull some total silencing tactic over in that thread about fake cancer cures, moving the whole debate to a separate topic and threatening to kick out anyone who dared to mention those pseudo-crowds. Isn't that just another way of killing free speech?

bluemason3 said:That’s a completely different issue (those deleted posts), and since I didn't delete anything, I don't have any comment on them. My point is strictly about the idea of banning certain opinions—something I oppose on principle, regardless of the subject matter.

I don't think there's any real need to slap a disclaimer on every single post just because one exists in a PDF somewhere. From a logistical standpoint, it would be a total nightmare—the moderator would have to go back and edit every individual thread constantly. Besides, it feels a bit insulting to the users who already hold those views.

Took a quick look around, and there you are—Ryan Gomez4 and Jose White18. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt; you two might just be world-class trolls, simply because you spend so much time hanging out on this forum. Honestly, since I rarely step away from my job at the IRS, I don't really know what anyone else is up to. These are just my local impressions.

Jose White18 isn't into alternative medicine; his posts are cut from a different cloth. If I’m being honest, they share some of the same underlying motives as mine. Sure, I've posted in those alternative circles, but that represents a tiny fraction of my total activity—it just happens to look that way because one specific thread was randomly moved there. Statistically speaking, it makes me look like something I'm not. Besides, when I do get into arguments, I usually find myself clashing with the alternative crowd rather than the skeptics.
It’s definitely not like I’m "selling an alternative." It’s pretty obvious that isn't what I'm doing, and it's certainly not what Jose White18 is up to either. Besides, Ryan Gomez4 just mentioned she works in construction, so there's no way she's out there peddling MMS. 🤣

So, you want me to define the forum hustlers? Fine. They’re the ones lurking in the shadows, pulling strings and playing games while everyone else is actually trying to have a conversation. It’s a specific breed of manipulator. 😉

Alright, now that we've wrapped up that little detour, let's get back to the actual topic at hand. 😛

Look, in this situation, we’re either acting as fact-checkers—which isn't exactly groundbreaking, given that Hamer and Simoncini have already faced legal scrutiny and MMS is proven to be dangerous—or we're playing the role of educators. Honestly, though, even the term "alternative medicine" doesn't really make sense. Medicine is medicine; by definition, an alternative to it isn't medicine at all. Nobody is actually trying to stop you from using that label.
No, if it turns out you're actually against pseudoscience too, then I really have to tip my hat to you for sticking to your guns. That one. foreigners. 😁

If there's one thing I've picked up in my short time on this planet, it's to never take anything at face value. Facts change. Opinions shift. Everything moves. At the end of the day, it's all just a game of probability. I'm not really the type to get attached to any particular idea. 😉 For me, the question isn't whether this is an alternative or something else—that’s irrelevant. My issue is that I don't want to protect anyone's sacred cows or have "forbidden topics" on this forum. As a user, it wouldn't bother me; you either follow the rules or you stay away from the thread. But as a moderator responsible for enforcing them, I have a problem with it. I won't censor anyone's opinion. I don't want my own precious beliefs protected by "official" measures either, because I've seen more than once a "sacred cow" turn out to be anything but, and you can't see that without access to information. To make sure as much info as possible stays available, you inevitably have to deal with some garbage. That kind of control just isn't an option for me.

I could also mention a decent researcher of paranormal phenomena, Milan Ryzl. I read his book Parapsychology, and I have to admit he uses scientific methods. He actually admits himself in there that he hasn't managed to prove anything yet. 😁

There’s plenty of stuff like that, but I wonder what would happen if someone came into the PZ subforum with actual research—concrete things—on any topic they could link it to? It wouldn't be off-topic, and it wouldn't even be pseudoscience; it would be based on arguments, even if they are debatable. They’d probably get flagged as trolls immediately. It’s not just that skeptics always try to troll alternative threads (I don't even consider that trolling and I actually support those debates, if we're being honest), but on top of that, while they're allowed to criticize, they demand a "sacred cow" that is off-limits for discussion. Look... you guys go ahead and stick to your niche alternative stuff. You aren't experts anyway, but apparently, you're too good to comment on our mainstream medicine, right?

Yeah, the local consensus.

Like I said, that doesn't matter because it's just your side acting as a driving force in a specific campaign. Everyone else here, including those who somewhat disagree, is only involved because of their official roles (mods and admins). Personally, I would never participate in this if I weren't a mod on this specific subforum. It's a totally moot point. So, I don't think the consensus here is a measure of anything. You could get a "consensus" on which NFL team is the best at a weekly management meeting. 😁
Quote:I’d probably write it off. I'm afraid U.S. laws are pretty bad regarding this. Maybe European laws are more progressive. I'm genuinely curious if other forums run into these kinds of issues.😁

So you're telling me there's a difference between my posts getting nuked and those death-promoters getting their content wiped? Give me a break! How can you sit there and act all offended by the mere suggestion of suppressing free speech, yet when I point to an actual, blatant case happening right in front of us, you suddenly have nothing to say? What's the deal with that? 🤔

I don't see any damn reason why we need to slap a disclaimer on every single post just because there's one in the PDF. Honestly, that would be a logistical nightmare! What, is the moderator supposed to manually edit every single thread? It’s ridiculous. Plus, it’s pretty insulting to the people on this forum who actually disagree with those kinds of views. Why make things harder than they need to be?

Maybe we should put a warning at the start of every single thread—or at least the first page of them—whenever people start promoting death? Seriously, shouldn't there be some kind of heads-up?
Here we go again. Every time someone posts about bombings on the PZ boards, it gets wiped instantly. If you’ve already replied to something before it disappears, just quote your own damn post—this thread is blowing up so fast that half my stuff is flying right past me! Seriously though, does anyone actually believe that "freedom of speech" covers sharing recipes for making explosives or guides on how to pirate software illegally? Is that what we're doing now? Since when did that become a right?

Jose White18 isn't even into alternative medicine. His comments are on a whole different level—I’d even go as far as to say his motives are similar to mine. Sure, I've posted on those alternative medicine boards, but that stuff makes up a tiny fraction of my total posts. It only ended up there because one specific chat thread got moved by accident. So, statistically speaking, I'm not even sure how much I've actually written there... And honestly? When I *did* post, I found myself clashing with the alternative crowd way more often than with the skeptics.
I am definitely not "selling an alternative." It’s pretty damn obvious that I’m not doing that, and neither is Jose White18. And look at Ryan Gomez4—she literally just said she works in construction. She isn't out here peddling MMS to anyone! 🤣

Thanks for the info, though I gotta say, what you’ve already laid out here is more than enough for me to work with. Seriously. ;
Maybe nobody is actually out there selling snake oil, but honestly, what else are we even doing here if we aren't just debating ideas? And yet, look at you all—suddenly playing bodyguard for people pushing concepts that are straight-up dangerous to anyone's health or survival. Seriously?
Just because someone works outside the medical field doesn't mean they can't spend their free time pushing an agenda. Look, I get it—nobody is actually out there selling much Yin Yang, but you can bet your life they’re lurking around hospitals telling people that modern medicine is dangerous. Seriously? You really think that counts as "freedom of speech"?

So, you want me to define what a forum scammer actually is? You really want to go there? Fine. Let's talk about these bottom-feeders. What even is a "forum manipulator"? It’s that special breed of snake who crawls into a thread just to stir the pot. They aren't here to discuss anything real. They don't care about the truth. They're just looking to play mind games, spread misinformation, and twist people's words until everyone's confused. They live for the drama! They feed on the chaos they create. One minute they're acting like your best friend, and the next, they're twisting the knife just to see if you'll bleed. Isn't it pathetic? How can anyone stand being around these types? They're nothing but vultures circling a discussion, waiting to pick it apart for their own twisted satisfaction. 😉

Alright, fine. Since we’re finally done with all that descriptive nonsense, can we please get back to the actual topic? 😛

What's with this style? Is it just me, or are we seeing people drop six posts in such a short window? Seriously, what gives? 🤷
🤣

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my short life so far, it’s that you can't take anything at face value. Facts change. Perspectives shift. It’s all just a game of probability in the end. I’m not some fanatic who clings to anything. 😉 Look, the question isn't whether an alternative is this or that—that doesn't matter. What matters is that I have zero interest in protecting anyone's "sacred cows" or having forbidden topics on this forum. As a user, sure, I can just follow the rules or stay away from certain threads, but as a moderator responsible for enforcing them? No way. I am not going to censor anyone's opinion. I don't want my own beliefs protected by "official" measures either, because I've seen more than once how a "sacred cow" turns out to be nothing but nonsense once you actually have access to the info. And if we want as much information available as possible, you inevitably have to deal with some garbage. That kind of control is just not an option for me.

Yeah, everything changes. I mean, wouldn't you love to hear that the Earth actually orbits the moon, or that lions reproduce by splitting in half? :
To make any progress, it’s useless to keep questioning the exact same things over and over (unless you're digging deeper, but then you aren't really asking the same thing). You just have to maintain the existing knowledge—and trust me, given how massive the amount of information is today, that's a huge task—so it doesn't get lost. There are two fronts to this: education and fighting against pseudoscience. That second part has exploded lately because the pseudoscience crowd is getting louder and more aggressive every single day. Just look at what happened recently when Vinković was practically lynched just for daring to point out that Mišakov’s show has absolutely no business being part of an educational curriculum. The show is exactly where it’s always been: more pseudoscientific than ever. Regarding those sacred cows...

Oh, there’s plenty of that. But I wonder, what happens when someone comes onto the PZ board with actual research? Like, concrete facts, but they tie it to every topic they can find? It’s not off-topic, it’s not even unscientific, it’s just an argument—even if it's debatable. They’d probably be banned instantly as if they were a troll. It’s not just that skeptics naturally troll every alternative topic (and honestly, I don't even consider that trolling; I actually support those debates), but on top of that, while they're allowed to criticize, they simultaneously demand that certain "sacred cows" remain untouchable. Seriously... go play with your weird little fringe theories if you want, but don't come here trying to lecture us on our own medicine, okay?

You need to be more active in those spaces if you want to be able to judge them. You have to drive out the hardcore creationists, the perpetual motion machine believers, the cranks, and whoever else falls into that category.
New topics will definitely be accepted and analyzed, it's just that there aren't that many of them, and the people creating them often get absolutely livid when they get an explanation. I remember this one woman who was obsessed with interpreting her dreams through time travel, and she wouldn't even entertain the possibility that her own memory was just playing tricks on her. 😍
When I used to be on that old "On the Edge..." show, I left because they were systematically archiving and deleting posts from anyone who disagreed with the main themes. Looks like nothing has changed.

Look, like I said, it doesn't matter. It's just your side showing up to push a specific agenda. Everyone else here—including those who technically oppose this stuff but are stuck doing their jobs (looking at you, mods and admins)—personally wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole if they weren't moderating this subforum. It’s a completely irrelevant point. So, don't even think for a second that "consensus" here means anything. You could get a consensus on which NFL team is the best during a weekly meeting at the Dallas Cowboys headquarters for all it's worth. 😁

So, you're telling me it doesn't matter when someone is out there convincing people that actual medicine is evil and that they should seek help from people who ended up in prison because of their "practice"?

I'm dying to know if people run into these kinds of issues on other forums too. 😁

Give me a break. I was talking about laws that actually apply to the real world.

bluemason3 said:Aren't you actually just trying to protect free speech for specific people? 🤔

There’s such a thing as dangerous nonsense and harmless nonsense. I’m firmly against the former.
Or, to put it more politely, personal freedom ends where someone else's begins. And freedom of thought is a slippery slope. People will fall for anything if it's just repeating a mantra (a lie repeated enough times becomes truth). That’s plenty of reason to strictly remove dangerous ideas. But others here have already said that better than I ever could.

What counts as "dangerous" is entirely a matter of opinion. Moral categories are subjective, too. Obviously, we have to follow the law (even if that's just a social contract without much universal value) and the forum rules. If the law states something clearly, there's no debate. If it's about defining internal forum rules, that's a matter of agreement. My stance here is clear, though I don't deny anyone the right to set the site rules differently—I just reserve my right not to participate in things (like sanctioning an opinion that fits the topic) that I don't find ethically acceptable. Besides, Beg is moderating the medical stuff, so that part doesn't really worry me 😁

Exactly. Personal freedom stops where someone else's starts—though in practice, it's messier and prone to lobbying, much like what's happening here, where the loudest voice often wins. Since an adult with a functioning brain is considered responsible for their own actions, if they take someone's advice voluntarily—and that person isn't under any kind of authority (like a doctor) but just some random user... 🤷 you can't exactly sanction a cult leader who convinced someone to sign over their assets, work for free, or whatever else. These are moving targets, and there’s no perfect solution, just like there's no perfect political system. What this kind of setup demands is shifting responsibility onto the individual. That's why I'm all for information and criticism; the internet is incredibly useful for that. For instance, an alternative medicine practitioner once recommended a few things to me; I jumped online and realized within 15 minutes he was selling useless junk. It used to be much harder to figure that out. Nowadays, anyone can find info easily if they want to. There’s no way to stop someone from making a stupid choice without infringing on their personal liberties. So, with those kinds of decisions, you have to be very careful, even if I agree they're sometimes necessary. I'm just not sure that's the case here. 🤷

The idea of strictly removing dangerous ideas is itself a very dangerous idea that should probably be strictly removed. 🤣

Las, if you say something enough times, it becomes truth. Sure. And that applies to everything. Every single human experience and opinion is subjective. We’re all irrational, prone to manipulation, and easily swayed by our surroundings—just look at those classic social behavior experiments by Milgram or Zimbardo. Most of us are conformists rather than individuals, more subjective than objective, and far more irrational than rational. You can't escape it. You can either allow for some "chaotic" free development, use repressive tools to force your own manipulations on others, or try to find a middle ground where repression is used only as much as necessary to keep society running. That seems to be what these modern liberal types argue about... blah blah blah, how we've all gone 🤣

I don't make a habit of tracking what everyone else is posting, and as you accurately pointed out, I wasn't really aiming at anyone in particular.

Look, the people hanging out here aren't exactly the "alternative medicine" crowd. You didn't have many targets to hit if you're accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being an "alternative seller." 😁

It's more about the general shift from anti-skepticism toward the idea that people shouldn't be banned from having opinions—no matter how disastrous they might be—under the guise of protecting freedom.

Yeah, and that is 🙂
only "anti-skepticism" if you consider yourselves the actual skeptics, which you aren't. Skepticism is defined by the inclination to question everything, not by taking definitive stances. I'd call myself a skeptic because I have no preference in this whole debate other than being against banning thoughts and expression. You, on the other hand, don't just take sides with heavy emotional involvement; you try to force them on others through threats of sanctions and bans on any views deemed "unusual."

There was this one famous researcher (a college professor, actually) who once told a friend (also a scientist)—who was a very public-facing skeptic—that he does the exact same things he accuses "paranormal" researchers of doing. He noted that people accuse paranormal investigators of rigging statistics—accepting results when they're good and changing the methodology when they're bad. Yet, they do the same thing: when paranormal folks get a good result, they aren't satisfied and hunt for new methods, but when they get a bad one, they just accept it. They agreed on that point. The takeaway is that even "skeptics," in the colloquial sense, are quite subjective and not nearly as skeptical in the literal sense.

Ask everyone else the same question. I'd venture to say there's a pretty obvious consensus on what is dangerous and therefore worth deleting.

Whose consensus? Aside from us who have to deal with this as part of our official duties as mods, there aren't any "alternative" types here. So, you've got the moderators and you lot pushing a specific agenda. Maybe this topic should be moved to the main board?

Look at my first post. My expression was being suppressed. By deleting posts. Period.
We can agree that anything goes, sure, but that rule has to apply to both sides. That’s what I meant about things getting twisted. One second I'm the victim of biased moderation, and the next, I'm suddenly a champion of bias? Give me a break. 🙄
That said, I still don't think we should let people promote stuff that is demonstrably dangerous. What do you say to just slapping a disclaimer on those kinds of posts? 😁

what counts as "dangerous" is just a matter of opinion. (...)

Hope you don't mind that I cut out a massive chunk of text. I noticed a trend where posts were getting huge, so I had to take the scissors to them.
Anyway, looks like we've reached a nice consensus on exactly where we disagree. 😁

the people here aren't even the "alternative crew." You didn't really have many targets anyway if you're accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being some kind of "alternative" peddler.😁

>>I took a look, and it's just you, Ryan Gomez4, and Jose White18. Honestly, I'll allow for the possibility that you guys are master manipulators since you're always lurking around here. Since I rarely get away from the local precinct, I barely know who does what—these are just my impressions of this place.

yeah, that too. 🙂
You're only "anti-skeptics" if you consider yourselves the actual skeptics, which you aren't. Skepticism is about questioning everything, not taking hardline stances. So, I'd say I'm a skeptic who doesn't care about any of this except for one thing: I hate bans on thoughts and expression. You guys aren't just taking sides with intense emotion; you're trying to force those sides on everyone else by threatening sanctions and banning "unusual" views.

True, in this instance, we're either guardians of facts (nothing new there—Hamer and Simoncini have already faced legal trouble, and MMS is proven to be dangerous) or we're educators. But even the term "alternative medicine" makes no sense (medicine is medicine; by definition, its "alternative" isn't medicine anymore), so nobody is actually stopping you from using it.
But hey, if it turns out you're actually against pseudoscience too, then hats off to you for sticking to your guns.on that side. 😁

A researcher once—a college professor, actually—told a skeptical scientist friend that he does the exact same things he accuses others of doing. He basically accused "paranormal investigators" of rigging their statistics. You know the drill: if they get a good result, they take it; if it’s bad, they suddenly change the methodology or whatever. But then, on the flip side, when "paranormalists" get a good result, they aren't satisfied and go hunting for new methods, yet when they get a bad one, they just accept it. The point is, even these "skeptics"—in the casual sense of the word—are pretty subjective and aren't nearly as skeptical as they claim to be in the literal sense.

I can bring up an honest paranormal researcher myself, Milan Ryzl. I read his book Parapsychology and I have to admit, he actually uses scientific methods. And yeah, he even admitted himself that he hasn't proven anything yet. 😁

Whose consensus? Aside from us who have to deal with this as mods, there aren't really any "alternative" types here. So you've got the moderators and then people like you pushing a specific agenda. Maybe the topic should be opened up on a real forum?

Exactly, the consensus of the people *here*.
A real forum? Forget it. I'm afraid the laws in America are too restrictive on this stuff. Other countries, like maybe some places in Europe, are more progressive about it.

bluemason3 said:I didn't mean to imply that this was a personal attack. The idea that information is just being copied from a PDF over to some other platform doesn't really hold water. Even if that PDF didn't exist, the people interested in alternative medicine would still be saying exactly what they're saying. Those two things aren't connected.

Everyone’s got an opinion on something. How Beg handles the alternative medicine section is his business, and honestly, maybe I’m overstepping by talking so much about a corner of the forum I don't actually moderate. But I'll say it again—unless there's some actual legal justification for this "witch hunt," it's nothing more than a personal vendetta and a smear campaign.

I think you’re just playing games here. You can't equate a healthy debate or an exchange of ideas with exploitation. Besides, blatant advertising has always been against the rules on this forum. This really comes down to free speech; you have to defend the right to be wrong. Once we start penalizing "nonsense," we enter some pretty slippery territory. If you start defining what counts as nonsense, it becomes a very easy slide toward a dictatorship. It’s honestly ridiculous—as already mentioned, there are no consequences for actual harmful actions (like the stuff the alternative medicine crowd does in Orasi), yet people are trying to run this self-righteous crusade on the forum. In practice, it should be the exact opposite: we should be sanctioning dangerous behavior, not opinions. At least, that's how it works in a democracy.

What a beautiful way to twist the truth. It’s pretty obvious that people peddling alternative medicine have a massive amount of experience at this game.

What exactly are you trying to imply here? That I'm some kind of peddler of alternative medicine? We aren't even debating the people using that PDF right now. I hope you actually have something to back up those claims. 😁

Besides, if you’ve actually bothered to read my posts on this forum before, you’d know I’m not some blind follower of alternative medicine. But that’s beside the point. As the moderator of this specific sub-forum, I believe everyone here has every right to express views that fall under the umbrella of this topic.

So, nice try at playing games, but it’s clearly coming from your side. 😉

It’s not just about her. This affects everyone else involved here, and honestly, it goes straight to the top—it's on the forum owner too!
Moderators shouldn't be people who walk in with a fixed mindset, ready to defend their own views at the expense of everyone else's freedom of speech. Seriously, what is that even about?

Look, if you ask me, you’re just playing games here. You can't honestly try to equate a healthy debate or an exchange of ideas with someone taking advantage of others. And let's be real—advertising was already banned all over this forum anyway, so what's the big deal? This is exactly where the whole free speech issue comes in. You have to defend even the absolute nonsense, because once you start policing "stupidity," you're stepping onto some seriously shady ground. Who gets to decide what counts as nonsense? That's how you slide right into a dictatorship. It's ridiculous! Like I said before, there are zero consequences for actual harmful actions—you know, those people pushing their "alternative treatments" in Orasi—yet everyone here is trying to run this self-righteous crusade. In a real democracy, it should be the exact opposite: you penalize dangerous behavior, not someone's opinion. Period.

🤷 I am so sick of repeating myself! Seriously, why do I even bother? I’m done going over the same ground again and again. Is anyone even listening?

There’s a massive difference between harmless nonsense and dangerous stupidity. And personally? I am dead set against the first kind.
Look, let’s put it this way: personal freedom ends exactly where someone else's freedom begins. It's that simple. And honestly? The freedom to actually think for yourself is being suffocated. People fall for it so easily—they just swallow any random mantra they hear. If you repeat a lie enough times, people start treating it like gospel. That should be reason enough to strictly shut down dangerous ideas before they spread. But hey, other people here have already said it better than I ever could.

What exactly are you trying to imply here? That I'm some kind of peddler of alternative medicine? Look, we aren't even debating the people from that PDF right now! Do you actually have anything to back up those claims, or are you just talking out of your neck? 😁

Look, if you’ve actually bothered to read my posts around here on the forum, you’d know I’m not some blind fanatic for alternative medicine. I'm not like that. But honestly, does that even matter? As a moderator for this sub-forum, I firmly believe that anyone posting in the alternative section has every right to voice their opinions—because by definition, that's exactly what this space is for!

So, here we go again. Another pathetic attempt at playing games, only this time, you're the one pulling the strings. Seriously? 😉

I don't make it a habit to keep tabs on everything everyone else is posting around here. But like you so sharply pointed out, I wasn't aiming this at any one specific person. I'm talking about the massive, sweeping shift we're seeing where skeptics are suddenly pivoting to this idea that nobody should ever be allowed to stop someone from voicing an opinion—no matter how absolutely disastrous or brain-dead that opinion might be. And they’re all doing it under the convenient little guise of "protecting freedom." Give me a break!
That’s a bit of a stretch compared to what I actually started with, isn't it? Maybe I'm just whining too much. Honestly, am I even making sense right now? Maybe I am. 😁

As for what you actually do? All I know is what you claim to do—assuming you're even telling the truth here. And look, you don't have to stick strictly to mainstream medicine, nor do you need to dive headfirst into it. At the end of the day, you can do whatever the hell you want; all I care about is what you post on this forum. That's what we're dealing with here.

bluemason3 said:And who exactly gets to decide which topics are allowed and which ones aren't on the alternative board? You? 😁

I'm not bringing this up as some kind of tactical "lever" to win an argument; I'm presenting it as a genuine possibility that deserves actual consideration. To be clear, I’m not just talking about alternative medicine in a vacuum—the core issue clearly lies within the standard medical approach itself. If skeptics start dictating what can be said about alternatives, and doctors start policing what counts as alternative medicine, then the whole concept loses its purpose. In a debate like this, finding middle ground is tough. It feels like one side or the other is eventually going to have to lose. 🤷

If you want to talk to a lawyer, try this approach: go see one and tell them your brother passed away from some illness because some guy talked him into drinking soap suds instead of getting actual cancer treatment. Then ask if you have any grounds for a lawsuit.
Look, I’m no lawyer, so everything I say is just my two cents. But honestly? Any attorney would be jumping for joy at the thought of their contingency fee on this one. They’d jump at the chance to take this case.

We'll see. 🤔 But if that's actually the case, then there’s really no point to that PDF at all. 🤷

Go ahead, ask everyone else the same question. Honestly, I’d go so far as to say there’s a pretty damn obvious consensus on what qualifies as dangerous and deserves to be deleted.

Ryan Gomez4 said:If you start throwing around your "wonderful" vocabulary again (idiot, moron, etc.), I'm deleting those posts immediately.

Honestly? It’s been nothing but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual hacks insulting everyone here for a while now, so if that’s really how you plan to handle things, go right ahead. I'd be more than happy to see it happen. 😍

bluemason3 said:I honestly don't see how you can separate the two. 🤷If someone opts out of conventional medicine in favor of alternative medicine, or even believes the whole medical establishment is some massive conspiracy and posts about it here, that's automatically going to be viewed as "incitement." Every public discussion is a form of influence once it's posted online. And let's face it, people aren't going to add a "this is just my opinion" disclaimer to every single post, which is exactly why we have the site's terms of service. 🤔

There’s always the option of shutting down the sub if things get too volatile, but I don't see how we can have our cake and eat it too—meaning, having an alternative medicine section without the inevitable content that comes with it. 🤷

Look, some branches of alternative medicine are straight-up lethal, and others aren't. Is it really that hard to tell them apart?
MMS, trashing actual medicine, and all that garbage has no business being here. Everything else can stay. That said, trying to silence critics? Still absolutely unacceptable.

What a beautiful way to dodge the point. It’s obvious these alternative medicine peddlers have plenty of experience twisting things.

So, let me remind everyone once again why this whole thing was even started in the first place.

Ryan Gomez4 singled out one specific side (I won't get into which one right now), and honestly, it was mostly unjustified—especially when she started nuking posts.
From the looks of it, she’ll be holding back on handing out sanctions for simply stating facts for a while (hopefully for good). In that sense, I guess it partially worked.

Look, it’s a fact that there's no point in defending stupidity, but that’s not what we're talking about here. This is about stopping people—people who clearly lack even a shred of morality—from exploiting that stupidity. The government, just like any other organized group, exists to prevent exactly that.
The fact that some of you clearly hate that isn't my problem. You love to play the victim, so I wouldn't be surprised if you eventually find some legal loophole that makes it perfectly okay to tell people to go kill themselves. At the end of the day, the psychic Milan moved over here precisely because selling snake oil on TV is banned in places like the UK, but it's totally fine here in the States.

Jose White18 said:If we had a debate like that, what would be left of the alternative? 🤷

Everything, really! Except they’d probably end up offering an alternative to the alternative. Seriously? 😁

Hey bluemason3, there’s absolutely no reason to shut this down. Sure, maybe if too many "naturalists" showed up they'd clear out all the fog, but that's not even the real issue here. The real problem is the people actually creating the fog in the first place!

hollowtrucker77 said:dustypuma5, calling everything from Coldrex to Ginkgo Biloba "quackery" is quite the stretch,
the only thing I’ll actually give you credit for is agreeing that telling people to ditch mainstream medicine entirely is just plain illegal advice.

That last point is exactly why I started this whole thread. 😁
Between that and the moderator who went on a tear trying to delete my posts because she couldn't just ban me outright, I've had enough.

Jose White18 said:Is posting on a forum really considered manslaughter now? Are we saying someone's therapy failed just because of what was written online? Is that how things work on Alternative?

😵

Get a grip.

We’re talking about massive walls of text here where a woman claims modern medicine is toxic and basically tells potential patients to stay away.
Look, SVJETLOST9, if she doesn't beat her cancer, she won't be the first victim of this kind of practice—swapping a hospital for amateur guesswork. The truth is, people today are absolutely terrified the second they get diagnosed with a tumor, making them easy targets for suggestions that lead them straight to the grave.
Personally? I don't much care how someone dies, as long as it's crystal clear who sent them there.

Two women on that thread—Yin Yang and SVJETLOST9—are out there acting like they're experts, claiming modern medicine can't do squat about cancer and that it's all just some massive conspiracy to poison people. Seriously? This kind of talk can actually trigger a nocebo effect in patients undergoing chemotherapy. And if someone actually falls for this nonsense and walks away from life-saving treatment? That’s bordering on manslaughter.
Then you've got the moderator, Ryan Gomez4, who claims she's here to "keep order," but instead, she's handing out bans to anyone brave enough to directly challenge those ridiculous claims. Meanwhile, my own posts get nuked because she can't find a single legitimate reason to penalize them.
By doing this, she’s actually fueling that "negative energy" (the nocebo) against people relying on actual medical science. It goes against everything a moderator should be—honestly, it goes against basic human decency.

hollowtrucker77 popped up in the thread earlier with some comments that should have kept the discussion on track and prevented it from devolving into a total smear campaign against doctors. But since I have no clue if the moderator actually intends to follow any rules, I figured I'd vent about it here.

Her true intentions will be crystal clear once you see my post that went up right at midnight. :

Raymond Sanchez78 said:If the Democratic Party wins, it’s basically a given 👍

🤔I just don't see those two working together.

It’ll get done eventually. It just happens when it happens. :

It’s officially the International Year of Chemistry. 😉Seriously,

Are you seriously gonna go around defacing stuff with a permanent marker? 😬

feralpilot0 said:What even is this nonsense 🍿

It's about the subject being talked about!