Issues with discussions regarding cancer treatment

steelsurfer42 said: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.

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.

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?

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.

hollowtrucker77 said:Just to throw a little defense toward Jose White18 here: look, the alternative subforum exists for a reason. People are naturally going to be interested in various forms of alternative approaches—stuff that hasn't been swallowed up by the mainstream or strictly validated by standard scientific methods. It's just how people work.
Coming in here demanding scientific proof for things that aren't even part of the scientific method is honestly a bit pointless, and I think the moderator was spot on when they labeled it as nothing more than trolling and disruptive behavior.
If all these different alternative movements and practices actually had a legitimate scientific basis, they would be classified as science and would have moved over to the PZ, health, or some other subforum specifically designed for those kinds of discussions.

Personally, I don't have an issue with the Alternative subforum, and honestly, I don't mind the Alternative Medicine one either.
I'm with you on what you wrote and I don't have anything against it. Actually, it’s sometimes nice to pop in there and read through a thread. It can even be pretty funny (the alternative crowd is probably gonna hate me for this, but whatever) seeing some of the ideas people come up with.
But hey, if people want to believe in lizard people, let them have their space to talk about it. Why not?

What I *do* have a problem with is when some mother with a kid suffering from leukemia reads about some bleach trick and, out of pure stress and fear of losing her child, stops chemotherapy because someone told her to and takes the kid to a grocery store instead.

That’s where I draw the line. I think anyone advising someone to do that should get banned and have their posts wiped immediately.

That's really the whole point.

@ Jose White18
My motives are my business. Maybe I do believe in lizard people whispering to me to be a forum warrior for justice, but using my supposed motives just to undermine my points shows how weak your own arguments are.
So, arguing at that level doesn't help anything besides just cranking up the tension between us, so I'm calling it quits.

@ bluemason3
I'm not claiming any rights that don't belong to me as a forum member. My right is to post suggestions in the designated area, and it's up to the admins whether they accept them or not.
I feel like by trying to defend me, you're stepping a bit outside your lane, because it's not your job to decide what other users write in subforums you don't moderate. We're equals here; if you don't like how I write, you can start a thread suggesting I be sanctioned, and then the admins can decide whether to go for it or not.

So, let's just try to discuss the issue civilly and leave the ad hominem attacks alone. You can curse me out in your head, but don't type it, because I don't know how to stay quiet—if you shut my mouth, I'm gonna snap back and tell you exactly what's coming.
Basically, I'm just asking that we don't dive into that tone and keep the discussion within reasonable bounds.

Ryan Gomez4 said:First off, regarding the bolded part, the second half is dead wrong. In my experience, most doctors will try to do as little as possible—or better yet, nothing at all. Unless, of course, you're hitting up a private specialist who's getting paid a fortune; then they'll treat you for things you don't even have.

Even after this latest post, I’m getting the sense that a fair, level-headed debate regarding alternative medicine is impossible here. It’s hard to have a real discussion when the moderator treats mainstream medicine like some kind of ultimate evil—claiming it was all cooked up by Masons and reptilians to poison us through childhood vaccinations, all just to control our minds and wipe out humanity.

All we’re missing now is that former moderator, Louis, who claimed surgery isn't even a big deal because back in those ancient Vedic times, "surgeons" were already performing operations on "that." 😁

My final takeaway is this: we should let people argue against alternative medicine just like we let atheists speak their minds in religion forums or allow die-hard fans to vent about soccer. 😁

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?

Bravo! You’ve managed to spin medicine and law into this strange, quasi-philosophical, pseudo-ethical debate. 🙏

Philosophical debates aside, I fail to see how bluemason3 and Ryan Gomez4 don't realize they could face legal action. Allowing moderators to permit advice that endangers health and lives is a massive liability. 😁

bluemason3, stop philosophizing and start using common sense. Imagine someone you care about is critically ill and seriously considering an alternative treatment promoted on this forum instead of going to a hospital. Would you go after the moderator who allowed it 😉? This isn't a matter of opinion; it's basic logic. You have to draw a line. No one is talking about all alternative medicine—just cancer treatment. With nothing else are the consequences of neglecting medical care so dramatic

shadowpilot8 said:Philosophical debates aside, I fail to see how bluemason3 and Ryan Gomez4 don't realize they could face legal action. Allowing moderators to permit advice that endangers health and lives is a massive liability. 😁

bluemason3, stop philosophizing and start using common sense. Imagine someone you care about is critically ill and seriously considering an alternative treatment promoted on this forum instead of going to a hospital. Would you go after the moderator who allowed it 😉? This isn't a matter of opinion; it's basic logic. You have to draw a line. No one is talking about all alternative medicine—just cancer treatment. With nothing else are the consequences of neglecting medical care so dramatic

Most people turn to alternatives because mainstream medicine gave up on them for one reason or another, and it's not just about cancer. I don't have cancer, but my doctor told me there was no point in treating me because my chances of recovery were zero. First off, that's just wrong, and second, it's incredibly rude, but it's not illegal. So why should it be illegal to try to save yourself some other way?

Ryan Gomez4 said:Most people turn to alternatives because mainstream medicine gave up on them for one reason or another, and it's not just about cancer. I don't have cancer, but my doctor told me there was no point in treating me because my chances of recovery were zero. First off, that's just wrong, and second, it's incredibly rude, but it's not illegal. So why should it be illegal to try to save yourself some other way?

Even if you have a point there, I still don't see any reason to go after people like steelsurfer42, Chronic Vlado, Lastan, and -kl-. What exactly is in their posts that warrants being deleted? Are they bothering people by simply revealing the basic principles of elementary biology, chemistry, and physics?

silverpuma542 said:Even if you have a point there, I still don't see any reason to go after people like steelsurfer42, Chronic Vlado, Lastan, and -kl-. What exactly is in their posts that warrants being deleted? Are they bothering people by simply revealing the basic principles of elementary biology, chemistry, and physics?

I have zero issues with Lastan. The guy is just sharing his opinion, which he's entitled to do as long as he doesn't break any forum rules. As for steelsurfer42, he just repeats the same watered-down point until the thread becomes unreadable, and Chronic Vlado is constantly off-topic.

And since when do I have to answer to you?

steelsurfer42 said: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.

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.😁

dustypuma5 said:Personally, I don't have an issue with the Alternative subforum, and honestly, I don't mind the Alternative Medicine one either.
I'm with you on what you wrote and I don't have anything against it. Actually, it’s sometimes nice to pop in there and read through a thread. It can even be pretty funny (the alternative crowd is probably gonna hate me for this, but whatever) seeing some of the ideas people come up with.
But hey, if people want to believe in lizard people, let them have their space to talk about it. Why not?

What I *do* have a problem with is when some mother with a kid suffering from leukemia reads about some bleach trick and, out of pure stress and fear of losing her child, stops chemotherapy because someone told her to and takes the kid to a grocery store instead.

That’s where I draw the line. I think anyone advising someone to do that should get banned and have their posts wiped immediately.

That's really the whole point.

@ Jose White18
My motives are my business. Maybe I do believe in lizard people whispering to me to be a forum warrior for justice, but using my supposed motives just to undermine my points shows how weak your own arguments are.
So, arguing at that level doesn't help anything besides just cranking up the tension between us, so I'm calling it quits.

@ bluemason3
I'm not claiming any rights that don't belong to me as a forum member. My right is to post suggestions in the designated area, and it's up to the admins whether they accept them or not.
I feel like by trying to defend me, you're stepping a bit outside your lane, because it's not your job to decide what other users write in subforums you don't moderate. We're equals here; if you don't like how I write, you can start a thread suggesting I be sanctioned, and then the admins can decide whether to go for it or not.

So, let's just try to discuss the issue civilly and leave the ad hominem attacks alone. You can curse me out in your head, but don't type it, because I don't know how to stay quiet—if you shut my mouth, I'm gonna snap back and tell you exactly what's coming.
Basically, I'm just asking that we don't dive into that tone and keep the discussion within reasonable bounds.

You actually have a thread right now about anti-government militant groups in America. Originally, the forum linked the topic to Eckhart Tolle in the title. The admin didn't quite nail the wording, so I changed the title, but there's definitely a connection. Basically, these reptilian theories fuel paranoia, which leads people to arm themselves, sell off their property, and act out in all sorts of ways. Some of those armed individuals might go so far as to attempt an assassination on some "Mason" or "reptile," etc. So yeah, there's real potential danger here if we push this kind of content.

I have an issue with a mother whose child has leukemia deciding to stop chemotherapy after reading about bleach cures—driven by the sheer, irrational stress of fearing for her child's life—and taking that kid to some roadside healer instead.

I have an issue too, but I’m not going to argue for controlling free speech and opinion.🙂
As we saw in that link, in cases like that, the parent is held responsible, not the person who "treated" them.

My problem is with the advice itself. In my opinion, anyone advising someone to do that should be banned, and their post should be deleted.

That's the whole point.

In my view, if the law doesn't mandate it, it won't happen, and that's really the bottom line.😛

@ Jose White18
My motives are my own. Maybe I believe in lizard people whispering to me to be a forum warrior for justice, but using my motives to dismiss my arguments only highlights the weakness of your own position and your ability to debate.
So, arguing at that level adds nothing but tension between us, so I'm ending it here.

Is that similar to calling people "alternative sellers" or "forum trolls," or is it something else? 😁

@ bluemason3
I'm not claiming any special privileges here just because I'm a forum member. My right is simply to post suggestions in the designated section; whether the admins decide to actually listen to them is entirely up to them.
Honestly, by trying to defend me, you're overstepping a bit. It isn't your job to dictate what other users write in sub-forums that you don't moderate. We're all on the same level here. If there's something about my posts that bothers you, feel free to start a thread suggesting I be sanctioned. Then, it’ll be up to the admins to either approve or reject your suggestion.

stands

Jose Barrett said:Even after this latest post, I’m getting the sense that a fair, level-headed debate regarding alternative medicine is impossible here. It’s hard to have a real discussion when the moderator treats mainstream medicine like some kind of ultimate evil—claiming it was all cooked up by Masons and reptilians to poison us through childhood vaccinations, all just to control our minds and wipe out humanity.

All we’re missing now is that former moderator, Louis, who claimed surgery isn't even a big deal because back in those ancient Vedic times, "surgeons" were already performing operations on "that." 😁

My final takeaway is this: we should let people argue against alternative medicine just like we let atheists speak their minds in religion forums or allow die-hard fans to vent about soccer. 😁

Looking at how this thread is going (unless we move to private messages), I think they were actually aiming their criticism at the public healthcare system rather than medicine itself.

silverpuma542 said:Bravo! You’ve managed to spin medicine and law into this strange, quasi-philosophical, pseudo-ethical debate. 🙏

The whole issue regarding freedom of speech and expression—even when people are being stupid, or going against the grain, or hitting those dangerous boundaries we're discussing here—is fundamentally philosophical, ethical, and legal. Using "quasi" feels like a clumsy attempt at an ad hominem attack to indirectly cast doubt on the validity of the actual arguments. ☕

shadowpilot8 said:Philosophical debates aside, I fail to see how bluemason3 and Ryan Gomez4 don't realize they could face legal action. Allowing moderators to permit advice that endangers health and lives is a massive liability. 😁

bluemason3, stop philosophizing and start using common sense. Imagine someone you care about is critically ill and seriously considering an alternative treatment promoted on this forum instead of going to a hospital. Would you go after the moderator who allowed it 😉? This isn't a matter of opinion; it's basic logic. You have to draw a line. No one is talking about all alternative medicine—just cancer treatment. With nothing else are the consequences of neglecting medical care so dramatic

So far, we’ve heard from one lawyer (over at the Begicin company) who doesn't think this is actually feasible. We're currently waiting on a second opinion from a firm where I have an acquaintance—who happens to be a regular user here on the forum. Based on what we know, the legal consensus isn't on that side yet, so why is everyone getting so worked up about us?

bluemason3, quit with the philosophy and just use some common sense. Imagine someone you actually care about is deathly ill and is seriously considering one of those alternative treatments being pushed on this forum because they’re refusing to go to a hospital. You’d probably want to hunt down and take out the moderator allowing that kind of thing, wouldn't you? 😉It’s not really a matter of opinion; it’s just common sense. You have to draw a line somewhere. Nobody is suggesting we abandon all alternative medicine—we're specifically talking about cancer treatment. With anything else, you just don't see the consequences of avoiding treatment play out quite so dramatically.

No, I wouldn't. I have a family member dealing with sarcoma—medically incurable—who refuses to explore every available option because of some personal delusions. Since we're talking about an adult—my father—I just do what I can within my power, like keeping all doors open and offering to drive him to better hospitals. But when he rejects those options for purely psychological reasons, honestly, I stop caring. He’s a grown man. He knows his options, and he has every right to make his own calls regarding his health. I don't see the point in stressing myself out over it; it doesn't affect me personally. It feels arrogant, even presumptuous, to try and play "bigger than the Pope" with someone who is mature, educated, and fully conscious. Forcing my opinion on him or trying to coerce him just isn't my place.

The same goes for anyone wanting to go to... I don't know. Braco, as ridiculous as it sounds to me, I wouldn't even bother commenting or responding.

Ryan Gomez4 said:Most people turn to alternatives because mainstream medicine gave up on them for one reason or another, and it's not just about cancer. I don't have cancer, but my doctor told me there was no point in treating me because my chances of recovery were zero. First off, that's just wrong, and second, it's incredibly rude, but it's not illegal. So why should it be illegal to try to save yourself some other way?

just some crazy talk.. ☕

Norway banned its citizens from using credit cards for gambling at any retail outlet globally because they knew people would just fly straight to Las Vegas and blow through their entire limits. People were losing their houses and falling into massive debt.
People complained about the move, obviously, but the law stands. And honestly? The government is supposed to protect its people—even from themselves and their own bad impulses.

That’s what a civilized society looks like to me. I kind of wish this forum, which is basically on the map now, had some higher standards than even the society we live in. Like, maybe it could actually look out for the users and protect them from their own questionable urges sometimes.
I know, I'm being an idealist, but whatever, I can afford to be.

Disclaimer: Just treat this like spam, it's late and my brain is fried. I might be talking nonsense. 😬

bluemason3 said:The whole issue regarding freedom of speech and expression—even when people are being stupid, or going against the grain, or hitting those dangerous boundaries we're discussing here—is fundamentally philosophical, ethical, and legal. Using "quasi" feels like a clumsy attempt at an ad hominem attack to indirectly cast doubt on the validity of the actual arguments. ☕

You didn't present an argument; you just threw out some nonsense. My stance isn't an ad hominem because my opinion on alternative medicine and moderation rules remains the same regardless of who happens to be enforcing them. But looking at the responses from both Ryan Gomez4 and shadowpilot8, I see that you both have a real knack for logical fallacies. Using the prefix "quasi" doesn't belong in any actual attempt at argumentation, and if it suggests anything at all, it does so quite bluntly.

Furthermore, it’s clear you don't quite grasp what philosophy and ethics actually entail. I won't bore you with a lecture, but they certainly aren't about tossing everyone's random opinions into a bag and shaking it around. If you're still confused, go ask our colleague Caveman.

But it's not just that it's normal for skeptics to troll every topic involving alternative medicine (honestly, I don't even consider it trolling and I actually enjoy these debates, but if we're comparing), it's that along with that, they demand we treat their topics like sacred cows that can't be touched. Look... why don't you people stick to your weird alternative stuff? You aren't getting anything out of this anyway, but where is the nerve to come in here and comment on our mainstream medicine, huh?

Hmm, funny how a medical doctor is allowed to rush into an "alternative clinic" and perform CPR on a dying patient, yet an alternative practitioner isn't allowed to rush into an ICU to force-feed someone MMS, pour homeopathic water down their throat, or light ritualistic fires. Oh, how utterly unfair! 😢

Ryan Gomez4 said:I have no issues with Lastan; the man expresses his views as he sees fit, provided he doesn't break any forum rules. steelsurfer42, on the other hand, dilutes the topic into total unreadability by repetitively hammering the same point, and Chronic Vlado is chronically off-topic.

And since when do I have to answer to you?

Every single thread on alternative medicine is filled with tedious, exhausting repetition. Honestly, I bet your average high school coder could spend one afternoon programming a post generator specifically for these alternative medicine threads, especially those "LIGHT9" types. And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the content is true or moral.
Chronic Vlado is only "off-topic" because his opinions are critical.

silverpuma542 said:You didn't present an argument; you just threw out some nonsense. My stance isn't an ad hominem because my opinion on alternative medicine and moderation rules remains the same regardless of who happens to be enforcing them. But looking at the responses from both Ryan Gomez4 and shadowpilot8, I see that you both have a real knack for logical fallacies. Using the prefix "quasi" doesn't belong in any actual attempt at argumentation, and if it suggests anything at all, it does so quite bluntly.

Furthermore, it’s clear you don't quite grasp what philosophy and ethics actually entail. I won't bore you with a lecture, but they certainly aren't about tossing everyone's random opinions into a bag and shaking it around. If you're still confused, go ask our colleague Caveman.

But it's not just that it's normal for skeptics to troll every topic involving alternative medicine (honestly, I don't even consider it trolling and I actually enjoy these debates, but if we're comparing), it's that along with that, they demand we treat their topics like sacred cows that can't be touched. Look... why don't you people stick to your weird alternative stuff? You aren't getting anything out of this anyway, but where is the nerve to come in here and comment on our mainstream medicine, huh?

Hmm, funny how a medical doctor is allowed to rush into an "alternative clinic" and perform CPR on a dying patient, yet an alternative practitioner isn't allowed to rush into an ICU to force-feed someone MMS, pour homeopathic water down their throat, or light ritualistic fires. Oh, how utterly unfair! 😢

Every single thread on alternative medicine is filled with tedious, exhausting repetition. Honestly, I bet your average high school coder could spend one afternoon programming a post generator specifically for these alternative medicine threads, especially those "LIGHT9" types. And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the content is true or moral.
Chronic Vlado is only "off-topic" because his opinions are critical.

What documents are we talking about? 😁 Did something confuse you? 😁

My argument isn't an ad hominem because my opinion on alternative medicine and moderation rules stays the same regardless of who enforces them. But looking at the replies from Ryan Gomez4 and shadowpilot8, I see you both are quite fond of logical fallacies. Using the prefix "quasi-" doesn't belong in any actual argument, and if it suggests anything, it suggests it pretty directly.

You said in the post being quoted here:

Bravo, you managed to turn medicine and law into a quasi-philosophical-pseudo-ethical debate.

You're addressing me personally, the prefix "quasi" clearly carries derogatory implications, and since you admitted it isn't much of an argument, then by definition, it's an ad hominem. 😁

Hmm, so a doctor is allowed to barge into an alternative "clinic" to perform CPR on a dying patient, but an alternative practitioner isn't allowed to rush into an ICU to shove MMS down someone's throat, pour homeopathic water on them, or light ritual fires. Oh, how unfair! 😢

Well, if we're going to talk about logical fallacies... 🤔
A doctor can do that, but so can anyone who knows resuscitation and basic first aid, even if they're five times more into alternative medicine than anyone else. Meanwhile, none of those MMS products claim to be intended for such emergencies ( 😂 I think 😂 ). On the flip side, a doctor isn't allowed to crash an alternative practitioners' meeting or conference to start "harassing" them; if they did, security or the police would have every right to kick them out. That would be a more sensible comparison.

bluemason3 said:What documents are we talking about? 😁 Did something confuse you? 😁

My argument isn't an ad hominem because my opinion on alternative medicine and moderation rules stays the same regardless of who enforces them. But looking at the replies from Ryan Gomez4 and shadowpilot8, I see you both are quite fond of logical fallacies. Using the prefix "quasi-" doesn't belong in any actual argument, and if it suggests anything, it suggests it pretty directly.

You said in the post being quoted here:

Bravo, you managed to turn medicine and law into a quasi-philosophical-pseudo-ethical debate.

You're addressing me personally, the prefix "quasi" clearly carries derogatory implications, and since you admitted it isn't much of an argument, then by definition, it's an ad hominem. 😁

Hmm, so a doctor is allowed to barge into an alternative "clinic" to perform CPR on a dying patient, but an alternative practitioner isn't allowed to rush into an ICU to shove MMS down someone's throat, pour homeopathic water on them, or light ritual fires. Oh, how unfair! 😢

Well, if we're going to talk about logical fallacies... 🤔
A doctor can do that, but so can anyone who knows resuscitation and basic first aid, even if they're five times more into alternative medicine than anyone else. Meanwhile, none of those MMS products claim to be intended for such emergencies ( 😂 I think 😂 ). On the flip side, a doctor isn't allowed to crash an alternative practitioners' meeting or conference to start "harassing" them; if they did, security or the police would have every right to kick them out. That would be a more sensible comparison.

Making fun of typos? Honestly, that’s just peak forum culture right there. 🙏

It’s honestly just like that petty, childish teasing you see back in elementary school during recess.

bluemason3 said:What documents are we talking about? 😁 Did something confuse you? 😁

My argument isn't an ad hominem because my opinion on alternative medicine and moderation rules stays the same regardless of who enforces them. But looking at the replies from Ryan Gomez4 and shadowpilot8, I see you both are quite fond of logical fallacies. Using the prefix "quasi-" doesn't belong in any actual argument, and if it suggests anything, it suggests it pretty directly.

You said in the post being quoted here:

Bravo, you managed to turn medicine and law into a quasi-philosophical-pseudo-ethical debate.

You're addressing me personally, the prefix "quasi" clearly carries derogatory implications, and since you admitted it isn't much of an argument, then by definition, it's an ad hominem. 😁

Hmm, so a doctor is allowed to barge into an alternative "clinic" to perform CPR on a dying patient, but an alternative practitioner isn't allowed to rush into an ICU to shove MMS down someone's throat, pour homeopathic water on them, or light ritual fires. Oh, how unfair! 😢

Well, if we're going to talk about logical fallacies... 🤔
A doctor can do that, but so can anyone who knows resuscitation and basic first aid, even if they're five times more into alternative medicine than anyone else. Meanwhile, none of those MMS products claim to be intended for such emergencies ( 😂 I think 😂 ). On the flip side, a doctor isn't allowed to crash an alternative practitioners' meeting or conference to start "harassing" them; if they did, security or the police would have every right to kick them out. That would be a more sensible comparison.

🤦 Talking to you is like trying to play a serious game of chess, only instead of strategy, you’re just shouting "Checkmate! Yes! The rook's going home! I win!" at the top of your lungs.

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.