Alla
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 09:19 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 09:05 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  for which you are deeming me responsible for... which is pure bullshit BTW

You are a beneficiary of caste-based slavery. Your national economy depends on slave-labour. The fruits, vegetables and rice that you eat were produced using slave labour. You and your family are blood-sucking leeches. Do the human race a favour and die.


Blink

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 11:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Requirements for Practising Medicine in Australia

"Practising medicine" (as defined in law) and "giving medical advice" are two different things. If someone says, "I have a headache" and I say, "take two aspirin" that is "giving medical advice" and you don't need a license to do that.

Quote:The fact of the matter is that you made a claim and did not (could not) back it up. Fulton made no comment as to the validity of your own unqualified claim.

Actually no, you simply don't understand what the argument was about.

You don't know what you are talking about as usual.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 06:13 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 11:49 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Again, it is not a contest.

It is a contest and I won it. So eat shit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 12:17 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 10:37 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Crushing blow you've dealt me.

Yup.

Quote: I'm supposed to be scared of you aren't I?

Oh, but you are. I can see it in the desperation of your posts.

Quote:Didn't you claim that you are intellectually intimidating because you have lots of internet memes bookmarked and organised into categories?

Why yes, if Hobo ChimpyChump Hobo the Pathological Liar can be trusted. Laughat

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You are delusional.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 06:21 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 11:53 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 04:48 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Unless you subscribe to a Judaic, i.e. supernatural, conception of inter-generational guilt your position is nonsensical. ...

Um, no I don't subscribe to such ideas/beliefs of said supernatural bull-pucky.

(18-02-2014 04:48 AM)Chippy Wrote:  ...The vital point is that there are no laws that negatively discriminate against indigenous Australians and many that positively discriminate for indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians can and do vote without interference and none are owned as slaves.

*Nod* Quite true and indeed, currently, they do.

(18-02-2014 04:48 AM)Chippy Wrote:  This stands in contrast with the Indian caste system which operates today and which has clear beneficiaries and clear victims that are victims because their labour is being exploited by upper-castes.

*Nods* About this I am not asking questions and am looking up your links etc.

(18-02-2014 04:48 AM)Chippy Wrote:  How exactly is the non-existence of a body of laws "affecting people and families today"? By what mechanism is this affect achieved? How does that fact that someone's grandfather couldn't vote impinge on one's current ability to vote? How is it impeded or denigrated? You are appealing to some unspecified metaphysics of causation which is mystical.

Um....the practice/acknowledgement was only changed in 1966. So...there would still be people alive today who, at least, grew up under the system. Not to mention their parents would have lived under the system. So...using the term 'Grandfather' is pushing it back further than is warranted.

(18-02-2014 04:48 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Just state you point.

Hence actual, effectively current problems associated with NO financial, educational, material or even inheritable type of social 'supports' that the rest of society had/has been developing/investing in for 200 odd years. So...people alive today who grew up in a VERY different social dynamic than what would be considered 'standard' or 'normal'.

(18-02-2014 04:48 AM)Chippy Wrote:  And stop with the perfunctory well-wishes.

When I figure out how to make a signature, sure.

Very much cheers to all.

That is all a bunch of woolly-minded nonsense and using phrases like "social dynamic" doesn't make your position any more credible. The fact of the matter is that Australian aborigines can vote and nobody interferes with their right to vote. Furthermore, there is positive discrimination in favour of aborigines in relation to government employment, study allowance, unemployment benefit, disability support pension, aged-pension, scholarships, small business grants etc.

There is no comparison to be had between current caste-based India and current-day Australia.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 10:59 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 10:55 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Look at the cover of the report:
[Image: swz2uh.png]
I can clearly see that it reads "Hidden apartheid' it doesn't say that India is an apartheid regime you fuck!

Are you retarded?

India is described as a "hidden apartheid" hence the name of the report.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 07:16 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 11:18 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:02 AM)Chippy Wrote:  For the third time:
Dr Manmohan singh compared the caste system to Apartheid regime he did NOT say that indian Govt is an apartheid regime

When you compare A to B you are proposing that A and B have elements in common. Dr Singh stated that the Indian caste system is totally unlike the problem of minorities in other countries and that it can be compared to South African apartheid. Dr Singh is in effect categorising India with apartheid South Africa in term of severity.

Quote: or that educated Indian citizens condone caste system or that Indian economy somehow depends on illegal human trafficking and shit like that.

He's not going to state that out of embarrassment.

Quote:You are the only one who is trying the paint whole of India in your narrow disgustingly racist point of view that all educated urban Indians are Hindus and are active proponents of caste system and should be discriminated by 1st world moral crusaders like you.

The HRW report on the Indian caste system which is named "Hidden Apartheid" (which I have linked to numerous times) agrees with my position.

Quote:Well fuck you and your racist point of view! go drink beer and hump a kangaroo or something!

Go and piss on a Dalit family you social leech.

Quote:I'm done WITH YOU! don't bother replying because i don't give a fuck anymore

I'm not done with you Little Dinesh.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 08:52 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 06:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  "Practising medicine" (as defined in law) and "giving medical advice" are two different things. If someone says, "I have a headache" and I say, "take two aspirin" that is "giving medical advice" and you don't need a license to do that.
You understood what I meant. You are not licensed to practice medicine in Australia.
There is a very good reason for this and that is because the Australian government do not recognise your authority. They don't trust you and nor should they.
(18-02-2014 06:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:The fact of the matter is that you made a claim and did not (could not) back it up. Fulton made no comment as to the validity of your own unqualified claim.

Actually no, you simply don't understand what the argument was about.

You don't know what you are talking about as usual.
Again, I wasn't arguing about Mark's position. That is not the point of contention here. I personally don't dose up on huge amounts of vitamins and I wouldn't recommend anyone to do so.
However I certainly wouldn't tell a clinically depressed person that the RDA of vitamins is enough. There is no proof of this. I might point out to them that the RDA has a disclaimer that it is for healthy people, people whose physiology is already in balance. But I would be much more likely to suggest such a person go see a doctor or two, maybe even a psychiatrist.
You on the other hand seem quite happy to offer medical advise without appropriate evidence to back it up, whilst hypocritically criticising a doctor for doing the same thing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 10:11 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 10:59 PM by Chippy.)
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 08:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You understood what I meant.

No, you don't understand what you are talking about. Anyone can "offer medical advice". Naturopaths, herbalists, accunpuncturists, homeopaths are not general practioners and they offer medical advice. There is no legal restriction in Australia or in the USA regarding offering medical advice. When someone tells you to eat prunes if you are constipated they are offering you medical advice, when someone tells you to apply isopropyl alcohol to your cut they are offering you medical advice, when someone tells you to use any OTC remedy they are offering you medical advice. The idea that medical doctors are the only people that can and do offer medical advice is patent nonsense. There exists no such restriction in any country that I am aware of. Advertisements on TV offer you medical advice.

"Practising medicine" as a medical doctor (as defined in law) is a completely different matter to "offering medical advice".

Quote:Again, I wasn't arguing about Mark's position. That is not the point of contention here. I personally don't dose up on huge amounts of vitamins and I wouldn't recommend anyone to do so.

On what grounds don't you recommend dosing up on huge amounts of vitamins?

Quote:However I certainly wouldn't tell a clinically depressed person that the RDA of vitamins is enough. There is no proof of this. I might point out to them that the RDA has a disclaimer that it is for healthy people, people whose physiology is already in balance.

"[W]hose physiology is already in balance" is meaningless nonsense. You are making an unsubstantiated fact claim about the nature of MDD. How do you know that people with depression don't need to wear tweed garments? There is no more reason to assume they have some special requirement in relation to any nutrient than therr is to assume their fashion preferences play a role in their syndrome.

The RDA represents the null hypothesis--no reason is required to recommend ingestion at the RDA for anyone unless specific evidence exists which suggests otherwise. Evidence is needed to recommend a deviation from the RDA. That is the simple point that you don't understand.

Quote:You on the other hand seem quite happy to offer medical advise without appropriate evidence to back it up, whilst hypocritically criticising a doctor for doing the same thing

The RDA is the evidence for recommending ingestion at the RDA that is why it is called the Recommended Daily Allowance. There is no more evidence to assume that depressed people need more magnesium than there is to assume that they need more Gatorade. The RDA stands unless a sub-population can be demonstrated to exist.

No further justification is required to recommend dosing at the RDA because it is the Recommended Daily Allowance.

You don't understand the nature of inferential statistics. Your point which you think is a killer argument is just a demonstration of your ignorance of experiment design and inference testing.

All therapeutic intervention proceeds on the basis that no special sub-population exists, that is what the null hypothesis represents. The RDA is appropriate for everyone until evidence is found that indicates otherwise. There is absolutely no reason to assume that people with MDD comprise a distinct sub-population with special needs regarding magnesium. None whatsoever. That is what the null hypothesis states. The purpose of a any study is to reject the null hypothesis. You are suggesting that the null hypothesis be rejected in advance of any evidence because you believe--on the basis of literally nothing--that depressed people don't have "physiology is already in balance". You are full of shit. You don't have any understanding of scientific hypothesis testing.

I'm not going to keep explaining how hypothesis testing, inferential testing and scientific method works to you. This is the 3rd time I've explained this to you.

The RDA is the "default position", the null hypothesis. No evidence is required to recommend dosing at the RDA beyond the evidence that established the RDA in the first place. Sub-populations need to be demonstrated to exist by running an experiment and rejecting the null hypothesis they can't be assumed to exist like you are doing.

You are another hack Indian programmer Indian that churns out awful code. You know nothing about philosophy, the biological sciences, pharmacology, biochemistry, inferential statistics or experiment design. Download a book on inference testing in the biomedical sciences and read the introductory chapters. Stop making an idiot of yourself by pontificating about things you have no clue about.

Do people with red hair need a higher dose of ibuprofen than the mean for the general population to relieve a headache? According to your idiot logic they do because they possess an arbitrary feature, namely red hair. Your idiot logic would assume that people with red hair comprise a distinct sub-population that the normal dose of ibuprofen doesn't apply. You'll have decided in advance that some people having red hair is significant in relation to their dosing requirement for ibuprofen. This is identical to what you are suggesting about depressed people. You've just decided that for some reason people with depression comprise a special sub-population in relation to magnesium requirement. Similarly, on your account someone with a deviated septum may also need more magnesium because (s)he is "different" to everybody else in that they have a deviated septum and most of the population doesn't. This is nonsense and it is what you are suggesting.

A foundational assumption of the biomedical sciences is that everyone belongs to the same population until evidence is produced that identifies a distinct sub-population. It is recommended that everyone is to be dosed on the same amount of ibuprofen until a study is produced that rejects the null hypothesis and shows that some sub-population exists. The same goes for the RDA.

This is the last time I will explain this to you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 11:10 PM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 10:11 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Evidence is needed to recommend a deviation from the RDA. That is the simple point that you don't understand.
What you struggle to understand is that recommending more than the RDA for unhealthy patients isn't a deviation.

Why isn't it a deviation?
Because the RDA only speaks of what is recommended for healthy patients.
It gives no recommendation for unhealthy patients, therefore no deviation can be made.

If we were recommending a higher dosage for healthy patients then that would be a different story. It would be a deviation from the recommendation that healthy patients have been given regarding the RDA.

But the RDA has nothing to say regarding unhealthy patients.

But it seem regardless of this fact, Chippy does make this recommendation.

Do you understand?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: