No, I don't see that you are somehow stealthily working with pharmaceutical giants to poison our minds.
It's simply the kind of daft posturing argument (often used by evangelical anti-vegetarians) that seeks merely to patronise and belittle their target victim.
If a person wishes to treat their cancer homoeopathically, give me a reason why they shouldn't.
It's their choice, the homoeopath isn't consciously trying to kill them after all, whether they are misguided or not.
Personally, I think if you're that concerned about people's well being, you should be concentrating on a less benign target.
Or maybe you don't really give a monkeys about the well being of people who take different types of medical remedy (as if you did you wouldn't waste time on harmless sugar-pill takers), but are merely using their plight as a sounding board or mouth-piece for an intelligent-sounding ego-boosting argument, that as mentioned above, serves only to belittle one party whilst also being quite self-aggrandising.
No, I don't see that you are somehow stealthily working with pharmaceutical giants to poison our minds.
It's simply the kind of daft posturing argument (often used by evangelical anti-vegetarians) that seeks merely to patronise and belittle their target victim.
If a person wishes to treat their cancer homoeopathically, give me a reason why they shouldn't.
It's their choice, the homoeopath isn't consciously trying to kill them after all, whether they are misguided or not.
Personally, I think if you're that concerned about people's well being, you should be concentrating on a less benign target.
Or maybe you don't really give a monkeys about the well being of people who take different types of medical remedy (as if you did you wouldn't waste time on harmless sugar-pill takers), but are merely using their plight as a sounding board or mouth-piece for an intelligent-sounding ego-boosting argument, that as mentioned above, serves only to belittle one party whilst also being quite self-aggrandising.