I stopped going to my local McDonald’s because they could NEVER get my order right. The last straw was when I ordered one cheeseburger and two hamburgers, and the clerk charged me for three cheeseburgers, two without cheese. Which would have been okay, except cheeseburgers cost more than hamburgers.
Wouldn’t that be a “lower concentration”? I mean, for someone who really believes in homeopathy.
You’re telling me that the employer expects the employee to lie? And just what basis do you have for that assertion?
Because the opposite would be that the employer, who sells homeopathic products, is okay with having his / her employees tell customers that these products are ineffective. There are no factually accurate statements you can make about homeopathic products that would not put people off from purchasing them other than “they use a lovely typeface” or “this product will not actively harm you.”
Why would an employer stock products that he / she expected employees to discourage customers from purchasing?
Admittedly, part of this is based on the assumption than a store selling homeopathic remedies is more interested in profits than ethics.
I worked on a client-facing project that would have an interim process and then a final one (the programming was going to take a while, hence two processes).
The idiot account manager kept referring the the final process as “The final solution.”
The client representative we were working with was Jewish.
Personally, I am not familiar with homeopathy. Your argument depends on the assumption that the tenets of homeopathy are * ipso facto * false. I didn’t start out with any assumption. Before I accept anything else you say on the matter you’ll have to show some documentation.
This is akin to asking me to prove that centaurs do not exist because you are above making assumptions. You can start with the first paragraph of wikipedia, and move on to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
You don’t really need to go that far, though: common sense and a dictionary definition of homeopathy should do it.
I don’t know that this is as much stupidity as me weeping for the future of our country.
I was at the drive-in and my bill came to $6.21. Wanting to get rid of some change and because my mind works like that, I gave the nice teenager $21.21. He started to enter the payment, dropped the change in the register then turned back, clearly staring at the $21 in his hand. “Um-I think I entered it wrong. How many dollars do I need to give you?” he asked. While I was sorely tempted to say “45” I did actually give him the right answer but was very displeased to see a teenager who apparently cannot subtract 6 from 21.
While that is the “dictionary” definition of homeopathy, i.e. water, in my experience many people will call any sort of “natural” or “alternative” remedy homeopathic. And while there are still plenty of problems with such things, not all of them will do nothing the way a “true” homeopathic remedy will.
I suspect that a lot of the disagreement about “homeopathy” is that a skeptic is more likely to be talking about it in a strict sense, while someone more open to it probably has a broader definition of what they think homeopathic means.
I was talking with a co-worker/friend the other day, about the Jesse Ventura lawsuit.
(Jesse won 1.8 mil from estate of a famous sniper, who libelled Jesse in his book.)
I mentioned that, from this Message Board, it was pointed out that people were shocked that he would sue an estate, leaving the widow desolate. From the SDMB, I pointed out that said widow’s legal costs were paid by others, and she would, at minimum, have something like 4.2 mil left.
My friend said “Yeah, but, I’d have more respect for Jesse if he turned around and gave the widow a check for 1.8 mil.”
My head spun, and is, yet, spinning.
You could have simply provided the links. Your first sentence was unnecessary, at least the way it was phrased; I don’t like being sassed.
That is some prime stupidity there. I’ve heard of people saying they’re just suing as a matter of principle and giving the award to charity. But I’ve never heard of anyone giving the award back to the person they just sued.
Then you came to the wrong message board to express your opinions on homeopathy.
His opinion being “I don’t know what this is”? I thought we were about fighting ignorance here.
And as I earlier pointed out, even people who do think they know what homeopathy is don’t always agree.
I’ve a number of Jewish friends (and relatives) who wish God would occasionally choose some other people.
That is actually true among the hoity toity breeders. Once the bitch has been mounted by a non-purebred, then none of her pups are considered purebred, even if from a later litter. That’s just weird and makes no sense, but neither does the intentional inbreeding of dogs.
Then you have just confessed to having very poor manners. I have NO opinions on homeopathy.
To get back to the main subject of the post I responded to, if I were an employee at such a place I would tell customers that I have no knowledge of the subject matter and suggest they take it up with the store manager. Quite seriously, this is a way to “cover my ass” should any advice given prove useless–or worse–putting the store manager at risk of prosecution or litigation (respondeat superior). When I was a security guard, I refused to give out detailed information on LACOE, leaving a visitor to seek this from the agency’s officials.
Uh, guys, as the OP I started this thread to be amusing, not to have a GD over certain issues, and certainly not to be snarky at each other.
If you don’t mind could we please just go back to having amusing anecdotes of stupidity we’ve heard, without the back and forth on issues that belong elsewhere?
Thanks.
Then those people with a “broader definition” of homeopathy are wrong. It is very specific, and if Samuel Hahnemann were here, he would tell them, although I have a sneaking suspicion that if Hahnemann were here, and saw what modern, evidence-based medicine had become, he would tell everyone to stop the homeopathy RIGHT NOW, and start taking antibiotics and vaccines, and NSAIDS, etc.
It used to be the AKC’s policy, but now, they run DNA tests if a dog’s background is questionable, or the provenance is unclear. I think the actual reasoning for the policy was that a bitch needed to breed “true,” always, in order to be useful as a breeder, because some dogs look purebred, but are not. People might claim that their supposed purebred Snooty-hound had had a litter of mixed pups because the neighbors mutt had jumped the fence, but the truth was that Snooty-hound had a questionable grandparent.
The policy discouraged people from lying, and it also made people take extra care with their breeding dogs, so that there were fewer litters of unwanted puppies.
I’m pretty sure the AKC has done away with the policy, and even has a system of provisional pedigrees for dogs whose DNA tests are not complete. The news has not filtered its way down through the general public yet.
Part of fighting ignorance is pointing out that Google exists. I’ve had people complain about my English when their actual problem was that I’d spoken about institutions they weren’t familiar with. Google would have kept them from getting the Sesame Street treatment.
To the moderator: Baker’s most recent post makes a good point. If there is an issue about homeopathy here, why not put it in its own thread (and a different forum, if appropriate)? Transferring the pertinent part of Rivakh Chaya’s (sp?) Thread, No. 258, would start it off properly.