And yet, think of what would have happened if the child had survived. It would have been raised thinking that homeopathy is real medicine. It is, in a sense, beneficial for the rest of us for this child to perish and not spread the beliefs of its parents: a sort of natural selection on crockery.
What a ridiculous sentiment, Anonymous coward. Even if the child grew up believing in Homeopathy, it would be unlikely to hold this belief with the very rare degree of fervour exemplified by its parents.
There is also the possibility that the child wouldn't believe in homeopathy at all. At least, it would have been able to make up its own mind on the subject.
While Anonymous' comments are callous and cruel, they are to some extent also true. Had the child recovered it would have been used as proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy. And he is also correct in his assertion that had the child survived they most likely would have been advocates for homeopathy, if you doubt this examine how many catholic children grow up to practice catholism.
The benefit of the death is it reinforces how ineffective and dangerous homeopathy is. I've had the argument put forward to me countless times," even if it doesn't work what's the harm". Well, here is clearly outlined the harm. Can there be a benefit from the death, yes if it helps avoid others, sadly it won't. This death was so easily avoided, this issue so easily treated, but homeopathy is immune to failure and only "successes" matter.
So Anonymous is correct, even if he is crass in his way of saying it. And Corneel, if you thought about it for a moment you could see countless ways that the death of a child can be beneficial.
"Had the child recovered it would have been used as proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy."
Holding that up a living child as proof of homeopathy is ridiculous. It isn't proof. The argument is now that it is good that the child has died, otherwise people would make bad arguments premised on the fact that the child lived, and the public, presumably, would buy into those bad arguments.
Arguments for Homeopathy were as unsound before this child's death as after. This death is pointless and tragic.
The more I think about it, the more it angers me. For all we know, Gloria´s parents are kind and loving people. Just because they happen to have a misplaced faith in homeopathy, some people have decided that there is a good side to their little girl´s death. I think that is arrogant and disrespectful.
I cannot comment on if they are kind and loving people. They did however let their child die from eczema. They watched as a simple bit of dry skin got worse and worse until their child died. The choose not to see a doctor to solve such a simple condition, and still refused medical aid as it progressively got worse until the child DIED. My daughter has eczema, the thought of watching her die and not seeking aid other then diluted water is simply beyond my comprehension. I can understand people turning to all this woo in a sense of desperation when medicine can do nothing more for them, I can't understand not turning to medicine when you child is dieing from woo. Is this child's horrid death an example of the result of putting faith ahead of science. Yes absolutely, is it horrid yes absolutely, is it also a lesson...yes absolutely. here are a few more:
http://whatstheharm.net/
The death is tragic, more so because it was easily avoided, and there is the good that can come from instances like this; the lesson that homeopathy is not harmless it can kill you or worse your child.
And yet, think of what would have happened if the child had survived. It would have been raised thinking that homeopathy is real medicine. It is, in a sense, beneficial for the rest of us for this child to perish and not spread the beliefs of its parents: a sort of natural selection on crockery.
ReplyDeleteWhat a ridiculous sentiment, Anonymous coward. Even if the child grew up believing in Homeopathy, it would be unlikely to hold this belief with the very rare degree of fervour exemplified by its parents.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the possibility that the child wouldn't believe in homeopathy at all. At least, it would have been able to make up its own mind on the subject.
I second that. How can children dying in any way be beneficial for the rest of us?
ReplyDeleteWhile Anonymous' comments are callous and cruel, they are to some extent also true. Had the child recovered it would have been used as proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy. And he is also correct in his assertion that had the child survived they most likely would have been advocates for homeopathy, if you doubt this examine how many catholic children grow up to practice catholism.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of the death is it reinforces how ineffective and dangerous homeopathy is. I've had the argument put forward to me countless times," even if it doesn't work what's the harm". Well, here is clearly outlined the harm. Can there be a benefit from the death, yes if it helps avoid others, sadly it won't. This death was so easily avoided, this issue so easily treated, but homeopathy is immune to failure and only "successes" matter.
So Anonymous is correct, even if he is crass in his way of saying it. And Corneel, if you thought about it for a moment you could see countless ways that the death of a child can be beneficial.
Let's stop arguing about what Anonymous said, and start acting. Repost this everywhere you possibly can, we must shut these bastards down.
ReplyDelete"Had the child recovered it would have been used as proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy."
ReplyDeleteHolding that up a living child as proof of homeopathy is ridiculous. It isn't proof. The argument is now that it is good that the child has died, otherwise people would make bad arguments premised on the fact that the child lived, and the public, presumably, would buy into those bad arguments.
Arguments for Homeopathy were as unsound before this child's death as after. This death is pointless and tragic.
gingerbeard said:
ReplyDeleteHad the child recovered it would have been used as proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy.
Yes, that would have been terrible.
if you thought about it for a moment you could see countless ways that the death of a child can be beneficial.
No, I don't see that. If the only benefit is that it serves as an example to others, I don't think it outweighs the price.
The more I think about it, the more it angers me.
ReplyDeleteFor all we know, Gloria´s parents are kind and loving people. Just because they happen to have a misplaced faith in homeopathy, some people have decided that there is a good side to their little girl´s death. I think that is arrogant and disrespectful.
I cannot comment on if they are kind and loving people. They did however let their child die from eczema. They watched as a simple bit of dry skin got worse and worse until their child died. The choose not to see a doctor to solve such a simple condition, and still refused medical aid as it progressively got worse until the child DIED. My daughter has eczema, the thought of watching her die and not seeking aid other then diluted water is simply beyond my comprehension.
ReplyDeleteI can understand people turning to all this woo in a sense of desperation when medicine can do nothing more for them, I can't understand not turning to medicine when you child is dieing from woo.
Is this child's horrid death an example of the result of putting faith ahead of science. Yes absolutely, is it horrid yes absolutely, is it also a lesson...yes absolutely.
here are a few more:
http://whatstheharm.net/
The death is tragic, more so because it was easily avoided, and there is the good that can come from instances like this; the lesson that homeopathy is not harmless it can kill you or worse your child.