4 ms·

You’ve changed the target of the argument far enough that I’ll consider my purpose achieved.

sirsinsalot 4y ago
Really? > Those places, let's not forget, deliver care often with a motive of indoctrination in to religion. It really is taking advantage of people who are vulnerable. Because I think i've provided more to backup my claim than your "nuh-huh!" replies. You changed target from _my_ claim they are used for indoctrination to their validity in science. Both refutations are dubious at best, it seems you have taken a position and are sticking to it, out of dogma. A bit like those who blindly follow religion. Like those people, I don't debate with them. It is pointless. Have a good day.
- comfypotato 4y ago
  I haven’t shifted my target since my first comment, and you have failed to argue against it. You have instead raised “America has problems” straw men and posited that 12-step philosophy is wrong. Pointing out your false statement that there’s no science behind 12-step programs was in direct defense of my original comment/argument’s claim about them being recommended/supported by the medical community. My previous source only denotes 12-step programs as “at least as good” instead of “superior”, but labeling a literature review as “dubious at best” implies science denial that would make this a worthless discussion. My “nuh-huh” reply regarding your use of the word indoctrination was in fact citing the AA preamble read every meeting: “AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization, or institution … neither endorses nor opposes any causes”. AA is technically a religion (in the US at least). In the positive sense, indoctrination is a correct word to use regarding what goes on in meetings. The common negative sense in which you’re aggressively using the word, implying hidden agendas/motives, is entirely false. Saying 12-step programs act directly opposite to the stated preamble would be a conspiracy theory also making this discussion worthless.

Really? > Those places, let's not forget, deliver care often with a motive of indoctrination in to religion. It really is taking advantage of people who are vulnerable. Because I think i've provided more to backup my claim than your "nuh-huh!" replies. You changed target from _my_ claim they are used for indoctrination to their validity in science. Both refutations are dubious at best, it seems you have taken a position and are sticking to it, out of dogma. A bit like those who blindly follow religion. Like those people, I don't debate with them. It is pointless. Have a good day.

comfypotato 4y ago
I haven’t shifted my target since my first comment, and you have failed to argue against it. You have instead raised “America has problems” straw men and posited that 12-step philosophy is wrong. Pointing out your false statement that there’s no science behind 12-step programs was in direct defense of my original comment/argument’s claim about them being recommended/supported by the medical community. My previous source only denotes 12-step programs as “at least as good” instead of “superior”, but labeling a literature review as “dubious at best” implies science denial that would make this a worthless discussion. My “nuh-huh” reply regarding your use of the word indoctrination was in fact citing the AA preamble read every meeting: “AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization, or institution … neither endorses nor opposes any causes”. AA is technically a religion (in the US at least). In the positive sense, indoctrination is a correct word to use regarding what goes on in meetings. The common negative sense in which you’re aggressively using the word, implying hidden agendas/motives, is entirely false. Saying 12-step programs act directly opposite to the stated preamble would be a conspiracy theory also making this discussion worthless.