It is not a straw man to describe the general field of chiropractics as anti-science quackery. Just because some narrow physio-therapeutic component of chiropra

It is not a straw man to describe the general field of chiropractics as anti-science quackery. Just because some narrow physio-therapeutic component of chiropractics happens not to be quackery, doesn't make the general field respectable. You could claim that homeopathic therapies can promote good hydration. Hydration is important. But that doesn't make homeopathy respectable. Semantics matter. Why should I show any respect to people using the chiropractic label when the preponderance of practitioners are subluxation magicians and modern witch doctors?