Discussion Board

What an interesting point of view, Berry. I'll take these as rhetorical questions. No need to be hostile. These posts are merely what people think about the interview, and my point is that we (those who disagree with Dr. McDougall's interview) should not be labeled as intolerant for disagreeing with him. I don't think it's called for in order to get a point across. I think that we're all intelligent enough to state our opinion without resorting to that.

I think that as someone who's known for being politically incorrect Dr. McDougall would probably appreciate this type of exchange. I know I do.

Maybe he did it too soon, but he did it for a good reason and if you listened to it live like I did, you can see that he was trying to promote healthier living and give reasons why it happened.

He is amazing, has been writing books since 1983 and not many people are listening. Yes he is sometimes politically incorrect...so is everything happening in this country. He had much respect and admiration for Tim Russert from the tone of his talk and maybe it didn't come across the same in a internet piece but he meant it to be informative.

For two weeks main stream america medical and reporters said "why did this happen??" He was trying to tell why...and I have had the da** bypass operation so Bill Clintons report was totally right also. I just wish someone had told me that info before I went thru it.

I watch BBC of America and they tell a totally different story over there about diet...heck you can't say anything in this country or you will be sued by someone, so it is frustrating to see people dying for no reason just because nobody in the news will tell the truth!!

Thank you, ncyg46, for your very insightful post that just beautifully captures the life, death, and tragedy of it all.

If you haven't already, you might like to send your message to Dr. McDougall directly. I'm sure he is collecting responses to publish in the next newsletter, as he has done in the past.

Pointing out a logical inconsistency in your argument isn't "hostility." When you point out a logical problem in a student's paper, this isn't "hostile," nor is it questioning the student's right to an opinion. It's a way of trying to clarify the student's thinking so that it makes sense in public discourse. An 'opinion' isn't very useful if it's not presented in such a way that others can understand and agree or disagree with it.

There were some other logical inconsistencies in your post. For example, is calling someone a namecaller a kind of namecalling itself? I would ask a student to re-think that and try to come up with a stronger argument. Another fallacy that comes up a lot is misconstruing someone else's point and then arguing against the re-invented point. In this case, you say you "should not be labeled as intolerant for disagreeing with" Dr. McDougall but of course that is a misinterpretation of what was said--I would have the student go back carefully over the previous material to show him this.

The level of discourse on this thread has improved quite a bit. The comments that I had raised objections to seem to have been deleted/edited by their authors--it appears that they have decided these were inappropriate. That's fine.

Now, as I keep repeating, and as apparently we are in agreement, disagreeing with Dr. McDougall and disagreeing with each other is perfectly appropriate. In fact, it's a good thing. BUT, if you are going to make any kind of disagreement with someone in a public sphere you'd better be prepared to work on that argument, improve it, and make it more comprehensible. Then you have to realize that others may not like your argument and be prepared to accept that or defend the argument effectively. Too often in internet discourse the "defense" of an argument is to attack the person challenging you--this is not only unpleasant, but is also indicative of lazy thinking. It is easier to get nasty than to make your point more clearly. You also have to be prepared for the possibility that during a discussion you may find that you were wrong in your argument, or that your argument needs to be adapted a bit in response to points made by others. Sometimes people have difficulty accepting this, as if they lose face by admitting they learned something, which is too bad. The organic development of a good argument through trial and error, testing and retesting, is a wonderful thing and leads to the most interesting and thoughtful kinds of ideas.

Regarding your reaction to Dr. McDougall's article, let me say to you what I said to ncyg46 above. Whenever there is a controversial article, Dr. McDougall publishes all the responses in the next newsletter, both pro and con. I am sure that he is interested in all of these. I would encourage you to formulate your objections into a letter and send this directly to him to be sure that he sees it. Of course, you might also post some thoughts on the forum but it's not always guaranteed he will see these.

AnnaS,

This is what I'm talking about. Your tone is so much better today. I appreciate your comments.

My comment about hostility wasn't in regards to her disagreeing or pointing out logical fallacies in my argument; it was in regards to the tone that she used. Ultimately, her comments did make me look at the other side of the issue, which is always good, but I sensed an angry tone from her and from others on this board from both sides of the issue. I don't think this topic or any topic is serious enough for us to get angry about. That's just my opinion, of course. I'm sure there are others that would disagree with that.

AnnaS, I think you're looking at this interview/subject solely from a logical perspective, and there's more than just the logical perspective when it comes to arguments. I can see that his interview makes sense logically, but it doesn't sit well with me spiritually or emotionally.

Pointing out a logical inconsistency in your argument isn't "hostility."
When you point out a logical problem in a student's paper, this isn't "hostile," nor is it questioning the student's right to an opinion. It's a way of trying to clarify the student's thinking so that it makes sense in public discourse. An 'opinion' isn't very useful if it's not presented in such a way that others can understand and agree or disagree with it.

This is in reference to your initial post. Calling a student a "bigot" or "intolerant" does not "clarify the student's thinking so that it makes sense." I'm sure you wouldn't do that in a classroom, right? Using that technique is namecalling and trying to discredit the person in order to make your argument stronger. You seem like an intelligent person, so I'm sure that you don't have to resort to that in order to make your point. Also, I think everyone's opinion was stated clearly on this board so that "others can understand and agree or disagree with it." It's just that some may have become angry by others' objections to the interview, and as a result, they may be trying to use certain tactics to run them out of the forum.

Now, as I keep repeating, and as apparently we are in agreement, disagreeing with Dr. McDougall and disagreeing with each other is perfectly appropriate. In fact, it's a good thing.

You are right. We are in agreement on this.

Regarding your reaction to Dr. McDougall's article, let me say to you what I said to ncyg46 above. Whenever there is a controversial article, Dr. McDougall publishes all the responses in the next newsletter, both pro and con. I am sure that he is interested in all of these. I would encourage you to formulate your objections into a letter and send this directly to him to be sure that he sees it. Of course, you might also post some thoughts on the forum but it's not always guaranteed he will see these.

Thanks for the suggestion. I think I may do that although I'm sure he's probably flooded with letters in response to that interview. I'm about to go eat some barbequed pork chops, leg quarters, and baked macaroni and cheese..... Just kidding! Have a Happy Fourth of July everyone!

I tried to be subtle with you but you didn't seem to get it. So I will try again.

You have either misunderstood my original post, are purposely misunderstanding it, or are twisting my words around to your own purposes. Your purpose seems to be to paint yourself as a victim, a 'martyr,' and some unnamed others as hounded, run out out of the forum. I just laughed out loud at this! No one has been chased out of the forum, it seems that any random person is welcome to come here and post whatever they want to say regardless of if they are actually following this program or not. It's about as open, free and public as you can get.

You keep saying I have called persons intolerant. That is not true, a.k.a. a lie. I objected to statements questioning Dr. McDougall's "religious values" which were inappropriate, untrue, unkind and showed a certain hypocrisy since those people are accepting Dr. McDougall's help. I also referred to these statements as "religious bigotry" in another post. Those are very strong words, but they are directed at the unfair comments themselves. Would I say this to a student about his writing? Of course. How else would the student learn to discern valid ideas from plain prejudice.

In making my remarks I hoped that people would consider that their criticism of Dr. McDougall need not include such an attack, and it seems that they did consider this as these comments were removed. I have no objection whatsoever to these very same people, or anyone else, stating their disagreements publicly about Dr. McDougall or his article. I have repeated this several times now and I mean it.

But, most importantly, I have not called anyone names, nor would I. Instead I would hope they might see the mistake in their behavior and correct it. I would ENCOURAGE any of these people, or anyone still interested in this tedious argument, to go ahead and articulate clearly what your concerns are. If you have religious concerns, these can be expressed in a way that is not hateful. It might be that you wouldn't feel comfortable discussing those on the forum--there seems to be a general consensus in our society that religion is a private matter, and so that sometimes leads to some discomfort. If that were the case, I would still counsel such a person to go ahead and explain their concerns clearly and openly in a letter to Dr. McDougall. I am quite sure he reads all his mail, and your thoughts may help him to better understand his audience.

There is nothing more I can say about this. I have explained myself clearly enough that I think most people understand me. I also think that most people can see that what you are doing in twisting my words around is dishonest. I leave it at that, and I see no need for me to continue this discussion.

I find it interesting, hasanismom, that you have been replying to Anna as if your first post never existed. If you are going to reference her initial post, it is only fair to keep it in context of your initial post. It was probably the most offensive post I have seen on this board in the last 5 years.

I've given this newsletter a lot of thought since I last posted. I thought the message was great and it's given me a lot to think about (I certainly don't want to be in a position where I'm thinking, "why didn't I make changes while I had the chance!").

Personally, I like the straightforwardness of Dr McDougall's writings (this piece reminded me a lot of Digestive Tune-Up). I just wondered how the Russert family would feel about it, especially since it was so soon after his death--but then, like someone else pointed out, the family should be more upset about the lies they'd gotten from the medical profession. And although we'll never know absolutely for sure what caused the plaque to rupture, it's not a jump to connect poor diet with what happened to him.

I tend to read things and wonder how other people will take in the information. When we use to go to church, for instance, I enjoyed going to a "seeker" church because I knew I could bring my mom since it was a good place for non-believers. The pastor spoke very differently at church than when he was with people that he knew were believers, and I thought that was great--it wasn't fake and he wasn't watering down the truth, but he had an ability to be able to talk in a way that non-believers could understand. That's how I see people like Dr Bernard, Dr Diehl (from CHIP), and Dr Esselstyn.

I see Dr McDougall like a pastor from a church who's really awesome at telling the truth and not being concerned about trying to make anyone feel good--the kind of conviction that's good for us, but that's best left for people that are already believers. Those were the churches where I'd be thinking, "wow, I'm glad I didn't bring my mom!"

So, I certainly don't mind the Russert interview, since it was sent to people who wanted to be on Dr McDougall's newsletter list. But my concern was that it was sure to get out to the rest of the internet, and "non-believers" (to use that analogy) probably won't get the message that was intended--although maybe it'll plant a seed for some people.

I couldn't think of another analogy other than the church one--I'm not trying to enter into the discussion of Dr McDougall's religion. I really think we need both kinds of people, and Dr McDougall is the only one I know of who has this approach right now and so I'm very thankful for him!

AnnaS,

In all fairness, maybe I have misunderstood your point of view. Maybe I got caught up with looking at the way it was delivered and not considering that you do not mean to come off as rude or condescending when you say things like "I tried to be subtle with you but you didn't seem to get it. So I will try again."

If you saw my post as being hateful then I definitely believe that I was mistaken as well. I do NOT hate Dr. McDougall or anyone on this board whether they agree with me or not, so I don't intend to put out hateful words. Maybe you are referring to another person; I don't know.

In no way do I want to come off as being a "matyr" or "victim." I just want to make my point clear as I'm sure most people on this board would like to as well. I didn't attack Dr. McDougall's religious beliefs, so maybe you're not referring to my post, and those posts that did, if they were erased, then I'm sure that they found that they may have said something out of line. I don't believe that what I said was out of line; hence, the reason my initial post is still on there.

There is nothing more I can say about this. I have explained myself clearly enough that I think most people understand me. I also think that most people can see that what you are doing in twisting my words around is dishonest. I leave it at that, and I see no need for me to continue this discussion.

Now, who’s trying to look like a victim here? I'm not twisting your words around. I just don't agree with some of what you've said in reference to people's posts and my own, and I brought it to the surface. That's all.

I understand and respect your wish to leave this topic alone.

P.S. Note to self...Stop watching this topic as well, and just concentrate on continuing to lose weight and get healthy.

Hahaha, that is so funny! To think that people changed their posts because of you, lol.
I know that I didn't, and neither did Kribby, Krista or anyone else that I noticed.

I feel that everyone should be able to post their honest opinions without being attacked.
I believe that Dr McDougall respects honesty, even if there is a disagreement with him.

Amazing.

I followed this thread from the start.

It is interesting to see that even among people who agree on one issue, there can be pretty strident disagreement on one or more of the Other Deadly Subjects - religion, politics, and child rearing.

No matter which truth is being talked about, there is always vicious opposition to it.

I noticed the interview format is a writing technique Dr. McDougall uses often, and it seems to me it's when he's explaining the more scientific/physiological information about his program and how nutrition and the human body works. I think he uses that format to keep the writing interesting and entertaining, rather than like a dry textbook. I noticed it in his Digestive Tune-Up book, the Second Opinion book, and some of his articles like this one.

I found the characters in the Digestive Tune-Up book especially humorous and sympathetic. He creates imaginary characters that ask really good questions - better questions than I would think to come up with - but that way you get to the heart of the matter. He also gives them personality.

In this case he used Russet's personality and an opportunity to reach a wider audience and teach people. Personally I enjoyed his Russet interview and my opinion is it's not offensive or in bad taste. Speaking as someone who was not really aware of who Mr. Russet was prior to his death, I feel the article paints Russet in a good light, just that what he didn't know is what killed him. I also feel the article does a good job explaining the true cause of Russet's heart disease, better than what the mainstream news has done.

Somehow I missed this jewel when it first came out, so I just read it. What I admire most is Dr. McDougall's tenacity and fearlessness in stating the truth and getting the information out there, despite the strong energy of resistance and the mass public hypnotism regarding diet. There is no one who can ever say to him "you withheld the truth, you didn't tell us, you gave no warning." Thank you for your bravery in being the messenger.