Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

No evidence' on running shoe safety

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Boots n all, Oct 3, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Horseman42

    Horseman42 Banned

    My logic is not flawed. Just because a majority of people choose something does not make it the default position. In the 50's most people smoked, did that make smoking the default position? Most people in the US are Christian, does that make Christianity default?

    The default position in the most natural or non position. For example the default position to driving in cars is not driving in cars. Default to flying in areoplanes is not flying in areoplanes. If cars and planes were not proven to be safe to some degree it would be rational to walk everwhere.

    Where is the evidence for the running shoes??
     
  2. HorseMan:

    How do you type your messages on Podiatry Arena. You use a keyboard. Were keyboards used millions of years ago by your ancestors? No.

    Where is the safety data on keyboards, but you still use them on a regular basis? The answer?...you still use them and never thought that these devices could possibly harm you even though your caveman ancestors didn't use them.

    Do you realize, HorseMan, that there is more scientific research showing that keyboards can be harmful to your health than there is data that shows that running in running shoes can be harmful to your health? However, you still use keyboards regularly...why the inconsistency in your arguments?

    Wait, let me anwer for you since I already know what the truth is.

    You are a member of the Church of Barefoot Running and think that Christopher McDougall represents the second coming. Your religious fervor for "all-things-barefoot" has completely eliminated any common sense you would have otherwise since you not only speak nonsense but are also a hyprocrite.

    Why are you a hypocrite? Because every day wear and use things that have been shown to be unsafe or have never had safety testing done on them. Cars, bicycles and keyboards have all been shown to cause death and injury, were never used by your early ancestors, but you still use them even though they have been shown to cause death and injury. Alcohol causes death and disease and you probably still drink.

    But, HorseMan, still you only focus on running shoes because this is what your Messiah McDougall has told you in his Bible, "Born to Run"?!

    Here are just a few of the many papers on the harmfulness of keyboards. Time to give up the keyboard, HorseMan, and go back to taking off all your shoes, taking off all your clothes, quit using your cell phone, computer, telephone, pen, pencil, car, bicycle, antibiotics, and medicines, to name only a few things. Then go out and start hunting and gathering like your beloved ancestors, live in a cave or hut in the woods, and don't rely on a grocery store or restaurant to buy your food. It is only in these ways that you can be "truly natural" and your running shoe paranoia can be soothed.

     
  3. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Simply stating that does not make it true. You have presented nothing to convince me that you are right except you saying you are right! Have you not noticed that NOTHING in your logic or arguments is convincing anyone?
    Where is the evidence for barefoot?
     
  4. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Time to close this thread; its going no where.
     
  5. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    If a thread is closed, then that is NOT an invitation to re-litigate the same issues in another thread. We can't be bothered with fools around here.
     
  6. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    This is worth adding to this thread:

    Naturalistic fallacy

    In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of natural entities, or properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.[1]

    Moore's naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the is–ought problem, which comes from David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature (1738–40). However, unlike Hume's view of the is–ought problem, Moore (and other proponents of ethical non-naturalism) did not consider the naturalistic fallacy to be at odds with moral realism.

    The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature, which is exemplified by forms of reasoning such as "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesirable." Such inferences are common in discussions of medicine, sexuality, environmentalism, gender roles, race, and carnism.

     
  7. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    and this:

    Appeal to nature

    An appeal to nature is a rhetorical technique for presenting and proposing the argument that “a thing is good because it is ‘natural’, or bad because it is ‘unnatural’.”[1] In debate and discussion, an appeal-to-nature argument is considered to be a bad argument, because the implicit primary premise: What is natural is good has no factual meaning beyond rhetoric.

    1. ^ Edward Moore, George (1922). Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 45.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page