Smashing the Vegetarian Vaccination Binary! #BecauseScienceIsStillAThing
-
So that whole vegetarian thing will take care of itself, given a long enough timeline.
-
I don't mind vegetarians so much as I loathe the "organic"/"natural"/anti-GMO crowd, whom I dub as "anti-science"
-
I once got blocked on Twitter after asking exactly what was in a "chemical free" organic skincare product that was retweeted into my timeline. Apparently it's not magic and Unicorn farts
-
I once got blocked on Twitter after asking exactly what was in a "chemical free" organic skincare product that was retweeted into my timeline. Apparently it's not magic and Unicorn farts
Was it a homoeopathic one which was basically a jar with a vacuum inside it,?
-
-
I once got blocked on Twitter after asking exactly what was in a "chemical free" organic skincare product that was retweeted into my timeline.
Sounds like you resolved the problem of getting spammed.
-
I don't mind vegetarians so much as I loathe the "organic"/"natural"/anti-GMO crowd, whom I dub as "anti-science"
My favorite silly joke of all time is,
"Do you know how to tell if someone is a vegetarian?"
"No, how?"
"Don't worry, they will fucking tell you."But yes, the organic/anti-GMO crowd are the worst of the worst. They look behind them, and way off in the distance is that line of rationality that they crossed long ago.
-
I would just ask them: "Organic food eh? So you like overpaying for your food? Gotcha..."
-
Maybe I took one too many chemistry classes, but isn't all food organic? And inorganic food would be plastic or some other manufactured polymer?
-
Yeah, it is a made up marketing term like "the cloud".
-
And inorganic food would be plastic or some other manufactured polymer?
Plastics are typically organic (carbon-based), so not even that.
-
@Intercourse said:
like "the cloud".
Except it has a well-defined meaning. Whether that meaning is worth paying extra for is up in the air, and they shouldn't have co-opted a term that already had a well-defined meaning in science, but "organic" with regards to food means something, unlike "the cloud", which means jack shit.
-
-
Maybe I took one too many chemistry classes, but isn't all food organic? And inorganic food would be plastic or some other manufactured polymer?
I always think of salt, at which point a (different sort of) pedantic dickweed might argue the definition of food. And then there's water, of course.
-
I always think of salt
Just to add another layer to the ridiculousness that is "organic food":
http://www.amazon.com/Salt-Himalayan-Chemicals-Non-gmo-Organic/dp/B007V8A34M
-
Also their pricing is kind of wacky:
-
Also, free shipping on two but not the other. I wonder how many people just buy 1lb without looking?
-
I don't mind vegetarians so much as I loathe the "organic"/"natural"/anti-GMO crowd, whom I dub as "anti-science"
I'm not against GMO per say. I am against hiding the fact that it's GMO. Whatever happened to being able to choose what you put in your body?
As for science, isn't it rather unscientific to run this GMO experiment without a control? Because GMO plants are not a separate species; the do cross-breed with the native stuff.
I could go on, but I'm on my droid and arguing an unpopular position isn't worth the effort.
-
I'd agree with this. There's no such thing as too much data.
What gets me is all the "GMO's will kill you in 12 microseconds!" foaming-at-the-mouth nonsense.
-
I am against hiding the fact that it's GMO
Every thing you eat has been engineered over countless centuries to maximize usable output while minimizing waste and effort. I can make you stickers with the previous sentence to stick on all your food packages if you like.
-
I'm not against GMO per say. I am against hiding the fact that it's GMO.
Where do you draw the line? Every food is genetically modified. I am in no way against GMO, I am only against corporate ability to patent a genome and force farmers to stop using their heirloom seed stock when cross breeding happens.
-
Every thing you eat has been engineered over countless centuries to maximize usable output while minimizing waste and effort. I can make you stickers with the previous sentence to stick on all your food packages if you like.
It's one thing to select which livestock get to breed. It's quite another to introduce a poison a-la-Monsanto (think Roundup) into the very genetic structure of your food. I have a problem with the latter.
And above: per se, not say. Freakin' spell check, and I can't edit it...
-
It's quite another to introduce a poison a-la-Monsanto into the very genetic structure of your food. I have a problem with the latter.
As someone who grew up on a farm and tended to get completely soaked in various Monsanto chemicals while repairing sprayers, I think their stuff is actually pretty safe.
-
So what you want is not labelling of GMOs, but labelling of specific modifications that you believe to be harmful to the human body. We already have laws mandating recall or labelling of things that are shown to be harmful to the human body...
-
It's one thing to select which livestock get to breed. It's quite another to introduce a poison a-la-Monsanto into the very genetic structure of your food.
How do you know that it isn't?
-
Not to mention just how many of our foods are mildly poisonous to us, but not enough to ever matter.
-
You misspelled "chemikillz"
-
Exactly my point, see above re: experiment with no control.
-
I think would should just label non-GMO food.
-
I think would should just label non-GMO food.
I just did that right now.
Filed Under: About as easy as labeling all the unicorns in the world.
-
As someone who grew up on a farm and tended to get completely soaked in various Monsanto chemicals while repairing sprayers, I think their stuff is actually pretty safe.
That explains a lot about you.
-
I think about now, if I were Doing It Right, I should say something like:
Back on topic, since zero meaningful moderation occurs on this site:
But topic drift is SOP around here, and I am more than OK with that. ;)
-
Exactly my point, see above re: experiment with no control.
I have no clue what your point is, actually. It seems like you're just making stuff up.
-
I have no clue what your point is, actually. It seems like you're just making stuff up.
Next thing we know, you will be saying that same thing about Jenny McCarthy and her crusade against autism.
-
"Non GMO salt"
That's got to be a Rose 'O Donnell level of steel doesn't melt.
So, we excavate steel in beam columns.
And salt grows on trees.
-
I don't think we can find non-GMO anymore.
Unless you think that breeding is not genetic manipulation.
The corn we have today, so different from maize.
-
Also, corn was originally completely undigestable unless it had been processed with lye to modify the starch molecules. So sweet corn is a pretty modern invention.
-
I have no clue what your point is, actually. It seems like you're just making stuff up.
Cross-pollination between organic and GMO wheat has already occurred. There's even been at least one lawsuit filed over it.
So how do I know my "organic" wheat is really organic (or vice versa)? The choice has already been taken away from us long term as GMO wheat is already in the wild and thus cross-pollination contaminating organic wheat will eventually occur everywhere. This is the global experiment I am referring to - we have no "control" in that we don't have an area we're keeping indefinitely isolated from GMO, to say nothing of another planet, to compare against.
Personal obervations: I never had bread products make me sleepy in my teenage years. In my 20's and later, yes. If I eat organic bread - guess what? No sleepy after effect. So there's something to having the Roundup injected in the genetic structure that does have a negative effect, however mild you want to call it. I have not been able to find any other differentiating factor.
@Intercourse said:
Next thing we know, you will be saying that same thing about Jenny McCarthy and her crusade against autism.
My older son is autistic. Jenny McCarthy's book helped my wife look into 1) Stopping immunizations, 2) detoxifying him, 3) putting him on an organic diet, all of which has led to his "remarkable recovery" (his doctor's words). So I've seen that personally. It is doing research to salvage him that led to our awareness of GMO and its adverse effects.
*Potential diatribe about corporations only caring for profit, Monsanto's near unlimited resources, etc. redacted as it's not funny or informative.*
-
-
My older son is autistic. Jenny McCarthy's book helped my wife look into 1) Stopping immunizations, 2) detoxifying him, 3) putting him on an organic diet, all of which has led to his "remarkable recovery" (his doctor's words). So I've seen that personally. It is doing research to salvage him that led to our awareness of GMO and its adverse effects.
On that note, I may have to leave my own thread.
-
And one hell of a case of confirmation bias.
-
Sounds like an experiment without a control to me.
Touché. Though, in all fairness, I didn't realize I was in one until well after it started.
-
Jenny McCarthy's book helped my wife look into 1) Stopping immunizations
I will just leave this here:
Penn & Teller: Bullshit! - Vaccinations – 01:30
— Joni Finne
-
@Intercourse said:
And one hell of a case of confirmation bias.
- As if every online reference "study" you ever find can't possibly be biased?
- If you can't trust your own observations, where does that leave you?
Before I had the experience gained with my son, I sounded like most of you guys in this thread here.
You may want to try exclusively organic for a full week and see how you feel after that. This is not as easy as it may sound. as it includes no soda, no candy bars that can be found in a 7-11, etc. Don't take my word for it. In fact, I expect you not to take my word for it. I encourage you to find out for yourself so there's no doubt.
-
@Intercourse said:
I will just leave this here:
Whether my son dies of smallpox or mercury poisoning from immunization needle #12 (cumulative effect), he's just as dead.
But that's an "acceptable risk", right? A cure that saves 1000 and kills one is acceptable?
Ordinarily, of course, yes. But when that one is likely to be your son, you're a lot more willing to take your chances in the other direction.
EDIT: All I ask is that you don't take away my choice on that, either by withholding information or passing laws mandating I do something detrimental to me.
-
1) As if every online reference "study" you ever find can't possibly be biased?
Absolutely they can, you just ignore them. @GOG posted one a while back and it took me moments to see the BS that lie within.
2) If you can't trust your own observations, where does that leave you?
With a lack of anecdotal evidence, which is not entirely a bad place to be. Anecdotal evidence is highly susceptible to confirmation bias and that particular bias is almost impossible to combat. Especially so when it pertains to something as emotional as our children.
You may want to try exclusively organic for a full week and see how you feel after that. This is not as easy as it may sound. as it includes no soda, no candy bars that can be found in a 7-11, etc. Don't take my word for it. In fact, I expect you not to take my word for it. I encourage you to find out for yourself so there's no doubt.
No thank you. If you think organic food is all roses and rainbows, think about this: There is no way to grow food profitably without fertilizer and pesticides. Especially the pesticides. Organic food is just saddled with very old pesticides, like copper sulfate. If you are so worried about GMO's, take a look at the effects of copper sulfate. That shit is evil, and it does not wash off as easily as conventionals. Copper sulfate alone is enough cause for me to not buy overpriced organics.
-
@Intercourse said:
There is no way to grow food profitably without fertilizer and pesticides.
How did we survive for thousands of years before pesticides, etc. were invented?
-
I've shared my data. You've rejected it. I think we're done here. ;-)
-
Whether my son dies of smallpox or mercury poisoning from immunization needle #12 (cumulative effect), he's just as dead.
See, this is where the conversation breaks down and leaves rationality behind. We are not talking about elemental mercury, we are talking about thimerosal which is a mercury compound and a very effective preservative for vaccines and other medical goods. Completely different things.
But that's an "acceptable risk", right? A cure that saves 1000 and kills one is acceptable?
If that were the choice, which it is not, then yes. Absolutely. I would rather my son be part of the thousand than part of the one, which is where odds would put him.
EDIT: All I ask is that you don't take away my choice on that, either by withholding information or passing laws mandating I do something detrimental to me.
What about choices that are made that are highly detrimental to society as a whole, like undermining herd immunity? We are already seeing this anti-vaccination movement causing a resurgence in diseases that we had long since eradicated here in the USA. THAT is the real harm.
-
Home - eCanadaNow
