Stupid shit in Medellin

[Huacho]

It would not be necessary for vegans to eat meat to have an effective study. Take a statistically significant sample of vegans, then a similar sample from non-vegans from the same general population. Follow them going forward, testing them regularly. Then see what % of vegans test positive vs. Non-vegans, and is that difference statistically significant, and at what level of confidence. Then follow the vegans who test positive and the non-vegans and see what % from each group gets hospitalized. Then follow the hospitalized groups and see which % of vegans vs. Non-vegans dies. And so forth. It's essentially the same procedure you would do with studying vaxxed vs. Non-vaxxed, or vaxxed with Moderna vs. Vaxxed with Sputnik.

Oh, and if makes me a morally unsound person, sometimes I use honey if I can't find agave syrup. Of course, afterwards I do a two week cleansing with seaweed and linseeds, plus high colonics and of course a thorough regimen of Vitamin See, Vitamin Dee, zinc, ivermectin, and bleach injections.

[ScatManDoo]

Its nothing to do with statistics. Its about morality. You would be asking people who are ethically bound not to participate, to participate. And for what beneifit? To conduct some statistical research.

You would be asking vegans to be willing to become animal abusers for sake of statistics. Thats not likely. And don't forget, both groups would need to be willing to do it. And then there is the question of time. How long would a vegan need to consume meat and diary for before they lose the benefit of the diet they had been following? And vice versa too?

You might think you could do it with plant-based people. But even they. They are usually plant based for the environment. So again, asking them to sacrifice their morals and destroy the environment for the sake of a study. Or thy do it for health. Ask them to sacrifice their health. Maybe their lives for the sake of a study. Totally ridiculous idea.

It really is a totally stupid hyperthetical study that would never achieve anything.

You are so stupid.

In a double blind study the researchers would not know if each subject was vegan or not.

Plenty of vegan and non-vegan subjects in the world makes you prior quote insanely stupid:

Absolute nonsense. Do you even know what a double-blind study is? How many vegans do you know who would participate in such a study? What you are asking for is impossible. I said there is "research". The type of research, you simply made up.

[JustTK]

Your lack of statistics knowledge is laughable.
You think 75 million vegans is not a large enough group from hich to select a group to study from.

Its nothing to do with statistics. Its about morality. You would be asking people who are ethically bound not to participate, to participate. And for what beneifit? To conduct some statistical research.

You would be asking vegans to be willing to become animal abusers for sake of statistics. That's not likely. And don't forget, both groups would need to be willing to do it. And then there is the question of time. How long would a vegan need to consume meat and diary for before they lose the benefit of the diet they had been following? And vice versa too?

You might think you could do it with plant-based people. But even they. They are usually plant based for the environment. So again, asking them to sacrifice their morals and destroy the environment for the sake of a study. Or thy do it for health. Ask them to sacrifice their health. Maybe their lives for the sake of a study. Totally ridiculous idea.

It really is a totally stupid hyperthetical study that would never achieve anything.

[JustTK]

Seems you would have to ask the "economically disadvantaged" if they are being taken advantage of. They may actually see it as their lucky day or a blessing and not as them being taken advantage of. That is like the western do-gooders that want to close sweat shops.
And who among us would be offering up our services if we did not need what is in our bosses' or clients' wallets? The reality of life is that people work for money regardless of what type of work it is.
At which price point does it turn from him taking advantage to him being taken advantage of? At which price point is it even steven where no party is taking advantage of the other? Is an advantage a robbery when all parties agree to it?

Agree with all your points apart from one Mr E. Of course there are degrees of exploitation. The exploitation that vegans generally use is the type that causes suffering on one party. It does not include inherent exploitation that takes place between 2 consenting adults that live in a capitalist world, where all forms of transaction could be regarded as some form or degree of exploitation. I certainly do not regard my purchase of sexual services from a consenting adult to be exploitation. I have heard feminists argue the case but I do not agree with them. I do not hold the act of sex in such high esteem that it is almost some sort of holy-enshrined act. It is just a fuck. Big deal. No exploiation.

Taking advantage of cheaper markets? Do Japanese exploit the rest of the world in this manner, Do Swedes, Norwegians, Danes? There are expensive places to live, and cheap places to live. I am from a developing country and Colombiia is no cheaper than my home anyway.

The only thing I disagree with you is on uh-hum, the sweter shops Mr E. Sry, but I am one of those do-gooders. These places exist bcos of a corrupt political system where rules of developing countries profit individually by allowing rish companies in to their countries under exploitative contracts to extract profit from the developing countries, at the expense of the poor people. No rights, no protection, no unions. You could argue that, well, smthg is better than nothing. But having a decent job and not being exploited by the rich and powerful from both countries would be even better! And that IS an option, if they wer ruled by non-corrupt leaders. But that is not possible, bcos the USA would start a war against them if they did that.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts...out-sweatshops

And finally, about judging. I say again, we all judge one another every hour of every day. I know that JB, PIQ97, and Criminal have all judged me. Equally I judge them. If you do not accept that, then you are being dishonest.

[Mr Enternational]

yet you take advantage of the economically disadvantaged in order to get cheap pussy.

Seems you would have to ask the "economically disadvantaged" if they are being taken advantage of. They may actually see it as their lucky day or a blessing and not as them being taken advantage of. That is like the western do-gooders that want to close sweat shops. Better the people have no job at all than to get paid what is normal or maybe even above average for that type of job in that particular place because it does not meet the do-gooder's country's standards.

The cold, hard truth is that none of the women we enjoy would be offering up what's in their pants if they didn't need what's in our wallets. That's the reality of life.

And who among us would be offering up our services if we did not need what is in our bosses' or clients' wallets? The reality of life is that people work for money regardless of what type of work it is.

but they deliberately seek out the most economically disadvantaged women in third world countries, in order to pay the lowest possible price for pussy

At which price point does it turn from him taking advantage to him being taken advantage of? At which price point is it even steven where no party is taking advantage of the other? Is an advantage a robbery when all parties agree to it?

[JjBee62]

I am a vagitarian. I eat pussy. No other meat / animals. Barely any dairy. I don't think your analogy really holds up but I do agree none of us need to judge each other for our life choices or claim moral superiority over each other.

Unless you a re trump supporter-then you have no morals to claim any superiority with LOL.

I agree with all of the above except when someone has claimed moral superiority, which you stTK has done more than once.

The cold, hard truth is that none of the women we enjoy would be offering up what's in their pants if they didn't need what's in our wallets. That's the reality of life. The lion eats the slowest gazelle.

However, when someone claims they're morally superior, because they don't eat meat, but they deliberately seek out the most economically disadvantaged women in third world countries, in order to pay the lowest possible price for pussy, then that claim of moral superiority is bullshit.

[JjBee62]

Me too. But then that's between consenting beings. Usually, although I must confess to taking an ocassional niblble of a sleeping beauty. Hehe.

Not judging. If we are honest no one can say that they do not judge. We do it every hour of every day. Lets be honest about it.

And claiming moral superiority. I think there is a place for that. Lets take an example. There are 2 men, equal in every way, except one just happens to murder innocent beings for his own pleasure. Can't we agree that the other person is morally superior?

No. Not when the "morally superior" person murders innocent beings by proxy.

Unless you're living in a cave, using only tools you made, eating only food you've grown, you have agreed that the murder of innocent beings, as you put it, is perfectly acceptable. Every single aspect of your life depends upon placing human comfort over animal life.

Every time you board a plane or get in a car, you're saying "fuck the animals." Every time you turn on a light or connect to the internet, you're declaring you don't give a shit about animal life. Every time you eat anything you didn't grow yourself, you're indifferent to the animals that died just for you.

That's ignoring the biggest issue, if all of us morally inferior people join you on your pedestal. What happens to the billions of animals which are in the food chain? Most can't survive on their own and you can't expect someone to pay to keep them. So what's the solution? I asked you before and you ran away. I'm certain you'll run away again.

For the record I'm supportive of anyone's dietary choices. When I cook for others I provide options which are acceptable to everyone.

I'm just not accepting of anyone who takes advantage of all the conveniences and luxuries of modern life and then claims superiority because they don't eat any of the flesh of the animals that have to die every day for them.

[JustTK]

I am a vagitarian. I eat pussy. No other meat / animals. Barely any dairy. I don't think your analogy really holds up but I do agree none of us need to judge each other for our life choices or claim moral superiority over each other..

Me too. But then that's between consenting beings. Usually, although I must confess to taking an occasional niblble of a sleeping beauty. Hehe.

Not judging. If we are honest no one can say that they do not judge. We do it every hour of every day. Lets be honest about it.

And claiming moral superiority. I think there is a place for that. Lets take an example. There are 2 men, equal in every way, except one just happens to murder innocent beings for his own pleasure. Can't we agree that the other person is morally superior?

[JustTK]

Your lack of statistics knowledge is laughable.
You think 75 million vegans is not a large enough group from hich to select a group to study from.

Thinking you can get them to murder animals for the sake of an experiment is laughable.

[Just Incognito]

You're just a regular fountain of irony today aren't you?

You judge people who eat meat the same as you judge murderers, because they are taking advantage of animals, yet you take advantage of the economically disadvantaged in order to get cheap pussy.

For most of the people here that doesn't matter, because most of us aren't claiming moral superiority. However, if you're going to judge everyone else, expect to be judged.

I am a vagitarian. I eat pussy. No other meat / animals. Barely any dairy. I don't think your analogy really holds up but I do agree none of us need to judge each other for our life choices or claim moral superiority over each other.

Unless you a re trump supporter-then you have no morals to claim any superiority with LOL.

[JjBee62]

Its a word that researchers use when they don't want to put their cock on the block.

No. It's a word researchers use when the results are not conclusive.

[ScatManDoo]

Now you are just talking nonsense instead of accepting that your challenge was ridiculous. What good would a study of 100 vegans be (assuming you could find them? We are talking about a virus with a very small death rate. You would need 1. 000's, if not 10.000's or 100.000's to find statistical variances that give enough confidence.

Your lack of statistics knowledge is laughable.

You think 75 million vegans is not a large enough group from hich to select a group to study from.

Hahahaha.

[Villainy]

LOL. So now you have gone from saying there is no evidence to not enough evidence. JustTK is right again in that doing a double blind study, something you say someone would do, would have to be huge to show benefit and be massively costly.

Furthermore given how Covid is changing like every 6 months, what was true today would not be true tomorrow. Veganism may have helped versus the first strains but be worthless against the next one.

And I do not have a dog in this fight outside of saying you were full of BS like usual.

I didn't make any comments on the results of the voluntary survey. But it certainly isn't anything that anyone would call "scientific".

My comment was that, as usual, you didn't even read the article that you quoted. Perhaps reading isn't a skill you've mastered yet? The article and the commentary make clear that there is nothing evident about the study with respect to whether a person is more or less likely to acquire CoVid. The hypothesis which requires a more scientific study is whether or not a vegan diet ameliorates the deleterious effects for those that do acquire the virus.

Read first, think second, Blather third.

[RamDavidson84]

OK, I was a little too aggressive in my retort. Let's just call it peace.

I was never at war to even call a peace, just bull shitting around. I am curious to know if you agree with the Austrian lockdowns and the Australian quarantine camps?

[JjBee62]

If you take your morality from a bunch of prehistoric sheep herders.

But I DO judge people who eat everything. For me, it's no different to judging those people that do not respect the lives of other humans. There is no material difference to me. We are just shaved apes, so why abuse apes, monkeys, or any other sentient being? We do not have that moral right. Not unless you are a prehistoric sheep herder. IMO.

You're just a regular fountain of irony today aren't you?

You judge people who eat meat the same as you judge murderers, because they are taking advantage of animals, yet you take advantage of the economically disadvantaged in order to get cheap pussy.

For most of the people here that doesn't matter, because most of us aren't claiming moral superiority. However, if you're going to judge everyone else, expect to be judged.