Thread: Stupid shit in Medellin
+
Add Report
Results 4,516 to 4,530 of 7075
-
12-15-21 19:48 #2560
Posts: 688It 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.
-
12-15-21 19:17 #2559
Posts: 2344Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
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:
Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
-
12-15-21 19:00 #2558
Posts: 1781Originally Posted by ScatManDoo [View Original Post]
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.
-
12-15-21 18:40 #2557
Posts: 1781Originally Posted by MrEnternational [View Original Post]
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.
-
12-15-21 17:28 #2556
Posts: 15925Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
-
12-15-21 06:46 #2555
Posts: 5465Originally Posted by JustIncognito [View Original Post]
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.
-
12-15-21 05:30 #2554
Posts: 5465Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
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.
-
12-15-21 03:21 #2553
Posts: 1781Originally Posted by JustIncognito [View Original Post]
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?
-
12-15-21 03:17 #2552
Posts: 1781Originally Posted by ScatManDoo [View Original Post]
-
12-15-21 01:26 #2551
Posts: 371I'm a Vagitarian
Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
Unless you a re trump supporter-then you have no morals to claim any superiority with LOL.
-
12-15-21 00:20 #2550
Posts: 5465Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
-
12-15-21 00:18 #2549
Posts: 2344Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
You think 75 million vegans is not a large enough group from hich to select a group to study from.
Hahahaha.
-
12-14-21 23:52 #2548
Posts: 651The Elvis School of Lunacy
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
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.
-
12-14-21 21:51 #2547
Posts: 387Originally Posted by Villainy [View Original Post]
-
12-14-21 21:07 #2546
Posts: 5465Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
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.