Stupid shit in Medellin

[Elvis 2008]

If I did think that paying for sex were inmoral, I wouldn't be doing it.

To think that something is immoral yet go ahead and do it anyway! How disgusting is that ideology? In their world, they are not better than paedophiles.

JJ's comments were off the deep end, and I have to tell you as a meat eater I look at vegan as I would a Muslim looks at a Christian and vice versa. Of course, the Muslim and Christian think each of their religions are morally superior.

But when I have logically confronted people about the fallacies of religion, they ultimately say, "Okay it is not logical but I feel better when I go. " The irony is that people who are religious IMO and some studies have shown this to be true are healthier and happier. This is like the Santa Claus paradox if you logically and correctly accept Santa / God is not real, you do not get presents so why not believe in Santa / God as long as you can?

If I wanted to point out the flaws in veganism, I would say that by killing and eating a wild bear, I am actually saving the hundreds of other animals the bear would eat.

With regards to raising say pigs, I would point out that the pig I am raising and cared for got a chance at life before I ate it. Given the choice of a life ending in death and no life at all, I think all species would choose the former.

However, if you pinned me down, I would say that I just like eating meat and feel better when I do. There was a book called eat right for your blood type and it postulated that my blood type, O, did better with meat as we were the oldest blood type associated with hunting and gathering. The blood type A came about when man started to farm, and that type did better without or with less meat.

In addition, I am not a natural empath. I can turn it on if I need to, but it is not my default setting, so I can enjoy meat. However, I do get that empaths cannot do that. With them, they taste not just the meat but the flesh and cannot help but place them in the suffering an animal endured.

[ScatManDoo]

Of course they would have to choose vegans for the study you fkn moron. You are now banned along with the other 3 fkn morons here. Stupid byeond belief the lot of you.

Again you display that you have no idea of the difference between single-blind and double-blind studies.

In a single blind study, none of the participants is told anything relevant about what they receive (like real or placebo drugs).

The participants are also not told much of anything about who the other participants are, or what they receive.

The double-blind studies have the exact same information voids for the participants (outlined above).

But additionally most of the researchers are not told key information about the participants (I. Vegan vs, non-vegan) on a need to know basis.

This prevents most researcher bias by having them lack the knowledge about participants that could bias them.

Only a few select research administrators know complete participant profiles in well managed studies.

[JustTK]

108 doses per 100 people worldwide now. Spot the vaccine. Where is it? Haha. . Obvious. Super effective vax in securing the people against the virus. You guys really are like flat earhers, or young earthers. What evidence do you need to see before you finally accept that you have been fed BS?

Portugal ... 88% fully vaxd... 3rd highest vax rate in the world... going thru a 3rd covid wave now. Singapore, just passed its highest peak. S Korea now at record cases and deaths.

[Huacho]

You forgot the UV light therapy.

I live in the tropics at 1600 meters of elevation and take huge risks by like walking around without sunscreen or a hat. I was thinking that would cover it. Plus I stand in front of the microwave while it's cooking, and I do have half a roll of tin foil if anything goes wrong.

[Huacho]

Of course they would have to choose vegans for the study you fkn moron. You are now banned along with the other 3 fkn morons here. Stupid byeond belief the lot of you.

So, you fucking moron, in a double blind study, the researchers are unaware of the subjects' status because the research subjects were selected independently. Independent selection of the subjects is one part of the "double" blind process, meaning random selection from a given target population. Survey the target population and determine it is X% vegan and why% not.

Set up sample pools of vegans and non vegans. Use a statistically appropriate randomized (single blind) sample size with a finite population correction factor from each of the two pools. Then the second part of the double blind process (get it? Second part? Double blind?) is that the people performing the research and analysis must not know whether the subjects are vegan or not.

It's like you want to set up a fucking moron contest but assure in advance you'll win. That's not a double blind test either but you have a good shot at winning.

[ScatManDoo]

Of course they would have to choose vegans for the study you fkn moron. You are now banned along with the other 3 fkn morons here. Stupid beyond belief the lot of you.

Don't forget to burn all the books.

[JustTK]

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:

Of course they would have to choose vegans for the study you fkn moron. You are now banned along with the other 3 fkn morons here. Stupid byeond belief the lot of you.

[ScatManDoo]

Hey is it true that anti-vaxxers can no longer get into Colombia? Lmao jajaja.

Some cannot get into "cee or dee" rated restaurants.

Hahahaha.

[ShooBree]

Very few people do things which they think are immoral. That doesn't make them moral. It's just simple human rationalization at work.

Morality is determined by the wider community, not the individual. To determine if an act is moral all you need to do is ask your family, friends and neighbors.

That doesn't mean something the community considers immoral is right or wrong. Often the action is both moral and immoral, depending on the various communities you belong to.

For example, within the community of mongers there's nothing immoral about paying for sex. However, within the community of your high school reunion, it's probably immoral. Within the community of mongers, overpaying a prostitute is immoral, but within the community of prostitutes it's desirable behavior.

Morality is a tricky subject, because it's often used in a negative way. I'll use you as the example here.

You've claimed you're morally superior because you follow a vegan diet. Yet, rather than focusing upon the benefits of a vegan diet, you use it as an insult for anyone who disagrees with you. And as you've pointed out, being disrespectful and insulting is wrong.

Looking at the entire community of living creatures, there's nothing immoral about eating meat. From the bottom of the food chain to the top, digesting the flesh of other beings is the accepted norm. Even the plants take part in it, taking nutrients from the decay of other living things..

Blablabla, you're wrong.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/morality

When will you stop embarrassing yourself? You're way too stupid to try to lecture others.

[JjBee62]

If I did think that paying for sex were inmoral, I wouldn't be doing it.

To think that something is immoral yet go ahead and do it anyway! How disgusting is that ideology? In their world, they are not better than paedophiles.

Very few people do things which they think are immoral. That doesn't make them moral. It's just simple human rationalization at work.

Morality is determined by the wider community, not the individual. To determine if an act is moral all you need to do is ask your family, friends and neighbors.

That doesn't mean something the community considers immoral is right or wrong. Often the action is both moral and immoral, depending on the various communities you belong to.

For example, within the community of mongers there's nothing immoral about paying for sex. However, within the community of your high school reunion, it's probably immoral. Within the community of mongers, overpaying a prostitute is immoral, but within the community of prostitutes it's desirable behavior.

Morality is a tricky subject, because it's often used in a negative way. I'll use you as the example here.

You've claimed you're morally superior because you follow a vegan diet. Yet, rather than focusing upon the benefits of a vegan diet, you use it as an insult for anyone who disagrees with you. And as you've pointed out, being disrespectful and insulting is wrong.

Looking at the entire community of living creatures, there's nothing immoral about eating meat. From the bottom of the food chain to the top, digesting the flesh of other beings is the accepted norm. Even the plants take part in it, taking nutrients from the decay of other living things. Even the vegans take part in it. They just put on blinders and pretend that since the animal exploitation and death is indirect, they're okay with it.

I could have simplified all that by pointing out that if I do something, like eat meat, which I don't believe is immoral, then by your own words, it becomes moral. I could also point out that pedophiles don't consider their acts immoral, neither do rapists or murderers. However, since morality is another of the subjects you don't comprehend, I figured further discussion was necessary.

[BlackThought]

Hey is it true that anti-vaxxers can no longer get into Colombia? Lmao jajaja.

[JjBee62]

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.

You forgot the UV light therapy.

[JjBee62]

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?.

This could well be the stupidest thing you've posted.

In order to study whether or not a vegan diet provides protection against Covid, or anything else, it doesn't require vegans to stop being vegans. Not only would that be a ridiculous study, but it would have to continue for years, to determine how long it takes on a vegan diet to achieve the (assumed) added protection and how long after leaving the vegan diet before the protection fades.

It's really quite simple, it's how they do studies all the time, on practically everything. Let's take the effects of smoking on cardiac health. Using your method, first we would have to get a bunch of non-smokers, monitor their cardiac health for a few years, then get them all to start smoking and monitor their cardiac health for years. Sounds pretty fucking silly, doesn't it?

Instead you look at a large number of patients with cardiac health issues. You determine what percentage are smokers and use that as the foundation for your study. If it's an even, or nearly even split, then it's probably not an area which needs further study. However, if 75% of the cases involved smokers, then further study is warranted.

That's exactly what the small scale study you posted did. They took a group of people who had been exposed to Covid. They determined the dietary regimen followed by each, found out how many had tested positive for Covid and how many had been severely ill. From there it's a simple math problem to determine what level of protection might exist depending on diet.

However, that's just a preliminary investigational study (really useful for getting funding for further study). It showed the possibility that a vegetarian or pescatarian diet might improve patient outcomes. To determine if there is a definite link, a larger, more in-depth study needs to be done.

That's where a double blind study comes into play.

[JjBee62]

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.

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?

Back again for a spanking I see. I suspected you were a masochist.

Let's begin with your inability to grasp context. If you were able to grasp context, you would have noticed I was talking about a very specific situation, JustTK's claim of moral superiority. If it was anyone else, I'd be shocked they didn't grasp the context, because I specifically stated, quite clearly, that the discussion only applies to someone claiming moral superiority. However, your density is such that you're likely to collapse and form a black hole.

If anything you said was strictly limited to providing a means of income then it would make sense, in your case, that would be worth a trophy. But it doesn't work that way. The sweatshops don't provide safe and healthy work environments.

One of the big reasons to offshore jobs is to avoid health and safety regulations. Not only is the labor cost less, but governments are often willing to ignore safety rules if the right palms are greased. The Dhaka collapse which killed 1,100 comes to mind. Or there was Bhopal.

Now if you're talking about sweatshops that provide reasonable pay (for the area) and provide a safe work environment, well you're not talking about sweatshops. At what point is the death of 1,100 (or as many as 16,000) acceptable because, before they died the people were making good money?

Who among us would not immediately be looking for a different job if their employer was deliberately putting their life and health at risk? That's one of those bullshit idiotic things you've become famous for. Most of us have a choice. I could have a new job in less time than it takes to tell my boss I'm quitting. However, and this is where your inability to grasp anything really shines, you just stated that people working in sweatshops don't have any other options. So you're trying to compare people who have no choice, other than extreme poverty, to people who have an overabundance of choices.

It's not a matter of price point, especially since, as I clearly stated, this only applies to anyone who is claiming moral superiority. It's worth noting, you've managed to surpass your normal level of stupidity with this bit:

"At which price point does it turn from him taking advantage to him being taken advantage of?

Truly this is an unprecedented level of idiocy. How could that ever apply? I know this is asking an enormous effort from you, but for just one second in your life, think. The women in question live in Colombia. They are not flying to the UK and asking him to pay them for sex. When he's in Colombia, they aren't searching for him to ask him to pay them for sex. They have no way to coerce him into paying them for sex. If he doesn't pay them for sex he's not going to go hungry. Whether or not he pays them for sex has no effect on his ability to get medical care. He's not at risk of becoming homeless if he doesn't pay them for sex.

Does that make it clear enough for you? There is no price point where the prostitute is taking advantage of the customer, because paying for sex is not a requirement to survive.

Looking at it from the other side, in almost every situation we are taking advantage of the local economic conditions. As I already said, which you completely missed, that's not a big deal. At least it's not a big deal until some clueless fucking twat starts declaring his moral superiority.

If you just have a need to be publicly humiliated, come out and say it. I know people who can help hook you up with someone who will put you in a gimp suit and March you around on the end of a leash. It would be much simpler than coming to me every time you want to look like a clown.

[JustTK]

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.

If I did think that paying for sex were immoral, I wouldn't be doing it.

To think that something is immoral yet go ahead and do it anyway! How disgusting is that ideology? In their world, they are not better than paedophiles.