Red Meat NO GOOD, Veggies no protection.... NOW WHAT?



"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > >> > > The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
> > >> > > taught
> > >> for
> > >> > > decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced
with a
> > >> variety
> > >> > > of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It's not brain surgery.
> > >> >
> > >> > Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do
not
> > >> > remove harm.
> > >>
> > >> Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
> > >
> > > You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
> > > conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
> > > decline.
> >
> > Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some reason
> > unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.
>
> Your ideas are merely common.

They are much more than that. Haven't you noticed that my ideas are
resilient and stand up to persistent challenges, whereas yours do not? Don't
you wonder why? It's not because I am that much smarter than you, it's
because I know something you don't, and I reveal it right below.

That seems to suit you. I'm somewhat
> different than you in this respect.

Are you searching for the truth, or attempting to be unconventional? It
appears to me that you hold an irrational bias against ideas you deem to be
"common". This is a serious mistake, and exactly as erroneous as the
opposite bias, blindly accepting all ideas because they are common.

The open mind is open to ALL ideas, common and uncommon. You will find if
you look at the world this way your mind will be able to determine what is
true.

In reality, many common ideas are full of truth.

> > >> > I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
> > >> > heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier.
The
> > >> > notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is
moderated
> > >> > with Y, or Z.
> > >>
> > >> Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease
is
> > >> still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
> > >> stress
> > >> and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a
less
> > >> likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung
cancer
> > >> from
> > >> pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it
worthwhile.
> > >
> > > The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
> > > process.
> >
> > Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
>
> That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
> advocate for abstinence.

They are different issues. Drugs are properly a health issue, making drugs
also a legal issue just compounds the problem. Every study on marijuana has
reached this same conclusion.

> To be consistent with you, i advocate for
> abstinence from raping and killing, I think therefore, that I should
> advocate for the legalization of raping and killing.

Raping and killing are violent crimes against other people. You can't be
this stupid.
 
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:35:42 -0000, "pearl" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
>> peril wrote:

>> >> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15%
>> >> reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was
>> >> *NOT SIGNIFICANT*
>
>How is a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease
>*NOT SIGNIFICANT*??

How about "We did, however, find that daily consumption of fresh fruit
was associated with a significant reduction in mortality from ischaemic
heart disease (24%), cerebrovascular disease (32%), and all causes of
death combined (21%), and was associated with non-significant reductions
in mortality from all the other cause of death examined.". So, eating
fresh fruit daily, whether you are a vegetarian or not, is healthier for
you than just being a vegetarian.
 
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> > peril wrote:
> > >>>The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same
journal
> > >>>included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit
and
> > >>>vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast
> > >>>cancer.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>"We can't even eat enough food to get the antioxidants we need
... "
> > >>>
> > >>>The question would / should be .. the study of European women
did NOT
> > >>>address whether or not they are STILL eating .. meat ..?
> > >>
> > >>It's irrelevant. Other studies have shown *increased* incidence
(albeit
> > >>with a wide confidence interval) of breast cancer among
vegetarian women.
> > >>
> > >> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a
15%
> > >> reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease.
This was
> > >> *NOT SIGNIFICANT*
>
> How is a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease
> *NOT SIGNIFICANT*??

Not STATISTICALLY significant, meaning, the measured result - a 15%
reduction - could have come about by simple chance.

If you knew anything about statistics, which you don't, you would
understand the term "statistically significant". You'll never get it.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > "Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > >> > > The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
> > > >> > > taught
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced
> with a
> > > >> variety
> > > >> > > of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > It's not brain surgery.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do
> not
> > > >> > remove harm.
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
> > > >
> > > > You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
> > > > conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
> > > > decline.
> > >
> > > Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some reason
> > > unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.
> >
> > Your ideas are merely common.
>
> They are much more than that. Haven't you noticed that my ideas are
> resilient and stand up to persistent challenges, whereas yours do not? Don't
> you wonder why? It's not because I am that much smarter than you, it's
> because I know something you don't, and I reveal it right below.
>
> That seems to suit you. I'm somewhat
> > different than you in this respect.
>
> Are you searching for the truth, or attempting to be unconventional? It
> appears to me that you hold an irrational bias against ideas you deem to be
> "common". This is a serious mistake, and exactly as erroneous as the
> opposite bias, blindly accepting all ideas because they are common.
>
> The open mind is open to ALL ideas, common and uncommon. You will find if
> you look at the world this way your mind will be able to determine what is
> true.
>
> In reality, many common ideas are full of truth.
>
> > > >> > I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
> > > >> > heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier.
> The
> > > >> > notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is
> moderated
> > > >> > with Y, or Z.
> > > >>
> > > >> Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease
> is
> > > >> still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
> > > >> stress
> > > >> and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a
> less
> > > >> likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung
> cancer
> > > >> from
> > > >> pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it
> worthwhile.
> > > >
> > > > The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
> > > > process.
> > >
> > > Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
> >
> > That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
> > advocate for abstinence.
>
> They are different issues. Drugs are properly a health issue, making drugs
> also a legal issue just compounds the problem. Every study on marijuana has
> reached this same conclusion.

It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The point
that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement that
decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.

> > To be consistent with you, i advocate for
> > abstinence from raping and killing, I think therefore, that I should
> > advocate for the legalization of raping and killing.
>
> Raping and killing are violent crimes against other people. You can't be
> this stupid.

Same problem. I demonstrate the inconsistency of your reasoning by
providing two examples and filtering them through your thinking.

You didn't respond to the issue though. Would I be advocating or not
advocating for rape and murder if I were to suggest that we
decriminalize these acts?
 
"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> "Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:

[..]

>> The open mind is open to ALL ideas, common and uncommon. You will find if
>> you look at the world this way your mind will be able to determine what
>> is
>> true.
>>
>> In reality, many common ideas are full of truth.

A truth Ron needs to hear, no reply.

[..]

>> > > Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
>> >
>> > That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
>> > advocate for abstinence.
>>
>> They are different issues. Drugs are properly a health issue, making
>> drugs
>> also a legal issue just compounds the problem. Every study on marijuana
>> has
>> reached this same conclusion.
>
> It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The point
> that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement that
> decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.

It's more interesting to note that you have once again failed to recognize
truth when you see it. You also are failing to see that your ideas are being
systematically shot down, and you are making no attempt to defend them, you
simply move on to the next blunder.

>> > To be consistent with you, i advocate for
>> > abstinence from raping and killing, I think therefore, that I should
>> > advocate for the legalization of raping and killing.
>>
>> Raping and killing are violent crimes against other people. You can't be
>> this stupid.
>
> Same problem. I demonstrate the inconsistency of your reasoning by
> providing two examples and filtering them through your thinking.

The inconsistency is ALL with you Ron.

> You didn't respond to the issue though.

Yes I did, I explained how smoking pot is much different than rape, and
therefore should not be treated the same way.

> Would I be advocating or not
> advocating for rape and murder if I were to suggest that we
> decriminalize these acts?

It is folly to attempt to draw a parallel between smoking pot and rape, or
are you confusing legality and morality AGAIN? Yes, I believe so.
 
Ron wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> "Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
>>>>>>>>taught
>>>>>>
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced
>>
>>with a
>>
>>>>>>variety
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's not brain surgery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do
>>
>>not
>>
>>>>>>>remove harm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
>>>>>conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
>>>>>decline.
>>>>
>>>>Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some reason
>>>>unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.
>>>
>>>Your ideas are merely common.
>>
>>They are much more than that. Haven't you noticed that my ideas are
>>resilient and stand up to persistent challenges, whereas yours do not? Don't
>>you wonder why? It's not because I am that much smarter than you, it's
>>because I know something you don't, and I reveal it right below.
>>
>> That seems to suit you. I'm somewhat
>>
>>>different than you in this respect.
>>
>>Are you searching for the truth, or attempting to be unconventional? It
>>appears to me that you hold an irrational bias against ideas you deem to be
>>"common". This is a serious mistake, and exactly as erroneous as the
>>opposite bias, blindly accepting all ideas because they are common.
>>
>>The open mind is open to ALL ideas, common and uncommon. You will find if
>>you look at the world this way your mind will be able to determine what is
>>true.
>>
>>In reality, many common ideas are full of truth.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
>>>>>>>heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>>>>>notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is
>>
>>moderated
>>
>>>>>>>with Y, or Z.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease
>>
>>is
>>
>>>>>>still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
>>>>>>stress
>>>>>>and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a
>>
>>less
>>
>>>>>>likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung
>>
>>cancer
>>
>>>>>>from
>>>>>>pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it
>>
>>worthwhile.
>>
>>>>>The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
>>>>>process.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
>>>
>>>That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
>>>advocate for abstinence.
>>
>>They are different issues. Drugs are properly a health issue, making drugs
>>also a legal issue just compounds the problem. Every study on marijuana has
>>reached this same conclusion.
>
>
> It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The point
> that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement that
> decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.

It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
of False Dilemma.

You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
 
"Rudy Canoza" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> pearl wrote:
> > "usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > peril wrote:
> > > >>>The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same
> journal
> > > >>>included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit
> and
> > > >>>vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast
> > > >>>cancer.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>"We can't even eat enough food to get the antioxidants we need
> .. "
> > > >>>
> > > >>>The question would / should be .. the study of European women
> did NOT
> > > >>>address whether or not they are STILL eating .. meat ..?
> > > >>
> > > >>It's irrelevant. Other studies have shown *increased* incidence
> (albeit
> > > >>with a wide confidence interval) of breast cancer among
> vegetarian women.
> > > >>
> > > >> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a
> 15%
> > > >> reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease.
> This was
> > > >> *NOT SIGNIFICANT*
> >
> > How is a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease
> > *NOT SIGNIFICANT*??
>
> Not STATISTICALLY significant, meaning, the measured result - a 15%
> reduction - could have come about by simple chance.

Non sequitur. You're thinking of 'P Values'.

> If you knew anything about statistics, which you don't, you would
> understand the term "statistically significant". You'll never get it.

Tell us all again, before you post your fraudulent 'list',
how "nutrition is not an absolute need", jonathan ball.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>[..]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
> >>>>>>>>taught
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>for
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced
> >>
> >>with a
> >>
> >>>>>>variety
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It's not brain surgery.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do
> >>
> >>not
> >>
> >>>>>>>remove harm.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
> >>>>>conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
> >>>>>decline.
> >>>>
> >>>>Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some reason
> >>>>unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.
> >>>
> >>>Your ideas are merely common.
> >>
> >>They are much more than that. Haven't you noticed that my ideas are
> >>resilient and stand up to persistent challenges, whereas yours do not? Don't
> >>you wonder why? It's not because I am that much smarter than you, it's
> >>because I know something you don't, and I reveal it right below.
> >>
> >> That seems to suit you. I'm somewhat
> >>
> >>>different than you in this respect.
> >>
> >>Are you searching for the truth, or attempting to be unconventional? It
> >>appears to me that you hold an irrational bias against ideas you deem to be
> >>"common". This is a serious mistake, and exactly as erroneous as the
> >>opposite bias, blindly accepting all ideas because they are common.
> >>
> >>The open mind is open to ALL ideas, common and uncommon. You will find if
> >>you look at the world this way your mind will be able to determine what is
> >>true.
> >>
> >>In reality, many common ideas are full of truth.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
> >>>>>>>heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier.
> >>
> >>The
> >>
> >>>>>>>notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is
> >>
> >>moderated
> >>
> >>>>>>>with Y, or Z.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease
> >>
> >>is
> >>
> >>>>>>still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
> >>>>>>stress
> >>>>>>and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a
> >>
> >>less
> >>
> >>>>>>likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung
> >>
> >>cancer
> >>
> >>>>>>from
> >>>>>>pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it
> >>
> >>worthwhile.
> >>
> >>>>>The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
> >>>>>process.
> >>>>
> >>>>Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
> >>>
> >>>That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
> >>>advocate for abstinence.
> >>
> >>They are different issues. Drugs are properly a health issue, making drugs
> >>also a legal issue just compounds the problem. Every study on marijuana has
> >>reached this same conclusion.
> >
> >
> > It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The point
> > that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement that
> > decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.
>
> It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> of False Dilemma.
>
> You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.

Legalizing pot does not advocate pot use. (Dutch's example)
Legalizing killing humans does not advocate killing humans.
Legalizing rape does not advocate the act of rape.

The formulation of the three examples is the same. Please identify what
is logical for one statement and illogical for the remaining two.
 
pearl wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>"usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>news:eek:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>peril wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same
>>
>>journal
>>
>>>>>>>included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>>>>vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast
>>>>>>>cancer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"We can't even eat enough food to get the antioxidants we need
>>
>>.. "
>>
>>>>>>>The question would / should be .. the study of European women
>>
>>did NOT
>>
>>>>>>>address whether or not they are STILL eating .. meat ..?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's irrelevant. Other studies have shown *increased* incidence
>>
>>(albeit
>>
>>>>>>with a wide confidence interval) of breast cancer among
>>
>>vegetarian women.
>>
>>>>>> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a
>>
>>15%
>>
>>>>>> reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease.
>>
>>This was
>>
>>>>>> *NOT SIGNIFICANT*
>>>
>>>How is a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease
>>>*NOT SIGNIFICANT*??
>>
>>Not STATISTICALLY significant, meaning, the measured result - a 15%
>>reduction - could have come about by simple chance.
>
>
> Non sequitur. You're thinking of 'P Values'.

No, I'm thinking of statistical significance. You
don't have a CLUE about "P values".

>
>
>>If you knew anything about statistics, which you don't, you would
>>understand the term "statistically significant". You'll never get it.
 
Ron wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
>>>>>>>>>>taught
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced
>>>>
>>>>with a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>variety
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's not brain surgery.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do
>>>>
>>>>not
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>remove harm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
>>>>>>>conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
>>>>>>>decline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some reason
>>>>>>unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your ideas are merely common.
>>>>
>>>>They are much more than that. Haven't you noticed that my ideas are
>>>>resilient and stand up to persistent challenges, whereas yours do not? Don't
>>>>you wonder why? It's not because I am that much smarter than you, it's
>>>>because I know something you don't, and I reveal it right below.
>>>>
>>>>That seems to suit you. I'm somewhat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>different than you in this respect.
>>>>
>>>>Are you searching for the truth, or attempting to be unconventional? It
>>>>appears to me that you hold an irrational bias against ideas you deem to be
>>>>"common". This is a serious mistake, and exactly as erroneous as the
>>>>opposite bias, blindly accepting all ideas because they are common.
>>>>
>>>>The open mind is open to ALL ideas, common and uncommon. You will find if
>>>>you look at the world this way your mind will be able to determine what is
>>>>true.
>>>>
>>>>In reality, many common ideas are full of truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
>>>>>>>>>heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier.
>>>>
>>>>The
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is
>>>>
>>>>moderated
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>with Y, or Z.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease
>>>>
>>>>is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
>>>>>>>>stress
>>>>>>>>and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a
>>>>
>>>>less
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung
>>>>
>>>>cancer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it
>>>>
>>>>worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
>>>>>>>process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
>>>>>advocate for abstinence.
>>>>
>>>>They are different issues. Drugs are properly a health issue, making drugs
>>>>also a legal issue just compounds the problem. Every study on marijuana has
>>>>reached this same conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The point
>>>that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement that
>>>decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.
>>
>>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
>>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
>>of False Dilemma.
>>
>>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
>>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
>>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
>
>
> [snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]

You committed logical fallacies.
 
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:04:51 -0000, "pearl" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Robert Klute" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:35:42 -0000, "pearl" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
>> >> peril wrote:
>>
>> >> >> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15%
>> >> >> reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was
>> >> >> *NOT SIGNIFICANT*
>> >
>> >How is a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease
>> >*NOT SIGNIFICANT*??
>>
>> How about "We did, however, find that daily consumption of fresh fruit
>> was associated with a significant reduction in mortality from ischaemic
>> heart disease (24%), cerebrovascular disease (32%), and all causes of
>> death combined (21%), and was associated with non-significant reductions
>> in mortality from all the other cause of death examined.". So, eating
>> fresh fruit daily, whether you are a vegetarian or not, is healthier for
>> you than just being a vegetarian.
>
> I see. How about;

Read the report. While there are health risks that have been associated
with the eating of meats, even on a vegetarian diet it is what you DO
eat, not what you don't that counts. Please see the other threads -
"Indian Paradox" in sci.med.nutrition, and "Indian/asian higher carb
diets" in alt.support.diet.low-carb - that discuss the issue of
vegetarian Indians have one of the highest incidences of CVD in the
world (higher, in fact, than non-vegetarian Indians).
 
"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote

> > You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
>
> Legalizing pot does not advocate pot use. (Dutch's example)
> Legalizing killing humans does not advocate killing humans.
> Legalizing rape does not advocate the act of rape.
>
> The formulation of the three examples is the same. Please identify what
> is logical for one statement and illogical for the remaining two.

Pot use involves an person taking a substance into their own body. Taking
substances into one's body is generally seen as a personal choice and
therefore it should not be a crime.

The second two involve causing serious harm to another person. Therefore the
second two should illegal.

This is really, really basic stuff Ron, which is why I suspect you of
trolling.
 
peril wrote:
>>><..>
>>>
>>>>>what else was eaten; whether or
>>>>>not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and
>>>>>fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc.
>>>>
>>>>There's enough monitoring of those agents to be able to eliminate those
>>>>as causes. That is, if they consume conventional produce since it's
>>>>monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for
>>>>residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production.
>>
>>IN THE *UNITED STATES*.
>
> 'Organic
>
> Strive

Theory is demolished by practice. Organic doesn't mean free of
pesticides, nor does it mean that food is inherently healthier, more
nutritious, has more flavor, etc.
 
Rudy Canoza wrote:
<...>
>>How is a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease
>>*NOT SIGNIFICANT*??
>
> Not STATISTICALLY significant, meaning, the measured result - a 15%
> reduction - could have come about by simple chance.
>
> If you knew anything about statistics, which you don't, you would
> understand the term "statistically significant". You'll never get it.

The hippies didn't teach statistics during the foot-rubbing course she took.
 
Juhana Harju wrote:
> peril wrote:
>
> Pearl, you are absolutely right about the health benefits of vegetarian
> diets. However, there are some unanswered questions also.

Then she's not *absolutely* right.

> Vegetarian
> diet is not good at reducing the indicidence of breast cancer (actually
> no known diet is).

Correct. Heredity has been shown to play a significant role, though, as
have other factors like smoking and other environmental factors.

> There are also some other defects in unsupplemented
> vegetarian diets. Vegetarian diets are not good at preventing stroke --
> perhaps due to the high homocysteine levels of unsupplemented vitamin
> B12. Nor do vegetarian diets provide enough vitamin D for most of
> people. And vegetarian dies are not good at preventing dementia and
> Alzheimer's disease -- perhaps because of the lack of omega-3 fatty
> acids and lack of B12.

Lesley, aka 'pearl,' is a foot masseuse by training, not a scientist.
She'll paste in many abstracts about which she has very little
comprehension. It's also important for you to understand that she's also
a barking mad skinhead. She believes (religiously) that the earth is
hollow and inhabited by enlightened beings. She's linked to "photos"
which she claims are evidence when others have questioned her belief in
inner earth beings. One of her most recent uses of the link to such
photos is found below:
> even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
> earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.

Of course. Here it is again:
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html

What's your explanation?
Lesley, 31 Dec 04, http://tinyurl.com/5ejdm

<...>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>[..]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
> >>>>>>>>>>taught
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>for
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced
> >>>>
> >>>>with a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>variety
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>It's not brain surgery.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do
> >>>>
> >>>>not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>remove harm.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
> >>>>>>>conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
> >>>>>>>decline.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some
> >>>>>>reason
> >>>>>>unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Your ideas are merely common.
> >>>>
> >>>>They are much more than that. Haven't you noticed that my ideas are
> >>>>resilient and stand up to persistent challenges, whereas yours do not?
> >>>>Don't
> >>>>you wonder why? It's not because I am that much smarter than you, it's
> >>>>because I know something you don't, and I reveal it right below.
> >>>>
> >>>>That seems to suit you. I'm somewhat
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>different than you in this respect.
> >>>>
> >>>>Are you searching for the truth, or attempting to be unconventional? It
> >>>>appears to me that you hold an irrational bias against ideas you deem to
> >>>>be
> >>>>"common". This is a serious mistake, and exactly as erroneous as the
> >>>>opposite bias, blindly accepting all ideas because they are common.
> >>>>
> >>>>The open mind is open to ALL ideas, common and uncommon. You will find if
> >>>>you look at the world this way your mind will be able to determine what
> >>>>is
> >>>>true.
> >>>>
> >>>>In reality, many common ideas are full of truth.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
> >>>>>>>>>heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier.
> >>>>
> >>>>The
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is
> >>>>
> >>>>moderated
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>with Y, or Z.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease
> >>>>
> >>>>is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
> >>>>>>>>stress
> >>>>>>>>and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a
> >>>>
> >>>>less
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung
> >>>>
> >>>>cancer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>from
> >>>>>>>>pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it
> >>>>
> >>>>worthwhile.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
> >>>>>>>process.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
> >>>>>advocate for abstinence.
> >>>>
> >>>>They are different issues. Drugs are properly a health issue, making
> >>>>drugs
> >>>>also a legal issue just compounds the problem. Every study on marijuana
> >>>>has
> >>>>reached this same conclusion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The point
> >>>that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement that
> >>>decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.
> >>
> >>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> >>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> >>of False Dilemma.
> >>
> >>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> >>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> >>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> >
> >
> > [snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
>
> You committed logical fallacies.


We all do -- it's called being human.

*screams heard as people run for cover*
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > "Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> The open mind is open to ALL ideas, common and uncommon. You will find if
> >> you look at the world this way your mind will be able to determine what
> >> is
> >> true.
> >>
> >> In reality, many common ideas are full of truth.
>
> A truth Ron needs to hear, no reply.
>
> [..]
>
> >> > > Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
> >> >
> >> > That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
> >> > advocate for abstinence.
> >>
> >> They are different issues. Drugs are properly a health issue, making
> >> drugs
> >> also a legal issue just compounds the problem. Every study on marijuana
> >> has
> >> reached this same conclusion.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The point
> > that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement that
> > decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.
>
> It's more interesting to note that you have once again failed to recognize
> truth when you see it. You also are failing to see that your ideas are being
> systematically shot down, and you are making no attempt to defend them, you
> simply move on to the next blunder.

You are one of the few people I've encountered who views a disagreement
of opinion as something being shot down.

Ah, now we move into the area of truth! Please enlighten us on truth.


> >> > To be consistent with you, i advocate for
> >> > abstinence from raping and killing, I think therefore, that I should
> >> > advocate for the legalization of raping and killing.
> >>
> >> Raping and killing are violent crimes against other people. You can't be
> >> this stupid.
> >
> > Same problem. I demonstrate the inconsistency of your reasoning by
> > providing two examples and filtering them through your thinking.
>
> The inconsistency is ALL with you Ron.
>
> > You didn't respond to the issue though.
>
> Yes I did, I explained how smoking pot is much different than rape, and
> therefore should not be treated the same way.
>
> > Would I be advocating or not
> > advocating for rape and murder if I were to suggest that we
> > decriminalize these acts?
>
> It is folly to attempt to draw a parallel between smoking pot and rape, or
> are you confusing legality and morality AGAIN? Yes, I believe so.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> >
> > Legalizing pot does not advocate pot use. (Dutch's example)
> > Legalizing killing humans does not advocate killing humans.
> > Legalizing rape does not advocate the act of rape.
> >
> > The formulation of the three examples is the same. Please identify what
> > is logical for one statement and illogical for the remaining two.
>
> Pot use involves an person taking a substance into their own body. Taking
> substances into one's body is generally seen as a personal choice and
> therefore it should not be a crime.
>
> The second two involve causing serious harm to another person. Therefore the
> second two should illegal.
>
> This is really, really basic stuff Ron, which is why I suspect you of
> trolling.

To repeat, the question being asked was concerning the legalization of
an action of a citizen constituting advocating for that action. I noted
that you continue to avoid that issue.
 
Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
<...>
>>>>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
>>>>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
>>>>of False Dilemma.
>>>>
>>>>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
>>>>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
>>>>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
>>>
>>>
>>>[snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
>>
>>You committed logical fallacies.
>
> We all do

Most people learn from their mistakes, but you seem quite happy to keep
repeating yours.

> *screams heard as people run for cover*

Enough of your drama queen **** in newsgroups. Grow up, you
self-marginalized windbag.
 
"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:

>> You committed logical fallacies.
>
>
> We all do -- it's called being human.

Occasionally, but you do it constantly. You are also as slovenly and lazy in
your posting style as you are in your thinking, you never trim headers or
extraneous included text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back