Jump to content

blabbate

Members
  • Posts

    807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by blabbate

  1. The fact that there is no evidence is precisely why it is unsafe. No. No, it's not. You're just going in the other direction. "It's unsafe because we have no evidence that it's safe" and "it's safe because we have no evidence that it's unsafe" are equivalently invalid. You just chose the one you agreed with. But, according to you, absence of evidence of safety = evidence of absence of safety. Do you see where the issue is? We can't assume that we're exposed to it either. We can't assume we're likely to be harmed. Your first sentence went on too long. It should read, "when dealing with unknowns, we cannot assume." This whole time, I've been talking about evidence. "Unsafe" is not the default state in the absence of evidence of safety. Actually, it could be perfectly safe. You don't know. If the water is deep enough, you are not exposed to harm. Your knowledge doesn't change that. It doesn't in any way affect the empirical safety of jumping. You went a bit nutty with the fallacies here. Argument from ignorance, bandwagon fallacy, and some bizarre, inverted appeal to consequences that I'm sure has a formal name. The precautionary principle is a policy methodology, and I've been focusing on scientific fact. However, even the precautionary principle isn't a blanket prohibition on activities that may cause harm. There is always a threshold of plausible risk. In the words of the EU, there need to be "reasonable grounds for concern." So you still need something besides your own opinion, though the burden of proof is lower.
  2. Ok, maybe that is what it was, for patent infringement. Regardless, I don't know how they can sue someone for something the wind or birds done and be successful, but evidently they do. Patent infringement doesn't need to be willful or deliberate. Growing those seeds is infringement whether the farmers knew they were Monsanto's or not. Willful violation just allows for punitive damages. I expect there were questions about whether Monsanto was partially responsible, whether trying to find and separate the seeds would be an undue burden on the farmers, whether some degree of natural dispersion could reasonable be expected, etc. A lot of it has probably been covered under some weird farming-oriented case law.
  3. I don't remember this, but something similar. Monsanto's GMO seeds blow or are brought by birds onto neighboring farmers' lands. Monsanto then sues those farmers for patent infringement. Historically, they have been successful with this tactic.
  4. Where are you going to be? I dig Veggie Galaxy and Veggie Planet. My Thai was pretty good too. I hear good things about the Clover food trucks, but haven't tried them. On the Cape, just go to Ptown. You can find a few places on Commercial that serve vegan food, and the whole place is super friendly.
  5. How much silk do you run into on a day to day basis? For men, avoiding silk shirts and ties takes care of 99% of it. Wool and leather are much harder to deal with, but I'm finding more and more synthetics.
  6. Because GMOs have a bad reputation, whether they deserve it or not. Consumers avoid them because of the horror stories. Why would companies want to add a label that will cause their product to sell less? I'm personally in favor of comprehensive labeling, but I understand why companies would be reticent, and it doesn't need to have anything to do with safety. Just profit. Labeling _does_ confuse consumers. This is partly because manufacturers are deliberately hiding the less-attractive aspects of their products, but it's also because consumers have trouble contextualizing the numbers. People are constantly complaining about labeling: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41781646/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/confusing-food-labels-can-hide-diet-hazards/ http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133218481/New-Food-Labels-May-Be-More-Confusing-Than-Helpful http://ebrandaid.com/nutrition-labels/
  7. You can't even show a causal relationship in this single instance. Why would you generalize to all GMOs?
  8. I've never seen evidence that high protein intake causes kidney issues in anyone who doesn't already have some degree of kidney damage or disease. All such claims are anecdotal. Just keep an eye on things (e.g. urine color, UTIs, etc) and you should be fine.
  9. +1 I can't speak to the situation elsewhere, but in America, eating meat is not a necessity. There is no "food chain" to speak of, because humans are fully removed from any predator/prey relationship. We aren't environmentally or biologically forced into a particular diet. We kill animals for food because we want to, not because we need to. And our justifications are essentially that they taste good and it's tradition. I can understand this reasoning, particularly because there's no strong societal condemnation, but I don't approve of it.
  10. There are tonnes of those charts available which show the similarities between us and herbivores, and the differences we have with carnivores. Is the information in those tables incorrect? http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/pp109/sealhuntdfocanada/Animals-Humans-are-Herbivores-Not-C.jpg There are all kinds of those tables, that's just the first one I came across. Incorrect, simplified, or dishonest, yes. The information is overly generalized, and some of it is simply wrong. None of it is sourced. How can you trust a table that says the human small intestine is 10 to 11 times body length? The small intestine averages 23 feet long. You can do the math yourself. They also cherry-pick their comparisons. You could easily add the ability to digest cellulose as a criterion, but you'd never see that in one of these charts. I expect it was a last resort, yes. A change like that comes out of necessity. And we began to adapt. Jump ahead 100,000 generations and you find a species that has evolved to be omnivorous. This also explains why we don't share more characteristics with pure carnivores. We only adapted as much as necessary. We don't need massive stomachs because we aren't solitary hunters. We don't have wide mouths or sharp nails because we don't need them to kill. We evolved the characteristics we needed to survive on an omnivorous diet based on the advantages we already had. I'm not talking about whether people find animal suffering repulsive or whether they're being shielded from the slaughter or even whether it's ethical. I'm saying that we are biologically equipped for an omnivorous diet.
  11. A couple of things. First, we have plenty common with carnivores. Almost as much as we do herbivores. For example, our teeth are equipped for both, with sharp canines for tearing into meat and flat molars for grinding plants. Some of our intestinal fauna is much more effective on animal proteins than on vegetable matter, and vice versa. Our intestinal length is longer than most carnivores, but shorter than most herbivores. We're unable to digest cellulose. We have a relatively streamlined digestive tract compared to herbivores, but not quite as much as true carnivores. We are biologically equipped to be omnivores. Second, not all carnivores or omnivores are predators. Some are opportunistic feeders. Others are technically predators, but use natural lures or crude tools. We also have evidence that humans have been eating animals for at least 2 million years, so it's not like this is a terribly recent development. Yes, this. This is key to me. Arguing that we're not "supposed to" eat animals based on biology or history is futile. That's simply not what the science supports, it doesn't convince anyone, and I wish vegetarians and vegans would drop it. We can and have eaten meat for millions of years. However, we don't _need_ to. It's certainly possible, but not necessary, just like theft or murder. This is an ethical decision, not biological.
  12. blabbate

    HPV

    I've never heard anything specific, but I'm not a doctor. Generally, a diet that's good for the immune system and bad for cancer, which, if you're vegan, you're probably already doing. Also, there's no test for HPV in men or women. The "test" for women is actually a cervical cancer screening. Men can be screened for anal cancer, and both genders can be examined for genital warts.
  13. Lots and lots of technology. Always have a phone (rooted Android) and iPod touch on me. I have an old Kindle and a Kindle Fire for reading. One general-purpose laptop, one work laptop, another in the workout room, plus another 3 that are my gf's. We watch TV and movies through a home-built home theater PC pushing full HDMI and 7.1, which also streams to any other computer or xbox on the wireless network. The network is extended through a couple of DD-WRT retasked routers for additional range. The house is wired for speakers from the living room to the master bed, the basement, and the rear deck. And we have plenty of video games. We keep costs down by building our own machines whenever possible, buying cheap and upgrading, and waiting for deals. Oh, and tailoring specs to our needs.
  14. Not over 38 or a lady, but my girlfriend and I are vegans in Atlanta as well, over on the NW side near Vinings. Welcome back to the city!
  15. Well my point was what most people classify as long distance running is not really distance running compared to distances covered by people like him, and you have to run A LOT in order to get that thin. And I'm willing to bet if that guy ate a lot more he would still have some muscle mass to show for it. Oh, I bet. But he's also a freak.
  16. Wouldn't this video tend to support them, though? He's pretty scrawny. Incredibly fit, yes, but small.
  17. Hunger pangs don't strictly mean that you're catabolic, but they're a good indicator. I've read of two different causes. First, an empty stomach for a moderate period of time (between 6 and 24 hours, depending the person), and second, low serum glucose. Neither situation necessarily means that your energy reserves are spent, but you're probably getting close, particularly in the second case. When you body does start to need more energy, it's going to consume a mix of fats and muscle depending on exactly what's needed, hormone levels, etc. The best thing to do is to consume enough calories in the juices to keep your energy up. Why are you doing the juice fast?
  18. Crazy question, I know, but ... how much sleep are you getting?
  19. Heh, yes, exactly! It's intended for PT use, I believe. Definitely good exercises. I've also done the Diesel crew's shoulder rehab, which is slightly different but I didn't find quite as effective. Still, might be better for others. http://www.dieselcrew.com/how-to-shoulder-rehab
  20. Does it hurt specifically when you're raising your arm above your head? Putting on or taking off a shirt? Lateral or anterior arm raises? Sounds like rotator cuff or some of the surrounding soft tissue. If it doesn't hurt when the arm is hanging or moving at waist/chest level, it's probably just temporary irritation and inflammation, but if it's really painful or persists for more than a week you should really see a doctor. In my experience, the problem with shoulder injuries is that it's so easy to keep aggravating them while trying to rehab. Take it super slow, do lots of warm ups to get the joint hot and lubricated, and perform even movements in each direction. Here's what I've used with some success: http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/PDFs/Rehab_Shoulder_5.pdf
  21. Wow, congrats on the weight loss. That's terrific. As long as you know you can't spot reduce, you're on the right track. Toning and working the legs will help increase muscle mass, which should spread out the fat a bit and give it a good base shape. But really, it's minimal compared to what you should see with just continued overall fat loss. I say to just keep going and stay positive!
  22. Looks like a lot of volume. 14 sets of chest and 10 sets of triceps on the same day? That's a lot of synergistic overlap across 24 sets. That might be fine for you, but be wary. Everybody's different. However, it's also a lot of assistance and isolated work. You don't necessarily need 5 different back exercises at 2 sets each, especially with none of them being deadlifts. That's figure work, not hypertrophy. But again, try it and see how you like it and how it works.
  23. +1 Unless your diet is oddly deficient in specific areas, you're probably getting enough protein for your body to function just fine. Of course, some sources have different amino profiles than others, but unless you're incredibly precise, it probably doesn't make a significant difference. Of course, take everything, including this, with a grain of salt. Without actual research, we're all basically guessing.
  24. Eh, I don't think that'll get anywhere with them, but it's worth a try. There are ways to argue around that. And if they're really mental, they won't care anyway. And I disagree, but that's cool.
×
×
  • Create New...