223864 Bullies, 3687 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 125
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12 345612 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Bneterasedmynam is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    2,086

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 2:26pm


     

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by doofaloofa View Post
    Fitness will not neseseraly prevent cancer, but the fitter you are the better able you are to respond to treatment and recover from surgery
    I'm not sure I totally believe that. Is there any data that backs that up??
  2. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 2:29pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChenPengFi View Post
    Hahaha, stfu.




    That's all on you. I never entertained any of that ****.
    I'm just mocking your post.




    I quoted you, FFS.



    After i mocked you, and that has nothing to do with what i pointed out.





    Oh, more tangents?

    Hahahaha...






    "Life expectancy" remember?
    Pesticides are good things when used properly, and increase life expectancy.
    You do realize DDT is being reconsidered and the ban by the WHO has been lifted, because the ban cost millions of human lives, right?
    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/Twimber...9/DDTPaper.pdf

    If you want to go off with hyperbole and unsupported conjecture be my guest.
    More grist for the mill!
    You're being foolish.





    Well at least you finally spelled out your strawman.
    LOL
    No, you're not sticking your neck out much with an opinion here. Sorry -- you call those "tangents" and "conjecture." Your post basically says that because of the advances in medicine, I shouldn't worry about the crap that's produced and dumped along the way of progress. Am I misunderstanding that? That's a rather comforting if simple way to look at things.

    The fact that DDT use is reconsidered after a ban doesnt invalidate my point. People are paying attention to how its used, not just saying its either all bad, or all good.

    Where exactly is the strawman? You say modern pharmaceutical products are good for you; they increase life expectancy. I say yes, but you still have to watch where you dump the garbage, or you're working against yourself.

    Edit: Hyperbole is not necessarily bad argument, as long as its clear that's what it is and puts a point across.
    Last edited by CapnMunchh; 3/11/2014 2:37pm at .
  3. Mr. Machette is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,673

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 2:29pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: FMA, Ego Warrior

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You'll never eliminate yor exposure to carcinogens but you can stop cancer in it's tracks with dope:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1898208.html

    So stop whining about the way your kids meal toys smell like breast cancer and go eat some RSO.

    You'll feel much better (on many levels).
  4. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,226

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 2:48pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    No, you're not sticking your neck out much with an opinion here. Sorry -- you call those "tangents" and "conjecture." Your post basically says that because of the advances in medicine, I shouldn't worry about the crap that's produced and dumped along the way of progress. Am I misunderstanding that? That's a rather comforting if simple way to look at things.
    No, that's your strawman.

    The fact that DDT use is reconsidered after a ban doesnt invalidate my point. People are paying attention to how its used, not just saying its either all bad, or all good.
    Actually it's YOU who is saying "pesticides = cancer".


    Where exactly is the strawman?
    I quoted you, again and you still can't see it?
    WTF?
    It says "the argument that because...".
    How could your strawman be any more clear when no one has made that argument?



    You say modern pharmaceutical products are good for you; they increase life expectancy. I say yes, but you still have to watch where you dump the garbage, or you're working against yourself.
    ...and again, who is arguing otherwise?
    Hmmm?


    Edit: Hyperbole is not necessarily bad argument, as long as its clear that's what it is and puts a point across.

    I've been mocking that hyperbole, and yours is a particularly bad version.
  5. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,226

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 2:55pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Good read about the subject here:
    http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Chronic...dp/B00BO4GR6W/

    Ermghoti nailed it.
  6. ermghoti is offline
    ermghoti's Avatar

    Middleweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    OW, MY KNEE
    Posts
    2,138

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 3:34pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ+Sanda

    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    I don't know, I'm hoping to die of old age. I don't find death per se particularly frightening, but a painful death from preventable causes is something I'd like to avoid.
    There's no such thing as "death by old age," it just means "nobody bothered to diagnose what was wrong with that guy, cause he was really old." In bygone years, plenty of people died of "old age" that was cancer, pulmonary disease, infections, etc.

    Which is another point. We have treatments for cancer, prior to the treatments, there wasn't much reason to screen, ergo, cancer is now reported more often. Additionally, people are more likely to survive cancer, then contract a repeat or different tumor, which inflates rates. Add that to the fact that the average human is living a decade longer, and that cancer rates increase as we age, and there is not much to made for the Toxic Earth Bugbear argument.

    Not to say that it's not a good idea to keep known carcinogens out of the environment, mind you.
    Quote Originally Posted by strikistanian View Post
    DROP SEIONAGI ************! Except I don't know Judo, so it doesn't work, and he takes my back.
  7. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 3:45pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChenPengFi View Post
    No, that's your strawman.



    Actually it's YOU who is saying "pesticides = cancer".




    I quoted you, again and you still can't see it?
    WTF?
    It says "the argument that because...".
    How could your strawman be any more clear when no one has made that argument?





    ...and again, who is arguing otherwise?
    Hmmm?





    I've been mocking that hyperbole, and yours is a particularly bad version.

    I'm going to assume that, since neither one of us appears to be an idiot, there must be some miscommunication. You said:

    "First, you have an inverse correlation between "chemicals and discarded medicines in the water, the air pollution, pesticides and hormones in our food, petrochemicals in pharmacy products, vapors coming off synthetic rugs and furniture fabrics, or all of those together and more. " and life expectancy. So your fears seem unwarranted in light of the impressive advances made possible by many those same products.
    Note "medicines" and "pharmacy products" in the above."

    I characterized your statement as saying that "because of the advances in medicine, I shouldn't worry about the crap that's produced and dumped along the way of progress." Sorry, I did not use your exact words, but I still don't see an unfair characterization.

    You said "Actually it's YOU who is saying "pesticides = cancer". The OP was about water pollution and cancer. Yes, I said its not just water pollution, but other things, including pesticides. I don't call that a strawman, I call it a fair opinion. Not that there was anything wrong with it, but it was you who decided to focus on pesticides out of all the things I mentioned.

    You said: "Pesticides are good things when used properly, and increase life expectancy.
    You do realize DDT is being reconsidered and the ban by the WHO has been lifted, because the ban cost millions of human lives, right?" I agree.

    I said: ". . . modern pharmaceutical products are good for you; they increase life expectancy. I say yes, but you still have to watch where you dump the garbage, or you're working against yourself." You agree.

    I said: "I'm not going to buy into the argument that because some degree of pollution is the inevitable result of scientific progress, the more pollution, the better we are progressing. We can reduce pollution without going back to the stone age."

    This seems to be the issue. You say this is a strawman/hyperbole. I say that the first part of the statement flows from the notion that pollution resulting from the manufacture of modern pharmaceuticals is not worrisome because of the continuing development of those same pharmaceuticals. If you're objecting to the "stone age" comment -- yes, I suppose you can call that hyperbole. My last point was that there's nothing wrong with the statement as long as it gets a point across and its clear I am not trying to pass it off as fact.
    Last edited by CapnMunchh; 3/11/2014 3:54pm at .
  8. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    5,017

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 3:59pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I am failing to see how one can have one without the other. You want medicine your going to end up with a chemical byproduct.

    It has to go somewhere.

    Lets go back to your car example.

    Despite the lofty idealism spills really cannot be avoided.

    At the end of the day corporations are made up of people.
    People are in capable of being perfect.
    Accidents happen.

    The byproduct of you having a device that makes the world much smaller is oil is going to get spilled and CO2 is going to be put into our air.

    Pesticides give us food security along with GMOs while we are at it.

    You have to accept and understand the fact that these two things are not unrelated.

    We can strive to minimize the damages and we do.

    Waste after all is the enemy of profit.
  9. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 4:42pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ermghoti View Post
    There's no such thing as "death by old age," it just means "nobody bothered to diagnose what was wrong with that guy, cause he was really old." In bygone years, plenty of people died of "old age" that was cancer, pulmonary disease, infections, etc.

    Which is another point. We have treatments for cancer, prior to the treatments, there wasn't much reason to screen, ergo, cancer is now reported more often. Additionally, people are more likely to survive cancer, then contract a repeat or different tumor, which inflates rates. Add that to the fact that the average human is living a decade longer, and that cancer rates increase as we age, and there is not much to made for the Toxic Earth Bugbear argument.

    Not to say that it's not a good idea to keep known carcinogens out of the environment, mind you.
    To me, death by old age means that some essential organ or life function fails as a result of age. That would include the death of a 90 year old man from pneumonia, because his immune system was worn out. Yes, you could say that cancer can be the result of old age too. But cancer also occurs at a young age, so obviously aging is not the sole cause. Dying of old age to me could be dying of cancer at 90, but not at the age of 50.

    What I'm saying is that cancer that is not the result of old age can be made more preventable by controlling pollution/carcinogens in the environment. I think that should be obvious. And that we can have the benefits of modern science without losing sight of that goal. Less obvious maybe, but IMO true. It may be true that cancer rates increase "naturally" as we age, but that doesn't mean that some of the environmental causes can't be addressed. Based on the last statement in your post, I think you'd probably agree with that.

    Maybe even the incidence of cancer that is age related can be reduced, but to me that's a different issue. If the suggestion is that cancer is the ultimate equalizer, and that if we live long enough and survive everything else we will die of cancer at 110, well, maybe -- I have no opinion on that, or any basis on which to form one.
  10. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    3/11/2014 4:53pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    I am failing to see how one can have one without the other. You want medicine your going to end up with a chemical byproduct.

    It has to go somewhere.

    Lets go back to your car example.

    Despite the lofty idealism spills really cannot be avoided.

    At the end of the day corporations are made up of people.
    People are in capable of being perfect.
    Accidents happen.

    The byproduct of you having a device that makes the world much smaller is oil is going to get spilled and CO2 is going to be put into our air.

    Pesticides give us food security along with GMOs while we are at it.

    You have to accept and understand the fact that these two things are not unrelated.

    We can strive to minimize the damages and we do.

    Waste after all is the enemy of profit.
    Yes, but we have choices about what to do with the byproduct. A company that generates hazardous waste can choose to dispose of it in a toxic waste landfill, where it is less likely to enter the water table, or to store it in rusty drums in a warehouse. And the govt has the choice of whether to spend resources monitoring this sort of thing.

    I agree with most of your post except the last statement. Pollution occurs partly because of human error or criminal activity, but mostly as a result of trying to maximize profit. Its cheaper to keep the stuff in the warehouse drums that to pay for the hazardous waste landfill. Its cheaper to produce power with coal than with gas, or to mine the top off a mountain and let the tailings wash away in a stream than to restore the land.
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12 345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.