jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
That may be so. I have never read anything by her.
There's your problem.
Please note the thread title.
That may be so. I have never read anything by her.
Why is it important?
What terrestrial organisms evolved to eat broccoli?
Is it acceptable to discuss her appearance since she self-describes as "Babe"?
Is it acceptable to discuss her appearance since she self-describes as "Babe"?
Nice! Heroin peddlers can cite that principle. As can brothel keepers. What's your view of that?
He didn't use a strawman, he used an equivocation.Yep, and you chose to counter a valid argument with a definition straw man. Well done!
I think it's worse to know better and make such a silly straw argument, than to blindly worry about chemicals in food from ignorance.
Which terrestrial organisms evolved to accept aspartame, sucralose, or partially hydrogenated oils in their diet, or hundreds of pounds a year of sucrose or fructose? This is important and needs our collective attention. Focusing on the poor arguments at the extremes of the knowlege spectrum while ignoring the actual dangers is NOT a superior or well-informed position.
"The preferences of customers" decided that?Never tried Heroin, but Nevada seems to have no major problems with its brothels. I think the market has decided on both: we don't want brothels in Texas, even if they are safe, and we don't want Heroin, even if making it illegal doesn't get rid of it. So, both are illegal in my state.
It is hard to find an example of a piece of writing where virtually every piece of information is wrong. And when there is a nugget of truth my first response is to question my knowledge. If Food Babe says it, it must be wrong.
Whatever flaws there might be in the Food Babe's arguments, it has nothing to do with woo.
Personally, I welcome a campaign for fewer unnecessary chemicals in our environment. I do not care if the amount is considered non-poisonous, because we might get the same chemicals from several sources, raising the amount that we eat, and these chemicals are still unnecessary.
The big question is why so few people know this?![]()
What's the danger of aspartame?
Whatever flaws there might be in the Food Babe's arguments, it has nothing to do with woo.
Personally, I welcome a campaign for fewer unnecessary chemicals in our environment. I do not care if the amount is considered non-poisonous, because we might get the same chemicals from several sources, raising the amount that we eat, and these chemicals are still unnecessary.
This is a woman who posted about airplanes "having high levels of nitrogen," and how microwaves cause water molecules to respond to words like "Hitler" and "Stalin." She's hand in hand with Dr. Oz, Mercola, and the rest of the woo merchants influencing the public.
I guess I'm glad someone resurrected this topic, thought no one was interested!
Is that your problem? Never met one of those "rubes" as you call them because you never grew up on a farm? If you had, your opinions of them as being "rubes" might be considerably different. My Great grandfather (a small farmer in North Carolina) was such a "rube" he ended up being the president of a bank during the depression. Why? Because he was the only "rube" with any money left in the bank! Without him the bank would have bellied up.I know. Those farmers sure are uneducated rubes. Luckily, we have "farmers" who grew up in the city and got a fancy education to go out into the countryside and teach them.
This is a woman who posted about airplanes "having high levels of nitrogen," and how microwaves cause water molecules to respond to words like "Hitler" and "Stalin." She's hand in hand with Dr. Oz, Mercola, and the rest of the woo merchants influencing the public.
I guess I'm glad someone resurrected this topic, thought no one was interested!
Could you provide us with a list of "unnecessary chemicals in our environment"?
Thanks.
But necessary for coffee to taste as good as it does. Just compare it with decaf to be convinced.Clearly no coffee either. Caffine is a chemical insect poison after all.
Equivocation and a strawman. He used it to construct an argument that is indefensible, and pretend it was my argument.He didn't use a strawman, he used an equivocation.