Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Ag3ma]

I don't think you have any evidence saying saturated fats are bad, all the studies are associations.

And associations are evidence. You are, after all, also using a rationale of association here when you argue eating sugar gives people diabetes. And that's the sort of thing I mean when I say you don't appear to understand things, as you don't even understand your own argument.

And, again, the do-gooders were the ones that initially caused people to start eating worse, which is what I said and you tried to goalpost away from.

Your argument here is a bit like claiming "The moon is made of green cheese, the moon landing was a fake and NASA has been lying about it all, and Topeka is the capital of Kansas." Then, when being queried, saying "I was right that Topeka is the capital of Kansas, you're just moving the goalposts." No, actually, you moved the goalposts by just removing all the other bits of the arguments and/or their implications.

For instance, you said first:

Government intervention is the problem. If you do the opposite of what the government says, you'll eat healthy.

So the US government says you should eat 75-2000mg of vitamin C a day. Therefore you claim that people should eat <75mg or >2000mg of vitamin C a day to be healthy. Go ahead. Eat zero vitamin C for six months, and then report back to us on how healthy you are. The wider context of your argument here is that the government is not a responsible or reliable actor in terms of good public health. You are just attempting to constrain the argument to a much narrower sub-claim in order to pretend you are right.

There are many problems with that sort of thing. But mostly, it's just dishonest.

Who eats a ton of sugar and doesn't get diabetes? It can take decades to get diabetes but you will if you eat too much sugar and don't eventually change your diet.

But you're not willing or able to provide any relevant studies to make that point despite being repeatedly invited to, which tells us all we need to know.

 

[McElroy]

I read the message as there are fat people without diabetes (not that there's people who eat tons of sugar that don't have diabetes). Who eats a ton of sugar and doesn't get diabetes? It can take decades to get diabetes but you will if you eat too much sugar and don't eventually change your diet.

Some people have high enough insulin sensitivity to counter them eating whatever they want, even as they get fat over the decades. The sort of sugar-free obese people that you seem to count out of the equation don't exist in any meaningful capacity. People don't snack on butter and lard these days but carbs - fast calories they don't need.

I honestly don't know why it's so important to deperately hold on to this "common sense" fact. Nobody is denying the mechanics of type 2 diabetes.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Except that >85% of prediabetic people don't develop diabetes.

So you don't have any figures or sources at all, in short. That 100% chance thing was pure bollocks, wasn't it?

You again can't read what I wrote... I didn't say any of that.

And associations are evidence. You are, after all, also using a rationale of association here when you argue eating sugar gives people diabetes. And that's the sort of thing I mean when I say you don't appear to understand things, as you don't even understand your own argument.



Your argument here is a bit like claiming "The moon is made of green cheese, the moon landing was a fake and NASA has been lying about it all, and Topeka is the capital of Kansas." Then, when being queried, saying "I was right that Topeka is the capital of Kansas, you're just moving the goalposts." No, actually, you moved the goalposts by just removing all the other bits of the arguments and/or their implications.

For instance, you said first:


So the US government says you should eat 75-2000mg of vitamin C a day. Therefore you claim that people should eat <75mg or >2000mg of vitamin C a day to be healthy. Go ahead. Eat zero vitamin C for six months, and then report back to us on how healthy you are. The wider context of your argument here is that the government is not a responsible or reliable actor in terms of good public health. You are just attempting to constrain the argument to a much narrower sub-claim in order to pretend you are right.

There are many problems with that sort of thing. But mostly, it's just dishonest.


But you're not willing or able to provide any relevant studies to make that point despite being repeatedly invited to, which tells us all we need to know.

No it's the mechanics of what sugar does to the body. All those associations/correlations are absolute garbage evidence. Healthy people follow what they are told for the most part, which is saturated fat is bad, and people just eat whatever and are unhealthy, eat stuff like saturated fat more often because they don't care. It's the healthy bias. I thought you're about having the best evidence? And you constantly give me shit evidence all the time and criticize me all the time.

Wow, just admit you're wrong when you're wrong, what I said was right.

There aren't any studies on seeing if people eat X amount of sugar daily will get diabetes because it's unethical. You're pushing bullshit associative studies on me. Because of the nature of it basically being impossible to run studies to isolate sugar or saturated fat (or what have you) and see what it does, you have to go base on mechanistic science for nutrition. As you've seen how bad nutrition has gotten (don't eat eggs!!!), going by association is a fool's errand.

For the types of food you're supposed to eat... Talk about goalposting. I said eat healthy, not what vitamins you're supposed to have. And you were literally wrong about vitamin d before.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Some people have high enough insulin sensitivity to counter them eating whatever they want, even as they get fat over the decades. The sort of sugar-free obese people that you seem to count out of the equation don't exist in any meaningful capacity. People don't snack on butter and lard these days but carbs - fast calories they don't need.

I honestly don't know why it's so important to deperately hold on to this "common sense" fact. Nobody is denying the mechanics of type 2 diabetes.

If some people have like an immunity to insulin resistance, I haven't heard of it.

 

[Silvanus]

You again can't read what I wrote... I didn't say any of that.

You said, undeniably, that people are eating so much sugar as to give themselves a 100% chance of diabetes. Here's the direct quote.

People are consuming so much sugar, they have basically a 100% chance of developing diabetes.

So yes. You did say it. And you're not able to give us absolutely anything to back it up, are you?

 

[Ag3ma]

No it's the mechanics of what sugar does to the body. All those associations/correlations are absolute garbage evidence.

The very arguments you are deploying here are associations, when you say Americans eat X much sugar and have Y much likelihood of developing diabetes. How on earth can you not realise that? Even worse, you are attacking the fundamental means by which we recognised the risks of smoking, asbestos, and god knows how many other conditions as "garbage". It's just incredible.

You want to say that it's the "mechanics"? We know the mechanics of how saturated fats raise cholesterol and increase harmful inflammation!

There aren't any studies on seeing if people eat X amount of sugar daily will get diabetes because it's unethical.

In which case you are admitting that we are right and there are no studies to defend the claims you are making.

For the types of food you're supposed to eat... Talk about goalposting. I said eat healthy, not what vitamins you're supposed to have.

You didn't specify that though, did you? You simply said do the opposite of what the government tells you. And frankly, I have no idea how you can believe that vitamin consumption has nothing to do with healthy eating, considering we get most vitamins through diet.

 

[Gergar12]

OpenAI boss Sam Altman wants $7tn. For all our sakes, pray he doesn’t get it | John Naughton

The man behind ChatGPT is wooing the UAE to invest in energy-hungry AI. But if it turns out his tech can’t fix the world, he’s got his escape plan

www.theguardian.com

Yeah well, I don't get along with people who like cars, but I still have to interact with them and drive a car. Plus It's not about the fixed 7 trillion number, it's about getting in reality about 500 billion to 1 billion. Plus the US has craptons of water, there is a reason the US voted no on food, and water being human rights because guess who would have to give those away in famines, and droughts. Us. While I would do it with strings attached like you have to be a democracy, your smartest people have to come here via H2B visas, etc. Some progressive people wouldn't do it with strings attached, and some realists with watch the world burn and die which it won't anyway due to declining birthrates, and random super rain events like in Pakistan.

Plus AI, automation, and etc. won't put millions out of a job duh. It will likely put billions. The only way to counter it however is with more AI. Get the neuro-links, and etc., and try to beat AI at it's own game.

 

[Thaluikhain]

While I would do it with strings attached like you have to be a democracy, your smartest people have to come here via H2B visas, etc.

The people who ensure that countries aren't democracies aren't usually the ones suffering from lack of food or water. And taking the smartest foreigners as tribute sounds really dodgy. EDIT: I mean, bad dystopian movie dodgy.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Today in woke world

Won't some-one feel sorry for the poor warrior bugs from Starship Troopers because humanity are the villains in the film and the bugs did nothing wrong or something.

https://twitter.com/man_adamantium/status/1758601083893498327?s=20

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You said, undeniably, that people are eating so much sugar as to give themselves a 100% chance of diabetes. Here's the direct quote.



So yes. You did say it. And you're not able to give us absolutely anything to back it up, are you?

You goalposted what I said to something else. People that get pre-diabetes will have a 100% of developing diabetes if they don't change their diets. I never said 100% of people with pre-diabetes will get diabetes as you claimed I said.

The very arguments you are deploying here are associations, when you say Americans eat X much sugar and have Y much likelihood of developing diabetes. How on earth can you not realise that? Even worse, you are attacking the fundamental means by which we recognised the risks of smoking, asbestos, and god knows how many other conditions as "garbage". It's just incredible.

You want to say that it's the "mechanics"? We know the mechanics of how saturated fats raise cholesterol and increase harmful inflammation!



In which case you are admitting that we are right and there are no studies to defend the claims you are making.



You didn't specify that though, did you? You simply said do the opposite of what the government tells you. And frankly, I have no idea how you can believe that vitamin consumption has nothing to do with healthy eating, considering we get most vitamins through diet.

My arguments have nothing do with associations. What sugar does to your body mechanically is a fact, and if you continue eating so much sugar (/high glycemic foods), you will develop diabetes. Why do you think cholesterol is bad? I can show you a study of oreos lowering cholesterol, you think oreos are good for you? Also, what study shows saturated fat increases inflammation?

You have to go based on mechanics because you can't do studies isolating sugar or saturated fat or whatever. And then what people report as eating isn't very accurate either.

I said what you eat and the guidelines that go with that. Stop goalposting, you know what I meant. Eating foods low in nutrients (vitamins and whatnot), makes you eat more food (more calories) to get your needed nutrients.

Government intervention is the problem. If you do the opposite of what the government says, you'll eat healthy.

 

[Silvanus]

You goalposted what I said to something else. People that get pre-diabetes will have a 100% of developing diabetes if they don't change their diets. I never said 100% of people with pre-diabetes will get diabetes as you claimed I said.

That is not the argument you originally made. You originally, quite simply, said people were eating so much sugar as to give themselves a 100% chance of diabetes, and so we asked how much/how many/for sources.

But OK, fine, I'll accept your new condition, that you're just talking about those with prediabetes. So let's see your evidence. How much sugar are we talking about? Where's the source for 100% rate? We're still waiting for you to give us... anything.

 

[Avnger]

Today in woke world

Won't some-one feel sorry for the poor warrior bugs from Starship Troopers because humanity are the villains in the film and the bugs did nothing wrong or something.

https://twitter.com/man_adamantium/status/1758601083893498327?s=20

Is this your first time seeing criticism of art? Like that tweet isn't some doctorate-level reading of the scene; it's entry-level. Did you sleep entirely through your middle/high school literature classes?

 

[Gergar12]

The people who ensure that countries aren't democracies aren't usually the ones suffering from lack of food or water. And taking the smartest foreigners as tribute sounds really dodgy. EDIT: I mean, bad dystopian movie dodgy.

Well, the smartest will leave anyway, and it's not forced. I generally mean in terms of H2B visas not at gunpoint. As for democracy let the liberal nationalist be in charge of maintaining the democracies.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That is not the argument you originally made. You originally, quite simply, said people were eating so much sugar as to give themselves a 100% chance of diabetes.

But OK, fine, I'll accept your new condition, that you're just talking about those with prediabetes. So let's see your evidence. How much sugar are we talking about? Where's the source for 100% rate? We're still waiting for you to give us... anything.

That is the argument I made, why would I say those with pre-diabetes that fix their diet would still get diabetes?

Anyone that eats excessive sugar will get pre-diabetes and if they continue doing that, they will get diabetes. It's the basic mechanisms of what happens when you eat too much sugar. You do realize nutritional studies are very horrible, confounded, and also inaccurate, right? We don't have studies like we do for drugs to see what they do in isolation so you have to go off the body mechanisms. Why do you do a study of n=1 on this and see if you get diabetes?

 

[Silvanus]

That is the argument I made, why would I say those with pre-diabetes that fix their diet would still get diabetes?

You wouldn't. You originally just made a woolly, unfounded claim about diabetes in general. You added the additional condition about prediabetes later when it was challenged.

Anyone that eats excessive sugar will get pre-diabetes and if they continue doing that, they will get diabetes. It's the basic mechanisms of what happens when you eat too much sugar.

Still waiting on supporting evidence for 100%. Waffle isn't a substitute for substance.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You wouldn't. You originally just made a woolly, unfounded claim about diabetes in general. You added the additional condition about prediabetes later when it was challenged.



Still waiting on supporting evidence for 100%. Waffle isn't a substitute for substance.

Again, no I didn't. I said people with diabetes and pre-diabetes eat too much sugar and that is true.

It's literally how the body works. If you don't believe it, eat a bunch of sugar everyday and see what happens to you.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, no I didn't. I said people with diabetes and pre-diabetes eat too much sugar and that is true.

No: You specifically said people eat so much as to give themselves a 100% chance of diabetes. Stop trying to wriggle out of that claim. We're still waiting for any supporting evidence.

It's literally how the body works. If you don't believe it, eat a bunch of sugar everyday and see what happens to you.

I don't need to: we can look at the people who already do eat enormous amounts of sugar. Some of whom have diabetes... and some of whom do not.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, the smartest will leave anyway, and it's not forced. I generally mean in terms of H2B visas not at gunpoint.

Fair enough, though no reason why they wouldn't want to go to other developed countries instead, plenty o them around.

 

[Ag3ma]

My arguments have nothing do with associations. What sugar does to your body mechanically is a fact, and if you continue eating so much sugar (/high glycemic foods), you will develop diabetes.

But you can't give us any studies showing this. The more sugar you consume, the greater the risk of diabetes, fine. But you're stating there's some level of sugar consumption that will guarantee diabetes, and you've no evidence whether it's true or how much that may be.

I can show you a study of oreos lowering cholesterol, you think oreos are good for you?

I can already tell that you're only saying this because you no understanding of what you are trying to discuss.

Why do you think cholesterol is bad? Also, what study shows saturated fat increases inflammation?

Primarily, cholesterol is a major mediator in formation of atherosclerotic plaques, which are the primary cause of cardiovascular disease (stroke, heart attack, etc.). Needless to say, that is bad. As for saturated fats and inflammation, do you really want me to post up a passive-aggressive "let me google that for you" link?

I said what you eat and the guidelines that go with that. Stop goalposting, you know what I meant.

No, I don't know what you meant, I'm not a mind-reader.

It's up to you to communicate your meaning effectively. If you fuck that up, take responsibility for yourself and have the good grace to apologise and clarify.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No: You specifically said people eat so much as to give themselves a 100% chance of diabetes. Stop trying to wriggle out of that claim. We're still waiting for any supporting evidence.



I don't need to: we can look at the people who already do eat enormous amounts of sugar. Some of whom have diabetes... and some of whom do not.

Who hasn't gotten diabetes from constantly eating too much sugar?

But you can't give us any studies showing this. The more sugar you consume, the greater the risk of diabetes, fine. But you're stating there's some level of sugar consumption that will guarantee diabetes, and you've no evidence whether it's true or how much that may be.



I can already tell that you're only saying this because you no understanding of what you are trying to discuss.



Primarily, cholesterol is a major mediator in formation of atherosclerotic plaques, which are the primary cause of cardiovascular disease (stroke, heart attack, etc.). Needless to say, that is bad. As for saturated fats and inflammation, do you really want me to post up a passive-aggressive "let me google that for you" link?



No, I don't know what you meant, I'm not a mind-reader.

It's up to you to communicate your meaning effectively. If you fuck that up, take responsibility for yourself and have the good grace to apologise and clarify.

It's the mechanisms in the body. Are there people immune to insulin resistance?

There's a study of oreos lowering "bad" cholesterol. You brought up cholesterol not me.

That is true in one sense but also false in another sense. Just having high cholesterol is meaningless for how much plaque you have and will get. And I'm guessing you'll be sending my an associative study where it's based on what people said they ate and the group that ate more saturated fat had more inflammation? That doesn't show saturated fat mechanistically causes inflammation. And I can find a study with the same method that shows saturated fat doesn't cause inflammation too.

Why would I be talking about vitamins when I'm talking about what types of foods people are eating? You're just trying to find something to goalpost to.

Here's the CDC heatlhy eating page. Look at how many errors are on there:

Healthy Eating for a Healthy Weight

Eat well without giving up comfort food! #HealthyWeight

www.cdc.gov