Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Dirty Hipsters]

Is this real?



I can't even tell anymore. I'm basically ready to eat the onion every day as far as the Trump campaign goes because the reality as just as absurd as the jokes and memes.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

....and if I did, we could move on, and you'd provide those 6+ sources that you promised then, yes or no?

Yup

 

[Silvanus]

Yup

OK. I concede. Where are they?

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Is this real?

View attachment 11007

I can't even tell anymore. I'm basically ready to eat the onion every day as far as the Trump campaign goes because the reality as just as absurd as the jokes and memes.

Am going to assume that one not real due to merely the immature baby toiletry angle (sadly kind of a "thing" in some unimaginative anti-trump circles ) but if in doubt with anything like this in future, a reverse image search online to see the earliest upload of any image should provide enough context to determine factuality.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

OK. I concede. Where are they?

Do you actually believe you were wrong with your interpretation of the law with regards to the Trump ballot case? If you don't genuinely believe that (since it's objective fact), there's really the point in discussing anything with you.

 

[Silvanus]

Do you actually believe you were wrong with your interpretation of the law with regards to the Trump ballot case? If you don't genuinely believe that (since it's objective fact), there's really the point in discussing anything with you.

Of course I do. I'm conceding.

So where are those sources?

 

[Ag3ma]

Is this real?

No idea. I don't even know if Trump does use adult diapers. And then some claim he does this because he takes amphetamines (prescription, e.g. for ADHD), which seems to me also very much in the territory of scurrilous rumour.

Although apparently, the White House pharmacy may have been prescribing a suspiciously large amount of two potentially abusable drugs, zolpidem and modafinil, in the branded formulations at wildly excessive cost. Although not necessarily prescribed to Trump.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Of course I do. I'm conceding.

So where are those sources?

The people that worked on this study showing that sugar is the one thing that explains variations in diabetes prevalence and that weight and exercise do not.

The Relationship of Sugar to Population-Level Diabetes Prevalence: An Econometric Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Data - PMC

While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Epidemiology cannot directly prove causation," said Robert Lustig, MD, pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and the senior author of the study. "But in medicine, we rely on the postulates of Sir Austin Bradford Hill to examine associations to infer causation, as we did with smoking. You expose the subject to an agent, you get a disease; you take the agent away, the disease gets better; you re-expose and the disease gets worse again. This study satisfies those criteria, and places sugar front and center."

"As far as I know, this is the first paper that has had data on the relationship of sugar consumption to diabetes," said Marion Nestle, PhD, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University who was not involved in the study. "This has been a source of controversy forever. It's been very, very difficult to separate sugar from the calories it provides. This work is carefully done, it's interesting and it deserves attention."
Nestle pointed out that the findings add to many other studies that suggest people should cut back on their sugar intake. "How much circumstantial evidence do you need before you take action?" she said. "At this point we have enough circumstantial evidence to advise people to keep their sugar a lot lower than it normally is."

Quantity of sugar in food supply linked to diabetes rates, researcher says

Does eating too much sugar cause diabetes? For years, scientists have said "not exactly." Eating too much of any food, including sugar, can cause you to gain weight; it's the resulting obesity that predisposes people to diabetes, according to the prevailing theory.

www.sciencedaily.com

Diabetes is "processed food disease".

And, of course, the people that worked on the Duke study showing sugar is the cause of insulin resistance.

 

[Trunkage]

You do realize the Mullahs executed all the left-wingers, and are worse than the Shah. If you're a pan-shia Islamist they are great if not, they aren't.

Worse? Maybe for lefties in particular but not for the general population. There's a reason why the Shah was overthrown so quickly.

But it's like comparing the Soviets to the Tsars. The numbers of deaths there are in the millions. I suppose it doesn't really matter

 

[Gergar12]

Worse? Maybe for lefties in particular but not for the general population. There's a reason why the Shah was overthrown so quickly.

But it's like comparing the Soviets to the Tsars. The numbers of deaths there are in the millions. I suppose it doesn't really matter

No, you are wrong in a few ways, for the urbanites in Iran and many women, it was better to be under the Shah due to increased freedoms, and trade with the Western world. For the rural poor and religious people, the mullahs are better. Nationalism is a wash is my hot take, Iran was being groomed to be the hegemon in the region and was given top-of-the-line F-14s, British MBTs, and so forth. Is Iran still a hegemon and a great power yes I would agree but it's the difference between a great power like Japan vs Russia which would you rather be like(economics-wise, and socially).

 

[Silvanus]

SNIP

OK, but neither of these support the conclusion that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes. They both show different, broader findings.

 

[Gergar12]

No one is going to like my explanation for why the US does better with immigrants vs Europe. Yes, some of it is that the US is the hegemon, and is a superpower with a bucket full of resources.

But it's mainly due to deterrence. Our cops kill people faster, and theirs don't. Their SWAT and some gendarmerie have guns their regular cops don't. Europe needs to establish deterrence which will underline its policy toolbelt. That doesn't mean you kill people on a whim or deport little children but it does mean if you are a single young male you're going to be under increased scrutiny. If you don't have a job AND aren't looking for one due I don't want to, your going to get increased scrutiny. Is it discrimination yes. But my driving instructor at a school answered this question well. We don't want people to die, so we are going to have to discriminate against young people under the age of 18 who want to drive. The same logic applies here.

 

[Schadrach]

zolpidem and modafinil, in the branded formulations

For anyone not familiar with brand/generic name equivalents for drugs, those would be Ambien and Provigil, respectively. A sleep aid and a stimulant.

 

[thebobmaster]

For anyone not familiar with brand/generic name equivalents for drugs, those would be Ambien and Provigil, respectively. A sleep aid and a stimulant.

And you really don't want to get the two confused.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

OK, but neither of these support the conclusion that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes. They both show different, broader findings.

This doesn't support that conclusion?

The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.

 

[Silvanus]

This doesn't support that conclusion?

The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.

That's right, that doesn't support a conclusion that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes. That passage points to population-level correlation. It gives an indication that sugar availability has a strong impact on that population level. It gives no indication that it is the sole and direct cause. Not a single source has corroborated that conclusion. It is also no stronger than the ones I provided, which you arbitrarily dismissed as bad sources.

((It should hopefully go without saying that my concession of the other stuff earlier was not genuine, and was geared to getting you to drop your petty insistence that we talk about other irrelevant guff before you'd be willing to actually provide your sources)).

 

[Ag3ma]

That's right, that doesn't support a conclusion that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes. That passage points to population-level correlation.

Wait - an observational correlation? Aren't those studies supposed to be "bullshit"?

 

[Bedinsis]

((It should hopefully go without saying that my concession of the other stuff earlier was not genuine, and was geared to getting you to drop your petty insistence that we talk about other irrelevant guff before you'd be willing to actually provide your sources)).

Why would Phoenixmgs ever believe you going forwards?

 

[Silvanus]

Why would Phoenixmgs ever believe you going forwards?

He never believed me to begin with, because I don't tend to say things he already thinks.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's right, that doesn't support a conclusion that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes. That passage points to population-level correlation. It gives an indication that sugar availability has a strong impact on that population level. It gives no indication that it is the sole and direct cause. Not a single source has corroborated that conclusion. It is also no stronger than the ones I provided, which you arbitrarily dismissed as bad sources.

((It should hopefully go without saying that my concession of the other stuff earlier was not genuine, and was geared to getting you to drop your petty insistence that we talk about other irrelevant guff before you'd be willing to actually provide your sources)).

Ok, so it's completely pointless to discuss anything with you, got it.