Trust The Science!

[CivilDiscourse]

Read the foot note you deleted or missed in the post you quoted. If you are so brain dead as to think I don't know what the lame references to water are referring to, then it is no wonder you regularly are unable to understand the points of my posts.

Which you fail to notice is just a reaction to the comment from FF that people should:

reject anything with long lists of weird sounding ingredients

He won't answer, so maybe you should:

I found this food, full of such a long list of weird sounding ingredients, should I reject it:

Chemical Name	Low PPM	High PPM	Reference
ALANINE	310	3677	USA
ALPHA-LINOLENIC-ACID	780	9253	USA
ALPHA-TOCOPHEROL	1	54	TOT USA
ALUMINUM	3	70	AAS
ARGININE	260	3084	USA
ARSENIC		0.01	AAS
ASCORBIC-ACID	400	6948	HHB USA WOI
ASH	3900	52065	AAS USA
ASPARTIC-ACID	1380	16370	USA
BETA-CAROTENE	0.089	7	CRC JAF37:657
BETA-SITOSTEROL	100	1000	GAS
BORON	1	160	AAS BOB
BROMINE		1	AAS
CADMIUM	0.004	0.18	AAS
CAFFEIC-ACID	15	34	CRC(FNS)
CALCIUM	135	2900	HHB USA
CAMPESTEROL			GAS
CARBOHYDRATES	70200	850000	CRC USA
CATECHIN			HHB
CATECHOL			HHB
CHLOROGENIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
CHROMIUM	0.005	0.18	AAS
CITRIC-ACID	3500	8000	WOI
COBALT	0.004	2	AAS ABS
COPPER	0.4	17	USA
CYSTINE	50	593	USA
ELLAGIC-ACID	430	8430	HS26(1):66
FAT	2350	59893	USA
FIBER	5300	181000	USA
FLUORINE	0.03	0.9	AAS
FOLACIN	0.1	0.2	USA
GALLIC-ACID	80	121	CRC(FNS)
GALLOCATECHIN			HHB
GENTISIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
GLUTAMIC-ACID	900	10676	USA
GLYCINE	240	2847	USA
HISTIDINE	120	1423	USA
IRON	3	100	CRC USA
ISOLEUCINE	140	1661	USA
KAEMPFEROL-3-BETA-MONOGLUCOSIDE			HHB
KAEMPFEROL-7-MONOGLUCOSIDE			HHB
KILOCALORIES	300	3559	USA
LECITHIN		620	DUKE1992A
LEUCINE	310	3667	USA
LINOLEIC-ACID	1080	12811	USA
LUTEIN	0.3	3	JAF37:657
LYSINE	250	2966	USA
MAGNESIUM	98	1545	AAS USA
MALIC-ACID	3500	8000	WOI
MALVIDIN-3,5-DIGLUCOSIDE			DUKE1992A
MANGANESE	1.4	125	AAS FNF USA
MERCURY	0	0.009	AAS
METHIONINE	10	119	USA
MOLYBDENUM		0.1	AAS
MUFA	520	6168	USA
NEO-CHLOROGENIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
NIACIN	2.3	27	USA
NICKEL	0.03	0.36	AAS
NITROGEN	880	10000	AAS
OLEIC-ACID	510	6050	USA
P-COUMARIC-ACID	63	125	CRC(FNS)
P-HYDROXY-BENZOIC-ACID	19	108	CRC(FNS)
PALMITIC-ACID	140	1661	USA
PALMITOLEIC-ACID	10	119	USA
PANTOTHENIC-ACID	3.4	40	USA
PECTIN		5400	DUKE1992A
PELARGONIDIN-3-GLUCOSIDE			JBH
PELARGONIDIN-3-MONOGLUCOSIDE			HHB
PHOSPHORUS	185	3191	USA WOI
PHYLLOQUINONE		0.03	JN126:1183S
PHYTATE	60	230	PHY
PHYTOSTEROLS	120	1423	USA
PROLINE	190	1898	USA
PROTEIN	5840	85000	CRC USA
PROTOCATECHUIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
PUFA	1860	22064	USA
QUERCETIN-3-BETA-GLUCURONIDE			HHB
QUERCETIN-3-BETA-MONOGLUCOSIDE			DUKE1992A
RIBOFLAVIN	0.7	8	CRC HHB USA
RUBIDIUM	0.2	6.5	AAS
SALICYLATES		0	JAD85:9501
SALICYLIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
SELENIUM		0.002	AAS
SERINE	230	2728	USA
SFA	200	2372	USA
SILICON	10	270	AAS
SODIUM	8	106	CRC USA
STEARIC-ACID	40	475	USA
STIGMASTEROL			GAS
SULFUR	77	1270	AAS
THIAMIN	0.2	4	WOI CRC USA
THREONINE	190	2254	USA
TRYPTOPHAN	70	830	USA
VALINE	180	2135	USA
VANILLIC-ACID	3	25	CRC(FNS)
VIT-B-6	0.6	7	USA
WATER	870000	917000	CRC USA
ZINC	1.1	17	AAS USA
ELLAGIC-ACID	1370	21650	HS26(1):66
FAT		190000	DUKE1992A
LINOLEIC-ACID		153900	WOI
LINOLENIC-ACID		9975	WOI
OLEIC-ACID		9975	WOI

[oxmixmudd]

Well, at least you've stopped pretending to be a conservative. You broadbrush and stereotype rather well though.

Oh, I am still conservative (you failed to notice 'so called') , but not the sort of conservative that has emerged victorious since the GOP became the party of ignorance and autocracy. Like I said, what (the current crop ) of conservatives call liberal is anyone using their brain for something other than a gun rack. Which would include old school conservatives like myself or George Will. Heck it even includes people like Liz Cheney, Bill Barr, or Mitt Romney!

[Machinist]

"We advocate for the recognition of weight diversity and hope that the medical field prioritizes health measurement tools that take into account the many factors that contribute to and impact a person's health status," said Dr. Katie Mittelstaedt, outreach and clinical consultant for group, in a statement to Fox News Digital.

So this is not about diversity, equity, and inclusion?

[Machinist]

It's about the potential impact to an individuals personal health status.

[oxmixmudd]

Which you fail to notice is just a reaction to the comment from FF that people should:

reject anything with long lists of weird sounding ingredients

He won't answer, so maybe you should:

I found this food, full of such a long list of weird sounding ingredients, should I reject it:

Chemical Name	Low PPM	High PPM	Reference
ALANINE	310	3677	USA
ALPHA-LINOLENIC-ACID	780	9253	USA
ALPHA-TOCOPHEROL	1	54	TOT USA
ALUMINUM	3	70	AAS
ARGININE	260	3084	USA
ARSENIC		0.01	AAS
ASCORBIC-ACID	400	6948	HHB USA WOI
ASH	3900	52065	AAS USA
ASPARTIC-ACID	1380	16370	USA
BETA-CAROTENE	0.089	7	CRC JAF37:657
BETA-SITOSTEROL	100	1000	GAS
BORON	1	160	AAS BOB
BROMINE		1	AAS
CADMIUM	0.004	0.18	AAS
CAFFEIC-ACID	15	34	CRC(FNS)
CALCIUM	135	2900	HHB USA
CAMPESTEROL			GAS
CARBOHYDRATES	70200	850000	CRC USA
CATECHIN			HHB
CATECHOL			HHB
CHLOROGENIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
CHROMIUM	0.005	0.18	AAS
CITRIC-ACID	3500	8000	WOI
COBALT	0.004	2	AAS ABS
COPPER	0.4	17	USA
CYSTINE	50	593	USA
ELLAGIC-ACID	430	8430	HS26(1):66
FAT	2350	59893	USA
FIBER	5300	181000	USA
FLUORINE	0.03	0.9	AAS
FOLACIN	0.1	0.2	USA
GALLIC-ACID	80	121	CRC(FNS)
GALLOCATECHIN			HHB
GENTISIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
GLUTAMIC-ACID	900	10676	USA
GLYCINE	240	2847	USA
HISTIDINE	120	1423	USA
IRON	3	100	CRC USA
ISOLEUCINE	140	1661	USA
KAEMPFEROL-3-BETA-MONOGLUCOSIDE			HHB
KAEMPFEROL-7-MONOGLUCOSIDE			HHB
KILOCALORIES	300	3559	USA
LECITHIN		620	DUKE1992A
LEUCINE	310	3667	USA
LINOLEIC-ACID	1080	12811	USA
LUTEIN	0.3	3	JAF37:657
LYSINE	250	2966	USA
MAGNESIUM	98	1545	AAS USA
MALIC-ACID	3500	8000	WOI
MALVIDIN-3,5-DIGLUCOSIDE			DUKE1992A
MANGANESE	1.4	125	AAS FNF USA
MERCURY	0	0.009	AAS
METHIONINE	10	119	USA
MOLYBDENUM		0.1	AAS
MUFA	520	6168	USA
NEO-CHLOROGENIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
NIACIN	2.3	27	USA
NICKEL	0.03	0.36	AAS
NITROGEN	880	10000	AAS
OLEIC-ACID	510	6050	USA
P-COUMARIC-ACID	63	125	CRC(FNS)
P-HYDROXY-BENZOIC-ACID	19	108	CRC(FNS)
PALMITIC-ACID	140	1661	USA
PALMITOLEIC-ACID	10	119	USA
PANTOTHENIC-ACID	3.4	40	USA
PECTIN		5400	DUKE1992A
PELARGONIDIN-3-GLUCOSIDE			JBH
PELARGONIDIN-3-MONOGLUCOSIDE			HHB
PHOSPHORUS	185	3191	USA WOI
PHYLLOQUINONE		0.03	JN126:1183S
PHYTATE	60	230	PHY
PHYTOSTEROLS	120	1423	USA
PROLINE	190	1898	USA
PROTEIN	5840	85000	CRC USA
PROTOCATECHUIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
PUFA	1860	22064	USA
QUERCETIN-3-BETA-GLUCURONIDE			HHB
QUERCETIN-3-BETA-MONOGLUCOSIDE			DUKE1992A
RIBOFLAVIN	0.7	8	CRC HHB USA
RUBIDIUM	0.2	6.5	AAS
SALICYLATES		0	JAD85:9501
SALICYLIC-ACID			CRC(FNS)
SELENIUM		0.002	AAS
SERINE	230	2728	USA
SFA	200	2372	USA
SILICON	10	270	AAS
SODIUM	8	106	CRC USA
STEARIC-ACID	40	475	USA
STIGMASTEROL			GAS
SULFUR	77	1270	AAS
THIAMIN	0.2	4	WOI CRC USA
THREONINE	190	2254	USA
TRYPTOPHAN	70	830	USA
VALINE	180	2135	USA
VANILLIC-ACID	3	25	CRC(FNS)
VIT-B-6	0.6	7	USA
WATER	870000	917000	CRC USA
ZINC	1.1	17	AAS USA
ELLAGIC-ACID	1370	21650	HS26(1):66
FAT		190000	DUKE1992A
LINOLEIC-ACID		153900	WOI
LINOLENIC-ACID		9975	WOI
OLEIC-ACID		9975	WOI

I didn't fail to notice anything, including the fact there are very few people here capable of overcoming their own biases and understanding the point I was making. But I'm not going to 'dumb down' my points just to try to make them understandable to people like yourself. Because a massive part of the problem right now in the GOP is the shelving of intelligence for power and control. So until you can rise to the level of being able to put aside your bias.and actually comprehend my points, there is no hope for meaningful discussion.

A multi-vitamin.

[CivilDiscourse]

I didn't fail to notice anything, including the fact there are very few people here capable of overcoming their own biases and understanding the point I was making. But I'm not going to 'dumb down' my points just to try to make them understandable to people like yourself. Because a massive part of the problem right now in the GOP is the shelving of intelligence for power and control. So until you can rise to the level of being able to put aside your bias.and actually comprehend my points, there is no hope for meaningful discussion.

A multi-vitamin.

No, a simple strawberry. That is just a list of "weird sounding ingredients" in a simple strawberry.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/when-chemicals-are-used-to-scare-you-about-food/2019/05/06/81a5cd20-6ced-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html

When chemicals are used to scare you about food

Would you worry if you knew your food contained sucrose octanoate esters or tocopherols? They might sound frightening, but don’t fret. These substances in packaged foods are also known as sugar, fat and vitamin E.

But see what I did there? I used chemical names to evoke fear by telling you those items were in your food. For a moment, you were probably wary of ingesting tocopherols. Scare tactics like this are often used by marketers to make people buy one product over another — especially organic over conventionally grown foods, which consumers spend billions of dollars on annually.

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that focuses on human health and environmentalism, contributes to this fear. In March, it released a report called “Organic: The Original Clean Food,” which asserted that organic packaged foods are safer than conventional packaged foods, because they don’t contain toxic pesticides or added chemicals. The report says “organic packaged foods are the only clean option for consumers.” That’s a scary thought considering the high cost of organic products — an organic 50-gram chocolate bar is $4.99 while a conventional one costs about $1.50.

(This is probably an opportune moment to point out that a small amount of the EWG’s funding comes from the organic food industry and that many of its reports and claims have been heavily criticized by members of the scientific community.)

As a dietitian, I encourage people to choose fresh food more often than processed foods, whether organic or not. Organic cookies, chips and soda are not healthier than conventional versions. But the EWG says conventional packaged foods are filled with “chemicals.”

This is where I remind you that “chemical” is not synonymous with “dangerous.”

“The word chemical just means a composition of things — air, water, soil — everything is a form of chemicals,” says Elvira de Mejia, a professor of food science and toxicology at the University of Illinois. “For human safety, we need to consider a chemical’s quality and the quantity that’s used, not just worry about a scary-sounding name.”

Just about any chemical can be toxic at a given dose, says de Mejia. But that does not mean we need to fear them. The EWG report lists chemicals in conventional food and their associated risks — cancer, hormonal problems, DNA damage — but fails to address one very important issue: The dose makes the poison.

It seems like nutritional studies often conflict. Here’s how to decipher them.

“Some chemicals in food are toxic at high doses, but who is eating high doses of chemicals?” asks Josh Bloom, director of chemical and pharmaceutical science at the American Council on Science and Health,which has been criticized for accepting funding from industry sources. He explains that there are two ways to look at potential danger: hazard and risk. A hazard means a chemical has the potential to cause harm. But risk is the likelihood that a chemical will actually pose problems — which may only happen if ingested at high levels.

“Those terms are very different,” Bloom says. “Some EWG claims in this report are about safe chemicals that are fed to rats in enormous amounts over their lifetime, and it in no way has anything to do with what humans might be exposed to. They don’t consider risk, and ‘chemical’ is just a word used for scare tactics.”

The EWG also has a habit of mentioning substances used while manufacturing food additives that don’t appear in the final product. For example, the report says the manufacturing of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose produces carcinogens such as formaldehyde. “They are criticizing how preservatives are made, not for what they contain when added to foods,” de Meija says. “At the end, these preservatives don’t actually contain formaldehyde.”

I asked EWG dietitian Dawn Undurraga if there’s research to show that the chemicals mentioned in this report cause harm in the amounts used in the commercial food supply. She did not provide any numbers, but cited a 2019 French research paper connecting ultra-processed foods, which contain additives and preservatives, to an increased risk of mortality.

Here’s the problem: The study does not look at the difference between organic processed food and conventional processed food. The fact is that all ultra-processed foods are linked to poor health because of their combination of sodium, sugar, trans fat and additives.

But Undurraga still stands behind organic foods because she believes that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) food regulatory system is more stringent than the FDA’s conventional food safety program, and that that makes organic foods safer. She explained that under NOP, there are only 40 synthetic substances that can be added to organic foods, and the list is reviewed every five years by the National Organic Standards Board. The FDA’s conventional food regulatory system allows a greater number of synthetic substances to be used, and they are reviewed less often.

The EWG also believes that the FDA system has a flaw, which it calls the “Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) loophole.” The EWG says conventional food companies can skip the lengthy food additive petition process with the FDA and declare ingredients to be GRAS without undergoing FDA review. It worries that this loophole will allow unsafe ingredients into foods. In 2017, the EWG and several other public health groups filed a lawsuit against the FDA seeking to strike down the GRAS system. The case is ongoing.

Bloom, for one, is not concerned. “If I saw any reason to buy one type of food over another, I would do it for my own health, but I see no advantage to organics,” he says. “I wouldn’t change anything that I’m currently doing, because our food supply is safe.”

The bottom line: Your dollars are best spent on whole — not processed — foods. Don’t be tricked into thinking packaged food is good for you as long as it’s organic. There is nothing magical about organic packaged cookies, macaroni and cheese or ice cream that make them safer or more nutritious than conventional versions.

This story has been updated to reflect that the American Council on Science and Health has been criticized for accepting industry funding.

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

Yep. If you can't find something legit to make the conservatives angry at so called liberals, make something up.

Half the time what conservatives call liberal is just a human being that uses their brain as something other than a gun rack, but I digress ...

Thank you, once again, Saint James, for modeling how REAL Christians should treat their enemies. I'm taking copious notes and learning so much!

[Cow Poke]

Highly processed food causes large, population scale, and very expensive, health issues. It is a false economy to buy cheap processed food. Check the labels and reject anything with long lists of weird sounding ingredients.

This is so true --- and the "cheap food" at the supermarket is so often majorly carbs over protein, and it's sad to see so many obese people filling up their shopping carts with this "cheap food".

And by your purchasing decisions, food producers will find a way to deliver a healthy product.

Unfortunately, "real food" has found a niche market in appealing to the wealthy, so I don't see it becoming affordable any time soon.

[CivilDiscourse]

Thank you, once again, Saint James, for modeling how REAL Christians should treat their enemies. I'm taking copious notes and learning so much!

Abusive and hateful is at least more honest than his pity party

[oxmixmudd]

No, a simple strawberry. That is just a list of "weird sounding ingredients" in a simple strawberry.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/when-chemicals-are-used-to-scare-you-about-food/2019/05/06/81a5cd20-6ced-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html

When chemicals are used to scare you about food

Would you worry if you knew your food contained sucrose octanoate esters or tocopherols? They might sound frightening, but don’t fret. These substances in packaged foods are also known as sugar, fat and vitamin E.

But see what I did there? I used chemical names to evoke fear by telling you those items were in your food. For a moment, you were probably wary of ingesting tocopherols. Scare tactics like this are often used by marketers to make people buy one product over another — especially organic over conventionally grown foods, which consumers spend billions of dollars on annually.

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that focuses on human health and environmentalism, contributes to this fear. In March, it released a report called “Organic: The Original Clean Food,” which asserted that organic packaged foods are safer than conventional packaged foods, because they don’t contain toxic pesticides or added chemicals. The report says “organic packaged foods are the only clean option for consumers.” That’s a scary thought considering the high cost of organic products — an organic 50-gram chocolate bar is $4.99 while a conventional one costs about $1.50.

(This is probably an opportune moment to point out that a small amount of the EWG’s funding comes from the organic food industry and that many of its reports and claims have been heavily criticized by members of the scientific community.)

As a dietitian, I encourage people to choose fresh food more often than processed foods, whether organic or not. Organic cookies, chips and soda are not healthier than conventional versions. But the EWG says conventional packaged foods are filled with “chemicals.”

This is where I remind you that “chemical” is not synonymous with “dangerous.”

“The word chemical just means a composition of things — air, water, soil — everything is a form of chemicals,” says Elvira de Mejia, a professor of food science and toxicology at the University of Illinois. “For human safety, we need to consider a chemical’s quality and the quantity that’s used, not just worry about a scary-sounding name.”

Just about any chemical can be toxic at a given dose, says de Mejia. But that does not mean we need to fear them. The EWG report lists chemicals in conventional food and their associated risks — cancer, hormonal problems, DNA damage — but fails to address one very important issue: The dose makes the poison.

It seems like nutritional studies often conflict. Here’s how to decipher them.

“Some chemicals in food are toxic at high doses, but who is eating high doses of chemicals?” asks Josh Bloom, director of chemical and pharmaceutical science at the American Council on Science and Health,which has been criticized for accepting funding from industry sources. He explains that there are two ways to look at potential danger: hazard and risk. A hazard means a chemical has the potential to cause harm. But risk is the likelihood that a chemical will actually pose problems — which may only happen if ingested at high levels.

“Those terms are very different,” Bloom says. “Some EWG claims in this report are about safe chemicals that are fed to rats in enormous amounts over their lifetime, and it in no way has anything to do with what humans might be exposed to. They don’t consider risk, and ‘chemical’ is just a word used for scare tactics.”

The EWG also has a habit of mentioning substances used while manufacturing food additives that don’t appear in the final product. For example, the report says the manufacturing of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose produces carcinogens such as formaldehyde. “They are criticizing how preservatives are made, not for what they contain when added to foods,” de Meija says. “At the end, these preservatives don’t actually contain formaldehyde.”

I asked EWG dietitian Dawn Undurraga if there’s research to show that the chemicals mentioned in this report cause harm in the amounts used in the commercial food supply. She did not provide any numbers, but cited a 2019 French research paper connecting ultra-processed foods, which contain additives and preservatives, to an increased risk of mortality.

Here’s the problem: The study does not look at the difference between organic processed food and conventional processed food. The fact is that all ultra-processed foods are linked to poor health because of their combination of sodium, sugar, trans fat and additives.

But Undurraga still stands behind organic foods because she believes that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) food regulatory system is more stringent than the FDA’s conventional food safety program, and that that makes organic foods safer. She explained that under NOP, there are only 40 synthetic substances that can be added to organic foods, and the list is reviewed every five years by the National Organic Standards Board. The FDA’s conventional food regulatory system allows a greater number of synthetic substances to be used, and they are reviewed less often.

The EWG also believes that the FDA system has a flaw, which it calls the “Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) loophole.” The EWG says conventional food companies can skip the lengthy food additive petition process with the FDA and declare ingredients to be GRAS without undergoing FDA review. It worries that this loophole will allow unsafe ingredients into foods. In 2017, the EWG and several other public health groups filed a lawsuit against the FDA seeking to strike down the GRAS system. The case is ongoing.

Bloom, for one, is not concerned. “If I saw any reason to buy one type of food over another, I would do it for my own health, but I see no advantage to organics,” he says. “I wouldn’t change anything that I’m currently doing, because our food supply is safe.”

The bottom line: Your dollars are best spent on whole — not processed — foods. Don’t be tricked into thinking packaged food is good for you as long as it’s organic. There is nothing magical about organic packaged cookies, macaroni and cheese or ice cream that make them safer or more nutritious than conventional versions.

This story has been updated to reflect that the American Council on Science and Health has been criticized for accepting industry funding.

© Copyright Original Source

Ah, and a strawberry happens to have many ingredients found in a multivitamin. (Or vice versa). The point being it was a food. But am I correct in assuming that you are stupid wnough to think that because I didn't name it as a strawberry you somehow 'won'.

The reality is that you are making my point. You are thinking like the luddite you are, rather than like the educated and intelligent person you could be.

[Diogenes]

Which you fail to notice is just a reaction to the comment from FF that people should:

reject anything with long lists of weird sounding ingredients

I take it Ox doesn't understand the humour around calling water "Dihydrogen Monoxide", especially as it relates to scare tactics.

Aside from the bleeding obvious that shouldn't have to be explained, I guess you've joined star in the belief that the WaPo is rightwing

The Left is well known for not being funny. (Edit: How that makes me an anti-science conservative, I'll never know. Ox may be under the delusion the Fauci is the Science.)

I wouldn't call the impact racist, but it could impact the black race.

The problem is that people like Ox want to change the language that describes a reality they don't like in order to mask that reality and placate those affected. It's the same insidious paternalism that the Left has embraced to meet their cultural ends. It's not even well intentioned paternalism. There are likely a variety of reasons why black individuals are more affected by BMI issues. Undoubtedly there are socio-economic reasons just as undoubtedly there are cultural reasons, individual purchasing reasons, and nutritional problems that affect the population like eating food food cooked in engine lubricant (canola oil). If you will notice, the Left similarly demonizes fitness. The Left is nothing but a devil on the shoulder to whisper the "correct" reasons.

[oxmixmudd]

I take it Ox doesn't understand the humour around calling water "Dihydrogen Monoxide", especially as it relates to how scare tactics.



The Left is well known for not being funny.




The problem is that people like Ox want to change the language that describes a reality they don't like in order to mask that reality and placate those affected. It's the same insidious paternalism that the Left has embraced meet their cultural ends. It's not even well intentioned paternalism. There are likely a variety of reasons why black individuals are more affected by BMI issues. Undoubtedly there are socio-economic reasons just as undoubtedly there are cultural reasons, individual purchasing reasons, and nutritional problems that affect the population like eating food food cooked in engine lubricant (canola oil). The Left is nothing but a devil on the shoulder to whisper the "correct" reasons.

Like I said to rogue, you are brain dead if you are so naive as to think I am not aware of both the meaning and typical use of the term dihydrogen monoxide.

[CivilDiscourse]

Ah, and a strawberry happens to have many ingredients found in a multivitamin. (Or vice versa). The point being it was a food. But am I correct in assuming that you are stupid wnough to think that because I didn't name it as a strawberry you somehow 'won'.

The reality is that you are making my point. You are thinking like the luddite you are, rather than like the educated and intelligent person you could be.

No, ox. I'm pointing out that using a fear tactic like "weird sounding ingredients" is dishonest. I see you have moved on from pity party to abusive and hateful. It's more honest, but I'm not sure it's any better behaviourally, or from a mental well-being standpoint.

[oxmixmudd]

Thank you, once again, Saint James, for modeling how REAL Christians should treat their enemies. I'm taking copious notes and learning so much!

I can't hold a candle to you on that CP. You are the master of such vulgarity, that and the hypocrisy of actually demeaning holding high the admonitions of our Lord while at the same time preaching sermons on Sunday.

[oxmixmudd]

No, ox. I'm pointing out that using a fear tactic like "weird sounding ingredients" is dishonest. I see you have moved on from pity party to abusive and hateful. It's more honest, but I'm not sure it's any better behaviourally, or from a mental well-being standpoint.

If you think I'm being abusive and hateful, then you haven't been reading your own posts very closely. And you certainly are not calling it out impartially, assuming that is what you actually are seeing in my post, as opposed to the more likely opportunistic urge for insult.