Content warnings seem to be useless or add stress
- 0 Posts
- 36 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
Cake day: March 15th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
0·25 days agoWell, this is all very subjective. Idk what you do for a living, but there are massive differences between fact to fact communication and IM/email.
To say it’s outdated is just insane and flat wrong.
0·1 month agoI cannot tell if you are being serious or just having fun with buzzwords
Seriously, fuck off with the AI shit. At best it’s intelligent regex. And “intelligence” here means a specific thing.
0·2 months agoThrough their paws for one, and when they lick their coats, the saliva acts like sweat and cools them down as it evaporates. And if it’s really bad, they pant.
0·3 months agoDo you own too much pairs of jeans or too many pairs of jeans?
Lol right? Go read the thread for the fuckin journey I was on to see how silly it gets
My arguments have been good faith, have directly addressed not only your rebuttals but also your initial assertion.
I don’t think you’ve read through your links too well. (There will be some edits since I’m on my phone and can’t compose this at once)
Number 1:
A global recommendation about consumption of Cantonese-style salted fish has not been made, as this type of fish is consumed only in specific parts of the world. Nevertheless, the Panel advises that it’s best not to consume Cantonese-style salted fish.
A global recommendation about consumption of foods preserved by salting has not been made as these types of food are mostly consumed only in Asia. Nevertheless, the Panel advises that it’s best not to consume foods preserved by salting.
There is also other evidence on preservation and processing of foods that is limited (either in amount or by methodological flaws), but is suggestive of an increased risk of some cancers. Further research is required, and the Panel has not used this evidence to make recommendations.
Numba 2, if you follow their cancer link, it leads to this:
Causes of stomach cancer
Some factors that can increase your risk of stomach cancer include:
smoking tobacco
being over 60
infection with the bacteria Helicobacter pylori
a diet high in smoked, pickled and salted foods and low in fresh fruit and vegetables …
Notice how the ‘low fruits and veggies’ is left out of the initial claim
Your last source is the most interesting and compelling and should have been your first go-to since it’s the strongest, but even they say
A high-salt intake strips the lining of the stomach and may make infection with H. pylori more likely or may exacerbate the infection. Salting, pickling and smoking are traditionally popular ways of preparing food in Japan and some parts of Asia. In addition to salt intake, cigarette smoking and low consumption of fruit and vegetables increase the risk of stomach cancer. However, it is not known whether it is specifically the salt in these foods or a combination of salt and other chemicals that can cause cancer.
Healthy vs unhealthy, I’m not a doctor. Salt certainly isn’t a carcinogen. Your source and original view was using that as a buzz word. Their sources for making the claim don’t say that though.
Re: 2 comments, you wouldn’t respond to edits either, so I thought separate threads of separate thoughs would be easier for you. The second comments have arguably stronger and better views anyway since they address the foundation of your arguments instead of how you are trying to shift things. Watching how you respond, or which you respond to is telling
EDIT IN CASE YOU MISS IT: for example, I mentioned potatoes. Instead of addressing anything I said, you called me out about talking about non meat, while you had said food. Was this a misunderstanding on my part? Your part?
The dnc has famously been able to do that
Hell, on top of that, your argument of carcinogens is moot with the salts, since according to YOUR OWN SOURCE, meat itself is the carcinogen. Not the preservation of the meat.
Fuck dude, I’m half cocked today and following logic better than you.
You said “thing is bad”.
I said “why is it bad and why differentiate between the same things”?
You said “cause this study”.
Study said “bigger thing is bad , not because of what flying squid says”.
Flying squid thinks this proves his point and is happy arguing details while his original source doesn’t back up his claim
This is where we are
Okay, well if you want to pretend that processed food is just as healthy as fresh food, I’m not going to convince you otherwise.
You said food. I responded with food.
As far as meat, you said deli meat due to how processed it was with the salts. The source you quoted said meat, full stop. So deli meat is the same as normal meat according to your source. Level of processing doesn’t matter
If you’d like me to make the argument though, ground meal of some sort is usually healthier than a blighted potato. So processed can be better than natural. Pasteurized milk is often healthier than non.
I’ve never claimed that dude and I think you know that
There’s a point where everything will negatively affect a person. First, I was curious why salt was kept apart from other preservatives, second, I wanted to know why both of them were demonized. Most of the things you call against salt are the same concerns as the rest, and from your article, if you follow that cancer link, it just talks about neat consumption and cancer, not deli meat specifically
And salt is tied to high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases. It’s still the longest known preservative in human history. And undesirable parts of the animals? We used to use everything.
2010, simply because of how english works.
If you say 2001 as twenty one, it’s confusing. Same goes all the way up to “twenty nine”.
And it’s more garbled and slower to say “twenty oh one” vs “two thousand one”, especially if you’re speaking quickly.
“Twenty ten” and up, however, starts making sense as a different piece of information and can be used easily.