|
Evil Fluffy posted:Doubtful. Well no, they didn't. They didn't get the hooks in until the 90s with Orrin Hatch, they simply skated by as fly by night operations that still amde the same group of people rich while they weren't legally touchable. So the whole supplement scam was quite big fromt he 70s on, and then with the connivance of congress in the 90s it really exploded. Hell, until the late 80s/early 90s, comprehensive labeling was practically absent from most regular food packaging, let alone Dr. Quack's Supplement Powder.
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Nearly all historians these days agree Jesus probably existed, because there's nothing implausible in the least about a guy with a common name for the time period and region being born, being a carpenter, and then becoming a sectarian preacher of a new kind of Judaism. There were dozens of people like that known to exist, and what's likely not historical is things like him being particularly targeted by the Romans (they went after most of the same sort of preacher dudes) and that he actually did the miracles.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Also Jesus' actual name in his native language was essentially Joshua (Yeshua), Jesus just being a several layers deep re-transliteration. So the savior of mankind is a guy named Josh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:Did he actually do any carpentry or was that just another fabrication to make him seem more folksy and down to earth? Since carpentry was a very common trade of the time, there's no reason to think statements he was a carpenter are fake. Do remember that he didn't start doing the "I'm preaching a practically new religion" stuff til he was nearly 30. Guy's gotta eat!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:I'm too lazy to look it up, but within the last few years I read an article saying that the proper translation for whatever equaled "carpenter" was more like "handyman". Whatever the word was, it denoted someone who did a variety of tasks. No idea how correct that was... A modern carpenter also does some other related things too though. Few stick to pure carpentry and Jesus wouldn't have either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
One thing I'll point out is that tons of those preachers had followings too, many that lasted as much as hundreds of years. It's just only Christianity managed to grow to multiple billions of adherents and gain domination over first the Roman Empire, then Europe at large, and in recent centuries most of the world. There's some speculation that many of those alternate preachers ended up having their followers join in with the Christians as time went on. And those preachers getting retconned as being Christian preachers, sometimes even saints.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Prism posted:This is interesting stuff from my point of view (studying it as history). Are there any particularly good books on the topic? It's just something that came up in a religious history class I took nigh on 8 years ago in college. Don't remember the books we used, but it came up during a portion on why Jesus was almost certainly historical (and why that doesn't make Christianity either more or less valid). Wouldn't know the best place to look up the other movements of the time, and the Saints thing is just a hypothesis that had been recently come up with, since apparently many "christian" saints sounded to historians like they might have had no relation to Christianity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Food labelling laws in general are hilariously arbitrary and hosed up. Not to say that companies shouldn't have to label stuff, but anyone who thinks that feel-good labels like fair trade, organic, GMO free etc are anything but gimmicks is delusional. At least "fair trade", "organic" and "gmo free" are voluntary labels so that people who really insist on thinking those things are better know where to go. Also their existence is what disproves the argument for GMO labeling that it's needed for "consumer choice!!!" since a consumer who doesn't want GMO already knows that both "organic" and "gmo free" labeled stuff don't have GMO.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Tias posted:Please don't be that guy. All power sources have downsides, and we've yet to solve the ones in nuclear power. Uh what downsides would those be? That safely building them is expensive and a filthy coal plant that will ruin the surrounding landscape as soon as you turn it on is way cheaper, and a marginally less deadly than coal natural gas plant doesn't cost much more than the coal?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Tias posted:Yeah, in a perfect world that would be a solved problem, but we somehow can't stop plants loving it up. You're not very practical if you can't accept like 2 deaths tops since the Soviet Union collapsed as an energy produced to deaths caused ratio on par with solar or wind. Especially when coal and even natural gas kills when it's working correctly when nuclear only kills the like 3 times in history things have gone super wrong, and one of them didn't have any fatalities or even injuries (or for that matter, long terms increases in death and disease). And when we don't exactly have a surfeit of suitable hydro power locations that aren't either already taken or way too environmentally sensitive to destroy with a dam resevoir. So cut the bullshit: just admit you hate it and will never ever support it instead of doing this weird hedging dance where it has to be utterly perfect before you'll support it. As mentioned France has been majority nuclear for several decades and never had an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Or if they don't think that a nuclear plant will explode like a nuclear weapon, then they think that a nuclear meltdown always looks like Chernobyl. Don't ask them if they've ever actually looked at the circumstances of how Chernobyl happened or whether or not such an event is even possible with a more modern reactor design Or you know, how the vast majority of Chernobyl related deaths are because the Soviets didn't tell the people they sent to the accident site what the gently caress was going on, nor give them protection. Speaking of which there was an old consiracy theory that the Soviets intentionally caused the accident, because there were people int he teams that would be sent to try to clean it up and would die that someone wanted rid of. This was on a BBS long ago, though might have been on one of those message services that relayed conversations between different BBSes at regular intervals throughout a day.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'm pretty sure there's much cheaper ways to get rid of people in the USSR. The conspiracy theory is not the Soviet higher ups were being sneaky, but that they were being cruel. There's also a separate theory that they did it to punish that general region, or that it was done because some people knew the union would break up soon and they wanted to partially cripple and depopulate a region that would be free soon. That latter one, iirc, also alleges that they would have done it in the Baltic states and other soon to leave "republics" but they'd overplayed the hand with chernobyl or that the brave workers of other areas sabotaged the plans.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Tias posted:I might, but that thread put me even further off because of the dogpile chucklefucks in there. Have you considered that if you constantly get dogpiled on the facts, it could be because you're wildly wrong?? Just saying!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:What's even worse is we have no percentage of daily value on sugar on our labels thanks to sugar lobbyists. It's crazy how much sugar we dump into everything. There is no reason to have a separate daily value for sugars as compared to all digestible carbohydrates. This has nothing to do with sugar lobbyists, loading your fat rear end with 500 grams of complex carbohydrates has identical long term health effects as 500 grams of simple sugars.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:So why would it be a bad thing to have 250% next to the sugar of a bottle of orange juice? Because such a bottle ALREADY SAYS 250% next to the carbs, which includes the sugar! What aren't you getting there? Tias posted:Have you considered that being an insufferable shitwizard towards people who politely ask you questions might turn them off from your position? You aren't allowed to be wrong, you whiner. If you want people to stop mocking your stupidity, stop repeating your stupidity. And consider why you're so insistent on ignoring all scientific evidence while you're at it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm not wrong when I say that nuclear plants have melted down, which was all I "assessed". 1 which caused absolutely no injuries or deaths, 1 which caused 2 deaths and a few injuries, and 1 that caused a bunch of deaths primarily due to a corrupt government attempting to cover it up. This is over the course of nearly 60 years of nuclear power, while coal plants put out a similar death and injury toll on a weekly basis. There are no other sources of energy as perfectly fitted to sweep away garbage fossil fuel plants as nuclear. But hey, you're also an anarchist so it's not like being really stupid about how things work and having a really hosed up view of dangers and risks is strange to you. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Because it doesn't. Carbs are counted completely different than sugar to the AHA. I understand their basically the same, the populace does not. You don't understand what you're talking about, since sugar is literally a carb. Because there's no different percentage to put than the percentage the total carbs have, which is defensible under current dietary science.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:You haven't answered why it would he a bad thing. You have answered why it would be arbitrary. Nutrition labels should never be arbitrary, they're supposed to be based on the best possible scientific evidence. The AHA suggests that, but other entities do not say that's the actual recommended value nor is there is nearly enough reliable evidence out there to support making a daily value percentage based on that one entity's suggestion. Sorry that you want to do some dumb kneejerk labeling though!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Tias posted:Nuclear power destroys the environment, and so the basis for future habitability. This is flatly untrue. Why do you insist on ignoring evidence? ratbert90 posted:Your right, the WHO recommends no more than 25grams a day, lower than the AHA, which would turn that 9% into a 100%, but it isn't. Carbs are decidedly not labeled the same way as sugar. Again, this is not actually supported nearly as well as the overall carb value, which is itself an underestimation for most people. They are in fact labeled the same way as sugar, since sugar is a carb, and you are currently angry because they're labeled the same way as sugars. Get your own dumb arguments straight at least.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Hydroelectric power has destroyed far more of the environment then 10 repeats of Chernobyl could.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:If they were labeled the same way as sugar I would be fine. Are you actually saying that any health organization thinks that 26g of sugar is only 9% of your daily value? Carbs ARE labeled the same way as sugar. You are demanding they be labeled differently by listing a different daily value for sugar instead of a single daily value for all carbs. Most world governments have health organizations behind their labeling requirements, they do not think there is sufficient evidence that specifically simple sugars need a separate value, the way saturated fats do within all fats.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Are you saying that 26g of sugar is only 9% of your daily value of sugar? Are you seriously saying that is somehow less arbitrary than labeling it in accordance to the WHO or AHA? Perhaps in the 200+ years of nutritional science they could have come up with a agrees upon number you would think? There is no daily value of sugar separate from other carbs. What aren't you getting, exactly? There has only been 50 year at best of real nutritional science, and during that time there has not been strong enough evidence that simple sugars need a separate recommended daily value from all digestible carbs in general. Those numbers you keep throwing out are also ridiculous on the face of it, because different people have wildly varying needs. They put both on the label as a courtesy to those who are interested, perhaps as part of a specific diet plan. In fact, on many foods, they don't bother to separate it out on the label at all! ratbert90 posted:Which is why I am trying to say that sugar should be labeled differently. Or if you insist that sugar and carbs are the exact same,(they are) than they aren't being treated the same on the nutritional label, which is bad, because no health organization on earth would say 288g of sugar is OK per day. They shouldn't be labeled differently, because there isn't actually evidence supporting that. The health orgs behind government labeling in most countries agree it's ok for someone who should have a 2000 calorie diet, i.e. an older woman who's kinda short, to have 288 grams of sugar, so long as she has 0 grams of other carbohydrates.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Holy lol. Find me one source that agrees with that statement. Find me one peer reviewed source. I will wait. The 2000 calorie diet used as the basis for American Nutrition Facts labels is literally based on the calorie needs for a middle aged woman who's slightly below average height. Source: literally the people behind making it the basis of the Nutrition Facts label in the late 80s and early 90s when it was developed. Here's a whole article on it: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/why-does-the-fda-recommend-2-000-calories-per-day/243092/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Find me a peer reviewed article that claims: The studies behind setting the nutrition daily values, which is what determined there is not enough of a meaningful difference to justify setting a seperate limit for simple sugars versus complex sugars versus other carbohydrates. Sugar LITERALLY is carbs. It is literally a carbohydrate. It is by definition the same as carbs. Or are you one of those people who believe squares aren't rectangles?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Sugar is a carb, but not all carbs are the same as sugar, I am well aware that sugar is a carb, I am trying to say that not all Carbs are treated the same as sugar in your body. The indigestible carbs do not count towards the daily value int he first place. Sugars do count the same as other carbs on the long term basis that the recommended daily values are about though, which is why they are not split. They should not be separated, because the current scientific consensus does not agree there a) needs to be a separate limit b) that such a separate limit is known. Masonity posted:Wouldn't how long a carb takes to be broken down into usable glucose be pretty relevant seeing as glucose spikes are a bad thing? Not for what recommended daily values are for, which is not "optimal health hour by hour" but "proper feeding over the long term". Like in reality almost no one is going to consistently get their carbs purely from simple sugars for months on end, it would require quite active effort.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Does anybody wanna talk about conspiracy theories? Or is this thread just for talking about carbs and trying to reason with Tias, an actual skinhead with a My Little Pony avatar? The carb guy literally thinks it's a conspiracy to not list sugars separately though. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think it's pretty blatantly clear that listing a can of coke at 120% of your daily value of sugar would make coke upset. It would make scientists upset too, because that's not supported by the scientific evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:You could watch any number of the reports on it, from John Oliver to multiple documentaries to the AHA and WHO itself, or you can keep spouting off your ignorance. A TV comedy show and some loose recommendations by two organizations (who don't claim to actually know a correct value but just threw them out there as suggestions that might be nice) are not scientific evidence that there's a known specific daily value that should be on the label. Get that through your head.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Welp, time for me to get a new strawman example Yeah a bunch of companies have switched to more sensible sizes for packaged things, shame it took so freaking long to do though. Ashcans posted:You should use a 20oz soda, this one is listed as 2.5 servings which just seems weird to me. I mean you know that whoever buys a 20oz is probably just going to drink the whole thing anyway, but even if you believe they'll split it or save some, dealing with partial portions seems sloppy. There's probably some benefit to standardized portions to let people compare more easily between options, but it only works if you are comparing amounts people actually consume. Yeah but if you're buying it from the coke or pepsi companies, they have that separate front label saying the calories/sugar/sometimes sodium for the whole thing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
katlington posted:The solution to food labelling serving sizes is to mandate a per 100g (or some other universal size) label as well. Er, you realize we already have the standard sizes for types of food, and the disconnect between that and the actual container is the issue? Unless you're asking to have a third point for measurement which seems even more unwieldy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I'd like to do an actual breakdown of a hoax to get a chart up for just how many crisis actors would have to be involved. I mean if you going full hoax, nobody died, greenscreens etc, you very quickly get up into the 1000s. Emergency personal, neighbours, coroners, newspapers, eye witnesses, family members. Again: there's a very high correlation between "takes crisis actors seriously" and "literally has a brain problem where they can't tell people apart and are blind to facial details". People without that, tend to just talk about false flags, so all the illuminati or the new world order or whatever has to do is train a guy to do an attack, so there only needs to be 1 or 2 people in the immediate area who know it was done under false pretenses. Meanwhile, the "literally all of it was staged people" have a hard enough time telling people in their office or whatever apart, so it's hopeless for them to be able to reliably tell apart the random white people who tend to be in news coverage of an event in America. Someone else like them says "look they're just actors" and shows them pictures that "prove it" to people who suck at face recognition, and more often than not this will result in belief.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:I just can't comprehend the mental gymnastics it takes to believe that your government is evil enough to stage mass shootings and terror attacks to take away your freedoms, but for some reason draws the line at actually killing people. You have to understand that most don't come up with it on their own, they get told about this by others. For most people, since we can drat well see that nobody looks remotely similar between the events that are supposed to be done by the same "Crisis actors" we immediately go "nope that's dumb". But the prosopagnosia sufferers, any of them that were already leaning a bit towards a conspiratorial mindset can easily believe that there are consistent crisis actors between events, and therefore the events are either fake entirely or real but overblown using the actors to help the illuminati or whatever. As to why people who actually can tell faces apart sign on? Maybe they're just so deep into conspiracist poo poo to begin with that they'll accept anything as true if the government says it ain't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If you're told so, you'll believe so. They get told "Look, they're identical! They have the same ears!" And that conditions them to believe that they're the same person. Any lack of similarity can be explained away as makeup, lighting, camera angles, etc. No. Most people reject the crisis actor thing, even if they believe other conspiracy theory stuff, because the supposed actors don't look similar at all. You sure you ain't just a little bit faceblind yourself?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:I don't think prosopagnoisa is a MAJOR driving force, the images used in these conspiracies are usually so lovely that its easy to willfully project similarities onto them. We could all agree that the girls in these pics resemble each other, but its another sort of mental illness or willful density to turn that observation into some nefarious plot. No those people really don't look similar other than that: a) they look like they're women (though one of them could just be a chunky dude with long hair) b) they're white. Ashcans posted:Prosopagnoisa is not a reason for people believing in crisis actor crap. 'These two people look the same' is the most reasonable part of the entire thing, It's not, because they usually don't look the same at all. The rest of the stuff in crisis actor is standard issue conspiracy theory false flag stuff, it's the "these are actually exactly thee same people" is what's different, and what's usually only believable at all if your ability to recognize faces is severely broken - or presumably if you're just regularly visually impaired, like beyond the point where glasses can really help.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:Keep the crisis actor group small so word doesn't get out / you can easily off them at a later time It's just the "one step further" version of the people who cry false flag constantly. Even though the false flag theory just requires that the actual attacker and maybe his commander in the shadow government knows whats going on, while, transforming them from false flags to completely fake requires letting a lot more people in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 15:38
|
|
Instead of going through the hassle of hiring fake grieving people, falsify police records, etc.
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The short answer is because the US ignores mental illness instead of treating it. This is wrong because they do this bullshit all over the anglosphere at least. I mean you do understand that no matter how free mental health stuff is, a lot of crazy people don't think they need treatment, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:i have a friend sleeping over and he brought up that there was NO MOLTEN STEEL AMONGST THE RUBBLE NUSH DID 9/11!!! Ask him how he expects steel to stay molten for months as they dug into the rubble pile.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why would there be any molten steel anyways? It was weakened not melted Explaining that is too complicated, best to just ask why there would still be molten steel 6+ months after.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
At least it used to be true that bow and arrow was better than guns, for a few centuries. That's more than you can say for most conspiracy theories!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Really the biggest advantage of guns was how easy is was to mass them. If you dedicate a massive portion of your countries industry solo to training, equipping and supplying archers, like England during the hundred years war you can outfit a few thousand longbow men. Fast forward a hindered years or so and countries are fielding 10s of thousands of musketeers. Because the pool of available musketeers is basically anyone with a pulse and 4 functioning limbs, there was a runaway snowball effect as more guns were brought in to counter heavy medieval armor, which lead to guns and gun powder becoming cheaper through experience and economics of scale, which lead to more guns being used, which lead to cheaper guns... The thing is it took a long time to get to the point that you could mass gun users, because guns spent a lot of time being real expensive and unreliable. So even though there's hand carried guns as early as around 1350 in Europe, you still gotta wait quite some time before it's developed into a practical and cheap enough weapon to issue en masse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 16:16
|
|