You're opening cans of worms you don't want to eat. Then you start being a complete douchebag with pathetic insults and assaults at others that are simply pointing out you're wrong. Besides, you've used the same excuse before, and then nothing changed, so at least there is some rationality there to doubt your claims. Try and learn from it. (-:
You're opening cans of worms you don't want to eat. Then you start being a complete douchebag with pathetic insults and assaults at others that are simply pointing out you're wrong. Besides, you've used the same excuse before, and then nothing changed, so at least there is some rationality there to doubt your claims. Try and learn from it. (-:
Same meds, same treatment course. Isn't over yet. Will be in a week-ish. *shrug* It makes it hard to be rational.
Anyway, keep looking for those buttons, you'll find 'em. :-)
If you're trying to claim I'm the only one being insulting on here, wow. That's something.
open_sketchbook - that's not it at all but I'm not looking to start another 100 post flamewar over it. I wasn't discounting anybody's expertise in THIS thread even. I was saying that their expertise is probably valid but I'm still not going to eat pink slime. That's my prerogative as a consumer/diner/human. :-)
The issue is that you've set a literally impossible standard in your inquiry: "perfectly safe." There's no such thing. The real question is: significantly different than any other practice or not?
You're not being skeptical in the sense of rational inquiry - you're being a reactionary contrarian. There is a difference.
Your story is unfortunately all too common - both because of the near-death experience, and the resultant irrational bias. Natural food manufacturers prey on experiences like yours, convincing you to pay more money for a product that is not functionally distinct from another.
And now the problem is that there's virtually no standard of evdience that could defeat your "skepticism." If you were truly skeptical, you'd have researched pink slime, and found what I did - that there's no difference in ammonia content between pink slime and most other beef, and that ammonia in such low concentrations has no effect on the body.
If you recognize and admit to an irrational standard of proof, then there's no discussion to be had.
100% understand your position. I was being kinda dumb.
Still, I've been well served by my intuition and I tend not to fully discount it even in the face of contrary evidence. My daughter was being treated as an Infectious Disease case, quarantine, negative pressure room, the whole 9, until somebody (a pharm student shadowing the Infectious Disease specialist) finally found a study showing that 0.3% of patients on Remicade have the reaction she had (serum sickness something something) and that was the culprit, not some exotic virus/bacterium. I went in there saying it was the Remicade. Anecdotal, coincidental, etc. I know all the arguments against already. :-) I've got a double handful of similar anecdotes. I just don't think intuition is worthless. Pink slime gives me the creeps. I don't think I have to justify that. I can choose not to consume it and there's no reason that choice should be offensive.
By the by, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, I research exhaustively and obsessively. Often I'm limited to abstracts because I only have full journal access from school, but I generally catch interactions and inaccurate statements before my kids' docs do. I hardly have time to research anything else. ;-)
If you're trying to claim I'm the only one being insulting on here, wow. That's something.
Actually, I seem to have claimed quite the opposite a few posts ago about me condescending you. Seems you still haven't caught on to that. You're making it too easy really, that actually makes your username apt.
open_sketchbook - that's not it at all but I'm not looking to start another 100 post flamewar over it. I wasn't discounting anybody's expertise in THIS thread even. I was saying that their expertise is probably valid but I'm still not going to eat pink slime. That's my prerogative as a consumer/diner/human. :-)
Ahum:
I take it you work in the industry or a related industry.
Followed by:
Oh you're a student. That's worse.
There's a relevant XKCD about students, it was posted just today in another thread actually, so I won't rehash it.
I'm really not interested in an earnest debate on this topic today.
"I wasn't discounting anybody's expertise in THIS thread" my ass. (-:
By the by, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, I research exhaustively and obsessively.
Great, but you might have noticed at some point that the discussion was about food and the use of all parts of an animal, not pharmaceuticals.
Pink slime gives me the creeps. I don't think I have to justify that. I can choose not to consume it and there's no reason that choice should be offensive.
It only gives you the creeps because one particular yahoo decided to call it pink slime and the name stuck. It's literally just beef.
Pink slime gives me the creeps. I don't think I have to justify that. I can choose not to consume it and there's no reason that choice should be offensive.
It only gives you the creeps because one particular yahoo decided to call it pink slime and the name stuck. It's literally just beef.
Also, pink slime is actually pretty tame compared to a lot of processed food. :P
Pink slime gives me the creeps. I don't think I have to justify that. I can choose not to consume it and there's no reason that choice should be offensive.
It only gives you the creeps because one particular yahoo decided to call it pink slime and the name stuck. It's literally just beef.
No I only use the name as shorthand because everybody recognizes it. I reject the attempt to discredit it with a label. I am legitimately skeeved by the process. It's preference not science.
My daughter was being treated as an Infectious Disease case, quarantine, negative pressure room, the whole 9, until somebody (a pharm student shadowing the Infectious Disease specialist) finally found a study showing that 0.3% of patients on Remicade have the reaction she had (serum sickness something something) and that was the culprit, not some exotic virus/bacterium.
I take it you work in the industry or a related industry.
Followed by:
Oh you're a student. That's worse.
There's a relevant XKCD about students, it was posted just today in another thread actually, so I won't rehash it.
Guess your daughter's lucky that you saw that XKCD after a student saved her life, huh?
Well if we're being pedantic, the danger to her life had passed by that point. The student confirmed what was bloody obvious, frankly. The reaction onset coincided very closely with the med and bore several hallmarks of being allergic. The reason it was discounted so long was the specialist's insistence that the drug did not and could not cause that reaction.
My issue with students like you isn't field related incompetence. It's the sanctimonious elitist attitude that so many have. That I don't argue with scientific rigor in all discussions does not make me an idiot or give you license to condescend without being called on it.
"locavores" (an altogether bullshit concept, but that's another conversation)
Can you expand upon this, because it's always been my understanding that purchasing from local farms helps support farms which grow a diverse range of products (other than the corn/sory megafarms that are around these days) which cannot afford to purchase super expensive refrigeration and shipping equipment. Purchasing local helps decrease the costs for fruits and veggies (at least as far as I know).
It's the sanctimonious elitist attitude that so many have.
WUB wasn't any of that though. You just went on with your attempts to discount his statements without actually making a supported argument to do so.
That I don't argue with scientific rigor in all discussions does not make me an idiot or give you license to condescend without being called on it.
You weren't being condescended. You can't even tell when you're actually being condescended when it's straight in your face. And while it is true that you not arguing with scientific vigour doesn't make you an idiot, that doesn't change the fact that you already are an idiot. (-:
My issue with students like you isn't field related incompetence. It's the sanctimonious elitist attitude that so many have. That I don't argue with scientific rigor in all discussions does not make me an idiot or give you license to condescend without being called on it.
I didn't say you're an idiot, I questioned your beliefs on the topic of something that is to biologists like TWS and myself, and issue someone claiming that 2+2 is 5. There is literally no other way for us to handle something like that other than saying that it's actually 4. I've literally known the techniques and theory necessary to make my points since before I was even admitted to college.
You're the one who called my knowledge worthless based on my so-called lack of social prowess (something I know not to be true, and an irrelevant attack that I opted to ignore), and then made comments regarding the peer review and journal process and atmosphere (things about which you appear entirely ignorant about, yet present yourself as if you are an authority) that one of our resident PhD students outright laughed at. When I challenged the later comments, you claimed that I was being either intentionally obtuse or had missed your point. I assure you, neither was the case, and if anything, you are guilty of both.
I am not in the wrong here, and neither are my fellow scientists. We have an entire board of scientists, artists, and regular joes backing us up on this. You are literally the only person making this complaint, and challenging us on our rigor. If you can give me a reason as to why my "attitude" renders a fact invalid, I would absolutely love to hear it.
There's a qualitative difference between the way you presented your knowledge and the way TWS did. I don't know how to articulate it any better than that for you without using risky language that is likely to be misinterpreted even further.
I really don't understand why people are offended by "elitism", whatever that means. It seems the only difference between somebody explaining something, and somebody "lording" something over you is if you are grateful to receive knowledge or not.
I really don't understand why people are offended by "elitism", whatever that means. It seems the only difference between somebody explaining something, and somebody "lording" something over you is if you are grateful to receive knowledge or not.
This is sometimes true. It's also sometimes true that the delivery is wanting. There's perceived elitism and condescension and then there's the genuine article, and the two shouldn't be conflated as they are not the same.
"locavores" (an altogether bullshit concept, but that's another conversation)
Can you expand upon this, because it's always been my understanding that purchasing from local farms helps support farms which grow a diverse range of products (other than the corn/sory megafarms that are around these days) which cannot afford to purchase super expensive refrigeration and shipping equipment. Purchasing local helps decrease the costs for fruits and veggies (at least as far as I know).
I don't have a problem with local meat and produce, but the concept of "locavorism" irritates me because it perpetuates a flawed idea that things grown close to home are somehow better than produce which has to be trucked in, due to a reduced carbon footprint alone. Realistically, one needs to consider the methodology of the farms you source from in terms of pesticide usage, crop rotation, polyculture, and fertilizer usage to gain a true appreciation of how responsible their farming is. Most of Illinois is corn and soya megafarms, so locavorism here could very well land you with an ear of organophosphate-blasted Bt-Transgenic sweet corn instead of the ma-and-pop stuff you picture when you think of farmstand produce. Buying local is not at all a bad place to start, and I do it as much as possible, but we need to approach responsible agriculture wholistically rather than attacking one problem at a time.
Elitism, where "elite" means "educated or knowledgeable" seems completely nonsensical to me. I always want to learn. There is not a moment where I am not in pursuit of either skill or knowledge unless I am sleeping. And you cannot learn if you challenge or doubt people who already know the things you want to know, unless they want you to challenge them as a form of Socratic learning.
I have felt condescended to, but it's pretty rare and usually part of a greater situation where the person who is teaching me is clearly either less knowledgeable or too disinterested to actually pass on their knowledge. Much of school felt like that. I disengage with these people immediately.
There's a qualitative difference between the way you presented your knowledge and the way TWS did. I don't know how to articulate it any better than that for you without using risky language that is likely to be misinterpreted even further.
I did apologize for being inflammatory.
I apologize as well, then. I don't consider myself elitist at all (one of my best friends just dropped out after three years of film school and I admire the guy to death), but I recognize that years of sparring with Scott Rubin has probably made me seem rather hawkish when it comes to debate. But then, they say the same of Richard Dawkins, and he's an incredible evolutionary biologist. I suppose I'm in good company among my peers.
There's a qualitative difference between the way you presented your knowledge and the way TWS did. I don't know how to articulate it any better than that for you without using risky language that is likely to be misinterpreted even further.
I did apologize for being inflammatory.
Try. We're well aware by now that any word in the English language is risky for you to use, at least this time you're up front about it. The only difference between the both of them is how you perceived them, something that did not go uphill once you found out WUB's a student. (-:
There's a qualitative difference between the way you presented your knowledge and the way TWS did. I don't know how to articulate it any better than that for you without using risky language that is likely to be misinterpreted even further.
I did apologize for being inflammatory.
Try. We're well aware by now that any word in the English language is risky for you to use, at least this time you're up front about it. The only difference between the both of them is how you perceived them, something that did not go uphill once you found out WUB's a student. (-:
There's a qualitative difference between the way you presented your knowledge and the way TWS did. I don't know how to articulate it any better than that for you without using risky language that is likely to be misinterpreted even further.
I did apologize for being inflammatory.
I apologize as well, then. I don't consider myself elitist at all (one of my best friends just dropped out after three years of film school and I admire the guy to death), but I recognize that years of sparring with Scott Rubin has probably made me seem rather hawkish when it comes to debate. But then, they say the same of Richard Dawkins, and he's an incredible evolutionary biologist. I suppose I'm in good company among my peers.
To be fair I owe more of an apology than you do, I was being a real dick this afternoon.
If you're going to con maybe I can buy you a beer after the convention center shuts down on one night or another. If not, we'll just have to run a tab for a bit. ;-)
No, thank god. I would get too thirsty. Just typing out how you've shamed the least offensive guy into apologizing to you of all people. With conspiracy-level "OH MY GOD THEY ARE CONDESCENDING ME"-goggles on TheWhaleShark's a lot worse than WUB in the discussion that was had. Subtly poking fun at the insane statements you make even as you attempted to be a dick to others with expectable jabs. I can't speak for either of their intents though.
Comments
Anyway, keep looking for those buttons, you'll find 'em. :-)
If you're trying to claim I'm the only one being insulting on here, wow. That's something.
open_sketchbook - that's not it at all but I'm not looking to start another 100 post flamewar over it. I wasn't discounting anybody's expertise in THIS thread even. I was saying that their expertise is probably valid but I'm still not going to eat pink slime. That's my prerogative as a consumer/diner/human. :-)
Still, I've been well served by my intuition and I tend not to fully discount it even in the face of contrary evidence. My daughter was being treated as an Infectious Disease case, quarantine, negative pressure room, the whole 9, until somebody (a pharm student shadowing the Infectious Disease specialist) finally found a study showing that 0.3% of patients on Remicade have the reaction she had (serum sickness something something) and that was the culprit, not some exotic virus/bacterium. I went in there saying it was the Remicade. Anecdotal, coincidental, etc. I know all the arguments against already. :-) I've got a double handful of similar anecdotes. I just don't think intuition is worthless. Pink slime gives me the creeps. I don't think I have to justify that. I can choose not to consume it and there's no reason that choice should be offensive.
By the by, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, I research exhaustively and obsessively. Often I'm limited to abstracts because I only have full journal access from school, but I generally catch interactions and inaccurate statements before my kids' docs do. I hardly have time to research anything else. ;-)
My issue with students like you isn't field related incompetence. It's the sanctimonious elitist attitude that so many have. That I don't argue with scientific rigor in all discussions does not make me an idiot or give you license to condescend without being called on it.
You're the one who called my knowledge worthless based on my so-called lack of social prowess (something I know not to be true, and an irrelevant attack that I opted to ignore), and then made comments regarding the peer review and journal process and atmosphere (things about which you appear entirely ignorant about, yet present yourself as if you are an authority) that one of our resident PhD students outright laughed at. When I challenged the later comments, you claimed that I was being either intentionally obtuse or had missed your point. I assure you, neither was the case, and if anything, you are guilty of both.
I am not in the wrong here, and neither are my fellow scientists. We have an entire board of scientists, artists, and regular joes backing us up on this. You are literally the only person making this complaint, and challenging us on our rigor. If you can give me a reason as to why my "attitude" renders a fact invalid, I would absolutely love to hear it.
I did apologize for being inflammatory.
Polyface Farm is a good example of what I'm talking about.
I have felt condescended to, but it's pretty rare and usually part of a greater situation where the person who is teaching me is clearly either less knowledgeable or too disinterested to actually pass on their knowledge. Much of school felt like that. I disengage with these people immediately.
If you're going to con maybe I can buy you a beer after the convention center shuts down on one night or another. If not, we'll just have to run a tab for a bit. ;-)
And yes, you were a humongous douchebag. (-: