Split Effect of chemicals on public health

[RVonse]

THIS THREAD IS A SPLIT from “Happy Birthday 4 dead in ‘Bama”

If God had meant for us to have guns, we would have been born with them.

You've left an obvious opening for a joke there, but under the circumstances I'm not in the mood for jest.

When will Americans tire of this?

We both agree there is problem to be addressed the question is how. You want to blanket curtail freedoms for the whole population because of the deviant few. I would rather solve the root source of the issue, suicidal people who do not value their lives or others.

And your suggestion on how to do this is what?

In this order:

1) Strengthen unions where ever possible to increase wages of labor. Especially manual labor that men do.
2) Strengthen the traditional family unit, make it possible and practical to raise middle class families again. Decrease the welfare state.
3) Tone down the white male bashing for a bit. Females are plenty empowered now, this is not the 1900's anymore.
4) Provide government assistance to science to determine toxicity of the environment in order to understand why men are losing fertility and more and more turning into girls. Pass more regulation against plastic bottles and pesticides. Figure out why sperm counts are now 50% lower than they were in 1960 and still in decline. The Romans killed themselves with lead pipes and we are killing ourselves with plastic bottles.
5) Make it politically acceptable to be able to talk about science as it relates to the 2 genders. How evolution gave us male and female and that other half sexes do not make the population more fit. We do not have to bash transsexuals but science can not prefer a half biological gender "it" for the population in general. We can not fix our environment unless we can admit there is a problem with increasingly more half genders that should not be the standard.

There are far too many incels running around today and far too many young men who are involuntarily not getting layed. That is a recipe for extreme violence throughout the population, whether or not there is a 2nd amendment. In pre nuclear days a conventional war would resolve most of this. We do not have that option today. But what I do believe is that taking away the 2nd amendment and feminizing men is not the right solution either for the US or humanity. Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

 

[bilby]

If God had meant for us to have guns, we would have been born with them.

You've left an obvious opening for a joke there, but under the circumstances I'm not in the mood for jest.

When will Americans tire of this?

We both agree there is problem to be addressed the question is how. You want to blanket curtail freedoms for the whole population because of the deviant few. I would rather solve the root source of the issue, suicidal people who do not value their lives or others.

And your suggestion on how to do this is what?

In this order:

1) Strengthen unions where ever possible to increase wages of labor. Especially manual labor that men do.
2) Strengthen the traditional family unit, make it possible and practical to raise middle class families again. Decrease the welfare state.
3) Tone down the white male bashing for a bit. Females are plenty empowered now, this is not the 1900's anymore.
4) Provide government assistance to science to determine toxicity of the environment in order to understand why men are losing fertility and more and more turning into girls. Pass more regulation against plastic bottles and pesticides. Figure out why sperm counts are now 50% lower than they were in 1960 and still in decline. The Romans killed themselves with lead pipes and we are killing ourselves with plastic bottles.
5) Make it politically acceptable to be able to talk about science as it relates to the 2 genders. How evolution gave us male and female and that other half sexes do not make the population more fit. We do not have to bash transsexuals but science can not prefer a half biological gender "it" for the population in general. We can not fix our environment unless we can admit there is a problem with increasingly more half genders that should not be the standard.

There are far too many incels running around today and far too many young men who are involuntarily not getting layed. That is a recipe for extreme violence throughout the population, whether or not there is a 2nd amendment. In pre nuclear days a conventional war would resolve most of this. We do not have that option today. But what I do believe is that taking away the 2nd amendment and feminizing men is not the right solution either for the US or humanity. Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Every single element of this plan is based on at least one false assumption about reality.

The first step in formulating a plan to improve anything is to understand what is currently happening; You very obviously don't have that understanding, and are trying to solve nonexistent or utterly trivial problems.

What you are terrified might be happening is NOT the same as what is actually happening; And the people who are scaring you into thinking that they are do not have your best interests at heart.

Stop trusting people who are trying to anger and frighten you, and stop believing things without checking them first.

 

[James Brown]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element​

 

[RVonse]

And what is your evidence that it's plastic bottles?

Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., is one of the world’s leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologists and a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. An award-winning scientist, her work examines the impact of environmental exposures, including chemicals such as phthalates and Bisphenol A, on men’s and women’s reproductive health and the neurodevelopment of children. Please check out Dr. Swan's new book, "Count Down" - How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race By Shanna Swan, PhD, with Stacey Colino

 

[RVonse]

In other words, encourage hate. No thanks.

Its not encouraging hate to just accept the results of where science leads discovery. According to Dr. Swan, most transexuals "feel" normal but current science says just the opposite. She makes the point, and I think correctly that politics makes it impossible to research real science if it can not even be brought up for political reasons. And I agree with her.

 

[RVonse]

In this order:

1) Strengthen unions where ever possible to increase wages of labor. Especially manual labor that men do.
2) Strengthen the traditional family unit, make it possible and practical to raise middle class families again. Decrease the welfare state.
3) Tone down the white male bashing for a bit. Females are plenty empowered now, this is not the 1900's anymore.
4) Provide government assistance to science to determine toxicity of the environment in order to understand why men are losing fertility and more and more turning into girls. Pass more regulation against plastic bottles and pesticides. Figure out why sperm counts are now 50% lower than they were in 1960 and still in decline. The Romans killed themselves with lead pipes and we are killing ourselves with plastic bottles.
5) Make it politically acceptable to be able to talk about science as it relates to the 2 genders. How evolution gave us male and female and that other half sexes do not make the population more fit. We do not have to bash transsexuals but science can not prefer a half biological gender "it" for the population in general. We can not fix our environment unless we can admit there is a problem with increasingly more half genders that should not be the standard.

There are far too many incels running around today and far too many young men who are involuntarily not getting layed. That is a recipe for extreme violence throughout the population, whether or not there is a 2nd amendment. In pre nuclear days a conventional war would resolve most of this. We do not have that option today. But what I do believe is that taking away the 2nd amendment and feminizing men is not the right solution either for the US or humanity. Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

I bet you a million dollars I can guess which intervew you just watched before you spewed this out on your keyboard.

No. See what I posted for Loren. That and other research in study why there are so many incels today.

As an aside, I totally disagree with anyone who thinks Elon Musk is stupid. There's just too much real evidence that proves otherwise. I believe most of where he is today came from his belief in science. His prosperity certainly did not come from his knowledge of the stock market.

And if you actually listen to what Musk actually says it is science and not politics. Unlike the narrator of your video, which is nothing but political ax grinding.

 

[Patooka]

If you actually listen to what he actually says it is science and not politics. Unlike the narrator of your video.

I really dislike when people misuse the word science as you just did. If it was science and not opinion, Hairy Balls wouldn't mind his "facts" being scrutinised under peer review. But we all know what the cunt does to people who have the temerity to disagree with him.

 

[bilby]

And what is your evidence that it's plastic bottles?

Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., is one of the world’s leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologists and a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. An award-winning scientist, her work examines the impact of environmental exposures, including chemicals such as phthalates and Bisphenol A, on men’s and women’s reproductive health and the neurodevelopment of children. Please check out Dr. Swan's new book, "Count Down" - How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race By Shanna Swan, PhD, with Stacey Colino

I know the BMJ isn't as respected a source as YouTube, but it seems that they are of the impression that the reported decline in sperm count is likely methodological rather than actual - that is, it could be entirely due to the fact that sperm counts have a highly skewed distribution in the population, and higher numbers of tests therefore capture higher numbers of individuals who are at the lower end of the natural (and highly non-normal in the statistical sense) distribution.

https://www.bmj.com/content/309/6946/19.full

It's apparently premature to claim that there even is any decline, far more to attribute the possible decline to a specific cause.

And even if we could show that a decline exists, and that plastics were a significant contributor to that decline, this would still not justify the presumption that lower sperm counts are indicative of lesser "masculinity", whatever the hell that's even meant to be, or are in any way a problem.

The only likely consequence, should any such decline exist, would be reduced male fertility - which would mean that a couple who wants to have a child would need to have a bit more sex before achieving conception. Low sperm counts don't prevent conception except in the most extreme cases; They just fractionally reduce the probability of conception at any given sexual encounter. Other factors likely dominate anyway.

So in summary:

There's no problem;
If there were a problem, there's no reason to expect plastics to be the cause of the problem;
And if there were a problem it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[TomC]

It's apparently premature to claim that there even is any decline, far more to attribute the possible decline to a specific cause.

I'm old enough to remember when the human toll of environmental chemistry was dismissed because it was too subtle to show up in "studies".
Things like second hand smoke, lead, DDT, and dioxin couldn't be proven to cause problems. And powerful interests didn't want them to be.

I see a similar issue with plastics.


I'm no biochemistry scholar, I don't even play one on TV. But I remember when my elderly mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was a long time ago, I don't remember the big words any more. Her cancer "fed on estrogen", as she put it. One of the recommendations of her doctors was to avoid food heated in plastic. Because, upon heating, common plastics like Tupperware release a chemical that mimics the effects of estrogen on a human body. This was an issue for us. We kids were in the habit of making food in batches, putting individual portions in Tupperware containers, and stocking her freezer with them. That way, she could fix herself a hot meal using nothing but the microwave. We had to get rid of all the plastic containers and replace them with glass.
It made me think about all the plastic food containers I used. Had used since I was a bottle fed adoptee. All the plastic in the food world. I'd always thought of plastic as completely inert, but it isn't.

A bigger problem was soy. Soy has similar properties. Just try finding soy free processed foods. Or calling the restaurant before taking mom out to eat to make sure that they have a soy-free option that a fussy old lady( who also won't eat red meat) will be happy with.

Really, modern humans live in a world that is very different chemically from the world we evolved in.
Those differences matter more than we know.
Tom

ETA ~This is more than a bit of a derail. Better if someone who cares starts a new thread. ~

 

[Rhea]

New Thread Created.

Carry on.

 

[TomC]

That and other research in study why there are so many incels today.

I don't think there are many incels today.

And far fewer than there were 30 years ago.

They're just noisier because of the internet. And more disposed to the culture of victimhood and entitlement because of the internet. But the dumbasses are not "involuntarily" celibate. Anyone can get laid, even find a partner, if they aren't a dumbass about it.

If you feel entitled to a hot girlfriend, like you see on the internet, but haven't showered in couple of days. Or have a job. Or a place of your own. Or have anything to offer a potential partner but a joint in your parents basement...

Yeah! Guess what? Even a gay guy like me can get more women than you will. It's the 21st century. Women are easy.

Almost as easy as guys, but not quite. Women still expect you to have something besides a hard on. They can easily find better. You're not "involuntarily celibate", you just don't care enough about women for one to care about you.
Tom

 

[scombrid]

Boy, the way Glenn Miller played
songs that made the hit parade
Guys like me we had it made
Those were the days
Didn't need no welfare state
ev'rybody pulled his weight
gee our old LaSalle ran great
Those were the days
And you knew who you were then
girls were girls and men were men
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again
People seemed to be content
fifty dollars paid the rent
freaks were in a circus tent
Those were the days
Take a little Sunday spin
go to watch the Dodgers win
Have yourself a dandy day
that cost you under a fin
Hair was short and skirts were long
Kate Smith really sold a song
I don't know just what went wrong
those were the days

Archie Bunker warned us about the commies chemically castrating the world almost 50 years ago.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element​

I mean, if we're going to be critical of chemicals I think the recent republican Hysteria about trans folks and school shootings puts a painful spotlight on the fact that the common thread even among trans school shooters is testosterone.

If we're going to talk about chemicals which drive people across a line towards criminal ideations, both lead and testosterone do it.

This isn't a sufficient reason to deny access to testosterone, but it is an argument that it IS a contributing issue for at least some of the violently deranged.

 

[Ford]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element​

I mean, if we're going to be critical of chemicals I think the recent republican Hysteria about trans folks and school shootings puts a painful spotlight on the fact that the common thread even among trans school shooters is testosterone.

If we're going to talk about chemicals which drive people across a line towards criminal ideations, both lead and testosterone do it.

This isn't a sufficient reason to deny access to testosterone, but it is an argument that it IS a contributing issue for at least some of the violently deranged.

Oh, but I don't think the split is really talking about the chemicals. Whether it be plastic bottles or lead is irrelevant. If you read the split OP, it's really about some of the things Archie and Edith sang about. The "good old days" when daddy worked at the factory, mom stayed home with the kids, boys grew up dreaming of being a cowboy, and girls played with dolls and prepared for a life just like mom's.

The finger is pointed at plastic bottles, but the "real" problem is that some very few little boys want to be girls and some little girls want to be boys. Because, you know, there's only two genders. It's science. Plus can we please stop being so mean to white males? They are the real victims here. Bonus points if we can send some of those boys off to war so they can take out their frustrations and maybe even sow some wild oats abroad. That (and going back to glass bottles) will solve both the problem of sissy boys AND school shootings!

 

[Jarhyn]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element​

I mean, if we're going to be critical of chemicals I think the recent republican Hysteria about trans folks and school shootings puts a painful spotlight on the fact that the common thread even among trans school shooters is testosterone.

If we're going to talk about chemicals which drive people across a line towards criminal ideations, both lead and testosterone do it.

This isn't a sufficient reason to deny access to testosterone, but it is an argument that it IS a contributing issue for at least some of the violently deranged.

Oh, but I don't think the split is really talking about the chemicals. Whether it be plastic bottles or lead is irrelevant. If you read the split OP, it's really about some of the things Archie and Edith sang about. The "good old days" when daddy worked at the factory, mom stayed home with the kids, boys grew up dreaming of being a cowboy, and girls played with dolls and prepared for a life just like mom's.

The finger is pointed at plastic bottles, but the "real" problem is that some very few little boys want to be girls and some little girls want to be boys. Because, you know, there's only two genders. It's science. Plus can we please stop being so mean to white males? They are the real victims here. Bonus points if we can send some of those boys off to war so they can take out their frustrations and maybe even sow some wild oats abroad. That (and going back to glass bottles) will solve both the problem of sissy boys AND school shootings!

The thing is, people who are "sissies" but aren't indoctrinated into thinking they have to live as "boy stereotypes" end up living way happier, much more well-adjusted lives than those same people were they raised into, for example, incel culture and sex obsession.

If they want to solve the problem of school shootings, folks need to teach children how to manage and identify hormonally motivated behavior, and chaotically motivated behavior.

Hormonal and chaotically motivated behavior is fine, when it's consented to or "within acceptable chaos levels", or "this is the place for that".

I will say that there are folks who are victims, and some of them are white males. They are, however, the victims of other white males and of incel culture, the victims of radicalization schemes and toxic cultural brainwashing.

I expect that this is more attractive to the young gay male republican than just being gay.

Whenever the topic of incels comes up, I will never forget the one I met, the son of a conservative councilwoman. I still remember his name, and looked up his mom later, afterwards.

The kid spent 2 hours flirting with a couple of gay folks. We seriously thought he was flirting with us and that he knew he was gay. I'm autistic and I could see it plain as fucking day. It was that obvious.

I was surprised because it was happening not-at-a-gay-bar, but it was happening nonetheless.

A gay young republican who had utterly brainwashed himself into that cult.

I expect the cult of Incel is just thick with such folks, all victims of a cult designed around messages of shame and the echoes of the sick message that they are "sissies", and rather than teaching them how to actually understand being a good person, radicalized into rejecting the idea and the social contract altogether.

I think part of the risk factor to radicalization towards violence is testosterone, and a lack of preparation and perspective on it. It is not an easy perspective to get for most people, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, encourage hate. No thanks.

Its not encouraging hate to just accept the results of where science leads discovery. According to Dr. Swan, most transexuals "feel" normal but current science says just the opposite. She makes the point, and I think correctly that politics makes it impossible to research real science if it can not even be brought up for political reasons. And I agree with her.

If they felt normal they wouldn't go to the considerable effort and expense of transistion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems so many of our problems stem from conservatives being wholly incapable of accepting life changing from what they knew. Inter-racial marriage, homosexuality, gay marriage, now transgenders... each going through a similar process of social understanding. Then they seek out causes for why their worldviews are failing them.

It is hard to take conservatives seriously on these things because they were also ranting about dancing and rock and roll in the 40s and 50s.. and 60s (and long hair!)... and 80s (Heavyish Metal).... and 90s (Heavy Metal).

 

[RVonse]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element​

I mean, if we're going to be critical of chemicals I think the recent republican Hysteria about trans folks and school shootings puts a painful spotlight on the fact that the common thread even among trans school shooters is testosterone.

If we're going to talk about chemicals which drive people across a line towards criminal ideations, both lead and testosterone do it.

This isn't a sufficient reason to deny access to testosterone, but it is an argument that it IS a contributing issue for at least some of the violently deranged.

Oh, but I don't think the split is really talking about the chemicals. Whether it be plastic bottles or lead is irrelevant. If you read the split OP, it's really about some of the things Archie and Edith sang about. The "good old days" when daddy worked at the factory, mom stayed home with the kids, boys grew up dreaming of being a cowboy, and girls played with dolls and prepared for a life just like mom's.

The finger is pointed at plastic bottles, but the "real" problem is that some very few little boys want to be girls and some little girls want to be boys. Because, you know, there's only two genders. It's science. Plus can we please stop being so mean to white males? They are the real victims here. Bonus points if we can send some of those boys off to war so they can take out their frustrations and maybe even sow some wild oats abroad. That (and going back to glass bottles) will solve both the problem of sissy boys AND school shootings!

My point is that the left need not go into 2nd amendment mode every time there is a mass shooting. Because there is likely some basis for the mental state causing loony shootings in the first place. We did not have these looney shootings in the 1960's....why? Hell, we did not even have these looney shootings in the wild west of the 1800's. Yet we had the same guns and the same constitution. With this same mental attitude the left is currently demonstrating, we would get rid of all the cars because some people die in car accidents. And yes, if we got rid of all our cars there would be less people dying in car accidents...but at what costs?

So if you disagree with my solutions to mass shootings that's fine but at least I am attempting to resolve this at the source. That is far more than what we see from the left right now. Instead of taking everyone else's freedom away needlessly the left wants to fix this problem without taking into to any consideration the costs. The extreme high costs of winning our constitution in the first place and the costs of knowing once tyranny takes hold, freedom is never coming back again. Those are big fucking costs.

 

[Jarhyn]

We did not have these looney shootings in the 1960's....why?

1: we did have them, there just wasn't very good reporting.
2: we have an abundance of military grade assault rifles that did not exist in the 60's exacerbating the problem
3: the reporting that we do have merely acts as a signal that people can get famous and have their grievances aired by committing such acts of violence
4: Incel culture is actively radicalizing the victims of essentialist culture.