Split Effect of chemicals on public health

[RVonse]

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).

Or it just might be that conservatives have the wherewithal to understand that societal changes can and do cause consequences that may not be immediately obvious. And that science and not left ideology is the best way moving forward to understand those relationships.

 

[Patooka]

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).

Or it just might be that conservatives have the wherewithal to understand that societal changes can and do cause consequences that may not be immediately obvious. And that science and not left ideology is the best way moving forward to understand those relationships.

What the living fuck do you know about science? You worship a guy who wants you to inject bleach for fuck's sake.

 

[RVonse]

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

4: Incel culture is actively radicalizing the victims of essentialist culture.

So what would be your solution to fix?

Would not the obvious solution to back off a little on the extreme feminism and observe the results? For better or worse, feminists have been a political faction with a lot of power in the US. They brought us prohibition in the 1920's and they also brought us DWI laws. We saw how prohibition worked out and it wasn't pretty. But the DWI laws have probably more merit of a success however.... My point being that not everything feminist have accomplished has worked out like they thought it would.

Perhaps revisit what feminism has brought society in terms of decadence of the family structure?

In any case, perhaps we can both agree society would be much better off without the incels?

 

[RVonse]

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).

Or it just might be that conservatives have the wherewithal to understand that societal changes can and do cause consequences that may not be immediately obvious. And that science and not left ideology is the best way moving forward to understand those relationships.

What the living fuck do you know about science? You worship a guy who wants you to inject bleach for fuck's sake.

You are wrong on both counts. In the first place, you are a victim of fake news: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...mp-didnt-tell-americans-infected-coronavirus/

And in the second place no, I'm not hoping for a Trump nomination even if you think I am.

 

[Ford]

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.

Well, right off the bat saying we have the same guns as we had in the 1800's "wild west" demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You also seem to have this fantasy version of the old west that tells me maybe you've watched too many old westerns. No, everyone was not wearing a pistol on their hip when they rode into town, and there were not shootouts every Saturday at high noon. Yet your reasoning is "well...they also didn't have plastic bottles, so that's the real factor. Yep, a tin star, a revolver in everyone's hands, and no plastic bottles is what made for a peaceable country!"

You say you want to "resolve this at the source," but in your inability to look at the weapons used as even part of the problem, you've landed on some pretty fucking bonkers things to point at as the cause. Plastic bottles and sissy boys. Really? I've read some bonkers shit in my day, but this is some Jordan Peterson level bullshit. I'm surprised you didn't bring up lobsters.

 

[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).

Or it just might be that conservatives have the wherewithal to understand that societal changes can and do cause consequences that may not be immediately obvious. And that science and not left ideology is the best way moving forward to understand those relationships.

Wow. Umm no. First off, when you say science, that is misleading because you ain't a scientist, you trend towards the fringes where science is taken out of context to support dubious positions.

Secondly, THIS is a complicated issue and isn't a binary solution. The trouble with science isn't the science, it is the agenda of people that use it for nefarious or harmful purposes (think military, capitalists, supremacists). Look at the early 20th century and eugenics. A little bit of information went a long way to do a great deal of harm. We became arrogant sons-of-bitches and thought we were the masters of nature.
Liberalism has a great track-record. Anti-slavery, allowing blacks to read... to vote, inter-racial marriage, gay marriage... etc... Liberalism can be perverted as well, which leads to left-wing populism and that isn't great. But conservatism is rooted in not changing. It fails because it presumes what is now is what can be best. And that usually isn't the case, especially for those who aren't given a voice. As I listed, and didn't include women's rights (also another thing conservatives failed on), each of those things weren't conservative as they implied change.

Often conservatives are battling on the wrong hills. They don't fight for rights expansions (well, Justices O'Day and Kennedy did), they fight for rights to not change. Which is perverted because conservatives should be stalwarts for rights. Those principles should be the things they aim to not change. Instead it is about whether gays can have hospital rights, women can vote, blacks marry whites (again, conservative mindsets said NO!!!! to each of those.. and 2 of the 3 needed to be settled in court, while the other took 100 years to get going). And note that none of that stuff is science related, I mean other than people who supported women not voting or blacks not marrying whites because of racial purity or bogus biological ideas of women being mentally inferior.

 

[scombrid]

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).

Or it just might be that conservatives have the wherewithal to understand that societal changes can and do cause consequences that may not be immediately obvious. And that science and not left ideology is the best way moving forward to understand those relationships.

"Girls were girls and men were men"
Those were the days.

 

[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).

Or it just might be that conservatives have the wherewithal to understand that societal changes can and do cause consequences that may not be immediately obvious. And that science and not left ideology is the best way moving forward to understand those relationships.

What the living fuck do you know about science? You worship a guy who wants you to inject bleach for fuck's sake.

You are wrong on both counts. In the first place, you are a victim of fake news: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...mp-didnt-tell-americans-infected-coronavirus/

And in the second place no, I'm not hoping for a Trump nomination even if you think I am.

He paraphrased him wrong. What Trump said that doctors should look into injecting disinfectant. While a better statement than saying people should drink bleach, though technically, injecting bleach would be much more dangerous and the body would vomit first, but it can't vomit stuff in the cardio system.

Trump said some very dumb shit in that press conference and the thousand yard stair of Dr. Birx pretty much summed up just how bad that conference was for the nation and Trump.

A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.

That is remarkably ignorant! W was a dumb President, but never said anything THAT stupid. Quayle wouldn't have either.

 

[Jarhyn]

Would not the obvious solution to back off a little on the extreme feminism and observe the results

Because that is not the obvious solution. There are appropriate grievances among feminists, namely that the final arbiter of the use and access to anyone's anatomy is themselves, and we each are allowed to be as arbitrary and capricious about that as we each like, and anyone who has a problem with that gets to deal with "all of us very angry at the same time about the presumption over our bodies".

The answer is to stop in any way validating the idea that people "must" pursue some "essential" idea of (insert gender here) to be valid or appreciated within society.

It is exactly the message that people have to do something, like something, or be validated in some way through a rite of passage that creates such derangements.

The sooner society lets go of the delusion that sex is what makes someone a "man" or not, or that people born with balls or penises even need to be a "man" specifically in the first place, is where the conflict over manhood arises in the first place.

The only pressure anyone should feel about telling anyone to do anything to accomplish "being the person they are" is exactly and only the pressure that they consent to, as is applied from the inside of their own heads, and the pressure created specifically on the far side of the principle "so long as you harm none, do as you will".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

The trouble here, and with every other gun violence argument that doesn't want to recognize that guns have an influence on the issue, is that every other first world nation usually has the same sort of economy, access to media, products, etc... So when someone asks "What about plastics?" they don't seem to be asking "Why are plastics not causing massive shootings in Europe?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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. ~

Chemically different?? The estrogen effect of soy is completely natural--my wife isn't allowed to eat appreciable amounts of soy because of this. (She doesn't have to avoid a trace of soy, but she likes soybeans and the doc says no.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I don't think we are able to make such a comparison.

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.

Said by someone for whom it's obviously reasonably easy.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

I don't think we are able to make such a comparison.

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.

Said by someone for whom it's obviously reasonably easy.

To be fair, it's much harder for folks who feel entitled to the bodies of others to actually get access to the bodies of others, because nobody generally finds such entitlement attractive in any way.

Most find it actively repulsive.

In short, it's unreasonable for the mosquito to complain about getting swatted, and unreasonable for the tick to complain about being crushed and flushed, even if they never actually bit you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I don't think we are able to make such a comparison.

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.

Said by someone for whom it's obviously reasonably easy.

To be fair, it's much harder for folks who feel entitled to the bodies of others to actually get access to the bodies of others, because nobody generally finds such entitlement attractive in any way.

Most find it actively repulsive.

In short, it's unreasonable for the mosquito to complain about getting swatted, and unreasonable for the tick to complain about being crushed and flushed, even if they never actually bit you.

You also seem to be assuming the ones who can't find partners are Incel types. The statistics say otherwise--the Incels are a small fraction of those who are single not by choice.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

I don't think we are able to make such a comparison.

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.

Said by someone for whom it's obviously reasonably easy.

To be fair, it's much harder for folks who feel entitled to the bodies of others to actually get access to the bodies of others, because nobody generally finds such entitlement attractive in any way.

Most find it actively repulsive.

In short, it's unreasonable for the mosquito to complain about getting swatted, and unreasonable for the tick to complain about being crushed and flushed, even if they never actually bit you.

You also seem to be assuming the ones who can't find partners are Incel types. The statistics say otherwise--the Incels are a small fraction of those who are single not by choice.

I have met many folks both dating and not.

I have a pretty good idea why the majority of single folks are single, and for a lot of them, it's because they need to do some work on themselves, their belief structures, and their ability to manage their hormonally driven thought processes.

It's the expectations that kills magic dead.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm surprised you didn't bring up lobsters.

What about all those avocados? I say get rid of the avocados and let's have more Fruit Loops and Cap'n Crunch.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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?

Until we have licensing and registration needing periodic renewals and required testing in the handling and safety of guns I don’t want to hear any argument about comparing guns to cars. Thanks.

 

[RVonse]

You also seem to be assuming the ones who can't find partners are Incel types. The statistics say otherwise--the Incels are a small fraction of those who are single not by choice.

Married men are not the ones in the violent loony camp. There is also good reason most employers prefer married men over single. They are more reliable, more stable, and much less likely to be loony.

It is the married men who are the ones getting more reliable sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

You also seem to be assuming the ones who can't find partners are Incel types. The statistics say otherwise--the Incels are a small fraction of those who are single not by choice.

Married men are not the ones in the violent loony camp. There is also good reason most employers prefer married men over single. They are more reliable, more stable, and much less likely to be loony.

It is the married men who are the ones getting more sex.

LOL! We live in a society where there are places for folks to hide and be protected from abusive spouses.

The problem is not being "single" the problem is testosterone, and folks who don't know how to handle it's effects.

 

[RVonse]

You also seem to be assuming the ones who can't find partners are Incel types. The statistics say otherwise--the Incels are a small fraction of those who are single not by choice.

Married men are not the ones in the violent loony camp. There is also good reason most employers prefer married men over single. They are more reliable, more stable, and much less likely to be loony.

It is the married men who are the ones getting more sex.

LOL! We live in a society where there are places for folks to hide and be protected from abusive spouses.

The problem is not being "single" the problem is testosterone, and folks who don't know how to handle it's effects.

But testosterone has been and will continue to play a role in human evolution for hundreds of years. It is why monogamy societies are more stable and less violent than polygamy societies. IMO, marriage was probably invented in the first place in order to tame societies. Because "some men do not know how to handle effects of their testosterone".