You can't ever take a companies word for the safety of any of their products. What every one should do when they say things like that is point and laugh.
Actually, Bayer is the least of the problem. Azadirachtin, which is a neocontinoid, has no organic alternative, and therefore the whole organic farming food industry (whose lobby has much bigger pockets than Bayer) would most likely collapse without it. So you know what they do? Well, read this:
I really, really doubt the European Commission would give one shit about Bayer even if it did have bigger pockets (after all, they don't seem to have a problem fighting giants like Google, Microsoft, and Apple,) but because Europe is so damn afraid of anything synthetic or GMO, they're basically willing to trust anything that the organic lobby says. Or to put it another way, synthetic pesticides are like using a scalpel, whereas natural pesticides are like bashing the problem with a big rock. Because the rock is natural, and the scalpel is man made, they trust the rock more.
It may very well not be a coincidence that the rise in popularity of organic food over the last three decades correlates somewhat with the decline in bee populations.
Anyways, here's something not at all made up that you struggled with earlier:
As fror the rest - what an idiot you are. Go look at pictures. The nerves are preserved as is a fair amount of tissue. And let's face it, it's the nerves and connected tissue that count. The parts that enable an erection are definitely not wanted, as they not only don't contribute, they detract from the final result.
Skin and a piece of the glans is all that remains, and it is NOT genitalia. Does the skin retain nerves? Yep, but again, this is part of a separate organ. A real vagina isn't skin, and is in fact a mucus membrane similar to the inside of your mouth and nose. There are two critical differences here:
- External skin found on the penis (and elsewhere) has a keratin layer, a mucus membrane does not. - External skin poorly handles warm, moist environments, where it is increasingly susceptible to infection. A mucus membrane has its own mechanisms of fighting off infection in this environment that skin doesn't.
In fact, given how obese you are, I'm sure you've observed the later under your skin folds by your arms and in the middle of your stomach: The moist environment is prone to infection, up to and including bleeding. Absent of maintenance, your "neovagina" as you call it will actually harden over time to resist these infections. And no, putting this kind of skin into your pelvis doesn't cause it to change from regular skin to a mucus membrane, even with hormones.
Now THIS is the made up "fact".
Must really piss you off that women accept me as one of their own.
Well for a supposed professional you ignored all aspects of the design of experiments. Instead you focused on what is taught in primary school, ignoring the actual work required for an experimenter in any real setting. We are expected to exclude those things that waste money, based on the existing knowledge base.
You're going off on a tangential matter to the point I made. I never said anything about this, my comment was entirely about discourse between students and their science professors.
Q: Does nicotine cause cancer? A: No, tar in cigarette smoke causes cancer. But, Nicotine is an addictive drug. It is not the nicotine in cigarette smoke that causes cancer.
Inhaled nicotine is very well know to damage lung tissue
True, but this isn't even the same argument you made earlier. If you would have just said "inhaled nicotine is bad for your lungs" I would have agreed. But that's not what you said, you specifically said that nicotine causes cancer, and I proved you wrong.
so your distraction about skin patches has nothing at all to do with that.
I didn't say anything about skin patches. The only reason I linked that article is because it provided many sources showing that nicotine doesn't cause cancer.
At this point I think my foot understands logic better than your brain.
"Established case law" is ALWAYS subject to being over-ruled. If you had any brains, you'd know that the Supreme Court has reversed it's on decisions. So much for "established case law" being writ in stone.
Great, so now your argument amounts to "It's illegal because I think case law will ban it some day, because I say so" even though we already have many court decisions that have explicitly permitted it./facepalm
See, this is exactly why I didn't even want to debate this topic with you. I asked for proof, and not only did you provide none at all, you also used a giant logical fallacy to convince yourself that you are correct.
That employers can ask for notes has nothing to do with the matter. They can ask a lot of things - doesn't mean they will get them. If it's on uncompensated time, there is NO reason to give them one.
Completely false. An employer can ask for a note, and refusing to give it to them is a form of insubordination. They can terminate you, with cause, for insubordination in all 50 states and DC.
Same as when I was on jury duty. I was supposed to give my employer a copy of my letter admitting me to the jury before the trial started. I didn't. If someone doesn't trust me, I don't want to work with them. Why would any adult under such circumstances? This isn't grade school where you need a note from your mom.
In the US, you have to if your employer asks for it. If you refuse, your employer can fire you. It's up to them whether or not they do so, however. Disagree? Again, prove it: Cite the specific statute.
Better yet, don't bother, I'm not going to debate this topic with you any more because baboons such as yourself can't comprehend topics like these. So go fuck yourself...er hmm no genitals...well then climb your bald baboon ass to the top of the tree, break a branch off, and put it in your butt.
Anybody can sue for anything, doesn't mean they'll win.
and juries are the final arbitrator of the facts
No, they're not. If there's no legal basis for a lawsuit (i.e. if you're not suing under a specific law,) the judge can dismiss it (summary dismissal) long before a jury would ever get the chance to see it.
If they decide that in fact the employer over-stretched, then the law gets changed
You're talking about establishing case law, and no, that's false. In fact, case law specifically favors allowing employers to request a doctor's note:
You're so full of shit - again. Your very first post in this thread was a personal attack on me. Try again, perv.
I made a personal attack because you're an asshole and you opened yourself up to exactly the kind of response I gave. It had nothing to do with you being a trans-fat. You started with the sexual comments, and my reminding you that you don't have genitals was my way of saying "No thanks, I'm not gay."
BTW - why the infatuation with transsexual women? You're like the trans version of Godwin's Law. You turn every conversation into a critique of my transsexuality.
Why? What is it to you that any topic must inevitably be turned towards your fetish about what's in my panties and how it got that way? Explain that, just for the hell of it.
LOL, you're the first person to even bring it up at all, with my first reply and many replies after that not even mentioning it at all. Go all the way back to the first post of this whole thread. The only time I even said anything about it at all was after you had already started making sexual comments directed at me.
With Trump it isn't quite so obvious how to interpret those comments. I guarantee you pretty much every president says stuff like this when they think it won't leak to the public. Lyndon B Johnson used to talk about his dick all the time, for example, which was even more taboo back then, or that time when W flipped off the camera.
But given Trump has no filter, there's basically no difference between public and private sentences. For all of Trump's faults (and he has way too many) you do have to admit in his case, that we finally have a president that doesn't lie for once. He just says whatever the hell he thinks. Basically think of his thoughts as being like the teleprompter for Ron Burgundy.
Besides that, many countries have higher gun ownership rates than the US, and still less violent crime. In the US, it's not a gun problem, it's a culture problem. This is especially obvious if you look at the difference in behavior between men and women, black people and white people, and especially among men who feel they need to prove their masculinity to other men.
What the fuck? I just gave you a well cited source a few posts up, and you even replied directly to it. Do you even know what the word carcinogen is? Nicotine isn't one.
In fact, you don't even need to know what that word means, all you had to do was read the first damn sentence in the headline of the article I posted.
No, quite wrong, it's all empirical in my case. I illustrated the scientific method quite well, meanwhile you have all of about zero understanding of how empirical science actually works. Not only that, but I provided a very good example of how I apply it pretty much every working day.
You missed the point - the employer can ask all they want, but what you do on your own uncompensated time (or on days that you are allowed to book as time off for personal use) is your own business.
Your employer can in fact ask for a doctor's note, and fire you if you don't provide one, or even fire you if you do provide one. The only reason they couldn't fire you is if you have an ADA qualifying condition or FMLA, and in both cases, the employer can ask probing questions about what work duties you can perform. However if you qualify for ADA, you need to provide proof that you do, otherwise your employer can still fire you, and once they do, it's already too late, even if you get proof later. How do I know this? Because I have an ADA qualifying condition and I've been counseled on these rights.
And again, debating you on this is pointless because no matter how much you're wrong, you always think you're the foremost legal expert in every legal discipline that exists in every country on the planet.
Back to the original point you keep dodging, asshole. You still haven't countered my original assertion that a business demanding a doctor's note is an illegal invasion of privacy.
Because it's a dead simple answer that you'll outright refuse to accept: It is NOT illegal to ask for a doctor's note.
While you can't ask for any details about why the doctor's visit was necessary, results, etc, you can ask for a doctor to just sign and date a note that says "Please excuse this fat lazy ass, Blarbara Hudson, from going to work today." However they could not say something like "Blarbara Hudson needs additional time to heal from the upper-back-butt implant he received and can't come to work today." The legality of this is actually pretty well established.
You're welcome, and you ought to try looking it up before flapping your big fat uneducated slackjaw. Of course, it's basically pointless for me to say what I said above, hence I was hesitant to mention it earlier, and won't mention it any further, even if you ask.
Medical conditions are protected by HIPAA, and businesses requiring doctor's notes is a clear violation - they should not even be allowed to know you have a medical condition.
Precisely why a doctor's note doesn't have to (and won't unless you ask) include any details, you dumb fuck. If the doctor did write those details, he could be held liable under HIPAA.
As fror the rest - what an idiot you are. Go look at pictures. The nerves are preserved as is a fair amount of tissue. And let's face it, it's the nerves and connected tissue that count. The parts that enable an erection are definitely not wanted, as they not only don't contribute, they detract from the final result.
Skin and a piece of the glans is all that remains, and it is NOT genitalia. Does the skin retain nerves? Yep, but again, this is part of a separate organ. A real vagina isn't skin, and is in fact a mucus membrane similar to the inside of your mouth and nose. There are two critical differences here:
- External skin found on the penis (and elsewhere) has a keratin layer, a mucus membrane does not. - External skin poorly handles warm, moist environments, where it is increasingly susceptible to infection. A mucus membrane has its own mechanisms of fighting off infection in this environment that skin doesn't.
In fact, given how obese you are, I'm sure you've observed the later under your skin folds by your arms and in the middle of your stomach: The moist environment is prone to infection, up to and including bleeding. Absent of maintenance, your "neovagina" as you call it will actually harden over time to resist these infections. And no, putting this kind of skin into your pelvis doesn't cause it to change from regular skin to a mucus membrane, even with hormones.
The prostate doesn't enter into it. Anti-androgens and estrogens shrink it to almost nothing.
Precisely, and yet it still retains its functions related to orgasm.
And also reduce the cancer risk to next to nothing.
Yes, but they ran out of Job's magic sauce. If they want any more of it, they would have to dig him out of his grave first, and then try reanimating the dead magic sauce glands.
But there is another way to get executable code in, namely through exploits like the SMBv1 vulnerability that wannacrypt used, or the three Edge exploits found at the last pwn2own event.
If you get executable code in that way, then signing is irrelevant, and so is the MS store. Sure, wannacrypt was written like shit and had to download its own executable separately, but a good hacker should be able to inject a proper malware payload.
The thing with repeated smoking is that you are going from rare amounts of cellar damage to quite a lot per day. That's why smoking results in more cancer than just living in Denver.
Then doing very heavy exercise all day should do the same. But that's beside the point: Nicotine doesn't cause cancer.
Don't get me wrong, cigarettes are quite damaging to you, but not because of nicotine, the nicotine just gets you coming back for more.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't ever take a companies word for the safety of any of their products. What every one should do when they say things like that is point and laugh.
Actually, Bayer is the least of the problem. Azadirachtin, which is a neocontinoid, has no organic alternative, and therefore the whole organic farming food industry (whose lobby has much bigger pockets than Bayer) would most likely collapse without it. So you know what they do? Well, read this:
https://geneticliteracyproject...
I really, really doubt the European Commission would give one shit about Bayer even if it did have bigger pockets (after all, they don't seem to have a problem fighting giants like Google, Microsoft, and Apple,) but because Europe is so damn afraid of anything synthetic or GMO, they're basically willing to trust anything that the organic lobby says. Or to put it another way, synthetic pesticides are like using a scalpel, whereas natural pesticides are like bashing the problem with a big rock. Because the rock is natural, and the scalpel is man made, they trust the rock more.
It may very well not be a coincidence that the rise in popularity of organic food over the last three decades correlates somewhat with the decline in bee populations.
Furthermore, when minimum wage first began under FDR, it was 25 cents an hour. Adjusted for inflation, that is $4.25 an hour today.
Most economists don't even like the concept of a minimum wage at all, and that includes famous Democrat economists like Paul Krugman.
Anyways, if you look in my post history, I personally predicted exactly this, and was downmodded as a troll post.
I told you so, slashdot.
This is what you call a big floating disaster.
Hmm...I guess that makes sense.
...when you have perfectly good animals that are already made out of food?
I'd be more interested in finding out what the telemetry data actually contains.
Seriously, you're by far the biggest asshole on slashdot, and it shows:
http://imgur.com/rDNRT2P
Anyways, here's something not at all made up that you struggled with earlier:
As fror the rest - what an idiot you are. Go look at pictures. The nerves are preserved as is a fair amount of tissue. And let's face it, it's the nerves and connected tissue that count. The parts that enable an erection are definitely not wanted, as they not only don't contribute, they detract from the final result.
Skin and a piece of the glans is all that remains, and it is NOT genitalia. Does the skin retain nerves? Yep, but again, this is part of a separate organ. A real vagina isn't skin, and is in fact a mucus membrane similar to the inside of your mouth and nose. There are two critical differences here:
- External skin found on the penis (and elsewhere) has a keratin layer, a mucus membrane does not.
- External skin poorly handles warm, moist environments, where it is increasingly susceptible to infection. A mucus membrane has its own mechanisms of fighting off infection in this environment that skin doesn't.
In fact, given how obese you are, I'm sure you've observed the later under your skin folds by your arms and in the middle of your stomach: The moist environment is prone to infection, up to and including bleeding. Absent of maintenance, your "neovagina" as you call it will actually harden over time to resist these infections. And no, putting this kind of skin into your pelvis doesn't cause it to change from regular skin to a mucus membrane, even with hormones.
Now THIS is the made up "fact".
Must really piss you off that women accept me as one of their own.
BTW:
You're just a god damn idiot like the rest, trying to wave a fake flag around. Advice is just this: fix your defects and don't be such an idiot.
Speak of defects, you made a total straw-man argument without even realizing it.
Well for a supposed professional you ignored all aspects of the design of experiments. Instead you focused on what is taught in primary school, ignoring the actual work required for an experimenter in any real setting. We are expected to exclude those things that waste money, based on the existing knowledge base.
You're going off on a tangential matter to the point I made. I never said anything about this, my comment was entirely about discourse between students and their science professors.
Let me quote the first sentence for you:
Nicotine per se is not a substantial cause of cancer
Come again?
Here's yet another source:
https://www.nysmokefree.com/Su...
Q: Does nicotine cause cancer?
A: No, tar in cigarette smoke causes cancer. But, Nicotine is an addictive drug. It is not the nicotine in cigarette smoke that causes cancer.
Inhaled nicotine is very well know to damage lung tissue
True, but this isn't even the same argument you made earlier. If you would have just said "inhaled nicotine is bad for your lungs" I would have agreed. But that's not what you said, you specifically said that nicotine causes cancer, and I proved you wrong.
so your distraction about skin patches has nothing at all to do with that.
I didn't say anything about skin patches. The only reason I linked that article is because it provided many sources showing that nicotine doesn't cause cancer.
At this point I think my foot understands logic better than your brain.
Nobody is obsessed with you, that's just your narcissistic projection, along with yet another post about yourself.
You're just a real life Mr. Garrison.
"Established case law" is ALWAYS subject to being over-ruled. If you had any brains, you'd know that the Supreme Court has reversed it's on decisions. So much for "established case law" being writ in stone.
Great, so now your argument amounts to "It's illegal because I think case law will ban it some day, because I say so" even though we already have many court decisions that have explicitly permitted it. /facepalm
See, this is exactly why I didn't even want to debate this topic with you. I asked for proof, and not only did you provide none at all, you also used a giant logical fallacy to convince yourself that you are correct.
That employers can ask for notes has nothing to do with the matter. They can ask a lot of things - doesn't mean they will get them. If it's on uncompensated time, there is NO reason to give them one.
Completely false. An employer can ask for a note, and refusing to give it to them is a form of insubordination. They can terminate you, with cause, for insubordination in all 50 states and DC.
Same as when I was on jury duty. I was supposed to give my employer a copy of my letter admitting me to the jury before the trial started. I didn't. If someone doesn't trust me, I don't want to work with them. Why would any adult under such circumstances? This isn't grade school where you need a note from your mom.
In the US, you have to if your employer asks for it. If you refuse, your employer can fire you. It's up to them whether or not they do so, however. Disagree? Again, prove it: Cite the specific statute.
Better yet, don't bother, I'm not going to debate this topic with you any more because baboons such as yourself can't comprehend topics like these. So go fuck yourself...er hmm no genitals...well then climb your bald baboon ass to the top of the tree, break a branch off, and put it in your butt.
Re-check the law.
Then prove it, asshole.
Any whatever the law says, any employee can sue
Anybody can sue for anything, doesn't mean they'll win.
and juries are the final arbitrator of the facts
No, they're not. If there's no legal basis for a lawsuit (i.e. if you're not suing under a specific law,) the judge can dismiss it (summary dismissal) long before a jury would ever get the chance to see it.
If they decide that in fact the employer over-stretched, then the law gets changed
You're talking about establishing case law, and no, that's false. In fact, case law specifically favors allowing employers to request a doctor's note:
http://www.lexology.com/librar...
Furthermore, employers have a well established right to ask for doctor's notes:
https://webcache.googleusercon...
You're so full of shit - again. Your very first post in this thread was a personal attack on me. Try again, perv.
I made a personal attack because you're an asshole and you opened yourself up to exactly the kind of response I gave. It had nothing to do with you being a trans-fat. You started with the sexual comments, and my reminding you that you don't have genitals was my way of saying "No thanks, I'm not gay."
BTW - why the infatuation with transsexual women? You're like the trans version of Godwin's Law. You turn every conversation into a critique of my transsexuality.
Why? What is it to you that any topic must inevitably be turned towards your fetish about what's in my panties and how it got that way? Explain that, just for the hell of it.
LOL, you're the first person to even bring it up at all, with my first reply and many replies after that not even mentioning it at all. Go all the way back to the first post of this whole thread. The only time I even said anything about it at all was after you had already started making sexual comments directed at me.
With Trump it isn't quite so obvious how to interpret those comments. I guarantee you pretty much every president says stuff like this when they think it won't leak to the public. Lyndon B Johnson used to talk about his dick all the time, for example, which was even more taboo back then, or that time when W flipped off the camera.
But given Trump has no filter, there's basically no difference between public and private sentences. For all of Trump's faults (and he has way too many) you do have to admit in his case, that we finally have a president that doesn't lie for once. He just says whatever the hell he thinks. Basically think of his thoughts as being like the teleprompter for Ron Burgundy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Besides that, many countries have higher gun ownership rates than the US, and still less violent crime. In the US, it's not a gun problem, it's a culture problem. This is especially obvious if you look at the difference in behavior between men and women, black people and white people, and especially among men who feel they need to prove their masculinity to other men.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog...
What the fuck? I just gave you a well cited source a few posts up, and you even replied directly to it. Do you even know what the word carcinogen is? Nicotine isn't one.
In fact, you don't even need to know what that word means, all you had to do was read the first damn sentence in the headline of the article I posted.
No, quite wrong, it's all empirical in my case. I illustrated the scientific method quite well, meanwhile you have all of about zero understanding of how empirical science actually works. Not only that, but I provided a very good example of how I apply it pretty much every working day.
You missed the point - the employer can ask all they want, but what you do on your own uncompensated time (or on days that you are allowed to book as time off for personal use) is your own business.
Your employer can in fact ask for a doctor's note, and fire you if you don't provide one, or even fire you if you do provide one. The only reason they couldn't fire you is if you have an ADA qualifying condition or FMLA, and in both cases, the employer can ask probing questions about what work duties you can perform. However if you qualify for ADA, you need to provide proof that you do, otherwise your employer can still fire you, and once they do, it's already too late, even if you get proof later. How do I know this? Because I have an ADA qualifying condition and I've been counseled on these rights.
And again, debating you on this is pointless because no matter how much you're wrong, you always think you're the foremost legal expert in every legal discipline that exists in every country on the planet.
Back to the original point you keep dodging, asshole. You still haven't countered my original assertion that a business demanding a doctor's note is an illegal invasion of privacy.
Because it's a dead simple answer that you'll outright refuse to accept: It is NOT illegal to ask for a doctor's note.
While you can't ask for any details about why the doctor's visit was necessary, results, etc, you can ask for a doctor to just sign and date a note that says "Please excuse this fat lazy ass, Blarbara Hudson, from going to work today." However they could not say something like "Blarbara Hudson needs additional time to heal from the upper-back-butt implant he received and can't come to work today." The legality of this is actually pretty well established.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_...
You're welcome, and you ought to try looking it up before flapping your big fat uneducated slackjaw. Of course, it's basically pointless for me to say what I said above, hence I was hesitant to mention it earlier, and won't mention it any further, even if you ask.
Medical conditions are protected by HIPAA, and businesses requiring doctor's notes is a clear violation - they should not even be allowed to know you have a medical condition.
Precisely why a doctor's note doesn't have to (and won't unless you ask) include any details, you dumb fuck. If the doctor did write those details, he could be held liable under HIPAA.
As fror the rest - what an idiot you are. Go look at pictures. The nerves are preserved as is a fair amount of tissue. And let's face it, it's the nerves and connected tissue that count. The parts that enable an erection are definitely not wanted, as they not only don't contribute, they detract from the final result.
Skin and a piece of the glans is all that remains, and it is NOT genitalia. Does the skin retain nerves? Yep, but again, this is part of a separate organ. A real vagina isn't skin, and is in fact a mucus membrane similar to the inside of your mouth and nose. There are two critical differences here:
- External skin found on the penis (and elsewhere) has a keratin layer, a mucus membrane does not.
- External skin poorly handles warm, moist environments, where it is increasingly susceptible to infection. A mucus membrane has its own mechanisms of fighting off infection in this environment that skin doesn't.
In fact, given how obese you are, I'm sure you've observed the later under your skin folds by your arms and in the middle of your stomach: The moist environment is prone to infection, up to and including bleeding. Absent of maintenance, your "neovagina" as you call it will actually harden over time to resist these infections. And no, putting this kind of skin into your pelvis doesn't cause it to change from regular skin to a mucus membrane, even with hormones.
The prostate doesn't enter into it. Anti-androgens and estrogens shrink it to almost nothing.
Precisely, and yet it still retains its functions related to orgasm.
And also reduce the cancer risk to next to nothing.
False. It is reduced, but not "next to nothing" as you put it: http://transhealth.ucsf.edu/tr...
The same way that breast cancer screening isn't necessary because M2F have a lower breast cancer risk than men.
Just like how real women with breast implants also have a lower risk, and for the same reason.
There is little disagreement among professionals
I like how you state that without even bothering to address the one counterexample I gave you.
I also like how you just throw terms like narcissist and religious at me without any basis for doing so (I've provided plenty, in your case.)
I think the best way to stop this nonsense is to stop using vague and ultimately useless terms like "left" and "right".
Yes, but they ran out of Job's magic sauce. If they want any more of it, they would have to dig him out of his grave first, and then try reanimating the dead magic sauce glands.
But there is another way to get executable code in, namely through exploits like the SMBv1 vulnerability that wannacrypt used, or the three Edge exploits found at the last pwn2own event.
If you get executable code in that way, then signing is irrelevant, and so is the MS store. Sure, wannacrypt was written like shit and had to download its own executable separately, but a good hacker should be able to inject a proper malware payload.
The thing with repeated smoking is that you are going from rare amounts of cellar damage to quite a lot per day. That's why smoking results in more cancer than just living in Denver.
Then doing very heavy exercise all day should do the same. But that's beside the point: Nicotine doesn't cause cancer.
Don't get me wrong, cigarettes are quite damaging to you, but not because of nicotine, the nicotine just gets you coming back for more.