Steve Jobs probably liked blue jeans and black turtlenecks, and made that choice out of thousands of options. He did not go out to make it the only option for everyone.
Actually, his "personal uniform" grew out of a failed idea to have employees wear uniforms:
"I came back with some samples and told everyone it would great if we would all wear these vests. Oh man, did I get booed off the stage. Everybody hated the idea. [..] He also came to like the idea of having a uniform for himself, both because of its daily convenience (the rationale he claimed) and its ability to convey a signature style."
you clearly never learned to appreciate someone merely relaying the other side of the issue or another viewpoint to you.
Despite your claim to the contrary, what you wrote came off as an apology and special pleading for the copyright industry versus other industries. Why is it that the copyright industry talks about "theft" when their copyrights are infringed, yet when the copies are actually treated like property and resold, all of sudden the normal rules of property no longer apply?
You said, "I must say that I do not see the parallels here." Well I do, and it's basic trade of goods. Every seller would like to set their own prices exclusively by area, whether it's a car or a book.
So all of those references I posted you *Didn't* read?
No, it's actually like you didn't read them, because I ended up quoting them and using them against you.
I'm certainly trying to not spoon feed like a public school teacher.
You're in a debate and can't hold up your end, so you act like some know it all, but when pressed you're just a bag of hot air.
Not sure why you think I'm fixated on acute poisons. You do remember me mentioning drinking for 30 years, right?
Which is exactly the point. You used that as evidence that alcohol wasn't a poison, because it isn't acutely toxic. It's been a major theme of yours.
When you are shown to be wrong however, you really should admit it.
Given your level of hypocrisy, I don't know whether to laugh at the ludicrousness of it or be infuriated. You ignored, again, the issue with water, which was detailed in my last post. At the very minimum, you said I shouldn't have mentioned it, when you were the one who brought it up first. That's just a big "duh", you made an obvious blunder, but have never owned up to it.
You ignored that you were wrong about the liver's job in clearing toxins, including indisputable poisons like cyanide.
You were wrong about the basic toxic effects of alcohol at even mild doses, as I already referenced and "spoon fed" you through quotes, including the metabolic mechanism of its toxicity.
Well it isn't as if I could conference you in.
So don't mention it, as it provides no credence or substance. It's pure fluff.
Too bad your parents didn't address your mouth better. Improve your manners.
There's more to manners than avoiding swears. In particular, acting like a hypocrite and a condescending, pretentious prick isn't good manners, especially when you've been shown to be wrong again and again. Swearing has its place when you've been driven to it.
What part of "harmless acetic acid" during normal metabolism do you not understand?
It's not what I don't understand, it's what you are selectively ignoring, that the precursor, acetaldehyde, is toxic, whereas you claimed it wasn't.
Yes, I know if you drink too much it's a poison. Yes I know it causes organ damage, again if you drink too much.
In other words, it's a toxin that has to be cleared from the body, and people know they shouldn't drink too much because of this. So now we're back to just how acute a poison it is.
Yet while you wouldn't find your average parent feeding their kids alcohol as a treat, there's a holiday dedicated for kids to consume sugar in large amounts, it's put in breakfast foods, we give kids fruit juices and sodas, and even put snack machines in schools, all while there's a corresponding rise in diabetes and obesity in children.
I think you'll have to admit that without alcohol, life would be a lot different.
I'm talking about ingesting it, not every single role it plays in life. The simple fact is you can live healthily without ingesting alcohol, unlike water, which goes back to the "water is not a poison" argument because it is not toxic in it's basic mechanism and required for life.
Against my better judgment, and since you actually responded about something of substance, acetaldehyde, I'll reply.
I know what pendantic means.
Good for you. Now can you actually not be pedantic and acknowledge the larger point about water, since you are the one who brought it up?
"In fact, you need sugar to live. Poisons you don't. [..] Please explain why you think alcohol is a poison. [..] it isn't a poison any more than consuming too much water is also a poison."
I addressed the point you raised, and you pedantically ignored it, and then told me I shouldn't have brought up water when it was you who mentioned it first. If that's not worth a mea culpa from you what the hell is?
The Liver is the swiss army knife of organs. It can even do functions of other organs if they are deficient. You clearly have no clue how the body works, and you think you do.
Yet I'm the one who has provided references that one of the functions of the liver is to clear toxins in tandem with the kidneys, while you have provided no references. Here's another reference for you, since you are fixated on acute poisons:
"Approximately 80% of absorbed cyanide is metabolized to thiocyanate in the liver by the mitochondrial sulfur transferase enzyme rhodanese and other sulfur transferases. Thiocyanate is excreted in the urine."
I didn't ignore [acetaldehyde]. For a while I thought you might be right so I looked into it further.
You ignored it in your subsequent post, and if you thought I might be right about it then you should either acknowledge it or shut the fuck up until you learn otherwise.
Contacted a colleague and he said he knew about the very same article you cited and after about an hour discussion he agreed it was full of shit.
Wow, great reference. A "colleague" said in a conversation that I wasn't privy to that he agreed it was "full of shit."
What, in particular, do you want me to note? Something like:
"Acetaldehyde derived from the consumption of ethanol binds to proteins to form adducts that are linked to organ disease.[29] [..] Acetaldehyde is a carcinogen in humans.[17]"
"Under normal metabolism, alcohol is broken down in the liver by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to acetaldehyde, which is then converted by the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to the harmless acetic acid. Disulfiram blocks this reaction at the intermediate stage by blocking the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. After alcohol intake under the influence of disulfiram, the concentration of acetaldehyde in the blood may be 5 to 10 times higher than that found during metabolism of the same amount of alcohol alone. As acetaldehyde is one of the major causes of the symptoms of a "hangover" this produces immediate and severe negative reaction to alcohol intake. Some 5-10 minutes after alcohol intake, the patient may experience the effects of a severe hangover for a period of 30 minutes up to several hours. Symptoms include flushing of the skin, accelerated heart rate, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, throbbing headache, visual disturbance, mental confusion, postural syncope, and circulatory collapse."
Something can be toxic and not poisonous. Something that is poisonous is always toxic.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, as the chemical reactions of alcohol make it always toxic, unlike water or normal food, and alcohol isn't required for life, unlike water or normal food. Just like cyanide, the dosage for alcohol is important, though of course cyanide is a much more acute poison.
The "Big Bang Theory" reeks of "let there be light" to me.
Why stop there? What about Adam, Eve, and the theory of evolution? What about the Noah and the Great Flood? There's a big difference between being vaguely right about one particular aspect of a creation myth versus credible knowledge. You might as well take your horoscopes seriously.
This is worshipping God? It looks more like a bunko scheme to me.
That's because it is bunk, and all around the world different people have made up different bunk. Seems strange that would happen if there was an omnipotent creator that actually wanted us to believe a particular version of events.
I will agree with you that the complexity of life astounds me too, but the evidence doesn't point to an omnipotent creator, certainly not a omnibenevolent one.
No need for a citation when its not a quantified statement really. "Often" can mean anything.
The qualified statement was, "Most legal immigrants feel exactly the same." For that, you'd need a survey, as I would think many legal immigrants have friends or family who are illegal. Also, considering the pandering to the hispanic vote about amnesty for current illegal residents, I doubt that his statement holds water.
An equally valid (and equally suspect) interpretation of that statistic would be to say that 25% of the people polled have no moral objection to killing another human under some circumstances, and voluntary termination of a pregnancy is one of those circumstances.
That would fall under the "depends" or "morally acceptable" category, not "not a moral issue".
You've got an explicit belief that human life is sacred and that preserving human life takes precedence over all other goals.
No, I don't have that belief. I certainly believe that human life is valuable and should not be taken lightly, and regard it as a fundamental basis for questions about morality, and feel comfortable claiming this is a mainstream and uncontroversial belief.
In real life most people are more than willing to vote for war
But how many would say it isn't a moral issue? While I admit I'm stuck with interpretation of statistics since the exact question under consideration wasn't asked, I think it provides more evidence than you have regarding how pro-choice people feel about the fetus.
But since you talked about the Democratic party, it's worth mentioning something Obama said during his first presidential election campaign: "One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there's a moral and ethical element to this issue. So I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention."
There are many shades of Agnosticism but there is only one of Atheism and that is "There is nothing supernatural."
No, there are also many shades of atheism. Even atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens when he was alive will tell you that they don't believe in "God" based on the evidence, but admit the possibility of a supernatural being. For example:
"There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic?" Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: "You are described as the world's most famous atheist."
Prof Dawkins said that he was "6.9 out of seven" sure of his beliefs.
"I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low," he added. "
The problem with the label of agnosticism is it carries the strong connotation that we can't have reasoned beliefs about religious claims, so calling yourself an agnostic sends the wrong message. I call myself an atheist because it is the closest term that gets the message across, but there's always room for doubt. How can we know anything with 100% certainty?
"marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"
Better yet, don't mention water.
You brought it up, idiot. You know it's easy to go back and read the earlier posts.
Stick to the subject at hand.
Yes, please do. Instead of ignoring my larger point about why water isn't considered a poison (you need it to live), even though ingesting too much may harm you, you focused on the exact word I used to describe it.
Where to even begin.
How about you address my actual points, you know the concrete evidence that you asked for, and are now ignoring just like I thought you would?
Understand that just because it's in print, especially in the NY Times, that doesn't mean it's true.
Fine, but it's up to you to demonstrate that it isn't, and you haven't done so and have never admitted you were wrong when provided evidence, like how one of the liver's responsibilities is to clear poisons.
Since you cannot show any toxic effects with a small dose, it's not a poison.
As I've already stated, it impairs your brain function even at relatively low doses. It's a toxic chemical that has to be cleared from the body, unlike typical food or water that you can ingest in large amounts and that you need to live. Just because other poisons are more acute does not mean alcohol isn't one.
I also gave you the mechanism of its toxicity (acetaldehyde), which you asked for, and then subsequently ignored.
In fact in low doses they consider it a benefit.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a toxic chemical. As I already stated, the body can tolerate and clear poisons naturally, and in this case a low dose is acting in a medicinal fashion. Even cyanide has medical uses and is even put in food.
Unfortunately some end up in the NY Times and believed by people far and wide.
Unfortunately, some people ignore the science and don't provide an actual scientific refutation, and spout ignorant crap about how the liver doesn't clear poisons, about how they've been drinking for 30 years and highlighting the benefits of a low dose, while ignoring all the harmful effects of a toxic chemical, and ignoring the danger as it applies to the large amounts of fructose that modern people are ingesting via added sugar and fruit juices. This despite fructose's strong link to metabolic syndrome, as demonstrated by the undisputed scientific description of the metabolic process and by actual experiment.
I'm not interested in discussing with you any more. I've said everything I've wanted to say.
The Democrats cater to extremists who believe that a fetus is just an insensate lump of flesh, not a human being, and that disposing of an unwanted fetus has nothing to do with killing a child.
Your polling data doesn't show what people think regarding this issue, though in one poll only 48% think it is morally wrong, while a full 38% say it is either morally acceptable or not a moral issue. If I use a conservative 35% against legal abortion, and assume they all think it is morally wrong, and a conservative 50% for legal abortion, then only 13/50 or 26% say it is morally wrong. A full 25% say it is not a moral issue, which to me indicates an "insensate lump of flesh" attitude.
The US generally takes the free market position on what a "reasonable" warranty is, under general supervision of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. It's not the worst idea in the world, as you can usually pay more for products with longer warranties, and you keep the government out of defining "reasonable" across a range of products.
That said, there's also merit in the other approach. I don't see this as a black and white issue. However, living under the free market system, I wouldn't feel entitled to get a product repaired past the warranty. Sure, it would be nice and doesn't hurt to ask, but that's it.
Ok, water is many things however it isn't a nutrient.
Instead of being pedantic, maybe you'd acknowledge that, unlike alcohol, without ingesting water you'd die, much sooner than you would if you had no food, hence it is not a poison or considered toxic.
"In the context of biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism. [..] poisons are generally defined as substances absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut."
The first obvious effect of alcohol is that it impairs your brain function.
Explain why something that really is a poison, for example anti-freeze or Ethylene glycol is like the way the body handles ethanol, or perhaps how ethanol damages the body in a manner that's consistent with a poison.
"Pure ethanol will irritate the skin and eyes.[76] Nausea, vomiting and intoxication are symptoms of ingestion. Long-term use by ingestion can result in serious liver damage.[77] Atmospheric concentrations above one in a thousand are above the European Union Occupational exposure limits.[77] [..] Death from ethyl alcohol consumption is possible when blood alcohol level reaches 0.4%. A blood level of 0.5% or more is commonly fatal. Levels of even less than 0.1% can cause intoxication, with unconsciousness often occurring at 0.3-0.4%.[80] Prolonged heavy consumption of alcohol can cause significant permanent damage to the brain and other organs. [..] Ethanol within the human body is converted into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase and then into the acetyl in acetyl CoA by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. Acetyl CoA is the final product of both carbohydrate and fat metabolism, where the acetyl can be further used to produce energy or for biosynthesis. As such, ethanol is a nutrient. However, the product of the first step of this breakdown, acetaldehyde,[84] is more toxic than ethanol. Acetaldehyde is linked to most of the clinical effects of alcohol. It has been shown to increase the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver[68] and multiple forms of cancer."
"Ethanol is sometimes used to treat poisoning by other, more toxic alcohols"
If ethanol were a poison, I'd be dead by now. I've been drinking it for over 3 decades.
This statement is ignorant, as the body has a natural ability to clear poisons, and they can be tolerated in low enough doses. However, there's quite a long list of illnesses associated with chronic alcohol abuse, in particular cirrhosis of the liver, and if you actually watched the video I linked to, many of these same illnesses are implicated with fructose.
I'd appreciate it if you would either admit your error or come up with something concrete as to why I'm wrong.
Funny, I feel the same about you. So far you've ignored the video I linked to on the processing of alcohol and fructose, you've ignored the fact that water is needed for life where alcohol is not, instead pedantically focusing on the term I used, and you've ignored the links and quotes I've already posted on the liver's function in breaking down toxic substances. I can only imagine you'll ignore the substance of what I've said in this post, too.
Do you have to not be a moron to realize that a warranty is a basic contract for product quality, and not used to defend the company against "obvious abuse"? If some company wants to throw a customer a bone, that's fine, but I'd be ashamed as a customer to expect such a freebie to the point of boycotting if I didn't get it.
I'm not trying to demonize you. I just found your position strange, and noted that it's unlikely you'd find a party to match it. You defended your position and I challenged you on it. It's nothing more than that. I don't really care whether you adopted or not.
I don't have any sympathy for this case. What's the point of having warranty deadlines if the company is expected to arbitrarily extend them? If customers want an extended warranty, they should buy them.
Yet despite all you've written, you're talking about the premeditated killing of an innocent human being, something we usually call murder. Is it ok for the mother to murder the child after it is born if she no longer wants to care for it? If not, then why is the unborn child so different? Why is it our place to stop it then?
"The liver breaks down or modifies toxic substances (e.g., methylation) and most medicinal products in a process called drug metabolism. This sometimes results in toxication, when the metabolite is more toxic than its precursor. Preferably, the toxins are conjugated to avail excretion in bile or urine."
In other words, it works in tandem with the kidneys. Even more detail:
"Phase I reactions (also termed nonsynthetic reactions) may occur by oxidation, reduction, hydrolysis, cyclization, and decyclization addition of oxygen or removal of hydrogen, carried out by mixed function oxidases, often in the liver."
And I said murder because you made it a point to say "unborn child", with a contradictory "yet still should be safe and legal". I'm just making clear what your position really means. Isn't that what we usually call the premeditated killing of an innocent human being?
If you believe [list removed] there is no party for you.
Obviously if you take strong positions on several wide-ranging issues it's unlikely you're going to find a party that matches exactly, especially if you go with outliers like owning military grade weapons while advocating that the murder of an unborn child should be safe and legal.
One of Best Buy's big problems was "showcasing", where people would come in, look and touch the physical products, deciding which they wanted, and then go search the internet for the lowest prices. This also highlights a big problem with modern capitalism: if a company isn't eternally growing, then they are deemed a failure.
That's a non sequitur. The problem isn't a lack of growth, it's the $1.7 billion loss in a single quarter.
[climatologists] start trowing around words like "fact" and "indisputable."
I didn't throw around the word "fact". Instead, I listed several facts that you have not disputed. I did not use the word "indisputable", I said "almost certainly". I'd ask that you be more careful in your comparative digressions.
As for support... there's a correlation between increased sugar consumption and a rise in obesity and diabetes, as you say. This is simply not sufficient to start throwing around absolutes.
Again, I did not throw around absolutes. Even more importantly, you're completely ignoring the described and demonstrated causal mechanism that leads to metabolic syndrome and its similarity to how alcohol is processed by the liver.
It's funny how you then reference the red meat Taubes article, because in it he complains about the lack of a causal mechanism and experiment and the sole reliance on association. The causal link for sugar is exactly what I gave you in my quotes from my last post, and those quotes just so happen to be from another Taubes article.
As for the video, yeah I know it's ninety minutes. I thought about providing a more specific reference but came to my senses before I wasted an hour and a half just to win an internet argument.
That's fine, but don't expect me to take your argument seriously and to trust your memory, especially when you've been fast and loose with the representations of what I've said.
I also wish you wouldn't use the term "mainstream medicine." Around here we just call that "medicine."
I use that term to exclude people in the field who take the sugar hypothesis seriously. This isn't some fringe theory advocated by quacks. Even among the skeptics, I found none that disputed the basic metabolic mechanisms of fructose and its comparison to alcohol.
There's a lot of text about dose-dependent, but the problem is clearly in the dosage, as Lustig says in his talk. For example:
"In the single human study I'm aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15]."
My answer to his question is, yes, it is groundbreaking when you compare the mechanisms of fructose to that of alcohol. We know it's not good to binge on alcohol, yet parents think nothing about feeding their kids sodas or fruit juices, sugary cereals, and dessert as part of a day's meal. We've put vending machines that serve sugary junk food in our schools.
All this while what used to be known as adult-onset diabetes is now commonly found in young people. Chalking this up as a lack of exercise and excess calories when their is a clear metabolic mechanism that is dose dependent, just like alcohol, sounds dangerously naive and stubborn.
Prof Jennie Brand-Miller, one of the leading researchers on the relationhips between diet and diabetes has expressed great dismay at Lustig's claims:
I can't access it. It looks to be pay-walled, or at least login-walled and bugmenot doesn't work.
As for correlations(which a lot of the anti-sugar and anti-HFCS crowd place emphasis on), here's an interesting paper showing sugar consumption has declined during the past three decades in Australia and yet there has been a similar rise in metabolic problems as seen in the U.S.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22254107
Interesting. I'll have to look at it in more detail, but one thing that strikes me right off the bat is that they don't talk about the rates of diabetes or metabolic syndrome, only obesity.
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs probably liked blue jeans and black turtlenecks, and made that choice out of thousands of options. He did not go out to make it the only option for everyone.
Actually, his "personal uniform" grew out of a failed idea to have employees wear uniforms:
http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/11/steve-jobs-book-excerpt-why-he-wore-the-black-mock-turtleneck-uniform/
"I came back with some samples and told everyone it would great if we would all wear these vests. Oh man, did I get booed off the stage. Everybody hated the idea. [..] He also came to like the idea of having a uniform for himself, both because of its daily convenience (the rationale he claimed) and its ability to convey a signature style."
you clearly never learned to appreciate someone merely relaying the other side of the issue or another viewpoint to you.
Despite your claim to the contrary, what you wrote came off as an apology and special pleading for the copyright industry versus other industries. Why is it that the copyright industry talks about "theft" when their copyrights are infringed, yet when the copies are actually treated like property and resold, all of sudden the normal rules of property no longer apply?
You said, "I must say that I do not see the parallels here." Well I do, and it's basic trade of goods. Every seller would like to set their own prices exclusively by area, whether it's a car or a book.
So all of those references I posted you *Didn't* read?
No, it's actually like you didn't read them, because I ended up quoting them and using them against you.
I'm certainly trying to not spoon feed like a public school teacher.
You're in a debate and can't hold up your end, so you act like some know it all, but when pressed you're just a bag of hot air.
Not sure why you think I'm fixated on acute poisons. You do remember me mentioning drinking for 30 years, right?
Which is exactly the point. You used that as evidence that alcohol wasn't a poison, because it isn't acutely toxic. It's been a major theme of yours.
When you are shown to be wrong however, you really should admit it.
Given your level of hypocrisy, I don't know whether to laugh at the ludicrousness of it or be infuriated. You ignored, again, the issue with water, which was detailed in my last post. At the very minimum, you said I shouldn't have mentioned it, when you were the one who brought it up first. That's just a big "duh", you made an obvious blunder, but have never owned up to it.
You ignored that you were wrong about the liver's job in clearing toxins, including indisputable poisons like cyanide.
You were wrong about the basic toxic effects of alcohol at even mild doses, as I already referenced and "spoon fed" you through quotes, including the metabolic mechanism of its toxicity.
Well it isn't as if I could conference you in.
So don't mention it, as it provides no credence or substance. It's pure fluff.
Too bad your parents didn't address your mouth better. Improve your manners.
There's more to manners than avoiding swears. In particular, acting like a hypocrite and a condescending, pretentious prick isn't good manners, especially when you've been shown to be wrong again and again. Swearing has its place when you've been driven to it.
What part of "harmless acetic acid" during normal metabolism do you not understand?
It's not what I don't understand, it's what you are selectively ignoring, that the precursor, acetaldehyde, is toxic, whereas you claimed it wasn't.
Yes, I know if you drink too much it's a poison. Yes I know it causes organ damage, again if you drink too much.
In other words, it's a toxin that has to be cleared from the body, and people know they shouldn't drink too much because of this. So now we're back to just how acute a poison it is.
Yet while you wouldn't find your average parent feeding their kids alcohol as a treat, there's a holiday dedicated for kids to consume sugar in large amounts, it's put in breakfast foods, we give kids fruit juices and sodas, and even put snack machines in schools, all while there's a corresponding rise in diabetes and obesity in children.
I think you'll have to admit that without alcohol, life would be a lot different.
I'm talking about ingesting it, not every single role it plays in life. The simple fact is you can live healthily without ingesting alcohol, unlike water, which goes back to the "water is not a poison" argument because it is not toxic in it's basic mechanism and required for life.
Against my better judgment, and since you actually responded about something of substance, acetaldehyde, I'll reply.
I know what pendantic means.
Good for you. Now can you actually not be pedantic and acknowledge the larger point about water, since you are the one who brought it up?
"In fact, you need sugar to live. Poisons you don't. [..] Please explain why you think alcohol is a poison. [..] it isn't a poison any more than consuming too much water is also a poison."
I addressed the point you raised, and you pedantically ignored it, and then told me I shouldn't have brought up water when it was you who mentioned it first. If that's not worth a mea culpa from you what the hell is?
The Liver is the swiss army knife of organs. It can even do functions of other organs if they are deficient. You clearly have no clue how the body works, and you think you do.
Yet I'm the one who has provided references that one of the functions of the liver is to clear toxins in tandem with the kidneys, while you have provided no references. Here's another reference for you, since you are fixated on acute poisons:
"Approximately 80% of absorbed cyanide is metabolized to thiocyanate in the liver by the mitochondrial sulfur transferase enzyme rhodanese and other sulfur transferases. Thiocyanate is excreted in the urine."
I didn't ignore [acetaldehyde]. For a while I thought you might be right so I looked into it further.
You ignored it in your subsequent post, and if you thought I might be right about it then you should either acknowledge it or shut the fuck up until you learn otherwise.
Contacted a colleague and he said he knew about the very same article you cited and after about an hour discussion he agreed it was full of shit.
Wow, great reference. A "colleague" said in a conversation that I wasn't privy to that he agreed it was "full of shit."
Did you by any chance happen to look up acetaldehyde? Look it up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde .
What, in particular, do you want me to note? Something like:
"Acetaldehyde derived from the consumption of ethanol binds to proteins to form adducts that are linked to organ disease.[29] [..] Acetaldehyde is a carcinogen in humans.[17]"
Or how about this?
"Under normal metabolism, alcohol is broken down in the liver by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to acetaldehyde, which is then converted by the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to the harmless acetic acid. Disulfiram blocks this reaction at the intermediate stage by blocking the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. After alcohol intake under the influence of disulfiram, the concentration of acetaldehyde in the blood may be 5 to 10 times higher than that found during metabolism of the same amount of alcohol alone. As acetaldehyde is one of the major causes of the symptoms of a "hangover" this produces immediate and severe negative reaction to alcohol intake. Some 5-10 minutes after alcohol intake, the patient may experience the effects of a severe hangover for a period of 30 minutes up to several hours. Symptoms include flushing of the skin, accelerated heart rate, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, throbbing headache, visual disturbance, mental confusion, postural syncope, and circulatory collapse."
Something can be toxic and not poisonous. Something that is poisonous is always toxic.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, as the chemical reactions of alcohol make it always toxic, unlike water or normal food, and alcohol isn't required for life, unlike water or normal food. Just like cyanide, the dosage for alcohol is important, though of course cyanide is a much more acute poison.
The "Big Bang Theory" reeks of "let there be light" to me.
Why stop there? What about Adam, Eve, and the theory of evolution? What about the Noah and the Great Flood? There's a big difference between being vaguely right about one particular aspect of a creation myth versus credible knowledge. You might as well take your horoscopes seriously.
This is worshipping God? It looks more like a bunko scheme to me.
That's because it is bunk, and all around the world different people have made up different bunk. Seems strange that would happen if there was an omnipotent creator that actually wanted us to believe a particular version of events.
I will agree with you that the complexity of life astounds me too, but the evidence doesn't point to an omnipotent creator, certainly not a omnibenevolent one.
No need for a citation when its not a quantified statement really. "Often" can mean anything.
The qualified statement was, "Most legal immigrants feel exactly the same." For that, you'd need a survey, as I would think many legal immigrants have friends or family who are illegal. Also, considering the pandering to the hispanic vote about amnesty for current illegal residents, I doubt that his statement holds water.
go on the defensive and explain why they eat me.
Is, "You are very tasty," one of the reasons? ;)
An equally valid (and equally suspect) interpretation of that statistic would be to say that 25% of the people polled have no moral objection to killing another human under some circumstances, and voluntary termination of a pregnancy is one of those circumstances.
That would fall under the "depends" or "morally acceptable" category, not "not a moral issue".
You've got an explicit belief that human life is sacred and that preserving human life takes precedence over all other goals.
No, I don't have that belief. I certainly believe that human life is valuable and should not be taken lightly, and regard it as a fundamental basis for questions about morality, and feel comfortable claiming this is a mainstream and uncontroversial belief.
In real life most people are more than willing to vote for war
But how many would say it isn't a moral issue? While I admit I'm stuck with interpretation of statistics since the exact question under consideration wasn't asked, I think it provides more evidence than you have regarding how pro-choice people feel about the fetus.
But since you talked about the Democratic party, it's worth mentioning something Obama said during his first presidential election campaign: "One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there's a moral and ethical element to this issue. So I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention."
There are many shades of Agnosticism but there is only one of Atheism and that is "There is nothing supernatural."
No, there are also many shades of atheism. Even atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens when he was alive will tell you that they don't believe in "God" based on the evidence, but admit the possibility of a supernatural being. For example:
"There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic?" Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: "You are described as the world's most famous atheist."
Prof Dawkins said that he was "6.9 out of seven" sure of his beliefs.
"I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low," he added. "
The problem with the label of agnosticism is it carries the strong connotation that we can't have reasoned beliefs about religious claims, so calling yourself an agnostic sends the wrong message. I call myself an atheist because it is the closest term that gets the message across, but there's always room for doubt. How can we know anything with 100% certainty?
Pedantic?
"marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"
Better yet, don't mention water.
You brought it up, idiot. You know it's easy to go back and read the earlier posts.
Stick to the subject at hand.
Yes, please do. Instead of ignoring my larger point about why water isn't considered a poison (you need it to live), even though ingesting too much may harm you, you focused on the exact word I used to describe it.
Where to even begin.
How about you address my actual points, you know the concrete evidence that you asked for, and are now ignoring just like I thought you would?
Understand that just because it's in print, especially in the NY Times, that doesn't mean it's true.
Fine, but it's up to you to demonstrate that it isn't, and you haven't done so and have never admitted you were wrong when provided evidence, like how one of the liver's responsibilities is to clear poisons.
Since you cannot show any toxic effects with a small dose, it's not a poison.
As I've already stated, it impairs your brain function even at relatively low doses. It's a toxic chemical that has to be cleared from the body, unlike typical food or water that you can ingest in large amounts and that you need to live. Just because other poisons are more acute does not mean alcohol isn't one.
I also gave you the mechanism of its toxicity (acetaldehyde), which you asked for, and then subsequently ignored.
In fact in low doses they consider it a benefit.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a toxic chemical. As I already stated, the body can tolerate and clear poisons naturally, and in this case a low dose is acting in a medicinal fashion. Even cyanide has medical uses and is even put in food.
Unfortunately some end up in the NY Times and believed by people far and wide.
Unfortunately, some people ignore the science and don't provide an actual scientific refutation, and spout ignorant crap about how the liver doesn't clear poisons, about how they've been drinking for 30 years and highlighting the benefits of a low dose, while ignoring all the harmful effects of a toxic chemical, and ignoring the danger as it applies to the large amounts of fructose that modern people are ingesting via added sugar and fruit juices. This despite fructose's strong link to metabolic syndrome, as demonstrated by the undisputed scientific description of the metabolic process and by actual experiment.
I'm not interested in discussing with you any more. I've said everything I've wanted to say.
The Democrats cater to extremists who believe that a fetus is just an insensate lump of flesh, not a human being, and that disposing of an unwanted fetus has nothing to do with killing a child.
Your polling data doesn't show what people think regarding this issue, though in one poll only 48% think it is morally wrong, while a full 38% say it is either morally acceptable or not a moral issue. If I use a conservative 35% against legal abortion, and assume they all think it is morally wrong, and a conservative 50% for legal abortion, then only 13/50 or 26% say it is morally wrong. A full 25% say it is not a moral issue, which to me indicates an "insensate lump of flesh" attitude.
The US generally takes the free market position on what a "reasonable" warranty is, under general supervision of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. It's not the worst idea in the world, as you can usually pay more for products with longer warranties, and you keep the government out of defining "reasonable" across a range of products.
That said, there's also merit in the other approach. I don't see this as a black and white issue. However, living under the free market system, I wouldn't feel entitled to get a product repaired past the warranty. Sure, it would be nice and doesn't hurt to ask, but that's it.
Ok, water is many things however it isn't a nutrient.
Instead of being pedantic, maybe you'd acknowledge that, unlike alcohol, without ingesting water you'd die, much sooner than you would if you had no food, hence it is not a poison or considered toxic.
Maybe it would be useful to look at how they define a poison - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison
Did you actually look?
"In the context of biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism. [..] poisons are generally defined as substances absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut."
The first obvious effect of alcohol is that it impairs your brain function.
Explain why something that really is a poison, for example anti-freeze or Ethylene glycol is like the way the body handles ethanol, or perhaps how ethanol damages the body in a manner that's consistent with a poison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
"Pure ethanol will irritate the skin and eyes.[76] Nausea, vomiting and intoxication are symptoms of ingestion. Long-term use by ingestion can result in serious liver damage.[77] Atmospheric concentrations above one in a thousand are above the European Union Occupational exposure limits.[77] [..] Death from ethyl alcohol consumption is possible when blood alcohol level reaches 0.4%. A blood level of 0.5% or more is commonly fatal. Levels of even less than 0.1% can cause intoxication, with unconsciousness often occurring at 0.3-0.4%.[80] Prolonged heavy consumption of alcohol can cause significant permanent damage to the brain and other organs. [..] Ethanol within the human body is converted into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase and then into the acetyl in acetyl CoA by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. Acetyl CoA is the final product of both carbohydrate and fat metabolism, where the acetyl can be further used to produce energy or for biosynthesis. As such, ethanol is a nutrient. However, the product of the first step of this breakdown, acetaldehyde,[84] is more toxic than ethanol. Acetaldehyde is linked to most of the clinical effects of alcohol. It has been shown to increase the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver[68] and multiple forms of cancer."
Since you like wiki, here's one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Treatment_for_poisoning_by_other_alcohols .
"Ethanol is sometimes used to treat poisoning by other, more toxic alcohols"
If ethanol were a poison, I'd be dead by now. I've been drinking it for over 3 decades.
This statement is ignorant, as the body has a natural ability to clear poisons, and they can be tolerated in low enough doses. However, there's quite a long list of illnesses associated with chronic alcohol abuse, in particular cirrhosis of the liver, and if you actually watched the video I linked to, many of these same illnesses are implicated with fructose.
I'd appreciate it if you would either admit your error or come up with something concrete as to why I'm wrong.
Funny, I feel the same about you. So far you've ignored the video I linked to on the processing of alcohol and fructose, you've ignored the fact that water is needed for life where alcohol is not, instead pedantically focusing on the term I used, and you've ignored the links and quotes I've already posted on the liver's function in breaking down toxic substances. I can only imagine you'll ignore the substance of what I've said in this post, too.
Do you have to not be a moron to realize that a warranty is a basic contract for product quality, and not used to defend the company against "obvious abuse"? If some company wants to throw a customer a bone, that's fine, but I'd be ashamed as a customer to expect such a freebie to the point of boycotting if I didn't get it.
But only because you keep trying to demonize me.
I'm not trying to demonize you. I just found your position strange, and noted that it's unlikely you'd find a party to match it. You defended your position and I challenged you on it. It's nothing more than that. I don't really care whether you adopted or not.
I don't have any sympathy for this case. What's the point of having warranty deadlines if the company is expected to arbitrarily extend them? If customers want an extended warranty, they should buy them.
Why don't you visit an adoption center? Advocating for the killing of unborn children doesn't sound affirmative to me.
Yet despite all you've written, you're talking about the premeditated killing of an innocent human being, something we usually call murder. Is it ok for the mother to murder the child after it is born if she no longer wants to care for it? If not, then why is the unborn child so different? Why is it our place to stop it then?
Please explain why you think alcohol is a poison.
Because unlike water, it is not a necessary nutrient and has toxic effects even at low doses.
Your response is towards my point. Alcohol is metabolized by the liver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver#Breakdown :
"The liver breaks down or modifies toxic substances (e.g., methylation) and most medicinal products in a process called drug metabolism. This sometimes results in toxication, when the metabolite is more toxic than its precursor. Preferably, the toxins are conjugated to avail excretion in bile or urine."
In other words, it works in tandem with the kidneys. Even more detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_metabolism#Phase_I :
"Phase I reactions (also termed nonsynthetic reactions) may occur by oxidation, reduction, hydrolysis, cyclization, and decyclization addition of oxygen or removal of hydrogen, carried out by mixed function oxidases, often in the liver."
And I said murder because you made it a point to say "unborn child", with a contradictory "yet still should be safe and legal". I'm just making clear what your position really means. Isn't that what we usually call the premeditated killing of an innocent human being?
If you believe [list removed] there is no party for you.
Obviously if you take strong positions on several wide-ranging issues it's unlikely you're going to find a party that matches exactly, especially if you go with outliers like owning military grade weapons while advocating that the murder of an unborn child should be safe and legal.
One of Best Buy's big problems was "showcasing", where people would come in, look and touch the physical products, deciding which they wanted, and then go search the internet for the lowest prices. This also highlights a big problem with modern capitalism: if a company isn't eternally growing, then they are deemed a failure.
That's a non sequitur. The problem isn't a lack of growth, it's the $1.7 billion loss in a single quarter.
[climatologists] start trowing around words like "fact" and "indisputable."
I didn't throw around the word "fact". Instead, I listed several facts that you have not disputed. I did not use the word "indisputable", I said "almost certainly". I'd ask that you be more careful in your comparative digressions.
As for support... there's a correlation between increased sugar consumption and a rise in obesity and diabetes, as you say. This is simply not sufficient to start throwing around absolutes.
Again, I did not throw around absolutes. Even more importantly, you're completely ignoring the described and demonstrated causal mechanism that leads to metabolic syndrome and its similarity to how alcohol is processed by the liver.
It's funny how you then reference the red meat Taubes article, because in it he complains about the lack of a causal mechanism and experiment and the sole reliance on association. The causal link for sugar is exactly what I gave you in my quotes from my last post, and those quotes just so happen to be from another Taubes article.
As for the video, yeah I know it's ninety minutes. I thought about providing a more specific reference but came to my senses before I wasted an hour and a half just to win an internet argument.
That's fine, but don't expect me to take your argument seriously and to trust your memory, especially when you've been fast and loose with the representations of what I've said.
I also wish you wouldn't use the term "mainstream medicine." Around here we just call that "medicine."
I use that term to exclude people in the field who take the sugar hypothesis seriously. This isn't some fringe theory advocated by quacks. Even among the skeptics, I found none that disputed the basic metabolic mechanisms of fructose and its comparison to alcohol.
First off, thanks for your links. It's nice to have informed discussion.
There is a good analysis and discussion of this issue here:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
There's a lot of text about dose-dependent, but the problem is clearly in the dosage, as Lustig says in his talk. For example:
"In the single human study I'm aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15]."
My answer to his question is, yes, it is groundbreaking when you compare the mechanisms of fructose to that of alcohol. We know it's not good to binge on alcohol, yet parents think nothing about feeding their kids sodas or fruit juices, sugary cereals, and dessert as part of a day's meal. We've put vending machines that serve sugary junk food in our schools.
All this while what used to be known as adult-onset diabetes is now commonly found in young people. Chalking this up as a lack of exercise and excess calories when their is a clear metabolic mechanism that is dose dependent, just like alcohol, sounds dangerously naive and stubborn.
Prof Jennie Brand-Miller, one of the leading researchers on the relationhips between diet and diabetes has expressed great dismay at Lustig's claims:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/war-over-sweet-nothings/story-e6frg8y6-1226261140744
I can't access it. It looks to be pay-walled, or at least login-walled and bugmenot doesn't work.
As for correlations(which a lot of the anti-sugar and anti-HFCS crowd place emphasis on), here's an interesting paper showing sugar consumption has declined during the past three decades in Australia and yet there has been a similar rise in metabolic problems as seen in the U.S.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22254107
Interesting. I'll have to look at it in more detail, but one thing that strikes me right off the bat is that they don't talk about the rates of diabetes or metabolic syndrome, only obesity.
I can't believe you want to continue this discussion. Do you just want to have the last word?
Ask yourself the same question.
And your interpretation is only obvious if one is a pedantic stickler for literal interpretations.
Wrong again, as it was the interpretation applied by numerous people before me, as I already pointed out.
I have satisfied myself that your comment is groundless and that's all that really matters to me.
Of course you have. It's a self-defense mechanism.