Winfrey presidency

[Ginger]

Anyways, we all believe psuedoscientific stuff in my opinion.

Belief doesn't change the underlying reality of the universe (we're not in the White Wolf Mage setting here). Pseudoscientific beliefs can be debunked by actual science. In believing the pseudoscience, you are either dismissing the science or being willfully ignorant of it. Both are terrible for any human being, let alone a leader of a country.

Science never ever helped me. It was used to decry my gender, say I'm always gonna be just a feminine looking skinny boy toy and never get to change the name I was assigned at birth. Science was used to forcefully experiment on black women slaves against their will by nice nice doctors. Science was used to control women's bodies when a treatment for "hysteria" was more sex you didn't wanna have w/your husband. Science sucks sucks hard and I'll disregard it if I wanna. I'd rather chat religion or spirituality or feel good science w/Oprah than talk about what scientist nerds think the definition of blackness/my gender/my sex is any day.

[CorruptUser]

It was science that ended the horrors. It was pseudoscience that started most and continued all of them.

Fun little tidbit for you. Sexual selection was a "new" phenomenon in the 20th century, until it was discovered that it was always in On Origin of the Species, but the idea that females could choose their mates had been ignored by Victorian sensibilities. It turned out Origin was like Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital, The Bible or Principa Mathematica in that it's hailed by all, read by none*.

*yes exaggeration, but it sounds more poetic this way

[Ginger]

It was science that ended the horrors. It was pseudoscience that started most and continued all of them.

Okay you gotta point. I guess it also invented estrogen pills, birth control, abortions, sex change operations, plastic surgery, cosmetics, psychology... Goddess damn. Anyways, honestly? I don't watch much of Miss Oprah anymore. Her speech, which was very powerful, about speaking out against power hungry sexually abusive men in Hollywood, really starstruck me and imprinted to me that Oprah was not a bad lady. As far as her recent activities go I cannot say. Anyways thank you for the story about sexual selection Mr. CorruptUser TIL Something New Yay!

[ucim]

Ain't no difference when you got only three choices: Your current job where you are...

You telling me you're in the running for President? If not, it's not relevant.

I get that you have run into problems being dissed at work (and at applying for work). No fun. But that doesn't make it ok to have cray-cray for President (even if we've had it before). In fact, even if it were ok for a nut-job to be president, your experience being dissed is not the reason. The two are separate. Unrelated.

And as Dauric says, crazy isn't yes/no. There are degrees and types. Being anti-science and pro pseudo-science is certainly a strong case against being president.

Science never ever helped me. It was used to decry my gender...

No, it wasn't. Politics, pseudoscience, fear, power playing, and anger is what was used. Science was a part of it in the same way science is part of the flat earth argument. Science is a way of thinking about how to figure things out, but as long as most people don't appreciate this, calling something "science" is enough to make a club out of whatever that label is attached to.

Jose

[Ginger]

Well, I wasn't actually trying to equate my experiences to Miss O's quest for bein' prez, I was just trying to sympathize with her. And anyways strong black women get dissed all the time: Bein' too loud/aggressive/passive-aggressive, they don't have straight hair like white femmes, they're too proud of their race, they talk funny or act funny... you know? I'm sure Miss Oprah got discriminated against all over the places long before she was super famous. So I'm sure she gets the working class woman, which would secure my vote. And how sad sad for me that all my multiple injustices mean nothing to anyone in discussions about important jobs--I'm sure someone would tell Oprah her individual experiences of discrimination don't matter no more neither.

And anyways I believe science can be political sciences, social sciences, gender sciences--All fields roundly mocked by so-called "true, pure scientists." And in the lens of politics, gender, sexuality etcetera being sciences then science did do all the things I talked about and more. At least in my highly warped opinion that I'm beginning to revise anyways. You can't pick and choose what parts of your theology/science are "pure and good" and what parts are bad and evil. Science did all the things I talked about and more and if Oprah doesn't like most modern science "backed up by facts and statistics" then I support her. Because of my own individual experiences with abuses from high school, college, professionals, doctors, therapists ALL dismissing my experiences over and over. And I'm sure sure it happened to Oprah because she's a powerful strong willed black femme with a confident personality and people HATE LOATHE that at Any Workplaces.

[ucim]

Well, I wasn't actually trying to equate...

It's not a matter of "equating". It's a matter of the right tool for the right job. Screwdrivers are jack shit for driving nails, but a hammer does the job well. In the job of president, you need many many attributes that you don't need for an ordinary job. So, the fact that you get dissed out of an ordinary job does not mean anything about the requirements for the job of president. However, it is true that the job of president requires (or should require) an attitude of openness and support for all your constituents, even those with whom you disagree. This includes those who have had the experiences you have had.

It also requires (or should require) an accurate view of reality. In the realms in which science applies, science gives a method for finding the best views of reality. It's a method to make it least likely that we are fooling ourselves.

You can't pick and choose what parts of your theology/science are "pure and good" and what parts are bad and evil.

Not and remain honest. Science is not theology. The big difference is that sciences is falsifiable*, and theology is not. Science is also not "good" or "evil". It's a path to knowledge. Good and evil can be done in the name of science, but that is the choice of the people doing it. It's important to keep the two separate.

if Oprah doesn't like most modern science "backed up by facts and statistics" then I support her.

That would be giving support to somebody who does not respect or care about actual facts, choosing to replace them with alternative facts when convenient. The reason we have science in the first place is to help us tell the difference between actual facts and alternative facts. Reject that and you have nothing left to go on. This is not a quality I want in our leader.

It's also important to distinguish between actual facts and what somebody says the facts are. Ignore this at your peril, and the peril of all of us.

Jose
* "Falsifiable" means that there is a way of disproving a hypothesis... a test or experiment which will show whether the idea being presented fits or doesn't fit reality. This test may not be practical at this point in time, but it in principle exists, and as technology advances, will become practical. In theology, there is no such test, even in principle.

[elasto]

While I agree with you, the problem I have with rejecting Winfrey on the basis that she doesn't understand science is that I can't recall any leader either side of the ocean that had any real respect for it. Indeed, I can't recall an election where I even had the choice to vote for someone who'd make policy based on scientific evidence. I briefly had hope with Cameron that he'd implement a sensible drug and criminal justice policy, but he quickly caved in the face of tabloid headlines no different to any other leader.

Politicians everywhere place ideology above facts - and for good reason: Facts don't win elections, platitudes do. Facts show the world to be grey rather than black and white; to be nuanced and messy rather than clear-cut and obvious. The voters simply don't want to hear that.

Is Winfrey more gullible than most when it comes to new-age guff? Maybe. I haven't followed her well enough to say. But, as an overall package she might not be worse than the alternative, even if that alternative isn't Trump.

[idonno]

While I agree with you, the problem I have with rejecting Winfrey on the basis that she doesn't understand science is that I can't recall any leader either side of the ocean that had any real respect for it. Indeed, I can't recall an election where I even had the choice to vote for someone who'd make policy based on scientific evidence. I briefly had hope with Cameron that he'd implement a sensible drug and criminal justice policy, but he quickly caved in the face of tabloid headlines no different to any other leader.

Politicians everywhere place ideology above facts - and for good reason: Facts don't win elections, platitudes do. Facts show the world to be grey rather than black and white; to be nuanced and messy rather than clear-cut and obvious. The voters simply don't want to hear that.

Is Winfrey more gullible than most when it comes to new-age guff? Maybe. I haven't followed her well enough to say. But, as an overall package she might not be worse than the alternative, even if that alternative isn't Trump.

The issue is not that she doesn't understand science. She openly supports and has been a purveyor of bad science to the detriment of her viewers health. I do not want the sort of programs she will almost certainly push. I think they are harmful. Doesn't your health care pay for homeopathy (overpriced sugar pills). I'm not sure I'd take the results of your leadership options as a defense for appointing her.

[elasto]

The issue is not that she doesn't understand science. She openly supports and has been a purveyor of bad science to the detriment of her viewers health. I do not want the sort of programs she will almost certainly push. I think they are harmful. Doesn't your health care pay for homeopathy (overpriced sugar pills). I'm not sure I'd take the results of your leadership options as a defense for appointing her.

A president is not a king though; I'd expect her more outlandish ideas to find no support in congress. Just look at how much Trump and Obama struggled with their programs.

(I'd be much more worried if she were to find power under the UK political system, for example, where one person really can shape and force through policy single-handed.)

[CorruptUser]

A president is not a king though; I'd expect her more outlandish ideas to find no support in congress.

Err... You do remember that OCCAM, NCCAM, DSHEA and the like are still things, in spite of Tom Harkin being gone, right?

[elasto]

Are those things actually dangerous or merely a waste of money though? All presidents and parties waste money - the biggest being the many trillions both parties have wasted on the military.

I'm not saying any of your objections are incorrect, however have you not heard of the expression "the perfect is the enemy of the good"?

(Maybe I've just become desensitised following the wilful anti-science of climate change denial. In comparison with the harm that could come from that Winfrey's new-age hokum seems like small beans...)

[CorruptUser]

Are those things actually dangerous or merely a waste of money though? All presidents and parties waste money - the biggest being the many trillions both parties have wasted on the military.

DSHEA is definitely dangerous, in that it has led to one of the most effective attacks on the credibility of science of the 20th century, to say nothing of the tens of billions of dollars wasted every year.

[elasto]

DSHEA is definitely dangerous, in that it has led to one of the most effective attacks on the credibility of science of the 20th century

Reading the wiki, it doesn't seem like it attacks the credibility of science particularly, it merely says that the government will play a reactive rather than proactive role when it comes to the safety and efficacy of historical nutritional supplements, and puts the onus on people to educate themselves rather than relying on government diktats.

That seems entirely in keeping with the libertarian bent of the average American who distrusts any form of government intervention telling him what he can and can't do - which is presumably why for decades no party or leader, including Obama, felt any pressure to burn political capital overturning this act.

I repeat once again that I think that no politician has any particular love for science or evidence-led policy making. Winfrey might be worse in this regard than some, but perhaps she'd be better than most in other arenas like, I dunno, social policy.

It might be great if we handed over political leadership to a committee of technocrats, but maybe that'd also end up terribly. I'm afraid I'm completely out of answers on how to best to move things forward at this point. Democracy is the worst system apart from all the rest, and they all seem to suck.

[CorruptUser]

The wiki doesn't do it justice. Do you know why there are entire aisles of grocery stores dedicated to homeopathic remedies and the like? DSHEA is why. The effects didn't happen instantly, but they happened. DSHEA laid the groundwork for the bulk of Alternatives to Medicine. Without it, they wouldn't have had the funding to launch the anti-science campaigns they have.

As for what we should do, meh, I feel like Democracy's greatest flaw and greatest strength are the same; that everyone has the right to vote. You could restrict the right to vote to only people who have a vested interest in the country in some form, or restrict to those that pay more tax than they collect, or those that have proven education, or some other criteria, but the reality is in each of those situations there's only two end results. The first is that the qualifications somehow match up with those who would vote the way you want. The second is intentional sabotage of the voting masses so that only the people you want to qualify will. Both of which happened in the past in the US, and to a lesser extent today directly via felony disenfrachisement and indirectly via other means.

[elasto]

It's not great that so much money is made from people looking for shortcuts and magic bullets, but from the outside it feels like conventional medicine has much bigger issues than alternative medicine does. The US is one of (I think) only two countries in the world that allows advertising of prescription drugs, for example.

When it comes to health, all people really need to know is they should eat a healthy, balanced diet and get regular exercise. That's it. And it's not like the government doesn't push that message, it's just that it doesn't prevent any idiot or charlatan having their 2 cents also.

I'd argue it's not so much an anti-science issue as a worship of the free market. Until the average voter gets over its fear of evil government control these problems are going to remain - and a president that believes in homeopathy or whatever is the least of your worries in that regards really.

[CorruptUser]

When it comes to health, all people really need to know is they should eat a healthy, balanced diet and get regular exercise. That's it.

And cook that food, because tapeworms are a thing.
And avoid un-iodized salt, unless you want to raise a bunch of cretins.
And be in long-term relationships, or at the very least serial monogamy, and use condoms; sex is dangerous, and only gets more-so as you age and your potential partners have had more time to "collect them all".
And don't mix medicines with alcohol, especially not tylenol.
And don't clean with both ammonia and bleach.
And don't smoke.
And avoid steroids.
And avoid other drugs too, including alcohol. And weed, maybe.
And when lifting weights, always make sure your form is good.

I'd argue it's not so much an anti-science issue as a worship of the free market. Until the average voter gets over its fear of evil government control these problems are going to remain - and a president that believes in homeopathy or whatever is the least of your worries in that regards really.

I'd argue Libertarianism is just a cover, not the source of the bullshit, because you don't see these idiots suggesting that Big Pharma itself be allowed to sell whatever it wants without FDA approval.

[elasto]

Not sure if serious, but:

"And cook that food, because tapeworms are a thing" - many of the healthiest foods can be eaten raw
"And avoid un-iodized salt, unless you want to raise a bunch of cretins" - I have never added salt to my or my children's food
"And be in long-term relationships; sex is dangerous" - you can use protection you know
"And don't mix medicines with alcohol" - ok
"And don't clean with both ammonia and bleach" - ok
"And don't smoke" - ok
"And avoid steroids" - unless direction by a physician
"And avoid other drugs too, including alcohol. And weed, maybe" - nah. Many drugs are life-enhancing in moderation.
"And when lifting weights, always make sure your form is good" - ok

"I'd argue Libertarianism is just a cover, not the source of the bullshit, because you don't see these idiots suggesting that Big Pharma itself be allowed to sell whatever it wants without FDA approval."

Whatever it wants? They aren't dumb enough to argue that. But even in the UK you'll hear objections to particular rulings that NICE makes, for example. So if we have them here I'm sure you get them there too.

And, I'm sorry, the US has had a libertarian streak since at least the days of the Wild West. Survivalist groups are a uniquely American thing, for example. Few advanced countries have such an active distrust of their own leaders.

Sure, you can't boil all of life down to one sentence, but I stand by the fact that most everyone who listens to the advice 'eat well and exercise' will find they have no reason to visit the supermarket aisle you lament.

[Pfhorrest]

There's never any actual reason for anyone to visit that aisle, but there are plenty of maladies not solved by diet and exercise -- basically anything that you should go see a real doctor for -- that would still tempt people into that aisle.

[CorruptUser]

Most vegetables can only be eaten raw thanks to modern sanitation and synthetic fertilizers and the like. Most cultures do NOT have a history of eating raw vegetables, for very good reason; when you fertilize the farms with manure, the leafy green vegetables and root vegetables will contain some trace amounts of the manure on the leaves, so people long ago learned to cook even vegetables. Synthetic fertilizers don't have this problem, though they have environmental problems due to how they are manufactured, and of course it's not a problem for most fruits and the like. Organic food on the other hand, well, there was that time when 4000 people got seriously ill and 50 died from eating raw sprouts.

Chances are your kids get their iodine from other sources. But if you cook all your own food instead of buying anything processed/enriched, don't have access to fish, and use non-iodized salt? Well, you are going to have a bad time. Iodization of salt is responsible for having literally raised IQ's by 15 points in the more rural counties, where seafood wasn't readily available.

Did edit this a tad earlier. Yes there's condoms. Condoms are better than nothing for protecting against most diseases, but aren't very useful against HPV and herpes. Just understand that there are risks and do your best to minimize them.

EDIT: Alcohol is NOT life enhancing, not unless you live in a time before water purification and the beer is safer. The studies that show alcohol to be healthy in moderation are a classic case of causation and correlation. Teetotalers are not typical people, and generally have health problems that prevent them from drinking in the first place, so of course the people that have a couple drinks a week are healthier on average than teetotalers. Low levels of alcohol aren't particularly dangerous, but it's still unhealthy. Of course, I drink a bit too, but as they say, everything in moderation. Also, a drink a day is much safer than 7 drinks in one day and nothing the rest.

[elasto]

There's never any actual reason for anyone to visit that aisle, but there are plenty of maladies not solved by diet and exercise -- basically anything that you should go see a real doctor for -- that would still tempt people into that aisle.

I'd argue the issue there is that there isn't universal taxpayer-funded healthcare.

If people could go see their doctor for free whenever they needed to they wouldn't be tempted to look for quick fixes.

Most vegetables can only be eaten raw thanks to modern sanitation and synthetic fertilizers and the like.

Well, we're talking about advice for the present day, right? Likewise you can eat raw eggs safely in the UK whereas you couldn't historically.

Chances are your kids get their iodine from other sources. But if you cook all your own food instead of buying anything processed/enriched, don't have access to fish, and use non-iodized salt?

Why would my kids not have access to fish in the UK in the 21st century?

Obviously there's loads of advice we could list from, but I was talking specifically about that aisle of the supermarket. Eat well and exercise well and you'll have no real reason to pay any attention to it. That's the only message people need to be told.

EDIT: Alcohol is NOT life enhancing, not unless you live in a time before water purification and the beer is safer. The studies that show alcohol to be healthy in moderation are a classic case of causation and correlation.

Are you assuming 'life enhancing' is only referring to physical health? Mental health is important too, and alcohol can play a role in enjoying life, as can controlled use of many other things from psychedelics to extreme sports. Nothing is without risk but life is dull (and arguably pointless) if you live it wrapped in cotton wool.

[CorruptUser]

Why would my kids not have access to fish in the UK in the 21st century?

Because you could be vegan?

I'd argue the issue there is that there isn't universal taxpayer-funded healthcare.

If people could go see their doctor for free whenever they needed to they wouldn't be tempted to look for quick fixes.

You do realize that the alternative medicine racket in the UK is around 4.5billion pounds a year, at least in 2008, roughly equivalent to the $30B in the US?

[elasto]

Because you could be vegan?

That would go against the advice to eat a healthy, balanced diet. At the risk of starting a flame war, veganism is unnatural and distinctly unhealthy.

[CorruptUser]

I will mostly agree with you on veganism, though I will say if done properly it is possible to still have a balanced diet as a vegan, just more difficult.

[elasto]

If people could go see their doctor for free whenever they needed to they wouldn't be tempted to look for quick fixes.

You do realize that the alternative medicine racket in the UK is around 4.5billion pounds a year?

It's important to note that people can't see their doctor for free whenever they want to in the UK either. There are delays, waiting lists, prescription charges and so on. Just because I criticise the US system it doesn't mean I don't have plenty of complaints about ours too!

And people seek magic bullets everywhere because, even though the advice is so simple (eat well and exercise well), it doesn't mean it's easy to actually do... It's universally tempting to throw money at snake oil rather than chew on a carrot or get off the sofa and go for a run!

[Ginger]

I will mostly agree with you on veganism, though I will say if done properly it is possible to still have a balanced diet as a vegan, just more difficult.

I was a vegan for a few years. On top of being "sympathized" with in a variety of dubious ways by men and women, like, some guy JUST HAD to tell me about his li'l sis from California who didn't eat animal products every time I saw him I was also joked about: "How do you know a vegan lady is at your dinner party? Don't worry she'll tell you." And some people who served me at facilities would try to slip animal products into my foods over and over... was my diet healthier? Actually I kinda doubt it because I ate like carbohydrates-loaded stuff a lot like rice and whatevs. I didn't get much fatter but I bet I still gained weight with my bad bad vegan eating habits... and what does veganism or doctors in the US or UK have to do with Oprah Winfrey? Y'all are derailing AGAIN.

Because you could be vegan?

That would go against the advice to eat a healthy, balanced diet. At the risk of starting a flame war, veganism is unnatural and distinctly unhealthy.

Fuck you you are "unnatural and distinctly unhealthy" AND WRONG WRONG Wrong Wrong. Veganism is totes healthier than eating gross icky gross meat products And you get guilt free murder of animals free eating experiences.

[elasto]

Fuck you you are "unnatural and distinctly unhealthy" AND WRONG WRONG Wrong Wrong. Veganism is totes healthier than eating gross icky gross meat products And you get guilt free murder of animals free eating experiences.

Who said anything about eating meat? You don't have to eat meat to have a healthy diet (though it helps), but, sorry, the science is clear that veganism is quite unhealthy without practically having to get a degree in nutrition to ensure you get all the micronutrients you need (eg. B12). And it's unquestionably unnatural. Humans are evolved to be omnivores.

It's not a matter of ethics, it's simply a matter of biology.

[Ginger]

Well, a lot of stuff we eat/drink is animal based and I wanna avoid it all, milk, cheese, even meat products like essence of beef fat or whatever in fucking confections, which is not even healthy yet I just wanna say that b/c I was shocked that confections had beef fat in them. Gross. OOH Ooh biology huh? Sounds like evolutionary psychology now: How we just evolve naturally to like blonde, big-breasted women so redheads with tiny boobs like me get left out in the cold. Veganism is a perfectly acceptable alternative to eating ANY ANIMAL Products, which we steal from like cows we keep constantly producing milk like fucking freaks. Go veganism down with animal products that we rape and kill animals to get!

[elasto]

Yes, it's biology. Feed a cat a vegan diet and it will flat out die. Humans can survive better because we are omnivores rather than carnivores, but we will still suffer.

I would never tell a person not to be a vegan on ethical grounds, every person has to choose their own path there, but let's not pretend the science isn't clear. It's important to make an informed decision here.

[Ginger]

Shame shame on you for using science to make vegans feel bad. And I'm sure people did it to Oprah plenty. How she's too loud and in your face black femme, she needs to go brush her nappy hair out, she needs to quiet down about women's abuses in Hollywood, she needs to tell women how to behave like men do, she needs to be more aggressive or passive-aggressive in the workplace and on and on. I bet Miss O got censored by everyone for being a strong black female. And before she was famous I'm sure I could find stories of discrimination against her if I looked hard enough. People police women's behaviors with science and biology, shame them for having the wrong hair length/style/natural curliness/shortness/colors and on and on over and over. Oprah gets what women, especially black women, are going through and needs to be our next Prez of the USA.

[elasto]

You should no more feel bad that science says it's hard to get all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet than you should feel bad that science says you can't fly by flapping your arms.

It's only unethical to get nutrients from animal products because our society treats animals badly. If you had land where you kept chickens which could roam freely as nature intended, then I hope you'd agree there'd be nothing unethical about collecting their eggs, and eggs are one of the most nutritionally complete foods there is.

Please, go ahead and take great pride in your veganism. The world would be a better place if more people shared your values. Just be fully informed, that's all, which I'm sure you are.

[Ginger]

I guess you're right. Veganism leaves me feeling kinda unfulfilled sometimes. I try try to tell myself, "You're just used to eating meaty sandwiches so eat a salad instead, or drink tea instead of milk, or eat carrots instead of cheese pizza." And I love love cheese pizza so it was truly difficult to adapt to being a vegan girl for a while. Yet there are supplements, and some plants have protein so the entire, "Can't get Protein from veggies!" Is dumb too. And the entire culture of controlling women's bodies and health through advising appearance changes, body modifications like tattoos or piercings, behavior modifications like bein' told to shut up and sit still and be ladylike and Listen to Me Only, operations to "enhance your beauty" like breasts augmentations or plastic surgeries like nose jobs or face lifts or tummy tucks to fit an unattainable standard of beauty, the conflicting advice of people counseling you about nutrition and Especially controlling black, brown, tan and white women's choices through the guise of better, healthier living is appalling. And I think Oprah has the bravery to change all that because She Cares About Women. Maybe Maybe not white femmes however? Now I'm kinda depressed again and I was gonna go into a longer speech about Oprah yet I'll just finish w/that I'd rather have a caring president than a smart and healthy healthy prez.

AND BEFORE anyone tells me I'm being off topic I think the way we treat women IS on topic and so does Oprah. She was talking about sexual abuse ending finally and no one does that. They just pray and hope it ends and never ever helps speak out against it. So Oprah thinks I'm on topic about women's abuses too.

[CorruptUser]

It's only unethical to get nutrients from animal products because our society treats animals badly. If you had land where you kept chickens which could roam freely as nature intended, then I hope you'd agree there'd be nothing unethical about collecting their eggs, and eggs are one of the most nutritionally complete foods there is.

Do NOT feel bad about battery cages, the fuckers deserve everything that happens to them. Chickens are naturally cannibals, even free-range ones, they smell horrible, they torture each other.

Now cows, on the other hand...

[Mutex]

A discussion about whether Oprah Winfrey should be president is now about whether or not chickens are fuckers who have it coming.

[orthogon]

It's only unethical to get nutrients from animal products because our society treats animals badly. If you had land where you kept chickens which could roam freely as nature intended, then I hope you'd agree there'd be nothing unethical about collecting their eggs, and eggs are one of the most nutritionally complete foods there is.

Everyone has their own reasons for their dietary choices, and that's just one possible argument. One might avoid particular foods on the basis of health, environmentalism, treatment-of animals or animal rights. The latter two are distinct: there are those who will eat meat from animals raised and slaughtered under certain conditions, and there are those who consider that animals have absolute, inalienable rights like humans. On the latter grounds, raising and killing an animal under humane conditions is no more acceptable than (for example) applying the death penalty is legitimate just because the judicial system is fair and open. And even if you don't eat the animal itself, so-called "animal products" are actually things that the animal produces for its own benefit or that of its young, they're not produced for us. Fully free-range chickens would presumably produce mainly fertilised eggs, so collecting their eggs would be unethical to the extent that taking something's babies would be unethical, i.e. arguably to quite a large extent. Similarly, dairy cows produce milk to feed their calves; I'm not quite sure what dairies do to maximise milk production, but as far as I know there are no virgin cows that produce milk. I'm not a vegan myself; I'm not even a vegetarian (so help me, I'm a pescatarian) but I am uncomfortable whenever I give this too much thought. Once you go down this line of thinking (i.e. if you start from rights-based axioms), you're bound to conclude that veganism is the only really coherent position to take.

But, yeah: chickens. Bastards, the lot of them.

[Ginger]

You all are ruining ObsessoMom's thread. I thought I was doing a good thing by defending veganism, tried to redirect it back onto Oprah and you guys and gals are... ruining it and my enjoying of the thread so I'm out, peace and loving to you all and I ain't coming back.

[Mutex]

Threads in N&A often go off topic for a stretch. It'll veer back to the main topic soon I'm sure.

P.S. #notallchickens

[Ginger]

I mean Oprah gives out free stuffs on her show, or she did haven't watched it in ages ages, she is nice to women and counsels her friends about their addictions... what more could we ask from any woman? I don't even care if she becomes president I'd Still Support Her. And I do watch her TV channel sometimes and it usually has good programming I enjoy so so she knows at least Some of what she's doing. AND I KNOW: TV don't equal real life yet... we only ever truly truly get to see presidents through televisions unless we go to their speeches. And even at a speech/rally/convention/debate you don't get the president's true faces just the presidents' public faces. So all I have to go on is what I've heard about Oprah and what I've seen. And pretty much every woman has some advice about how they diet badly, or what wives' tales they might believe like fake news/sciences or whatevs. Oprah occasionally getting it wrong don't make her a bad lady woman celebrity thing. I'm gonna look for actual articles about Miss Oprah right meow~! <3

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/01/08/oprah-for-president-in-2020-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.0fe9136a13d8

THERE I found one~ :D

[idonno]

It might be great if we handed over political leadership to a committee of technocrats, but maybe that'd also end up terribly. I'm afraid I'm completely out of answers on how to best to move things forward at this point. Democracy is the worst system apart from all the rest, and they all seem to suck.

We could start by advocating for leaders that don't push pseudoscience and endanger peoples lives instead of advocating for those that do.

If people could go see their doctor for free whenever they needed to they wouldn't be tempted to look for quick fixes.

I know for a fact that people buy into that stuff after seeing a doctor and being told they need treatment that their insurance will pay for so it will cost them nothing. I don't know how many because my knowledge is anecdotal in nature but I've seen people who weren't particularly dumb buy into this. Alternative medicine DOES kill people who should be getting other treatment. Even just a magic pill that helps you lose weight almost certainly harms life expectancy. It is hard enough to get people to have a proper diet without first lying to them and telling them there is an easier way.

And I love love cheese pizza

If you love cheese pizza and want to be a vegan, you should know that science is working on a solution. https://www.wired.com/2015/04/diy-biotech-vegan-cheese/ I'm pretty sure Oprah is anti GMO which means she is probably against this as well.

[CorruptUser]

IIRC, Eisenhower was very pro science, if only because Sputnik proved we had an engineer gap or whatever with the Russians. Kennedy said stuff about the moon but it's unclear what he actually did because his entire life is one continuous media lie. But after that, I think everyone just gave up.

We could survive Oprah. We will survive Trump too, just like we can survive being beaten with a sack of moldy oranges, which I will now refer to as Trumpspawn. Seriously, does anyone have a picture of a rotten orange with Trump hair mold?


EC: Oprah did NOT give out free cars, at least, she didn't pay for them. Those cars were donated by General Motors, Oprah didn't pay a dime. In fact, the people had to pay gift taxes on those cars, which, while still a good deal, kind of meant they weren't free. Many of her other famous gifts were also donated, such as that trip to Australia. It's easy to be generous with other people's money.

Also
#YesAllHens

[ucim]

Just understand that there are risks and do your best to minimize them.

That's not unique to the given example set. It's good universal advise.

Alcohol is NOT life enhancing

Depends what you mean by "enhancing". Even if I ignore any health benefits that have been touted (which are dubious to me anyway), some alcohol in moderation can enhance enjoyment of life, whether though the flavors or the effects (or the secondary effects). And this is an issue that I have with the whole "efficiency" thing - the purpose of life is to enjoy life, and like energy and entropy, gains here can involve losses there. The same can be said of sports (extreme or otherwise), travel, hobbies, big yards, pets, and lots of other things. So, yeah, alcohol can be life-enhancing, life-destroying, or a mix of both in pretty much any combination.

When it comes to health, all people really need to know is they should eat a healthy, balanced diet and get regular exercise. That's it.

That glosses over a lot of important subtleties, and is arguably anti-science itself. What you eat is important for reasons it's important to know why, and that is what defines a "healthy" diet, which could be different for different people. It's also important that modern food is more homogenious and more processed than what we evolved alongside; this has upsides and downsides, reflected in raw vegetables, room temperature eggs, and white bread for example.

When it comes to health it's also important to know that germs cause (some) diseases, germs can be spread by people, animals, filth, keyboards... the body has (and needs) an immune system, and needs to have it developed, environmental additives often have strong (and long-term) effects, positive and negative, and why... the list goes on. It's not sufficient to "eat well" (whatever that means) and "exercise" (which nowadays means bending over to pick up the newspaper) ("Newspaper? What's that?)

If people could go see their doctor for free whenever they needed to they wouldn't be tempted to look for quick fixes.

You really think that a culture that mistrusts government will trust government-sponsored medication?

and what does veganism or doctors in the US or UK have to do with Oprah Winfrey?

It has to do with the politics and misuse of science, something which has a lot to do with Oprah as president.

...the fuckers deserve everything that happens to them. Chickens are naturally cannibals, even free-range ones, they smell horrible, they torture each other.

Sounds like people, don't it?

Jose