More idiotic stupidity. Anti-American wishful thinking, wishing the economy was tanking so you could blame Biden, but you would never under any circumstances give him credit for the boom…to the extent you actually deny the economy is doing well to avoid crediting Biden. 😂 It’s exactly what Don Poorleon told you to do…he hopes the economy will crash before the election because it might benefit him personally, who cares what it does to America. It’s why MAGA is outraged that a spending bill got through, they want another disastrous government shutdown, and would blame the left for the costly effects despite being the obvious culprits.

The economy is doing great, despite the ridiculous statements that you cut and pasted about “”survey based hope”, whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be, on Bulgarian site zerohedge, an extreme far right propaganda site that is so outrageous in its constant stupid lies only idiots can believe that it’s been banned from google and others for claiming pseudoscience and insane conspiracy theories as facts. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/
You cannot think for yourself at all anymore, to the point you can’t even read an article and give a synopsis, all you can do is cut and paste nonsense. What a sad useless state to be in.

And what do you get from them, more ridiculous prognostications of doom and gloom that absolutely never come to pass. “Sure, we admit that under Biden’s leadership everything is great now, way better than Trump left the country/economy, but it’s all about to crash because Biden is incompetent and has just been coasting on Trump’s success for 3 years.” You’ve been trying to sell that absolute insanity for 3 years now.

Facts- GDP up, wages up, inflation down, stock market booming, jobs still at unprecedented high levels, interest rates steady. Is this “report” (that you know I’m not clicking Mr virus) just abut Tesla or Facebook or Toth Senchal? Trump org? Are its stats coming from Dementia Don? Sounds like it. It’s certainly not about the country as a whole.
America’s economy recovered from the disastrous covid (non) response that was the worst among western nations (in 2020 1/4 of worldwide covid deaths happened in America under Trump, 5 times the worldwide per capita average), recovering faster and stronger than any other western nation.

You really need to try real news sources, not just propaganda sites that sell you stories you want to be true. Sucker.

IMO this isn’t taking science or philosophy seriously. It’s making arguments based on nonsense like living floating brains in space being a possibility, or the ridiculous idea that in infinite time everything will eventually happen….which is silly.
I don’t think even everything that COULD happen would happen even if it were given an infinite amount of time (which is not a reality either)….and certainly not things that are impossible like sentient disembodied brains in space.

I dislike this pseudoscience masquerading as real scientific theory. It’s not even real philosophy…it’s the kind of thing mediocre physics students think about when they’re tripping balls then write Marvel comic books about.

Science better please. 🤦‍♂️

Yes, some brains rot faster than others, but religion is like aerating the compost and adding lime, it accelerates the rot of all minds exponentially.

Ok...you're going to have to provide more details when you say some astrophysics resembles Hindu theology. I studied Hinduism and astrophysics and see no correlation.

Some religious practices, like meditation, are supported by psychology as beneficial, but absolutely not for the reasons the religions claim, and most aren't supported by science by any stretch of the imagination.

Not a single supernatural claim from any religion is supported by any real science, maybe by pseudoscience, but that's not science, it's snake oil salesmanship.

Give specific examples of poets that perfectly described specific areas of psychology without any evidence to extrapolate from please, that's a wild claim to make without evidence. Please don't say Nostradamus.

What "source" are you referencing, you listed none I can see.

That which can be claimed without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

Know who you take advice from....
Just gonna leave this here....

Wiki-
Dr Michael Klaper-In August 1993 Klaper issued a medical certificate for the insurers of two movies that River Phoenix was working on at the time, Dark Blood and Interview With the Vampire. The certificate was signed by both Klaper and Phoenix and stated that Phoenix had never used "LSD, heroin, cocaine, alcohol in excess, or any other narcotic, depressant, stimulant or psychedelic. At the time Phoenix was deeply into the drug scene and died from a drug overdose two months later on October 31, 1993. Phoenix's death resulted in Dark Blood being scrapped, and his role in Interview with the Vampire being replaced by Christian Slater. A total $US5.7 million was paid out by the insurers of both movies as the result of Phoenix's death. Since Phoenix's death, insurance rates have increased significantly, medical certificates are no longer accepted, and actors are required to undergo more rigorous medical examination prior to being insured. [23]

According to oncologist David Gorski "Klaper subscribes to the all-too-common claim that a vegan diet is better than any other and supplements that claim with a belief that undergoing fasts, in which one consumes only water, is a major part of the path to health and wellness". He supports multiple pseudoscience medical claims such as acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy and border-line "germ theory denialism". Klaper also gives "highly dubious advice for cancer patients, even claiming that fasting can shrink malignant tumors. Klaper claims that fasts will clear up inflammation, eczema, arthritis and other issues. "The situation" according to Gorski, is "way more complicated than Dr. Klaper paints it". As a surgeon himself, Gorski is appalled that Klaper claims that fasting encourages "faster wound healing" a statement that Gorski calls "Bullshit!". Magician Penn Jillette reported on multiple podcasts that he has lost over 25 pounds on Klaper's water fast diet, Gorski responded that of course he will lose weight on a water-only diet. In Gorski's opinion as a medical doctor himself, "Jillette has fallen "hook, line, and sinker for a whole lot of dietary pseudoscience and promoting it on his show with a credulous interview with someone like Dr. Klaper". Gorski hopes that Jillette will eventually realize "that Dr. Klaper is peddling highly dubious claims (at best). Basically, the product Dr. Klaper is peddling in terms of science is a massive exaggeration based on dubious science, cherry picked cases, and bad evolutionary analogies. Worse, fasts, even when supervised by a physician, are potentially dangerous"

Pseudoscience? You cannot get more scientific than reading from the actual study - which is what this video is. The visuals are the actual text from the study, which is published in an actual medical journal, by non-vegan scientists. In the corner of the video it even lists which article it is so you can go and read it for yourself.

Every single video on nutritionfacts.org is in this format, there is nothing on the site that is not supported by quality science, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

See also:

Pseudoscience
Quackery

Beyond this being hokum in the vein of snake oil, are you affiliated with the company putting these videos up?

Not related to this clip which is fine, but whenever lie detectors appear it's always worth sucking the fun out of the room and reminding everyone that polygraphs are pseudoscience.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Any theories that don't account for the elephants and the turtle are just the worst kind of pseudoscience.

I can't really identify with this. I've never felt a pressure to act like a "real man". Even when in a toxic situation like Middle School, I never felt like "being a man" was the issue. I never felt like I had tons of pent up rage that I couldn't express because I had to "man up". And I certainly can't stand this pseudoscience BS about "if you don't cry you have all of this stuff pent up inside you".

If you want to help boys, help stop bullying. I don't think the two concepts are that closely linked.

Also, I feel like this could shame boys who use bravado and playful roughhousing as a defense mechanism.

*quality advice (with a dash of pseudoscience).
And just in time for father's day... wait, mother's day.. ehh close enough.

I am not religious, lol. I do not believe in any religion. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am just saying that if a person does not believe in the stories of this plant then why not give it a shot? Instead of getting mad about something many of you clearly do not know anything about. Scared of what it will show you? Yes, UM (Yoda voice).

I think calling it pseudoscience is hilarious because a person is experiencing something of science. A marvel of science. And when you guys find out, no need to apologize.

Ugh.. "Quantum Physics", theres that buzzword used where it has no place again. you could just as well have said "this is Advanced plumbing come to life", as you clearly have no idea what quantum mechanics is.

Look, its not like scientists just ignore consciousness or the brain, we actually know quite a bit about it in general. We know, for instance that our brains are built with the same carbon, hydrogen, phosphorous,oxygen and other elements that make up the other parts of our bodies, and every other living thing on earth. And we know that these elements adhere to the laws of physics, an there is no reason to expect them to be able to break those laws of physics just because they are put together to form a brain.

This hippie pothead stuff about forgotten magical realms that can be reached through shamanism, if you believe that shit, well, go ahead. But it IS pseudoscience, and nonsense to most people who have an actual interest in actual science. Putting people like that on the same stage as actual scientists and thereby lending them the credibility of a platform that is known for presenting actual science, is not a good idea for that platform if they want to keep their status as promoters of science.

I have no problems with you believing this stuff shagen454, and you are clearly passionate about it. more power to you for it. However, you cannot demand I buy into this or "SHUT MY FUCKING MOUTH", Besides everything else, my only point in my first comment was to correct the idea that TED was "banning" this thing, and I only tried to explain that TED considered it unscientific, and why. Theres no need to get all worked up at me for it. Well, atleast you could have waited til after this comment, where I actually spoke my mind more directly.

Enoch, you are right everyone has the right to their opinion. But, what is pseudoscience? That phrase in the same category as this is a slight.A negative dashing of one of the most visionary and powerful experiences a human could have. Just the fact that TEDX is not encouraging this issue after having posted this up is fact enough that whatever it is and no one knows, not even people who have actually done it, should be enough for people to unfurl their brow and know that there IS something to this. This is not a popularity contest, I know for some reason this culture has supported cynicism, it dislikes spirituality beyond our favored religions, many people do not want to know that there is for some reason a gateway into something unspeakable right under our feet. They do not want to believe. Rightfully so. I think it is terrifying as well but I also have always wanted the truth and science is doing a great job but it moves too slooooowly.

In my opinion it is not a drug. It is a state. A natural state that humankind has long forgotten through indoctrination, power and control. The doubter will receive enlightenment.

Every paragraph you write to me lately is simply stringing the same three ad homs together in a different order (you are a dogmatist, you dont understand science, you dont engage with critical thinking).

They're not ad homs. They're what I see. They're substantiated by fact. "Crackhead" would be an ad hom because I have no reason to believe that you are addicted to illegal narcotics. But it's empirically true that religious canon is dogma and you believe religious canon, that you repeatedly speak in non-scientific ways, and that you jump to convenient conclusions as part of your argument style rather than investigating the claims you're making.

You say you've inquired about my views. I don't remember that happening, except when you were baiting me into a certain admission that you had a prepared answer for. But then you didn't listen to my response to your answer, at least not in an open-minded and critical way. You regularly claim to have the answer. It's only when forced into a corner based on the fact that you're human and fallible that you ever admit you technically could be wrong. You just proved it again, BTW. "Your PoV is apparently blah blah blah." There's all sorts of possible PoVs that I could have, but dogmatically believing in everything a scientist says couldn't be one of them. As a scientific person, that's not a possible position for me to hold. You haven't accepted that you have lost credibility due to your lack of scientific understanding. You never ask how your understanding is wrong. If you wanted to learn, there's all sorts you could learn, but you retreat into playing the victim. If you've got nothing left, you claim you're being attacked. I'm arguing against you, and then honestly explaining why I'm not putting in any more effort; I'm not attacking. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm telling you mine, my opinions about you, what those opinions are based on and what they entail for the limit of where I'm willing to go in our conversations.

I may or may not understand the basics of your current argument about uniformitariansim, and so forth, but I sure understand the basics of scientific thought, and that comes first. I can read a book or watch a lecture and learn about uniformitariansim, but when I come back, you still won't understand how to talk scientifically. That's why I'm not going to bother talking to you about science except to hear your reasons for claiming something in modern science is pseudoscience (If I were dogmatic about science, I wouldn't even ask you), and if I think your argument is strong enough, I'll get interested and maybe learn something. I have learned some things, but none that overturn the science you claim it does. The fact that you think you have presented enough information to overturn anything in science shows how little you understand science.

So, you wanna be openly curious about my religious views, I'm here for you. I'll talk about that as long as you want. You want to have a real conversation about science? You have to accept that you don't understand what science is first. Are you humble enough to admit you might not understand it? As always, curious, open-minded and willing to be surprised.