Wow, haven't seen a discussion thread this long on a video here in quite some time! Good job C-note, you've inspired so many on this site. It's beautiful.

I found this page which lists American police officers who have been convicted of murder. I couldn't find any black victims of white officers with certainty, as there are a few with no photo or description of the victim. I can say that of the victims who are described in some manner, nearly all appear to fall into one of three categories: white women, ex-lovers and/or a lover's other lover, or mob-related hits. There are a couple of black victims, but in each case the officer was also black.

So while C-note's CLAIM can't be verified off of the above, it appears to support it. Let's call it a theory for the time being and move on with our lives. C-note, buddy, please believe me that what you originally stated was a claim rather than a fact. Really you should believe me, because it's a fact that I'm very smart. Go ahead and google for evidence to the contrary, but you won't find it. Which means it's a fact, right? That's you. That's how you talk.

Is JD Power's business entirely based on selling awards to car companies to use in their advertising? 'Cause I have never heard of JD Power in any context other than car commercials and every car from every manufacturer has always won the best car of the year award. That's a pretty brilliant business plan. Print a 15 page magazine once or twice a year that nobody actually subscribes to with very expensive advertising fees and suspiciously specific award categories.

That's not how it works in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

The gold could fall under the Treasure Act of 1996, as being:

• Objects substantially made from gold or silver but are less than 300 years old, that have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery and whose owners or heirs are unknown.

Ban Arab Muslims, except from places that have attacked us, and tell all other Muslim countries that more is coming, they may be next.
Terror linked is a different category from terrorist sponsoring, and those nations are not banned. That's absolutely retarded.

I guess he's ignorant of the fact that the right was frothing at the mouth because Obama refused to just arm anyone fighting against Assad and insisted on VETTING them before he armed them. Had Trump and the Republicans been in control, Daesh may have been given battlefield nukes.

The "exemption" to the un-American refugee ban doesn't start for 120 days, and is then ONLY if Trump's people think it's in the national interest to let them in on a case by case basis (based on what, determined by whom?)....which is not likely for those worth less than $5000000. I guess he didn't read the text before calling others delusional or he would have read that.

Oops, the 2014 attack was also preformed by an American, as others have been....I guess we have to ban Americans too.

Yes, because America VETTS those we invite in...contrary to what most right wing idiots believe. They use Europe as an example of what will happen if we don't stop the scary Muslims, conveniently ignoring the vetting process that's completely non existent in Europe.

He's saying that people treated as the enemy often become the enemy, you feculent douche. Learn to read...and think.

Trump is just the bigot. Period. It's absolutely correct that if Muslims were as dangerous as portrayed and treated by Trump and the right, he would have been assassinated. That's a good indicator that Trump is wrong, not that all Muslims are easily radicalized or a call for assassination like the right spent 8 years doing directly and personally towards Obama.

Not a single Syrian that supports Daesh has made it through the vetting process to America.

They don't ban Israelis because of religion, they are banned because they are all in the military and that military is an expansionist fascist oppressor of and provocateur to Palestinians and most other Arab nations. I'm fairly certain Jews from America can go there.

What a fucking brain dead, dishonest idiot.
Mostly good tags though, this is certainly chock full of fail and lies, fearmongering, and has mostly been debunked....but it's absolutely not news in any way. I'll let someone else fix that though.

Ok, I'll play.

I have two boys, 19 months and three years old. I'm in my late thirties, wife in mid thirties. We waited until we were in a decent position financially before having kids. I saw my brother bring up my nephew who is now six so I knew what babies are like and toddlers are like before we had kids ourselves. I took a year and a half off to be a stay at home dad for our first child.

But there's this massive taboo in the UK, and I'm going to guess in America too. Having kids is good, and you're not allowed to say otherwise. I knew that there would be sleepless nights, that on occasion I'd be covered in vomit, or poo, or both. I knew that kids could be annoying.

But I didn't really understand what all that meant. To hear anyone talk about having kids it makes it seem like these things are just background noise for all the wonderful, giggly happy times.

No one told me how relentless it would be. While you can know that you'll be tired if you have a kid that wakes at night you don't really understand it until you haven't had a full night's sleep for three years. Not a single one.

Yes, somehow I should have fully understood everything before actually experiencing it. And of course I shouldn't say anything bad about it, it's all good.

But that's bullshit.

Having kids can be amazing, and getting to know my children's personalities as they've grown has been one of the most incredible experiences of my life. If I had my time again I would do it again.

But seeing some sanctimonious arse bitching about other people's experiences, which could be very different to their own, just makes my skin crawl. You're saying that because you made a decision you're not ever allowed to moan about it? Even if your whole life leading up to it was full of misleading misinformation? Even if the experience you chose turned out to not be typical through no fault of your own?

Pretty much any path a person takes in life can be framed as a result of a decision somewhere along the line. It's like saying that no one can complain about anything, anytime.

Despite what you say having kids is different to what just about anyone expects. If it wasn't for you then well done, you're in the tiny minority. You probably deserve some kind of prize for being so amazing. Here, I've got a little cup around here somewhere. Wait, I'll find it. Here it is. It's engraved. It reads 'Fuck you, you sanctimonious prick'.

Life is full of ups and downs. For me having kids has made the highs higher and the lows lower. I've never felt as amazing as I have when my kids do something brilliant. But I've never felt as down as I did about three months into my second child who was very colicky and just cried almost constantly and at night slept for an hour or so then was awake and screaming for an hour then slept and so on. For three months solid.

No one told me about that. No one made it clear that this was to be expected. My first was a reasonable, average baby. He had his moments but we thought we really understood what we were getting into.

But there's the rub. All kids are different. Even two boys, close in age to the same parents are like chalk ad cheese. To think you understand someone else's situation enough to bitch about them like you have is just stupid. So your child is good and you've enjoyed being a dad? Good for you. You were lucky. Others aren't so lucky and arses like you bitching about them doesn't help. Stop patting yourself on the back and realise that a large part of you having a good experience is nothing more than luck.

So, there you go. I'm sure I fit into your bad parent category. But at least I don't belittle the experiences of others and don't assume that I fully understand their experience.

Yes, some parents can be annoying, but the vast majority who are moaning are genuinely stressed and down. A little empathy can go a long way. Or you could just be an arse hole and bitch about them.

You forgot one category of vote.

Folks who have never seen it. Folks who have never seen ANY Die Hard movie.

Different cultural values. Alright then, @SDGundamX

The claim is that these places are examples of islamic countries 'filled with nice people'. I'm suggesting that @StukaFox's list of vicious police-states is perhaps not best chosen to illustrate this view.

There's a difference in category, isn't there, between being muslim and being japanese or american. It would be absurd to say, "I am japanese because I believe..." just as it would, "I am a muslim because I happened to be born..."

Now, we can actually make sweeping and not the less factual statements about people on the basis of their shared characteristics. Japanese people are born within such a set of geographical coordinates, or to parents who hold citizenship with the state of japan, or have naturalised following a particular procedure. Millions of people lumped together in a single sentence, and without assuming they're all alike.

Muslims, like rats or serial killers, aren't all alike and they don't all believe exactly the same things. Nevertheless by definition there really are certain specific beliefs to which they must all hew. Or show me the muslim who doesn't believe that there's a god, or that muhammed received its doctrine.

If you find basic, universal islamic beliefs repugnant (as every decent person must) then it is correct, objectively correct, to generalise your antipathy to all muslims, however many millions there may be, however widely spread. The apology from number and diversity fails completely.

"Smoking vs. high consumption of processed meat
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat."

I could be reading this wrong - but are they saying that you're 2000% more likely to get lung cancer from smoking, than getting lung cancer from processed meat?
If that's the case then my response is "Duh, you don't put processed meat into your lungs"

Your blog post doesn't "simply mention" anything. Your blog post is clearly an attack on Dr. Greger's credibility.

For starters the blog post title is "The case against Dr. Greger" AND!!!!! you put "Dr." into quotations to suggest he's not a doctor, or not worthy of being one.

You try to catch him out on a technicality, which you misword in your post to make it sound worse than it is.

Your artifical sweetner claims are also weak. ( The number of industry funded positive studies don't outweight the recent studies showing how bad artificial sweetners actually are, from obesity, to aspartame turning into formaldehyde in the blood).

These aren't the actions of someone that is "simply mentioning" something. You had a clear agenda when you wrote that blog post. Which was either to create controversy in order to get traffic to your website, or to justify your non-vegan diet at the time of writing.


Also if you're having digestive issues, it's most likely dairy. Not just milk and cheese, but the milk powder they put into processed foods.

Edit:
Chicken nuggets are poultry yes, but they are highly processed - which puts them into the processed meat category. The WHO report doesn't specifically mention every single type of processed meat and brand because they're assuming that people can tell what processed meat is. But apparently they've given people too much credit.

A report that places chicken nuggets, turkey slices and bacon in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos is NOT equivalent to saying that quitting meat is the disease and mortality equivalent of quitting smoking.

That is patently absurd, and demonstrates what happens when someone tries to apply the scientific conclusion of a study to ...everything else. Scientific studies have a particular scope. They should state clearly within the study the limits of what the information can tell us.

1. How much of those meat products must you eat vs. how many cigarettes do you have to smoke? If i quit having one slice of bacon a week, I will not be healthier than if i quit smoking 10 a day.
2. The meat products you refer to make up only a small fraction of the meat based produce that is available. You might as well say "krokodil is bad for you, so stop taking your insulin."

I expect you to admit that the bit from the comment quote (put in bold) is wrong.

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

But the WHO report does in fact put chicken nuggets, turkey slices, and bacon into the same category(Group 1 carcinogens) as cigarettes and asbestos, because they are processed meats.

He's just saying what the report says, so I don't understand how that can be exaggeration.


"plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking".
In terms of disease and mortality that is completely accurate.

Duh. Soylent green is made from elderly people, not teenagers, and as such it's made from pretty tainted meat. I'll take some Soylent pink, made from pure milk fed baby.

Not murder if they're terminally ill and ask you to do it, in many states.

Far more ethical to work for proper animal treatment than to insist on something that will never happen in a way that makes those you wish to convince your adversaries. He'll get WAY farther towards ending some animal suffering that your methods ever will. Your methods have had many people reply to you that they will eat MORE meat just to spite you, or so you've said in the past....so your methods are obviously failing badly, so are unethical as they cause MORE animal suffering.

Most available vegan food is processed today, so is in the same category you put bacon and deli turkey. Unprocessed meats are also far healthier than processed meats, and are more nutrient dense than plants.

Depending on the curing process, it can be bad or good (and again, not PROVEN to cause cancer...you just backed off that claim on the other thread...so why make it again?)

He wants less harm done to animals....so he's winning. he wants people to eat MORE healthily, he's winning. He wants to move away from a zealous, all or nothing movement that's failing in it's goals and making enemies in the effort, he's winning.

There isn't enough available land to switch to purely vegetarianism either, you're point is ridiculous, no one is advocating feeding all people on pure meat....he's not even advocating for vegetarians to eat meat, and said so clearly. If you had a point to make, then you've failed.

You say that like vegans aren't mostly pasty sickly looking people that look about 2 years late for death by wasting syndrome.

"plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking".....Pretty clear to me....so does this article he produced..."The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens"
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-cancer-does-lunch-meat-cause/

Except the report really only said that PROCESSED meats/poultry MAY be dangerous carcinogens (edit: and that may be 100% due to the processing they receive, not the meat)...so sorry, no exaggeration on my part, it's on his part.

I am so firmly in driver category #1 that I printed my own T-shirts that have the road sign most people ignore that says "slower traffic keep right" and on the back they say "keep right except to pass".
I used to get upset at my grandmother who would drive 40mph on the freeway to be "safe". I would repeat 'How is it not a wreck if we get rear ended by someone going the speed limit? You know we get hurt MORE being hit unexpectedly from the rear, right?' It never helped.
Thank you Vox, for explaining it well.