Unfortunately there's nothing I can do to stop your comments from appearing once I'm on the page, but they are blanked out. I made the mistake of revealing your comment. But I can assure you I have learned from that mistake.

If you don't like the statistics then take it up with the World Health Organisation.

The other thing is, go and get a colonoscopy. Colon cancer can be symptom-less until spreads to your other organs. You likely already have it, and even if you don't I can guarantee you have the pre-cancerous polyps in there, everyone does, except for plant-based eaters.

The cancer.org link also says 18% increase, right before the 5%.

Not putting you down or anything, but I can see you are unable to comprehend the difference between life time risk, and increased risk statistics.

Which is why they make it super simple - your own link still says not to eat the stuff.

(So how is it propaganda when the PCRM are just saying exactly what your sources are saying?)

Yes people die from a lot, so the goal is to reduce it where ever possible instead doing the digestive equivalent of the bird box challenge.

And again, even if it was just 1%, that is millions of of people 50,000 people's mourning families would disagree that it's statistically insignificant.

People die from a lot of things. We are talking about a possible rise of up to one percent over the lifetime average. That is statistically irrelevant.

The propaganda is that this doctor is the founder of a radical vegan organization that uses any statistic to promote a vegan lifestyle. No different than Fox News using vague facts to promote it's agenda.

Well... lets just say their advertising makes some claims that aren't well supported by science. There is also a statistical problem that most of their customers have somewhat similar backgrounds, and someone who doesn't share that background is likely to get some strange results.

Clearly the statistics are stacked because we all know real vegans don't have jobs

I'd take the Fisherman's Friend study with a grain of salt :-) For starters it's going to be a biased sample, and for all we know it just means sick vegans prefer to buy Fisherman's Friend Lozengers than non-vegans.

They are going really hard with fear mongering in the UK, because veganism is taking hold - 7% of the population is now vegan :-)

You guys think that vegans are lying?

It's a shame you do not scrutinize the sellers of these products, as much as you do with vegans - Where is the *they lied to us* comments from the meat eaters about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83q9oamxmvQ

Clearly blatant number fudging, but people are happy to overlook it because vegans are the annoying ones right?

Every single study that shows animal products are good, or neutral are funded by the people that sell them. I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND A STUDY THAT SHOWS ADDING ANY ANIMAL PRODUCT TO A DIET MAKES IT HEALTHIER - WHICH ISN'T TIED/LINKED TO THE INDUSTRY. In 5 years I'm yet to find one, and almost all of them have very audacious number fudging and statistic manipulation like the above egg study.

Now compare that to the 400 studies that came out last year showing meat has detrimental effects for us...... not coming from vegans. (and this happens each and every year, since 1970).



(There are also plenty of doctors who aren't vegans (like John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish) who all make very strong points about avoiding animal products.) These guys still eat meat on special occasions, so clearly not vegan.

Lol..no.
CCD is barely studied in wild hives because it's not been seen in the wild in statistically meaningful numbers, and it's much more of a problem for commercial hives because they move, making them more prone to weakness and diseases, they are kept together, making them more prone to parasites like nosema and Varroa mites and disease spreading problems like the Israeli virus, and they are constantly in contact with crops sprayed with various pesticides weakening and confusing them. Wild hives don't have these extra deleterious factors, so are far less effected by CCD if at all, and are not noticeably effected by most if not all commercial or hobby beekeeping that targets human agriculture, not native flowers. I kept a hive of bees for years to pollinate my orchard, so I checked on this stuff before jumping in.

Commericalized bee operations (commercial pollinators who's byproducts are honey/bees wax/pollen/royal jelly/bee venom/and bees themselves) don't displace natives. If there were native bees pollinating the crops they are hired to come pollinate, there wouldn't be a commercial bee industry. Honey is mostly a byproduct of the pollination industry, without which America at least would starve. Native bees simply can't pollinate at the industrial scale and timetables required for your vegetables, so without commercial beekeepers we'll all have to eat more meat.

In 2018, 100% of supercomputers run Linux.
actually you'll have to go back more than 10 years to see even slight share of other OSs :
https://www.top500.org/statistics/overtime/
(choose Category "Operating System Family" and Submit)

I have a very hard time believing thresh invented/mainstreamed WASD.

First, well before quake there were games that required mouselook, probably most notably descent and xwing type games. (Joysticks were expensive, uncommon peripherals for the most part). I clearly remember playing both of those games with a keyboard / mouse setup like today, and that feels like it was around 2 years prior to quake's release.

Second, as a diehard quake junkie who practically camped outside the store to get my hands on the game, from the very beginning there were many sites dedicated to qtest (the beta), and the very first thing those pages trafficked were cfg files from all the people arguing which control method was best. (then came skins, maps, quakeworld, mods, machinima, etc). I would say WASD was pretty well established well before Thresh won his ferrari- I dont have any statistical data or anything, and I think its cool that carmack included his .cfg file in later releases, but I highly doubt he was the first to use it / that people used it because they wanted to imitate him.

Yeah, the bad thing about the entire situation is it seems the facts vary wildly depending on who you go with. I guess just like any statistic analysis with such a charged subject, people probably alter the methodology of getting the information to support their viewpoint. I found super low stats and higher ones, so I tried to go with the ones that seemed to have the least reason to alter the stats. Maybe they are wrong, I can't say.

Same for Dr. Ford, I can only go off my personal take on it. She seemed credible until I read the letter from her Ex, but maybe he lied or was a plant by the Republicans. I certainly can't go by her polygraph since I agree with everyone so far that they are pretty much junk science as you said. I'm torn, but like I mentioned, I am still leaning towards her account being false. I might be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

The worst thing is that no one here really won except Kavanaugh. The Republicans are going to take a hit in years of coming elections, the Democrats are stuck with a conservative majority court, Dr. Ford is going to be praised or vilified depending on individual opinion, and we as a nation look like we are ready to basically go to war with one another over our political split. We look dumber than ever to the rest of the world and I don't see a quick resolution in sight.

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Really? Jimmy Carter said that?!

Seriously, please quote where in the bible Jesus said any such thing. I think you're misquoting the holiness code for Jews from Leviticus and attributing them to Jesus. Those same rules disallow cotton poly blends and shellfish, but you probably never considered boycotting Red Lobster or the Gap, and allow slaves from neighboring countries but you probably don't have a Canadian house slave. Learn about the difference between Christian and Jewish laws don't just watch fake news. ;-)

Really, Bob, you want to say banging kids is liberal after Republicans supported Roy Moore?! Lol. *facepalm
Looting and other crime is not a liberal idea, that's nonsense. Bat shit crazy, hyper partisan nonsense. Some liberals want it to be so easy to cross borders legally that illegal immigrants would cease to exist, I've never heard a sane one support illegal immigration, only illegal immigrants.
Crime could more reasonably be said to be a religious thing, atheists are vastly underrepresented in prison populations. You might say atheists are statistically far less likely to be missing out on life.

No actual science has ever pointed to a creator God....or any god. Anyone telling you different is lying to you about what science is. The closest science ever comes to saying "...so there must be a God" is when it says "we don't know" to a question, often followed by unraveling the mystery and never by finding God hiding behind a corner.

Christians have a much longer and more storied history of ruthless torture and murder in the name of faith than Muslims. Their motto is also convert or die. Learn about them before attempting to make comparisons, maybe?

Obedience to the law like the recently pardoned terrorist group, the Bundys, practiced? Obedience to the law like the bakers allowed by law to display their intolerance against whomever they deem unclean? Obedience to the law like Trump, who's been found guilty of multiple frauds....admitted them in fact? Obedience to the law only when it's convenient or self serving, intolerance whenever it can be gotten away with is what the right practices today.
Maybe you're still a kid who has yet to take critical thinking classes? ;-)

Krishnan proposed "They think they're manipulating me, but I know what I'm doing".

To gain a better understanding of how this is possible, watch this great video about AI that ant posted:

https://videosift.com/video/Do-You-Trust-This-Computer-Documentary

Saying that you can handle the attempts to manipulate you would be like the world's chess, poker and go champions saying they can handle their AI challengers.

In reality, AI doesn't just beat them at their games, it now completely destroys them with ease. Statistically affecting your worldview is a much easier task.