apr 25th
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/books/review/23kamp.html?8bu=&emc=bu&pagewanted=all
what the food industry is doing in the us.
these are the guys feeding poor people large amounts of trans fats and
high fructose corn syrup as well.
as for you, cacoethes, i cant waste time doing google searches to match
your googling capability: while you decry the internet, you parade a
bunch of sources you found on the internet as well.
if there is enough money to be made, clearly the big fast food guys are
going to fund and find 'research' that shows that the garbage they are
feeding people is good for them. and the industry-friendly bush
administration will ask the FDA to rubber-stamp this research too. the
tobacco industry similarly got lots of govt agencies to accept that
tobacco is actually good for your health. so dont wave these reports
about as though they were some gospel truth.
and dont tell me that something is good for you just because it occurs
naturally. cyanide occurs naturally. steroids are found in the body. the
poisonous fugu fish is found in nature. therefore just because something
exists naturally it doesnt mean you have to eat it or eat it in large
quantities.
and oh, cacoethes, you are a scientist. that don't impress me much, to
quote a female pop singer. dont get me started on scientists: i have
ranted and raved about them here in the past. scientists are sometimes
quasi-semitic fundamentalists who cannot think beyond some dubious
theory they have embraced. they are most resistant to change.
1 comment:
it is not a valid argument to wave one's credentials about, like you did with your statement "i am a scientist". as though that meant i should just defer to your judgment? i don't care if you have a nobel prize: what matters is whether you are logical and convincing. if you convince me, i am willing to change my mind. otherwise, a nobel prize dont impress me much, either. i keep mentioning nobel prize winners who made idiots of themselves, like william shockley.
this reminds of a guy who used to write crank letters to me, and always pointed out that he was born in 1917. as though being 90 years old gave him omniscience.
there is the logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority', wherein one quotes some famous personality and thereby believes one has clinched the argument. alas, no: this is as fallacious as the more usual 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'. check the wikipedia or google for 'logical fallacy'. so just citing some random authority's opinion ain't going to cut it.
Post a Comment