yeahiknow3 @ yeahiknow3 @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

110

Joined

1 yr. ago

Forum discussions about food are like a biochemist’s personal hell. No offense, but you’re all dumb as shit.

Do you formulate your opinions based on reasons you can articulate or is this just a fleeting thought you’re having?

No, I am genuinely against the death penalty.

It’s important not to conflate moral facts with practical policy. Most of your arguments focus on how people should be treated, whereas the relevant question is how governments should behave and why. These are very different things.

Regardless of what people deserve, no government should go around killing its own citizens. That is because killing as a punishment makes a spectacle of death. It is profoundly unhealthy for any civil society to revel in death. That’s the answer. It has nothing to do with what serial killers deserve. They do not matter.

Why is everyone anti-science when it comes to nutrition? Sorry, but you’re just wrong, which I suppose isn’t too surprising when your reference is a three-decades old book written by a goofball non-scientist who knows about as much biochemistry as you do. None whatsoever.

Saturated fat is processed by the liver from Chylomicrons to VLDLs to LDLs in an incredibly taxing process directly responsible for fatty liver disease. No faster way to get diabetes than eating lots of saturated fat and sugar. Both are absolutely horrible and very poorly tolerated by humans, who are apes that evolved eating mostly plants. These are empirical facts. Stop treating food like a religion and just eat a fucking vegetable.

Not all diseases are communicable or infectious. Psychopathy is a serious neurological pathology that robs humans of anything resembling humanity. That makes it a hell of a lot worse than rabies to my mind, but of course that’s debatable. Regardless, I’m not sure how ranking one horrible affliction against another makes much difference for this analogy.

Rabies and psychopathy are diseases. The prognosis is terminal in both cases, and death would be a mercy. Rabies is also far less harmful than psychopathy, because it results in less collateral damage. After all, psychopathy is responsible for almost every evil you can see in the world today from famine to poverty and war.

Again, there is an argument against the death penalty but protecting psychopaths ain’t it.

In the event that I were guilty of causing great harm to innocent people, then I should be killed. Not in revenge, but as a matter of course, given that my life would no longer be worth living.

This is the golden rule in action, which is about how you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.

it is fundamentally inhumane to kill someone that knows it's coming (mental torture)

That killing serial killers causes them harm isn’t a particularly compelling point, since we disagree over whether harming them is, in fact, good.

risk of executing an innocent

This is a good point and one I would explore further. However, it leaves open exceptions where the evidence is overwhelming.

it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing

Killing isn’t always bad. Killing innocent creatures is bad. Killing serial killers is tantamount to putting down rabid animals.

I’m against the death penalty, and I know the best argument against it, something nobody in this thread has even approximately articulated.

Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.

Idk what’s the upside of killing rabid dogs? Most dogs are better than most humans, so how does the math work out there?

What is the upside of keeping serial killers alive pray tell? I genuinely don’t get it.

It will actually change a lot. There’s a famous saying in physics: “Science makes progress one funeral at a time.”

Specifically, according to Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Obviously, politics is much more biased than physics, so deaths will have an even more progressive impact. Boomers (and Gen X) are ideologically bankrupt with views radically divergent from those of younger generations and scientists generally. The reasons are obvious: culture, wealth, lead poisoning, etc.

Yeah, if there’s indoctrination it’s run the other way for like 1000 years.

Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.

The “thing” with cholesterol is that the science wasn’t actually wrong! Eating foods laced with cholesterol is indeed unhealthy, as the data showed, which is why everyone incorrectly assumed cholesterol was to blame, until it turned out that the real culprit was saturated fat, which is concentrated in animal products, which also lots of contain cholesterol.

But hey, all those pesky scientific details would require knowing biochemistry and that is just way too inconvenient for the troglodytes who treat food as a religion and are currently downvoting this comment.

*hydrocarbon, not carbohydrate (the latter contains oxygen). Otherwise spot on.

Found the guy who failed high school chemistry.