Risk of death is assessed per mile traveled.
If you're trying to decide on the mode of transportation to get from point A to point B, a plane or train is safer than a car, period.
No, because that's what people actually care about. People are making the decision to take a plane or drive, and if the decision is primarily based on risk of dying on this trip, taking a plane is safer.
Taking a plane is actually 100 times safer for the same trip.
Now if you were weighing the option of driving 100 miles to a more local destination vs. flying 10,000 miles to almost exactly the other side of the planet, then the risk would be about equal.
However, it's categorically unfair to compare a local trip by car to literally going all the way to the opposite side of the Earth. And if you don't understand why we compare like to like instead of radically altering the rules of the game for each option so that our preferred outcome always wins then you don't understand the first thing about critical thinking.
And car crashes include low speed fender benders and things that happen at the ends of driveways and in parking lots.
The point is that "crashes" are rarely fatal. Now if you want to redefine crash as only something catastrophic, then you may be surprised to find out that applied to CARS the same holds true and the fatality rate shoots way up at e.g. highway speeds.
The analysis done is typically on morality. Most people are interested in what will make them live longer.Amarillyde wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:42 amBut in any case, since the point was an alleged comparison with supplements, even more so I don't see why you suggest to focus on the risk of dying only, since death is only one of the possible outcomes of the possible long-term effects of messing with nutrition.
If you want to ask questions about things like arthritis pain, you'd typically find that corresponds to mortality too because people who are in pain don't stay as mobile and usually die sooner.
The only effects mortality might not reflect are very superficial ones, like skin and hair.
That is also part of the risk factor...
Two couples, one heterosexual and one gay, both having unprotected sex, still have different risk factors due to the types of sex that statistically they are likely to be engaging in. Certain kinds of sexual activity, like anal, can be inherently more risky and less common among heterosexuals.
The point is that you don't understand epidemiology well enough to argue any of this. You misunderstand all of the terms and you don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't say anything like that.
Amarillyde, if you are unable or unwilling to understand English, you need to avoid these conversations.
Anything that contributes disproportionately to any social harm CAN be a matter of concern even if it's not the #1 cause.
People in white hoods lynching minorities aren't a primary cause of death either, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose racism.
Are you seriously arguing that the ONLY things that are bad and the ONLY things we should oppose or argue against are those that occupy the top few causes of death?
Surely if something is a minor cause of death that can argue for not devoting so many resources to it, but if it is a contributor there's an argument there for opposing it.
You have double standards. You're being a hypocrite. It's a simple as that.
We SHOULD support gay marriage and relationships, because there's no good evidence of harm. The claims are harm are HIGHLY speculative and opposed by what limited evidence we have. The same case is true of things like modest multivitamins.
Do you not understand the concept of arguing devil's advocate to demonstrate hypocrisy?
You don't like it, and neither do I, but it IS an argument, and it's consistent with YOUR logic and reasoning to oppose vitamins.
If you oppose one, but oppose people opposing the other, you're being a hypocrite. You have no reasoning here beyond complaining that it sounds like backward thinking and "bigot". Well, so are YOUR views on vitamins. Your views are counter to science, and oppose something that helps a lot of people and for which there's no evidence of harm.
If you oppose vitamins due to speculative frameworks that go against a limited amount of evidence, you can not then criticize homophobes for doing the same against homosexuality.
Obviously any sensible person disregards a speculative framework when it goes against evidence, even limited evidence. But you're not advocating being sensible here. At least not for you. You hold other people to different standards.
I don't understand how you can be this ignorant of basic math.Amarillyde wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:42 amThe fact that sexuality is a spectrum, or that indeed some people define themselves as bisexual, *does not* mean that *every gay person has a choice not to be gay*. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that repressing homosexuality would have a decrease of homosexuality as an outcome –
If 1% have a choice and pressure causes even 1% of that 1% to choose heterosexual relationships, then that pressure has reduced the number of homosexual relationships.
Are you not getting that these are all based on SPECULATION?
Yeah, obviously you can pull an opposite assertion out of your ass if you use a different framework to evaluate the outcome.
That's why speculation is worthless. YOUR speculation on the mechanics of vitamins, and homophobics' speculation on the mechanics of homosexuality. Your speculation is equally irrational.
How do you take that from my argument at all? Can you read?
I never said it entails criticizing gay rights. It's hard for me to imagine what poor comprehension you must have to get that.
YOUR QUALITY OF LOGIC AND STANDARD FOR EVIDENCE = THE SAME QUALITY OF LOGIC AND STANDARD FOR EVIDENCE OF FUNDIES.
You're using the same tool sets. You can surely support gay rights and oppose vitamins as much as you can ARBITRARILY choose any number of topics to support or oppose on a whim. A creationist can accept that the Earth isn't flat and a Flat Earther can personally accept evolution.
The point is that you have no means by which to dismiss or undermine the intellectual integrity of the fundamentalists AS YOU TRIED TO DO because you do precisely the same kind of intellectually dishonest nonsense supporting your pet bigotries.
You're fundamentally the same kind of irrational person, you've just chosen different things to hate.
Every bit what you believe, just flipped around to support the OTHER arbitrary position.they are two totally different matters: on the one side we're dealing with something we know very little about (sociology and the effect on social morals), on the other we are dealing with something which happens under our very eyes (our health), that we can keep track of and are fully responsible for and as a consequence we have full power upon. The way in which the human conscience handles what we do is vastly independent from our understanding of it.
Social sciences are much softer sciences with weaker empirical data than human health.
So, you're making arguments that only weaken your case.
Religious fundamentalists are absolutely absurd, but their absurdity is still less opposed to science than yours is.
No, you can criticize basically ANYTHING from a position of agosticism.
The trouble is when you make a strong claim (like you do against vitamins) based on speculation and that goes AGAINST available evidence, then criticize others for making claims that are based on speculation and go against similar available evidence.
That doesn't make any sense, so you're just gibbering nonsense here. A framework can only show limits through evidence, not speculation.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have limits -- obviously is does -- but your speculation doesn't reveal them. Rather, nutritional science frequently discusses its own limitations. If you'd even read a paper you'd know this.
This is yet another common talking point of alt-med. That we don't know every single molecule is aside from the point that is relevant: we know the broad strokes such as correlations with mortality, and we have mechanistic and clinical evidence of benefit in cases of deficiency, things like LD50 to give us a sense of toxicology, etc.
You don't have to know how many of every color jelly bean is in the jar to know some general things about it to a high level of confidence.
It tells us the important things like will it be likely to shorten our lifespans, yeah.
That's the point of listening the registered dietitians when it comes to advice on supplements. None of them are recommending large doses or fad supplements. But they, and governmental bodies, support modest supplements, either as vitamins we take or that are added to fortified foods (even by law, because the science is SO overwhelming).Amarillyde wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:42 amYes, and that's why we have pharmacology and we do use and doctors do recommend drugs when they are needed. They work, they are a good idea when there is a problem to fix.However, overwhelmingly the evidence suggests that our understanding is adequate to make certain claims beyond any reasonable doubt, as experts in dietetics do.
And yet you're promoting an anti-supplement world view. Why?Amarillyde wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:42 amAs I said above, discouraging people from using supplements or animal products (depending on the audience, Ginny Messina and Jack Norris speak to vegans, thus they recommend supplements; governments speak to the general population, so they recommend to include animal products in the diet) would be dangerous, because a diet that doesn't include either of them is likely to cause deficiencies or worse problems.
Why can't you just say "I don't know, but the evidence on mortality suggests they're not harmful and professionals often recommend them so I'll err on the side of what's most likely to be true based on the evidence and professional interpretation of it instead of my fears and just follow professional advice and stop fear mongering based on the speculation of fringe voices".