Rating every single post

[alkeides]

Discourage Revenant and ironyuri.

hey man, I'm just doing what's right. i'm like rorschach. no compromise.

I quoted some fucking studies dumbass.

 

[ironyuri]

Discourage Revenant and ironyuri.

hey man, I'm just doing what's right. i'm like rorschach. no compromise.

I quoted some fucking studies dumbass.

I don't need to quote a study of dubious academic quality (studies are not important, their standing and reception in peer review circles are) to know you're a ting-tong retard.

 

[alkeides]

Discourage Revenant and ironyuri.

hey man, I'm just doing what's right. i'm like rorschach. no compromise.

I quoted some fucking studies dumbass.

I don't need to quote a study of dubious academic quality (studies are not important, their standing and reception in peer review circles are) to know you're a ting-tong retard.

Did you even follow up on the studies I linked?

 

[alkeides]

The studies I linked were published in:
GUT
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
Gastroenterology

Check your opponents' references before saying anything manboon.

 

[ironyuri]

The studies I linked were published in:
GUT
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
Gastroenterology

Check your opponents' references before saying anything manboon.

Just because a study is published does not mean that it has traction in the academic mainstream. Like most people who have no experience of the academy or academic publishing, you think publication == acceptance and validity. Thousands of studies are published yearly as articles expanding or inviting comment on specific new findings, many of which will later be superseded or surpassed by new research, or exposed as flawed in their methodologies. I'm so glad that you seem to think because you've read a few studies that you are now an expert on what people spend entire careers working toward, I'm also glad you seem to think that you are even able to understand or judge whether or not the complex methodologies used to produce these findings are valid and/or unflawed.

Listen, my chin-chong friend, why don't you go give the finger to your security gate guard again and let him beat your brains out? You couldn't be any worse off without them.

 

[alkeides]

The studies I linked were published in:
GUT
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
Gastroenterology

Check your opponents' references before saying anything manboon.

Just because a study is published does not mean that it has traction in the academic mainstream. Like most people who have no experience of the academy or academic publishing, you think publication == acceptance and validity. Thousands of studies are published yearly as articles expanding or inviting comment on specific new findings, many of which will later be superseded or surpassed by new research, or exposed as flawed in their methodologies. I'm so glad that you seem to think because you've read a few studies that you are now an expert on what people spend entire careers working toward, I'm also glad you seem to think that you are even able to understand or judge whether or not the complex methodologies used to produce these findings are valid and/or unflawed.

Listen, my chin-chong friend, why don't you go give the finger to your security gate guard again and let him beat your brains out? You couldn't be any worse off without them.

When did I ever say any of that? I just posted the links to show that there might be something actually behind the anti-wheat movement. Of course more research is needed but you don't even offer any critiques on what is already out there beyond the easy targets of HHR's blogs.

 

[ironyuri]

The studies I linked were published in:
GUT
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
Gastroenterology

Check your opponents' references before saying anything manboon.

Just because a study is published does not mean that it has traction in the academic mainstream. Like most people who have no experience of the academy or academic publishing, you think publication == acceptance and validity. Thousands of studies are published yearly as articles expanding or inviting comment on specific new findings, many of which will later be superseded or surpassed by new research, or exposed as flawed in their methodologies. I'm so glad that you seem to think because you've read a few studies that you are now an expert on what people spend entire careers working toward, I'm also glad you seem to think that you are even able to understand or judge whether or not the complex methodologies used to produce these findings are valid and/or unflawed.

Listen, my chin-chong friend, why don't you go give the finger to your security gate guard again and let him beat your brains out? You couldn't be any worse off without them.

When did I ever say any of that? I just posted the links to show that there might be something actually behind the anti-wheat movement. Of course more research is needed but you don't even offer any critiques on what is already out there beyond the easy targets of HHR's blogs.

Correction: I have offered no critiques whatsoever. I simply hit "retardo" on almost every post in that thread, I do not need to offer a critique if I am uncommitted to the criticism.

Humanity has risen! has proven himself beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a dumbfuck, so why would I lend any credence to an argument he supports?

Cleve subscribes to the Zionist and fluoride-in-the-water conspiracies, and has proved to be a dumbfuck, so why would I take any heed of those conspiracies?

The burden of proof in academic study lies with the party advancing a new argument, or exhibiting new findings which are in disagreeance with established knowledge. I am not a bio-chemist, I am not a gastroenterologist, I am not a nutrionist, therefore, I neither claim, nor pretend, any special insight or knowledge which would assist either my understanding, or criticism, of currently established scholarship.

Here's an example for you: If your Catholic doctor refuses to give you family planning advice which takes into account contraception (oral or prophylactic), or refuses to refer you to a termination (abortion) service if it is absolutely necessary in your mind (and you have received the proper family planning counselling), and this doctor is doing so because of pre-determined religio-political beliefs, would you agree that contraception is an evil? If the same doctor, who is secular, prescribes you a drug because he has agreed a percentage with, or is a shareholder in, the drug's manufacturer, would you respect his opinion that the drug being prescribed is right for you, or simply that he wants to advance himself?

In the case of Humanity has risen! and numerous others in that thread, it has been demonstrated that they obfuscate available evidence in order to lobby for something to which they are committed because of personal belief, which is not tied to demonstrable fact. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with them, and until they mount a credible case (and no, posting affirmative academic studies is not a credible case, because you are not, as one would do in an academic approach, presenting the available literature in its context [ie: there will be hundreds of studies arguing exactly the opposite]) I feel entirely within my rights to write them off as retarded.

tl;dr proofs or gtfo

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I never said there is a vast field of evidence, I simply said that the current science was inconclusive, and explained why. It has to do with the bogus methodology employed (observational studies based on unreliable food logs, and insignificant differences divided and presented at percentages), and the lack of any serious, double-blind, clinical evidence in support of the harmfulness of fat. I then said that the Dr. in the book and myself point at correlations in favor of the theory (which aren't causation). I then explain what the theory itself is.

Painting this as nothing but unreasonable thinfoil hating and doing this with a discussion that you have a knee-jerk scornful reaction to is nothing but you being a total douchebag.

 

[alkeides]

Correction: I have offered no critiques whatsoever. I simply hit "retardo" on almost every post in that thread, I do not need to offer a critique if I am uncommitted to the criticism.
Humanity has risen! has proven himself beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a dumbfuck, so why would I lend any credence to an argument he supports?

Cleve subscribes to the Zionist and fluoride-in-the-water conspiracies, and has proved to be a dumbfuck, so why would I take any heed of those conspiracies?

The burden of proof in academic study lies with the party advancing a new argument, or exhibiting new findings which are in disagreeance with established knowledge. I am not a bio-chemist, I am not a gastroenterologist, I am not a nutrionist, therefore, I neither claim, nor pretend, any special insight or knowledge which would assist either my understanding, or criticism, of currently established scholarship.

Here's an example for you: If your Catholic doctor refuses to give you family planning advice which takes into account contraception (oral or prophylactic), or refuses to refer you to a termination (abortion) service if it is absolutely necessary in your mind (and you have received the proper family planning counselling), and this doctor is doing so because of pre-determined religio-political beliefs, would you agree that contraception is an evil? If the same doctor, who is secular, prescribes you a drug because he has agreed a percentage with, or is a shareholder in, the drug's manufacturer, would you respect his opinion that the drug being prescribed is right for you, or simply that he wants to advance himself?

In the case of Humanity has risen! and numerous others in that thread, it has been demonstrated that they obfuscate available evidence in order to lobby for something to which they are committed because of personal belief, which is not tied to demonstrable fact. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with them, and until they mount a credible case (and no, posting affirmative academic studies is not a credible case, because you are not, as one would do in an academic approach, presenting the available literature in its context [ie: there will be hundreds of studies arguing exactly the opposite]) I feel entirely within my rights to write them off as retarded.

tl;dr proofs or gtfo

My claim is that certain proteins found in wheat seem to affect a lot of people's digestive systems (including non-coeliacs) triggering immune system responses based on what I've read, and therefore, it is best for people to try to avoid wheat. I present what evidence I have (which are experimental, not epidemiological, studies), which even if not perfect, was published in relatively non-partisan contexts, available for anybody's critique. In another thread, I referred people to Alan Aragon's review of the "anti-grain crusade", which quotes a wide range of scientific literature on this topic, and quoted his summary of points. He ends off with a more moderate position but even so he still says

Wheat appears to be the most problematic and least protective of the grains, so it should be the first choice for moderation, minimization, or in some cases where it’s warranted – elimination

Even if HHR is a dumbfuck why should that in itself be a black mark against any theory he subscribes to? janjetina is one of the more intelligent posters here and recommends against wheat as well.

 

[alkeides]

Actually, ironyuri, I want to apologize for being so reactive over something that doesn't really matter. I do not like you but that response was unnecessary.

 

[ironyuri]

Actually, ironyuri, I want to apologize for being so reactive over something that doesn't really matter. I do not like you but that response was unnecessary.

Let he who is without derp cast the first retardo.

For the record, the whole point was to highlight how painfully flawed the new ratings system is, being that I can downvote my ideological opponents in every post they make without ever having to actually engage them on the field of discussion. Whereas normally I would just ignore (bypass, not use the ignore function) posts made by people whose views I know to be idiotic, the new system means I can not only scroll past them, but I can vandalise them as I go, spraying butthurt and retardo faces all over them like a bored suburban teen on a quiet Saturday night.

Truly it is incline.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I refuse to use any ratings, including brofists, from now.

 

[DwarvenFood]

sensible, well-researched opinions

everything is shit

 

[EG]

sensible, well-researched opinions

everything is shit

Particularly when it comes to the unprovable.