Re:Palm oil favors tumor expansion
by gruez on Thursday November 18, 2021 @03:28PM
(#29270076)
>How would the opposite not be true? "an appeal to the modern". Just because something like palm oil is new, must it be better?
What gave you the indication I was appealing to modernity? Being against naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days" doesn't mean I'm arguing "well it's new so it must be better!". I'm simply saying that we shouldn't give either side preference just because it's new or old.
>Consider that for years the "new" advice was to recommend aspirin to prevent heart attacks. [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678] If you ignored this advice some smarmy pill pusher would say you're appealing to nature. What about non-addictive painkillers like oxycotton.
This seems like a massive strawman/misrepresentation. People weren't taking/recommending asprin because it was new, they were taking it because it's what the clinical evidence was suggesting. Some reasonable objections might be that the studies were poorly done, or wasn't replicable, but "it's not natural" isn't one of them. Just because "it wasn't natural" produced the right result, doesn't really mean we should endorse it, or continue using it. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology)
Early studies showed that aspirin was beneficial for preventing heart attacks. You seemed to suggest that was bad. However, trusting one study saying that glyphosate causes cancer is okay? The wikipedia article for glyposate describes the overall evidence for glyposate causing cancer as "inconclusive". The IARC also said there was "limited evidence" for the type of cancer you described. If you want to make the case that appeal to nature is good, you really should have used something less contentious.
>Then the oil is bleached for a more palatable color.
Well is that bad? If they're literally dumping household bleach into the oil, I might be a little worried. Then again, they also put bleach (chlorine) into tap water, so should we be worried about that too?
> It refined like other industrials oils and often interchangeable for machining uses.
We also put nuclear plant coolant (dihydrogen monoxide) into our foods. Should we be worried about that as well?
>Seed oil advocates themselves appeal to "the good ol days", as many peoples have allegedly used rape seed oil over history.
Right, and that's bad regardless of which side it's on.
What gave you the indication I was appealing to modernity? Being against naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days" doesn't mean I'm arguing "well it's new so it must be better!". I'm simply saying that we shouldn't give either side preference just because it's new or old.
>Consider that for years the "new" advice was to recommend aspirin to prevent heart attacks. [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678] If you ignored this advice some smarmy pill pusher would say you're appealing to nature. What about non-addictive painkillers like oxycotton.
This seems like a massive strawman/misrepresentation. People weren't taking/recommending asprin because it was new, they were taking it because it's what the clinical evidence was suggesting. Some reasonable objections might be that the studies were poorly done, or wasn't replicable, but "it's not natural" isn't one of them. Just because "it wasn't natural" produced the right result, doesn't really mean we should endorse it, or continue using it. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology)
>Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence" [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835...].
>Mouse experiments showed weight gain and memory loss/alzheimers [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3]
Early studies showed that aspirin was beneficial for preventing heart attacks. You seemed to suggest that was bad. However, trusting one study saying that glyphosate causes cancer is okay? The wikipedia article for glyposate describes the overall evidence for glyposate causing cancer as "inconclusive". The IARC also said there was "limited evidence" for the type of cancer you described. If you want to make the case that appeal to nature is good, you really should have used something less contentious.
>Then the oil is bleached for a more palatable color.
Well is that bad? If they're literally dumping household bleach into the oil, I might be a little worried. Then again, they also put bleach (chlorine) into tap water, so should we be worried about that too?
> It refined like other industrials oils and often interchangeable for machining uses.
We also put nuclear plant coolant (dihydrogen monoxide) into our foods. Should we be worried about that as well?
>Seed oil advocates themselves appeal to "the good ol days", as many peoples have allegedly used rape seed oil over history.
Right, and that's bad regardless of which side it's on.