Re:Federal Study Links Testicular Cancer to ‘Forever Chemicals’
by silisili on Monday August 28, 2023 @12:00PM
(#37296186)
Of course you don't have to. As a reader, the chain went -
OP1 - Here is my unpopular opinion.
OP2 - May or may not be right.
OP3 - Here is a big list of reasons why you're wrong.
The first two didn't provide any sources either, admittedly, but they didn't really make any statements of fact.
I didn't ask to pick on you or because I have some political motive(honestly, I have no idea or opinion on whether OP1 was right), only because it was the first post presented as definitive in the chain.
Re:Federal Study Links Testicular Cancer to ‘Forever Chemicals’
by labster on Monday August 28, 2023 @03:09PM
(#37299006)
As OP2, my problem with OP3 is that none of that evidence really refutes OP1, which is why I said that the connection is hard to prove, or disprove. There could still be an environmental cause for some of the increase. But because gender is socially constructed, the effects of social change obviously can’t be discounted.
Honestly I think we should take OP1’s thesis seriously, but not as proven. And as usual cut down on pollutants for the wildlife it does affect.
If you're more inclined to believe technobabble than sociological explanations when you don't understand the facts behind either, that's a bias you might want to investigate further.