4 ms·

He just told you what he lived through, and you're asking for a citation? Never change, HN.

• XorNot 10y ago
  No he told us about something he claimed to see at a place. A lot of people say the same thing about UFOs.
• mulletbum 10y ago
  "Not putting solid food into your system for long periods of time will destroy your ability to digest solid food when you start refeeding" That is an unscientific statement based on no citation. Top it off, I have personally lived of Soylent for a year. I go out to eat only a couple times a month and I do not die from horrendous suffering everytime. In fact, nothing changes.
  • vacri 10y ago
    Anecdata... strawman... no citations of your own despite requirements for same... somethingsomething 'unscientific'?
    • SquareWheel 10y ago
      The point is that one unsubstantiated anecdote cancels out the other. Why is the first comment okay but this one isn't? You can't have it both ways.
      • vacri 10y ago
        The comment I responded to was mockingly talking about dying with the original wasn't. It was being smarmy when the original was talking cleanly. Abusing someone for lack of science when you're being snarky is a footgun. My point is that if you are chiding someone for a lack of quality, you shouldn't use even less quality to do so.
  • benlambert 10y ago
    "Your statement is unscientific because anecdotally I've had no problems with it" Where's your citation backing up your suggestion that it's safe?
    • lmm 10y ago
      One counterexample is enough to contradict the "will destroy" claim in the grandparent.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • benlambert 10y ago
        "Smoking will destroy your lungs" Gonna give me a counterexample there too?
        • benlambert 10y ago
          Dear down voters: it should be obvious that just because smoking is not literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs, and you can find plenty of counter examples, it's still a very good idea to warn people that "smoking will destroy your lungs". And it would have been a good idea to do that back in the 50s when doctors were calling it safe without the science to back up their claims. "You have no evidence" is what you say to justify avoiding something suspect, not what you say to justify consuming it!
          • FeepingCreature 10y ago
            Pretty sure smoking is literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs. If you find a long-term consistent cigarette smoker with no lung damage, I believe you have a medical miracle on your hands.
            • benlambert 10y ago
              "Destroy" does not mean the same thing as "damage". Destroy = something big enough ruin your quality of life.
• pyre 10y ago
  Your dismissive attitude discounts: 1. People lie. 2. People believe things to be true that are not, in fact, true.
  • RangerScience 10y ago
    "Somone would to that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?" I grew up with AOL chatrooms. I will believe whatever someone presents about themselves up to the point at which it leave the magic circle of the internet.
• nkozyra 10y ago
  A throwaway account gave us a wholly unsupported anecdote. This isn't gospel and it's not taboo to ask for some scientific support. Even if the anecdotes are 100% true, they have no causative evidence.
• muppetcore12 10y ago
  Look I get it, but there are citations. https://www.reddit.com/r/soylent/comments/3orq9s/is_diarrhea_normal_with_soylent_20/ https://www.reddit.com/r/soylent/comments/3orq9s/is_diarrhea...