5 ms·
"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 unscienti
by 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 agoAnecdata... strawman... no citations of your own despite requirements for same... somethingsomething 'unscientific'?
- SquareWheel 10y agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoOne 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 agoDear 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 agoPretty 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.
- lmm 10y agoSure, counterexample: my grandfather. Hyperbolic claims like "it will destroy your lungs" are counterproductive in the long run; far better to give a measured, accurate description of the actual level of danger.