3 ms·
No. My analogy doesn't say what we should eat. It only says that in spite of something having an association with something bad for you, it might still be just
by jtbayly 3y ago
No. My analogy doesn't say what we should eat. It only says that in spite of something having an association with something bad for you, it might still be just fine for you.
Here's another example. "Potassium explodes on contact with water! I think I'll pass on potassium in my diet, thanks!" That would not be a good reaction. Note the logical difference between saying "that's a bad reaction" and saying "you should eat everything that explodes." You're implying that I'm saying the latter. I'm not. I'm saying the former.
- mrcode007 3y agoOkay Mr Logic. My response was tongue in cheek but this detracts from the main point. I hope you’re not living under the DuPont shitstorm umbrella as appealing as it may sound. Check out the 3M/DuPont Missisipi teflon lawsuits as well as the story of Robert Bilott, and his nationwide class action lawsuit for anyone with detectable teflon in their blood: https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/news/taft-wins-class-certification-in-pfas-suit https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/news/taft-wins-class-cer... https://theintercept.com/2018/10/06/dupont-pfas-chemicals-lawsuit/ https://theintercept.com/2018/10/06/dupont-pfas-chemicals-la... More recently, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-08/how-cancer-linked-pfas-forever-chemicals-found-their-way-into-everyone https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-08/how-cance...