/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

（ᐖ）

Alcohol is great.

[Aya Shameful !I4IrJba9Qw No.]

>>3511610
Yes I love to drink poison too.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511629
Oh, you. It isn't poison, it's awesomeness. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511645
>It isn't poison
Actually, yes, it is.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511661
No shit.
Doesn't mean it isn't awesome.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511629
Enjoy being boring.

[Arcueid Brunestud !ARCIkc4cG6 No.]

>>3511629

Zun drinks beer.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511661
How is alcohol poison? I think you once heard in passing someone say "Alcohol poisoning" and somehow inferred all alcohol is poison. You realize that alcohol in small amounts is healthy for you correct?

Any time you eat fruit or vegetables you're consuming your so-called poison.

Enjoy switching to an all meat diet retard.

[Aya Shameful !I4IrJba9Qw No.]

>>3511685
>implying that some how I said that I didn't drink alcohol.

I do enjoy alcohol, but not to go to a club and get shit faced on it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511691
Everything is poison dude.
Even air, it brings us closer to our final breath with every one we take.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511700
Considering you die faster if you do not take the breath, no.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511699
>Implying /jp/ goes to clubs (other than that crazy nigger pothead raver Arc)
The last time I went to a club was a year ago for my friend's girlfriend's birthday party, and I couldn't even get drunk. We had bottle service.

People don't go to clubs to get drunk, turdstain.

[Aya Shameful !I4IrJba9Qw No.]

>>3511705
"Although salt, water, oxygen, aspirin, alcohol beverages, and many other substances can cause poisoning in excessive amounts, it makes no sense to call them poisons."

[:3~ !RAKiSUtaAA No.]

>>3511691
>alcohol in small amounts is healthy for you

[MANkoto !/uhtKOHuio No.]

[Aya Shameful !I4IrJba9Qw No.]

>>3511718

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511691
>>3511700
>>3511713
I doubt any of you who enjoy alcohol are in it for the "glass a day of wine" but instead intake to the point that it is more harmful than beneficial for the body. Twats.

[Anonymous No.]

I SMOKE CIGARETTES
I VOLUNTARILY IMBIBE CARCINOGENS AND RAT POISON
WHAT WHAT
and i get wasteyfaced whenever possible

[Anonymous No.]

LOL at people calling alcohol poison. So short-sighted. Anyway, if anywhere, you can expect such idiots to be on /jp/.

I don't usually drink alcohol anymore. Due to my medication, I get light-headed pretty quickly, so I don't care too much for it.

>>3511715
It is. It's been scientifically proven that wine in small doses (one glass a day) is healthy, and later it was proven that it's because of the alcohol in it. Google for it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511718
Orange juice is all sugar.

Sugar causes diabeetus.

Therefore by correlation, ORANGE JUICE = POISON

[Aya Shameful !I4IrJba9Qw No.]

>>3511724
No why would I drink wine for, what a fag.
I'm happy to just drink vodka straight, also it outs me in a good mood.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511732
Lemons have more sugar than oranges.

[Anonymous No.]

（ᐛ） Oh God what have I done

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511734
Uh, yeah, so?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511715
I'd have to dig it up, but there's evidence that 1-2 pints of beer a week could decrease your chances of Alzheimer's. Of course excess negates such benefits.

[MANkoto !/uhtKOHuio No.]

>>3511732
MASAKA!

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511737
MORE POTENT POISON!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511744
I recently read that eating strawberries also helps to prevent that.

And eating a small hand of peanuts a day (or one slice of bread with peanut butter) is good for your heart.

And drinking too much milk is bad for your prostate. I found that out the hard way.

[(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ BOOF ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜) !AWEsomEEEE!!g4pQz5RFuPl No.]

It's the best.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511757

>And drinking too much milk is bad for your prostate.

What, really? How much is too much?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511732
i lol'd, your logic is funny.
>>3511730
There is no "scientific proof", you dont even understand the true usage of the phrase.

also, alcohols are toxic, and therefore poisonous.
ethanol is the only one that is "safe" to consume.
all other alcohols have serious effects, eg a single drop of methanol can cause extended temporary blindness and nerve damage and drink enough (a few gulps) can cause death, a very painful one too,

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511772
also, this doesnt mean you can start calling a beer "poison"

its based on dosages.

in common usage, we call things poisons if they can kill at very low dosages.

but even oxygen, at high enough concentrations is considered "poison" in all respects.

also, for fucks sake, people say lots and lots of things, and the media laps up the most interesting ones.

infact, there is no clinical evidence that anti-oxidants are healthy for humans.

its merely been rationalised that they can remove free radicals from reaction pathways, and in rats the lifespan is extended.

its that simple, this does not constitute "scientific proof that it works in humans"

its evidence, yes, but this is not "scientific proof"
the term is misused.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511724
I have a cold beer after a warm bath every night.
If that isn't good for me, then I don't know what is.

[littlewitch !ponpoNB7VQ No.]

/jp/ Gin/Vodka Tonic crew.

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511771
I don't know, but I used to drink a lot. More than 1 litre a day at least, I think. I've always drank much milk, but I think I started drinking more with time and at some point I often had a somewhat painful feeling around my taint. After a while that it didn't stop and when I saw on TV that milk could be bad for your prostate I looked up some info on it, and it seems the calcium in milk breaks down vitamin D, which causes prostate growth (I think). Considering vitamin D is mainly taken in through sunlight, and I'm a NEET who hardly ever goes out, it made sense I could have too little vitamin D. So I started taking supplements and drinking less milk and I no longer have any painful feelings. It's not scientific proof that this was the problem, but it's good enough for me.

>>3511772
Fine, then don't believe it. Keep eating your french fries and pizza, I'm sure you'll live a healthy life.

[Anonymous No.]

Just goes to show how many deluded morons we have. Pissing on the floor is a wonderful tradition of the NEET master race but drinking alcohol? OMG IT'S NOT HEALTHY YOU SUCK!!!11

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511823
Ignoring valid points and providing extreme examples does not convinve people.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511842
Maybe. But it's not scientifically proven pizzas are bad for your health either. Doesn't mean it's healthy to eat them.

You're the kind of person who'd put [citation needed] after a "water is wet" statement on Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511823

http://www.milkimperative.com/
i would not trust that site, even if it had the seal of approval from god himself, im not saying you went to this site, but this is just an example of the quackery that goes on out there.

Both calcium and vitamin D are absolutely necessary for you to live, and both are needed for healthy bones.

infact, calcium has very little to no adverse effects, you need calcium to move your muscles.

Yes, i know you say you dont need scientific proof, but there are so many other factors which may be attributed to prostate pain, most of which probably do not stem from calcium (which mind you, is often kept at high levels in your body, excess calcium is stored in your bones or pissed out (although, urinating calcium is usually seen as a bad thing), and you use Ca2+ for muscle movement, etc, so there is no mechanism whatsoever for which calcium would be damaging to your prostate from intake from milk, because in reality, its already quite prevalent in your body.

>Fine, then don't believe it. Keep eating your french fries and pizza, I'm sure you'll live a healthy life

how did you pull out that conclusion?

Alcohol being poisonous, and Alcohol having "scientific proof"of its supposed health benefits has nothing to do with supporting or denying the health effects of junk food.

i seriously hope you are trolling.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511848
>You're the kind of person who'd put [citation needed] after a "water is wet" statement on Wikipedia.

im not that poster, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

ad hom, straw man, call it whatever you like.

>it's not scientifically proven pizzas are bad for your health either.

yes...yes it is.
why would you ever think otherwise.
the adverse health effects of saturated and trans-fats have been extremely well documented.

please, dont talk about things you have no idea about.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511864
>Both calcium and vitamin D are absolutely necessary for you to live, and both are needed for healthy bones.
I take both now, what's your point?

As for the proof: it Works For Me, that's all that really matters.

>>3511871
>the adverse health effects of saturated and trans-fats have been extremely well documented.
Still doesn't prove anything, because I'm not taking in fat, I'm taking in a pizza.

Don't bullshit around this, you know full well you are trying to make your own example seem more logical than my own, when the examples I provided (of things being healthy) are just as good.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511864
Btw, this is one of the sites I read about it: http://www.vegsource.com/articles/bernard_milk_prostate_cancer.htm

Judge your own conclusions from that...

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511883
BEcaue we have protein, we have carbohydrates, we have fat, then we have PIZZA.
You are really a fucktard that lacks basic academic knowledge.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511883
Trans-fat is unhealthy for you
Pizza contains large amounts of trans-fat
therefore, pizza in unhealthy.

theres no bullshittery at all, you're just ignoring a statement right infront of you.

I have been completely logical and straight forward, if you choose to listen to the voice of reason that is at your own liberty.

>you know full well you are trying to make your own example seem more logical than my own

im not trying to make it "seem" like it is more logical.
my argument 'is' more logical, it is supported by scientific evidence, and has not incorperated anecdotal evidence, furthermore, it is clear and precise.

your "reasonings" are far less than adequate, it has no scientific basis, most of it has been a mere statement of "this is this", and relied on an isolated case of your own highly subjective experience, not to mention you constantly bring up irrelevant topics and issues, not to mention random insults.

once again, if you are a troll, you have succeeded.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511898
Weren't you replying to >>3511871?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511919
Of course not.
This >>3511883
idiot says 'I do not eat fat, I eat pizza'.
That's like saying 'I do not take in alcohol, I drink whiskey'

[Sudo !nAoZUmIAfk No.]

/jp/ - Nutrition/General

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511898
No, you're still wrong, or you're trolling. Ignoring the fact that taking in fat directly or taking it in together with numerous other substances is completely different...

I guess I shouldn't have said "scientifically proven". There's always some loser who's just in uni and thinks he's smart by pointing out research findings are not hard scientific evidence, even though everyone knows this but still uses those findings as if they were this evidence. Everyone who is doing research does this too, they all assume things based on research that is not 100% fact. That's the nature of research. Bah, like I said, enjoy your freshman year in uni.

[Anonymous No.]

What the hell is going on in this thread?

And now you made me hungry, great.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511902
>Pizza contains large amounts of trans-fat

This is where you're wrong.

Either that, or you're just an idiot who can't tell a dish from one of its junk food brands, in which case you can't even be right or wrong, you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.]

[e-mail]
Do your worst.

[Anonymous No.]

/jp/ vegan collective.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511902
>Alcohol is unhealthy for you
>Wine contains large amounts of alcohol
>therefore, wine in unhealthy.
See? And yet research shows that this is wrong. YOU are the one making assumptions that are not backed by hard evidence: like I said, taking in alcohol (or fat) directly or taking in wine (or a pizza) is completely different. And just because something is unhealthy in certain amounts doesn't mean it's unhealthy in small doses. Likewise, taking in one substance and not another may be unhealthy (milk), but taking in both (milk and vitamin D) may be healthy and taking in neither unhealthy.

But I'm starting to get the idea there are people here who are stroking their penises by thinking they're the bearers of scientific truth or something. Whatever.

[Anonymous No.]

/jp/ - Food and Cooking

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511895
Do the "You've won 1 million dollars!" adds not show that this site probably isnt exactly best source of information?

look at http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=calcium+prostate+cancer&hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=20
04

after a brief skim over the first few journals i can conclude this

1. most tests that found a link between dairy products (not necessarily calcium) and prostate cancer stated that its only at extremely high intakes of calcium, more than one litre a day of milk.
i honestly dont think many people drink that much milk.
and the largest "increased risk" was 9%, and this was for low grade prostate cancer, which has a high treatment success rate.

2. most of these "positive" trials had small sample sizes, or were low quality

3. meta analyses of confim point number 2, and also, when trials of "negative" conclusion (ie, no statistically observed link between dairy intake and prostate cancer) tended to be of higher quality and higher sample size.

but to be fair, both "negative" and "positive" trials were both published in reputable journals.

but right now, there is no strong evidence for a link.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511947
The amount of alcohol in wine is nowhere near great for most cases.
It's about the concentration and how much you can eat before you 'take in too much'.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511902
>on an isolated case of your own highly subjective experience
One last thing about this: if I change my eating pattern and some health complaint I'm suffering from disappears, you really think I'm going to undo it, just because it's not "scientific evidence"? Do you seriously live like this? OF COURSE I make judgement based on whether I see improvement in myself. That's the whole fucking point, even if research said smoking is healthy but I feel better when I don't take it rather than when I do, I would not take it! You need to listen to your body, not some scientific article!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511961
>only at extremely high intakes of calcium, more than one litre a day of milk.
>i honestly dont think many people drink that much milk.

>>3511823
>I used to drink a lot. More than 1 litre a day at least, I think.

Reading is for faggots, apparently.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511961
>Do the "You've won 1 million dollars!" adds not show that this site probably isnt exactly best source of information?
You judge sites based on that? Wow. Just wow. Scientific evidence that such sites are bad, I bet?

[:3~ !RAKiSUtaAA No.]

>>3511730
>It's been scientifically proven that wine
That's right. Wine. And guess what? It's not because of the alcohol.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511966
Diabetes has no direct symptoms, and your body can feel quite good.
Still, it's VERY bad for you for simple accurate reasons.

How you think you feel is 'bullshit' in the long run.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511980
What the hell? What are you doing? You're comparing a disease with food taken in? How the fuck are those things comparable?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511610
In Japan, beer comes in bags?

WATCH OUT CANADA, JAPAN IS COMING FOR YOU.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511947
yeah, because the fat magically disappears?
or are you going to tell me if i put shards of glass in your pizza, the glass will have significantly different effects upon your intestinal wall?

you idea that eating a mixture, (and i say mixture, it has a specific meaning), will radically alter the effects of its constituents shows a fundamental lack of understanding of chemical, medical, and biological processes.
hell, a lack of understanding of science in general.

and no, im in my honors year, if that is relevant.
and im also interested in what background YOU have, but considering that you're a self proclaimed NEET...im not exactly sure why im arguing with you, but i do consider it the duty of humanity to enlighten each other.

>>3511927

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511986
I did not compare the two.
I'm saying that 'I know my own body better than everyone' is wrong almost always, no matter the issue you examine.
Your diet included.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511978
>It's not because of the alcohol.
That's what I assumed at first too, but I think it was later shown that taking in alcohol through other means (like beer) was healthy too, and so it was not just wine.

Either way, I have not seen hard evidence of that, but show me your evidence that it is something else in the wine, rather than the alcohol, because I have seen no evidence of that either. All I really know now is "wine in small doses is healthy" and I don't even know if THAT is backed by good research.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511986

It's totally comparable. The point is that "listening to your body" can only get you so far. To use smoking as an example, even if you don't notice the effect on your lungs, you're still causing a large amount of damage to your blood vessels, which you won't feel or notice until they start blocking up completely. Just because you feel fine in the short term doesn't mean that will persist for the long term.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511994
Not everyone is the same person.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511994
>im not exactly sure why im arguing with you
Then don't, because you're the kind of person who thinks he's right based on his credentials. I don't argue with such people.

Filtered.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511994
Do you even know what pizza is?

[littlewitch !ponpoNB7VQ No.]

I eat really healthily but smoke and drink. Sad life.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511980
>Diabetes has no direct symptoms
Uhh.yes it does.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512002
>Just because you feel fine in the short term doesn't mean that will persist for the long term.
But your logic is that when I suffer from something, I change my habit, and I no longer suffer from it, that means jack shit and I should just go back to my old habits. Well, it doesn't work like that for me, and thankfully to most sensible people they also don't think like that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512015
In Type 2, are negligible.
Shit will hit the fan suddenly, if there is no treatment.

[Anonymous No.]

Ingesting a drop of concentrated nicotine can kill you in less than a minute. Yet the small dose present in cigarettes releases pleasure inducing chemicals in the brain and reduces reaction time.
Everything is a matter of dosage.
It's not because drinking enough water will kill you that a glass of water is poison.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511976
yes i do.
in the same why i trust a guy with a degree in medicine than a raving hobo on the street.

and at the same time, its even more ridiculous that you trust your own singular observations in the stead of epirical scientific evidence.

dont start being a hypocrite.

>>3511986
that was not my post.
but he has a point.
'feeling good' does not necessitate being in good health.
for example, taking the drug speed will make you feel good, and on the basis of "listen to your body" you will take more and more speed, at higher and higher concentrations (due to drug resistance, receptor fatigue, etc) until you die.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512000
"The present study showed that coronary microcirculation was impaired in patients with CAD due to reduced CFV at peak flow response. However, CFV at peak flow response was significantly increased in both two groups after they had been taking red wine polyphenols for 14 days. Favourably, in patients with CAD CFVR increased after polyphenol intake up to the level of CFVR in non-CAD subjects before they had taken polyphenols. Thus, the present results suggest that a daily intake of red wine polyphenols may benefit both people without CAD and patients with CAD by improving the coronary microcirculation.

This study has not clarified the precise mechanism for increased CFVR after short term intake of red wine polyphenols. In a recent study analysing flow mediated brachial artery reactivity, Stein et al8 showed that short term ingestion of purple grape juice improves endothelial function in patients with CAD. They suggested that improved endothelial function is the potential mechanism by which purple grape products may prevent cardiovascular events. The antioxidant effect of red wine polyphenols may improve the coronary microcirculation by improving endothelial function."

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512018
Except the reason you do not suffer may be unrelated to the change of habit.
May seem obvious for some things, but not everything is as simple as 'I drink 300 beers a day, now I do not'

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512028
I still don't see how this is comparable to food intake.

I don't say "if you don't feel sick, you don't have HIV". I say "if you do X and you feel bad after doing it, don't do it."

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512007
And what are you? some shut in with a superiority complex, drowing in his own ego unable to hear the reasoning or advice of others.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512038
The reason you feel bad may be unrelated.
Simple enough.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512033
So? I was only giving my example with milk intake and how changing my behavior led to me feeling better. I wasn't proving anything else, and yet THAT is what got attacked here and said that I was wrong and whatever.

People can't even tell their own experiences anymore these days?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512003
True, but its pretty safe to assume that what kills 1000 people is going to kill the 1001st person.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512041
>a superiority complex
What? Why the hell do you assume that?

This is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512047
You make it sound like you were recounting your own experience, when in reality you were insulting everyone, and putting forward your own opinion as fact.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512048
Concerning the posts, actually.
>>3512047
The point is that this is not a valid method or proof.
Good for you, but other wise...

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512051
Assume? i know you have a superiority complex, but enough.
you wont listen to reason, i can only hope that one day you understand the value of scientific advice, it may save your life one day.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512007
>you're the type of person that thinks he's right because he's got an education. I don't want to talk with these people. All they talk about is facts facts facts.
Pretentious assholes, thinking that because they went to college they know more than us !

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512058
Yes, my bad, it gets confusing when everyone has the the same name.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512043
And drinking 300 beers and feeling bad may be unrelated too. How can you prove that it is?

I'll tell you kids how science works. You make a hypothesis. Hypothesis is, by definition, unproven. Now, the fact that it's unproven doesn't make it false - this is an important fact that at least one person here can't grasp. You need to check it. So, you make an experiment. Your hypothesis predicts some result, and if that result is achieved, your hypothesis is... still not proven, but the probability it's true gets higher probability. You managed to predict the outcome, that's what matters.

So, hypothesis: "drinking milk is bad for prostate". Experiment: "take a person who drinks milk and has prostate problems, make him stop drinking milk, see what happens".
Result: "prostate gets better".

What else do you need? Let me tell you, you need some medical scientist's signature on the results. This is not science, this is fetishism.

[:3~ !RAKiSUtaAA No.]

>>3512000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphenol_antioxidant

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512053
Read the thread. The guy got insulted by a troll who also insulted everyone else, repeatedly proven he can't read or can't be bothered to because he thinks he knows better, and now you're attacking him for fighting back? Give me a break.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512078
Those are unproven observations.
Not the best basis.
You either know the workings or decide on circumstances.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512078
Once again, dont talk about things that you dont understand.

if i gave someone, with a cold, water until his cold becomes better, does that mean water cures colds?

no, it doesnt, do you know why?
because the cure can be attributed to another source, because there are a multitude of possibilities leading to the cause and conclusion.

what if the brand of milk you drank just happened to be of low quality?
what if you have some kind of unique allergy?
did you do more or less exercise during this time?

you are talking about a scientific experiment that a person in grade 7 would preform.

also, in tests, we do not test the hypotheis directly, we either accept or refute a null hypothesis which is much more specific to the test at hand.

[Workfag !!r6vbiSePEQ4 No.]

>This Thread

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512081
examples, please.
and i shall assume, for the most part, that you are not the same person.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512089
Sup workfag, hows work?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512082
>unproven observations

Of course, you can't and don't prove observations. Observations are facts. You use observations to prove hypotheses.

And, surprise, noone knows how human body actually works. Most experiments regarding consumption of specific substances are currently conducted in the exact same fashion - only on bigger groups of people and with care taken to eliminate outside factors. You feed people something and see the results. Don't like it? Better stop believing science.

>>3512088
>dont talk about things that you dont understand

That's all I ask of you, too, since you apparently did not understand a word from what I posted. Or what was posted in this entire thread, for that matter.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512120
...Now you just downgrade medical sciences to 'Let's feed him and see if he changes color'.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512120
Unless you can prove that the effect is RELATED, it's useless. A single case of random circumstances is not that.
You just downgraded science to elemenary school logic.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511715

Yes, it is.
But wait, no fucking chance someone so clever like you will believe a mere medicine student.
Keep trolling.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512120
because i dont agree with you?
you've gone on your own tangent, while ive tried my best to address every point you've put up in a logical and well reasoned manner.

you have not addressed any of the things i have put forward besides accusations of me not being able to read, or the fact that i go to university makes me, for some reason, more ignorant, because "i think im right".
and i do, mind you, i do think im right, and you think you're right, which is why we have this argument.

the argument being you've made all these claims, attributed it to be both scientifically true and sound
then gone on to say "ignore scientific evidence, trust your own body"
then you've tried to tackle the scientific process itself, in what i interpret to be a mocking critique of its weakness.

[:3~ !RAKiSUtaAA No.]

>>3512138
It's not. Keep deluding yourself, silly alcoholic.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512134
With our current knowledge of human body, you can't "prove" any effect is related. We can just observe correlations and try to make the best of those observations.

>You just downgraded science to elemenary school logic.

No, just dietetics.

And you made more sense with your previous post. Turning science into pure logic would be an upgrade. Unfortunately, we can't do that and have to rely on random evidence.

[Anonymous No.]

You guys are gay.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512166
There are many, MANY constants on how the human body responds to substances, microbes etc.
Observation alone is NOT enough, you need to understand the workings of it ( in the system we have decided upon).
Otherwise, it's no different than people who assume praying got them better.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512120
>Observations are facts.

so i guess ghosts are real because people have observed them?

observations are evidence, but for scientific purposes, these observations must be
1: legitimate (ie, not made up)
2: reproducable
3: well documented (so dont leave out the fact that the ghost that you "saw" was in a horror movie)

and the observations themselves are only worth something as evidence if the procedure that produced them are thorough and specific.

>You feed people something and see the results. Don't like it? Better stop believing science.

you dont understand the purpose of science, if we feed people something and obtain results, we then interpret the results.
liking or disliking a result is not scientific, and falls under scientific misconduct, which is actually something you can be sued for.
if there is a drug X i dont think works, i test it, if i find after rigorious testing that it actually works, then i accept that drug X works, i may not like the fact that i was wrong, but that's science, understanding and gathering information and moving towards greater truths.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512188
and when i say liking or disliking, i mean to the extent that you explicitly alter your results due to that like/dislike.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512152
>you have not addressed any of the things i have put forward

Why would I address them if they're not responding to what I wrote? It's pointless. Especially since the guy before has already tried to repeatedly tell you that what you're arguing with is not what you said, and you repeatedly ignored him, so I have (non-scientific) evidence you're dense as a brick.

I can assume one of three things:
- you're just trolling
- you've created a strawman and are arguing with it disregarding what others actually write on principle
- you honestly don't understand what's being said to you

I chose the nicest of the bunch. Assume good will is my motto.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512156

>alcoholic

Confirmed for uneducated idiot.
Underageb& not yet determined.

Protip: Look up the meaning of a term before using it in discussion to prove your point.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512152
>the argument being you've made all these claims[...]then gone on to say "ignore scientific evidence, trust your own body"
I haven't made a post to this thread since >>3512051

There's more than one person who disagrees with you. Also, I didn't say "don't listen to scientific evidence, listen to your body". I said you should do both, and I think you should favor scientific evidence over your own experiences. But yet, you think that if there's some scientific evidence for milk being bad for your prostate, plus my own experience that I feel better when I drink less of it, that I should assume it's all wrong, all false and I should keep drinking lots and lots of milk and it doesn't matter how I feel, since there's no hard evidence it's bad that means it can't be bad, right?

Logic...

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512216
Except science never said 'You must keep drinking milk even if you feel bad'.
It's not hard to realize which of the milks ingredients are HARMUFL to you.
You say that as if a doctor could never reach the same conclusion.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512188
No, the fact is "people observed ghosts". Not "ghosts have been there". The fact can be explained by many other hypotheses, like "it was a hallucination".

>you dont understand the purpose of science

Have any scientific evidence for that? Eh?

Yes, you're being silly, and I'm laughing at you.

>if we feed people something and obtain results, we then interpret the results

Exactly. So, we stopped feeding someone milk, his prostate got better, how do you interpret the result?

>liking or disliking a result is not scientific

...what are you talking about?

Well, I guess it's another evidence for my hypothesis of you not understanding what others write.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512062
Strawman. Why are you even posting as Anonymous? The whole point of that is that we should judge arguments based on merit, not on who said it. But you believe that someone's argument has more weight if said by someone who has a diploma.

Get a tripcode already.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512230
>Except science never said 'You must keep drinking milk even if you feel bad'.

Yeah, science didn't, but idiots arguing in this thread did. Or maybe they just didn't realize that attacking and insulting the guy who feels better after stopping to drink milk implies just that. People are illogical like that.

[Anonymous No.]

GUINNESS

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512230
>'You must keep drinking milk even if you feel bad'.
Sorry dude, but that's exactly what >>3511864 said.

>Both calcium and vitamin D are absolutely necessary for you to live, and both are needed for healthy bones.
Here he assumes I stopped drinking milk entirely in favor of taking vitamin D. I said I'm taking vitamin D in addition to drinking LESS milk.

I seriously don't get you people. Just because there's no evidence milk is bad for you in such doses, yet I feel better when I take less, you think I should ignore it and keep drinking lots. That is just stupid. Yes, this is a case where I'll listen to my body.

[:3~ !RAKiSUtaAA No.]

>>3512213
But you must be an alcoholic. Why else would you need to justify the use of alcohol and say it is good for one's health when it obviously is not.
And avoiding a proper discussion by insulting me with wannabe smartass comments and going 'ololol shut ur stupid' just proves it. This is what we experts call 'denial'.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512197
>Especially since the guy before has already tried to repeatedly tell you that what you're arguing with is not what you said, and you repeatedly ignored him

Examples, please, ive asked this once before.

i have addressed every point you have put out
lets recap

1. you claimed that alcohol is not a poison (and said you expected such stupidity from /jp/ no less), and that there was scientific proof that it was good for you health.

i clarified your misconception towards poisons, and i also said there is no scientific proof of wine being good for your health.

2. you claimed milk was bad for your prostate, and linked me to the relevant site (which was highly questionable) that aided you in this conclusion along with your own personal experience

i responded with articles from scientific journals of a good reputation, and i also pointed out the flaws in trusting that one sole experience in lieu of extensively documented scientific data.

3. You said that eating pizza is not eating fat, that the fat in pizza is somehow altered when in the mixture, amongst other things (ie, "no proof pizza was unhealthy)

i clarified that such was not the case (ie, yes, you are eating fat, the pizza contains fat, if you eat the pizza, you eat the fat within the pizza), and also clarified that there was scientific evidence that pizza was unhealthy

4. you had complaints about the scientific method, gave a grossly incorrect and oversimplified account of what you believed to be the scientific method, and pointed out how flawed it was, but bear in mind, your pointing out flaws in something that was not the actual true scientific method

i clarified some errors in your ideas of what the scientific method entails, for the most part

[Anonymous No.]

Drink raw milk, it has the enzymes which help you to digest it intact

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512261
>we experts

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512254
No i didn't? where did i say 'You must keep drinking milk even if you feel bad"

i didnt, you just keep jumping to foregone conclusions.

[Anonymous No.]

I drink on weekends with friends. It's really fun.

[:3~ !RAKiSUtaAA No.]

>>3512272
Yes. Experts.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512262
>you claimed that alcohol is not a poison
>you claimed milk was bad for your prostate

No, I did not. Do you know the idea behind anonymous posting? Guess what, there are many people here! Surprise!

>pizza

Yup, that was actually me.

I tried to point out to you that pizza is just a bread with tomato and, in its standard variants, has negligible amounts of fat, much less the dangerous ones, but you repeatedly ignored what I said and insulted me so I gave up.

>you had complaints about the scientific method (...) and pointed out how flawed it was

No, I was praising the scientific method and pointed out how flawed your idea of it is.

[Anonymous No.]

It's scientifically proven that posting on an anonymous message board every day is worse for you than alcohol.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512254
>Here he assumes I stopped drinking milk entirely in favor of taking vitamin D. I said I'm taking vitamin D in addition to drinking LESS milk

re read what i wrote, you somehow interpreted my statement of "you need calcium and vitamin D to live" as "you stopped drinking milk"

so if i tell you "you need oxygen to live" you think im actually saying "you stopped breathing"?

>>3512216
you've somehow interpreted what im said as "what you believe is completely wrong, despite X and Y"

if you actually read my posts properly, you'll notice im saying "you cannot make your conclusions soley on the basis of X and Y, nor can you claim them to be scientifically true"

stop putting words in my mouth and read it like it is, i never said "keep drinking lots and lots of milk"

you made claims, i refuted them citing scientific evidence and i presented my argument formally and logically.

its that simple, you're taking it much to personally.
and perhaps the same can be said for me as well, however, this is my chosen profession of course ill take any miuse of the scientific practice personally, if someone claims something to be scientific fact, when it is not, ill make an effort to clarify that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512262
>1. you claimed that alcohol is not a poison
No, never did that. Alcohol is poisonous in large doses, but calling alcohol a poison in the way that you are implying it's as bad to take as rat poison is, is disingenious to say the least. As another anon said, we don't call water poisonous either, but people have died from water razing. Cola is poisonous too (because of the caffeine), yet you never hear zealots denounce it as much as they do beer or other alcoholic beverages.

>and that there was scientific proof that it was good for you health.
There's been research that showed alcohol had healthy benefits. You choose not to believe such research, I choose to do so, but with a grain of salt.

>2. you claimed milk was bad for your prostate, and linked me to the relevant site (which was highly questionable)
It wasn't, you only thought it was questionable because of a banner. Did you even read the article, or check the references?

>i also pointed out the flaws in trusting that one sole experience in lieu of extensively documented scientific data.
What scientific data is there that drinking >1 ltr milk a day is only healthy? As far as I am aware, my own experience (which is far more important than scientific data in this case) is all there is.

Even if science said "drinking huge amounts of milk is healthy" it would first need to take away my concerns why I have such painful feelings. Just because something has not yet been proven to be unhealthy doesn't mean it isn't.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512321
>you made claims, i refuted them citing scientific evidence and i presented my argument formally and logically

Read >>3511970, if you didn't already.

You actually supported his claims (althought you gave no source for your own claims, but that's another story). And yet kept on insulting him and telling him how wrong he is.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512262

>3. You said that eating pizza is not eating fat
Didn't say that. I said that your evidence that eating fat is bad cannot directly be applied to pizza, because, as I said, you eat pizza, not just fat.

If you eat spinach there's some poison in it (I'll wait for you to berate me for no scientific evidence again) and if you add an egg in it it neutralizes that. That's just one simple example of how eating a combination of food has a totally different effect than eating only one part of it.

>no proof pizza was unhealthy
I just gave this example to show you how the evidence you required for my milk experience was so ridiculous it's as ridiculous as saying pizza is healthy because there's no hard evidence that eating pizza is bad (which is true: show me research where they have a group that ate just pizza and a group that didn't and how it affected their health).

And pizza isn't totally unhealthy anyway. Your body needs fats, but in certain amounts. Pizza has too much (probably?) but again, this is another case where dosage matters, same as with alcohol being poisonous or not.

>4. you had complaints about the scientific method
Only with your belief that "if science doesn't say it's bad, that means it's not bad!"

I shouldn't have bothered with this...

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512298
how flawed my idea of it was? reference this supposed post of mine where i put forward my "flawed idea" of scientific method.

also, your argument of the pizza was that you weren't eating "fat" you were eating "pizza" (i assume that was you) and i pointed out that you are still eating the fat using my glass-pizza analogy.

and also, pizza is high in fat, there may be "healthy" pizzas out there, but in essence, pizza is high in trans and saturated fats.
yes, this is scientifically proven, google scholar if you will.

im repeating what i've said before, and regardless, all points ive said still stand.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512351
>i assume that was you

You assume there's only two people here, you and that other guy.

And you're wrong. So very wrong.

>and also, pizza is high in fat

No, it's not. Some varieties of pizza (like the shit you eat at fast food chains) probably are, some most certainly aren't. It's elementary logic that you can't assign a property of some elements in the class to all elements in the class or a class in general. (Did you even understand that last sentence? I have doubts in your mental prowess.)

But, given the evidence in this thread, I guess logical thinking is just hard for you.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512343
read >>3511779

for my alcohol argument, notice that explicitly stated "does this mean beer is a poison? no"

>There's been research that showed alcohol had healthy benefits. You choose not to believe such research, I choose to do so, but with a grain of salt

where did i say that, i merely said it wasnt a scientific fact.
you make it sound as if i said it was untrue, whereas i had merely made clear that it was not a scientific fact.

>It wasn't, you only thought it was questionable because of a banner. Did you even read the article, or check the references?

i had a skim yes, and? one article is not enough, hence why i went to google scholar and found a number of articles, which mind you, were much more recent, and upon reading the abstract of the first 7 i drew a conclusion that there was no clear definitive link as of yet.

you make it sound as if the article was all the proof necessary, and that despite its questionable status it had high scientific weight.
ill tell you now, the name of the journal matters, lots, because of peer review.
a journal on a site like that has not undergone peer review, i assume you know all about the peer review process.

>What scientific data is there that drinking >1 ltr milk a day is only healthy

did i say that? i said that theres no definitive link between calcium and prostate damage, theres research, true, and some evidence in favour, but theres much stronger evidence against.

ill say this now, stop drawing nochalant conclusions.

[Anonymous No.]

I DRINK GASOLINE AND BLEACH AND I FUCKING FEEL GREAT!


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512261

You're asking why? Wait, are you seriously asking, why would I want to defend the truth and correct someone who is obviously wrong?
For your information, I almost don't drink.

Alcohol has many effects on the organism, all depending on the amount. The metabolism is quite tricky, depending on racial prerequisites, age, etc., but in general, 0,5 l of beer or 0,1 l of red wine daily is healthy. Partially because of the other ingredients (beer is pretty much a vitamine bomb), but ethanol itself has significant antiaterogenic and antitrombotic effect, (HDL cholesterol). Greater amounts cause acute hypoglycemia and the alcoholdehydrogenatic decay produces large amounts of harmful acetaldehyde and redundant energetic reserves (ethanol is VERY calorically rich).

[Anonymous No.]

I DRINK GASOLINE AND BLEACH AND I FUCKING FEEL WITH MY HANDS!


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512384
No need for insults, im tired and i just want to clear this up.

Also, you're using a minority to refute a classification of the majority.

it would be akin to me saying "you cant say birds can fly, because some birds cant"

most pizzas are high fat, therefore it is accurate for me to generalize "pizza is high fat"
in the same way most birds can fly, its accruate for me to generalize "birds can fly"

>It's elementary logic that you can't assign a property of some elements in the class to all elements in the class or a class in general.

true, but this is not the case, "some" refers to a minority of the sample group.

in the case here, most pizza, is high fat, the ones which are low fat are a very small minority.
yes, even authentic italian pizzas, the really thin ones, are high fat.

good that you understand "elementry logic", even though you have no idea how to apply it.

[Anonymous No.]

To those arguing whether or not alcohol is poisonous, everything is a poison. The only difference is the dosage.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512384
again, you are ignoring my request to reference some of the things you said i have claimed.

and also, you seem to have a habit of drawing farfetched conclusions from a simple statement.

until you do, you are merely putting words in my mouth.
its no different to a lie or delusion.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512387
You assume that those articles have not undergone peer review, and worse, that if it hasn't that means the evidence presented in it is worthless.

So what's your take on the evolutionary theory then? No hard evidence, so why believe it? Why base research on the assumptions being made by that theory? Even if it's the only plausible theory that doesn't mean it's correct. Should we just ignore it then and act as if it doesn't exist?

If there's anecdotal evidence for something, and no evidence of the contrary, why not assume it is true, but like I said, with a grain of salt?

[:3~ !RAKiSUtaAA No.]

>>3512401
Took you quite a while to make up those facts. I'm guessing you had to drink a bottle of Vodka to get your withdrawal symptoms under control before you could post.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512401
>ethanol is VERY calorically rich
This is because the body turns it into sugars, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512424

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512409
>most pizzas are high fat, therefore it is accurate for me to generalize "pizza is high fat"
>in the same way most birds can fly, its accruate for me to generalize "birds can fly"
What, you are allowed to generalize like this, but we're not allowed to generalize that alcohol is good for you because it has some proven health benefits in certain dosages?

Get out of here.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512423
once again...you draw all these strange conclusions

there is hard evidence for evolution, bacterial resistance and mutation, the mitocondria, moths in britain during the industrial era, homogeneous skeletons, genetic similarities upon gene sequence comparison, etc

and ill tell you why anecdotal evidence is highly questionable: cults, homeopathy, radioactive quackery, "urine cures cancer", healing crystals, etc

all those have VAST amounts of anecdotal evidence, and you know what? it hurts people, they're scams, they ruin peoples lives sometimes, sometimes even death.

its the duty of scientists and doctors to never betray the trust put into them, so it goes beyond "hey, no problem accepting this thing with a grain of salt", if someone decides to be a selfish bastard and use the name of good medicine and science to further their own quacked up ideas of a cure, it hurts everyone.

call me a moralfag or whatever, but anecdotal evidence isnt enough, it simply isnt, there needs to be hard empirical data, there needs to be regulation, its fine to say "hey, i think urine cures cancer" but its definitely not ok to start saying "its scientifically proven to work, here, listen to all these people ive cured, it works!"

and as for the journal, as i said, with or without that one journal, my opinion does not change, and again, i refer you to my dr vs hobo argument, who do you trust more when it comes to medicine?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512450
>but we're not allowed to generalize that alcohol is good for you because it has some proven health benefits in certain dosages

if the benefits were in the majority, then yes, you could say "alcohol is good for you", in the same way...juice is good for you, juice has vitamins, etc, but is mildly acidic, so slightly harmful to your teeth, but the benefits vastly outweight the cons, and there is an easy way to deal with the cons (brushing teeth)
but that is not the case for alcohol, as it has not been "proven" to have health benifits as of yet.

so there is no problem with what i said.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511602
> yeh i readed dat on aпoпtaاk.com lyke just two day's ago lol
How come this is so often brought up around this site?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512475


Pizza is good for you if you only eat a couple of slices. If you gobble the entire pie like the disgusting pig you are, then not so good for you.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512475
also, that statement would be "ethanol is good for you"

furthermore, i will reiterate the fact that "alcohol has no proven health benefits"
there certainly is evidence of it from wine and beer, but both wine and beer have other chemical compounds that could actually be giving the benefits.

and either way, alcohol still has its adverse effects, with its addictiveness being a major factor (addictivity is considered when calculating the toxic index of any substance)

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512482
please stop this stupidty, you understand the fallacy of that argument as much as i do.

1. there are no inherent benefits of pizza
2. all trans and saturated fat is bad for you in respect to unsaturated and cis fats

im tired, and im going to sleep.
i hope, if even a litte, you have taken some of what i have said into consideration.
ie, dont jump to conclusons, dont put words into other peoples mouths.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512484
>>addictivity is considered when calculating the toxic index

So they're worshiping crystal magic and tarot cards too, now?

[eirei emiya !NERO.ByayA No.]

I opened this thread expecting more drunk Fate cast pics. I am disappoint.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512490
I've taken into consideration that you're a pretentious douche.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512490

Yes there are. It has toppings, and starch and food. It's as healthy or as unhealthy as you make it. Your problem is that you think that "Pizza = 5" when the truth is that Pizza is in fact a variable.

Pizza=X=you lose the game.

[Anonymous No.]

HOW ABOUT DISCUSSING SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY /JP/ RELATED FOR A CHANGE?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512509
You are fucking grasping at straws.
Really.
And the amount of people in general in this thread who defy simple basics of applied science is staggering.
It's not like you HAVE to know these things, but if you do not, exclaiming shit is just painful.

[Anonymous No.]

YOU'RE ALL RETARDS THAT WILL DIE AN EARLY DEATH FOR NOT BEING VEGAN LIKE MYSELF

GOOD DAY

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512520
I posted twice in this thread, and your pretentiousness is faggalicious.

Grasping at straws? You must have only eaten pizza in the 70's or some shit, because things have changed from the pizza you describe.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512527
Being a vegan just makes it harder taking in nutrients your body needs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512462
>there is hard evidence for evolution
What? No there isn't. Show me what animal you have seen in your lifetime that evolved into a different species over time (no Pokemon jokes please). Don't give me crap like you've seen it with bacteria or something like that - bacteria are not complex organisms like animals are, mutation of those and evolution of creatures could be based on totally different mechanisms.

I'm not saying evolution couldn't be correct, but don't act like it's hard fact, because it isn't.

>and ill tell you why anecdotal evidence is highly questionable [snip]
Your views aren't bad, actually I have the same views, and I am also against quackery and don't believe in homeopathy (mainly because none of it is scientifically proven, or rather it's often been proven that it does nothing). But you are acting like the research I mentioned (alcohol being good in small dosages, for example) is the same nonsense. I think one of those things I mentioned (strawberries) was even written in the magazine Science, and you want to put such findings on the same level as homeopathy?

More importantly, you say that anecdotal evidence isn't enough. It isn't, for my experience with milk and such, it's not evidence to say it cured my problems. But it worked for me, and I DO trust my own anecdotal evidence on that matter. I believe that pain is an indicator of something being wrong with your body, and if I change something so that the pain goes away, that should be good for me.

Only if there is really solid evidence for something being good for you even if it's painful will I do it. The only thing I can think of is sports (which I hate, though, so maybe I wouldn't do it even if it was scientifically proven).

>and again, i refer you to my dr vs hobo argument
But in this you are retarded. See >>3512239

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512529
It's not just about the pizza.
You try to take a specific example that is a minority and does NOT prove you wrong, instead of explaining why you are right.
It's not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.]

So if a hobo and a doctor give you the same advice, only the doctor knows what he's talking about?

You have problems with the internet, don't you?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512534
You miss the point.
Badly.
If you do not know WHY milk is bad for you, you do not know which substances/nutrients you have a bad response with and could help you arrange your diet to avoid further implications, or it it was only the specific brand or the guy you bought from sold you spoiled shit.
You may even have a disorder that not withstanding milk indicates and you won't know.
And science will NOT force you to drink milk regardless of how you feel. It will rather identify the problem PROPERLY.
There are alternatives purely fur nutrients and they can be provided.

You discredit what medical sciences can do for no reason.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512544
Much, MUCH more likely.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512424
You once again proved that you're incapable of serious discussion.
I don't have to make up facts on this topic, as I study military health sciences and toxicology happens to be a part of it.
If you find some of the terms gramatically incorrect, note that English isn't my native language and the non-latin terminology differs greatly.
I don't give a shit about your hate for alcohol, but the way you ignore empirically proven facts to justify it pisses me off.

>>3512433

No, the body never directly turns it into sugar, the ADH enzyme eventually turns it into NADH + H+. That's like having the saccharides already metabolised, but they never actually appear in the ADH metabolic chain.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512540
>>You try to take a specific example that is a minority and does NOT prove you wrong, instead of explaining why you are right.

Actually, I don't. I've posted maybe 4 posts in this thread, including this one. I'm going to guess you're projecting your crazy onto other people. Please stay in Japan.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512475
>if the benefits were in the majority
>>3512490
>1. there are no inherent benefits of pizza
Oh no? No benefits to pizza at all eh? So it's better to not eat for a week than to eat pizza for a week?

Pizza, being a food, has TONS of benefits (tomatoes, cheese, it's all healthy in certain amounts) but you choose to ignore them and only focus on the bad of it (it being high in fat). Pizza is not inherently unhealthy, alcohol is not inherently unhealthy. The only things that are truly unhealthy are things like lead or cadmium intake, since they have NOTHING that is good for your body only cause damage to it.

>>3512484
>there certainly is evidence of it from wine and beer, but both wine and beer have other chemical compounds that could actually be giving the benefits.
WHAT? That's the exact same fucking reasoning I used to say that you can't say pizza is unhealthy because it has one component in it that could be unhealthy, but it could be the other parts that make up the pizza that make it unhealthy, but you are allowed to do it and I'm not?!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512547
The point is that his credentials mean shit on the internet. He says he's in uni, I say I'm a NEET, does it make a difference to his and my arguments? If it does for you, like I said, get a fucking tripcode already.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512547

Ah, you must be European, not American. You probably see European doctors. American doctors are about as trustworthy as hobos.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512552
'PIZZA IS BETTER THAN STARVING HUR DURR'.
Retard.
Getting the same benefits from other food while being much less taxing and fattening is the point.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512555
HEY, ASSHOLE!

HIROSHIMA - BOOM!

NAGASAKI - BOOM!

DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION?

THE POSTER WHO SAID:"WHAT? That's the exact same fucking reasoning I used to say that you can't say pizza is unhealthy because it has one component in it that could be unhealthy, but it could be the other parts that make up the pizza that make it unhealthy, but you are allowed to do it and I'm not?!" HAS A LEGITIMATE POINT ABOUT YOUR FUCKTARDED ARGUMENTS.

GO CLIMB A MOUNTAIN, MONKEY.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512546
Why the hell would I make an entire research project for it? You seriously think I'm going to try different brands of milk, try hundreds of combinations of milk with other foods, try only some of the substances in the milk instead of all of it... just so I can figure out what EXACTLY the problem was, even though my problem is already gone and there is a HUGE chance that, based on those other research findings, what I said was what actually caused my problems?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512564
...What the fuck are you even talking about?
>>3512568
The point is , you do not EXPERIMENT yourself.
Idiot.

[MANkoto !/uhtKOHuio No.]

I'm a tripfag and I think peaches are nice.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512555
You missed the point, I see.

If there were no benefits to pizza at all, it would be better to not eat it at all, just like it's better to not eat lead or other metals at all, even if you're starving.

Since it isn't, you cannot say pizza is only bad for you, even if there are food that have all the benefits of pizza, without the negatives.

I can't believe you don't get this. Christ, and you are the people in uni these days? My God.

[Anonymous No.]

This thread has its own brand of retarded.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512574
>The point is , you do not EXPERIMENT yourself.
Oh, so you're one of those people that think I shouldn't have changed my diet at all and kept feeling painful?

Right. Okay.
>Idiot.
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512589

No, you shouldn't have consumed milk ever. I blame your stupid mother for the mismanagement of your childhood.

[Anonymous No.]

Pizza is not bad for you. If your diet were to consist of pizza only, then yes. Same thing with Alcohol, in moderation it is okay.
You people are fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512589
>filtering an anonymous poster
ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512605
The strange thing is, it seems everyone in this thread gets this, but we're still arguing with each other over it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512611
What's that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of how filtered you are.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512582
Not the Uni guy.
You should note the difference between food that offers necessary nutrients and is not really taxing and a food that does not and is much more taxing. You can subsist on McDonalds food. It's not something you should consider normal part of a diet.
>>3512589
Ask a doctor PROPERLY, along with stopping?
'Why the fuck do I reject milk, sir'?
And how do you filter Anonymous, retard?
>>3512618
Different poster.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512618
That cockroach farted!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512626
>And how do you filter Anonymous, retard?
lol newfag

[Anonymous No.]

Well, BEEF in general is bad for you. It's a shit-tier meat.

Anything made with the product of a cow is garbage(Mozzarella, which is the unhealthy fat contributor to pizza. Remove the mozzarella, and POOF! pizza enters the health food category. Now if only you can get rid if that shitty wheat flour.)

However, it's better than starving.

I guess that covers everyone.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512626
>You should note the difference between food blah blah blah
You still don't get why I said it in the first place. Amazing.

>Ask a doctor PROPERLY, along with stopping?
I didn't stop, I said I took in less. L2R

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512660
But most pizzas aren't made from real cheese, the far majority of them use "fake cheese", there was a huge comparison of different pizzas (in restaurants and the ones you can buy in the supermarket) in a large newspaper here a few months ago and they found that most didn't have real cheese. They also tested them on taste using panels and very often the ones with "fake cheese" even got better ratings than ones with real cheese did.

Of course, this may not apply worldwide and may only be the case for this country.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512662
I did get it.
It's still retarded.

[Anonymous No.]

/jp/, i am disappoint

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512684
No, you really didn't get it.

[Anonymous No.]

Oh /jp/ you are so retarded. Go learn your nutrition.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512682
>>But most pizzas aren't made from real cheese,

...which amusingly enough, is better for you than shitty mozzarella.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3512737
Yup, that's what that review said too. Less fat in it, IIRC. I forgot what they actually use to make fake cheese though.

[Anonymous No.]

wait, what? how did an alcohol troll thread degenerate into pizza?

[Anonymous No.]

Wholeheartedly enjoyed this thread.
Please, don't ever change /jp/.

[Anonymous No.]

This thread has many kinds of stupid.
I'll only say this:
Almost everything can be a poison depending on usage and dosage, this means everything, even the water you drink daily.
Alcohol can be dangerous for one's health if it is consumed regularily and in larger quantities than suitable for one's body.

How is this thread /jp/ related anyway?

[Anonymous No.]

Only weak people use drugs (alcohol included) and believe in god.

[littlewitch !ponpoNB7VQ No.]

>>3513441
Great bump!!!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3513441
Only weak people don't have enough willpower to be able to use stimulants responsibly.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3513729
Strong people use stimulants (responsibly) for to utilize all the magical ass-whooping powers which are bestowed. Weak people fail to realize these powers exist.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3513887

They realize it, but they're too scared of the unknown and too gutless to accept the risk.
So they decide to deny the fact they want them and condemn the ones who aren't such pussies.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3513441
So someone who takes pain-killers because they have chronic back pain because insurance didnt pay for the treatment/surgery after a car accident is weak? Yeah, okay.

As for recreational drug use, what business is it of yours? NO FUN ALLOWED

[OP No.]

Dear God.

I created a monster in my sleep.

I'm sorry /jp/.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3513441
How do you draw a connection between the two?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3513441
> Conservative christians believe in god and believe drugs are the devil's work

[Anonymous No.]

Beersamurai>Beerserker

[Anonymous No.]

>>3514457
It's called troll logic.

[【 五角場 ～ 之 ～ 無名氏 】 No.]

I am a medical student and what is this thread

[Raptor Jesus !!GmuC8tJhrH5 No.]

>（ᐖ）
>Alcohol is great.

<-----------------------

[Aya Shameful !I4IrJba9Qw No.]

[【 五角場 ～ 之 ～ 無名氏 】 No.]

>>3514606

[Aya Shameful !I4IrJba9Qw No.]

>>3514628

[Anonymous No.]

Alcohol is bad.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3514641
this thread is now about something relevant to /jp/, Suika, the girl who can out-drink any touhou out there.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3514631

[Anonymous No.]

>>3514702
I HATE ALCOHOL!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3511610
All I know is,

is that I drank alone, I woke up and found an empty bottle of vodka, and two empty bottles of wine, and 4 empty beers, next to a sink full of throw up,


I never want pure vodka again

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>3514710

... but you love something else, don't you?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3514564
God is the devil's work too