

Dude, kudos for keeping, striking, and correcting each of your replies.


Dude, kudos for keeping, striking, and correcting each of your replies.


That article seems really unfair. Sounds like the plane was trying an emergency landing and it didn’t work. Boo to the author and editors
“im a henchman for a bad guy…and lemme tell you…I think we might be starting to do bad stuff…not sure yet…”
Thanks bud


There is a difference between approaching a solution with “no, it’s not good enough” and “good, now let’s make it better”. It’s not really different if you strip feeling out of it, but in a greater context, that feeling means something.
I agree with your responses, but you’re overall using the former technique. That will rub people wrong and spark conflict.


Rape is an actual crime in the UK, it’s not a crime by name in New Jersey. They’re being consistent with charges based on the jurisdiction.


…is facing at least 10 years in prison if found guilty of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, and second-degree endangerment to the welfare of a child…
Those are the legal terms for different kinds of rape.
Content warnings seem to be useless or add stress


Well, this is all very subjective. Idk what you do for a living, but there are massive differences between fact to fact communication and IM/email.
To say it’s outdated is just insane and flat wrong.


I cannot tell if you are being serious or just having fun with buzzwords
Seriously, fuck off with the AI shit. At best it’s intelligent regex. And “intelligence” here means a specific thing.


Lol right? Go read the thread for the fuckin journey I was on to see how silly it gets


My arguments have been good faith, have directly addressed not only your rebuttals but also your initial assertion.
I don’t think you’ve read through your links too well. (There will be some edits since I’m on my phone and can’t compose this at once)
Number 1:
A global recommendation about consumption of Cantonese-style salted fish has not been made, as this type of fish is consumed only in specific parts of the world. Nevertheless, the Panel advises that it’s best not to consume Cantonese-style salted fish.
A global recommendation about consumption of foods preserved by salting has not been made as these types of food are mostly consumed only in Asia. Nevertheless, the Panel advises that it’s best not to consume foods preserved by salting.
There is also other evidence on preservation and processing of foods that is limited (either in amount or by methodological flaws), but is suggestive of an increased risk of some cancers. Further research is required, and the Panel has not used this evidence to make recommendations.
Numba 2, if you follow their cancer link, it leads to this:
Causes of stomach cancer
Some factors that can increase your risk of stomach cancer include:
smoking tobacco
being over 60
infection with the bacteria Helicobacter pylori
a diet high in smoked, pickled and salted foods and low in fresh fruit and vegetables …
Notice how the ‘low fruits and veggies’ is left out of the initial claim
Your last source is the most interesting and compelling and should have been your first go-to since it’s the strongest, but even they say
A high-salt intake strips the lining of the stomach and may make infection with H. pylori more likely or may exacerbate the infection. Salting, pickling and smoking are traditionally popular ways of preparing food in Japan and some parts of Asia. In addition to salt intake, cigarette smoking and low consumption of fruit and vegetables increase the risk of stomach cancer. However, it is not known whether it is specifically the salt in these foods or a combination of salt and other chemicals that can cause cancer.


Healthy vs unhealthy, I’m not a doctor. Salt certainly isn’t a carcinogen. Your source and original view was using that as a buzz word. Their sources for making the claim don’t say that though.
Re: 2 comments, you wouldn’t respond to edits either, so I thought separate threads of separate thoughs would be easier for you. The second comments have arguably stronger and better views anyway since they address the foundation of your arguments instead of how you are trying to shift things. Watching how you respond, or which you respond to is telling
EDIT IN CASE YOU MISS IT: for example, I mentioned potatoes. Instead of addressing anything I said, you called me out about talking about non meat, while you had said food. Was this a misunderstanding on my part? Your part?


The dnc has famously been able to do that


Hell, on top of that, your argument of carcinogens is moot with the salts, since according to YOUR OWN SOURCE, meat itself is the carcinogen. Not the preservation of the meat.
Fuck dude, I’m half cocked today and following logic better than you.
Why?