Nature is killing us

[Exnihiloest]

Good evening, here is a video that explains the reason for obesity ...

If the subject was not clear, I will clarify it.
"Nature kills us", ironically, is the counterpart of "Technology kills us": the artificial is no more dangerous than the natural when we understand what we are dealing with. Paracetamol from the pharmaceutical industry is less dangerous than hemlock or rattlesnake venom. So what does that prove? Nothing. No more than residues of artificial pesticides on our plates prove dangerousness. Everything is only a question of products and doses, to be studied on a case-by-case basis, whatever their origin.

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
not possible to be as bad to confuse a synthetic product with a natural product

It is impossible to be so ignorant as to ignore the fact that what distinguishes two chemicals is not their origin, but their formula.

It has nothing to do with any culture, but with a reality that completely escapes you. To use the example I used earlier, an artificial leg is called also a leg, but it is only an appearance of leg given its extreme simplicity compared to a natural leg and your pseudoscience cannot say or support the opposite.

the artificial is no more dangerous than the natural once we understand what we are dealing with. Paracetamol from the pharmaceutical industry is less dangerous than hemlock or rattlesnake venom. So what does that prove? Nothing. Nor do residues of artificial pesticides on our plates prove dangerous. Everything is only a question of products and doses, to be studied on a case-by-case basis, whatever their origin.

re as bad as before! We can not prove the dangerousness of any product for lack of means, technology precisely, to measure it, any more than a thermometer can indicate which pathology it measures, (and thermometers are not dangerous, except when they break in their user's anus! ) Now and history shows it to us, a number of products considered to be non-dangerous have shown the opposite, to experience on living things, that is to say all of us.
But if the encounter with a rattlesnake is improbable, as much as swallowing hemlock here, and would moreover only make a victim, this is not the case of a synthetic product, consumed daily by the population which ranges from babies to old people and which are not taken into account in the trials of drugs and other "phytosanitary" products (sic)
The agricultural population revolves around 600.000 individuals [*] who can endanger 100 times more individuals out of interest or ignorance concerning the products they use.
[*] I repeat that farmers are only the applicators of products which they did not manufacture but only used. Certainly they are in a shaky situation between wanting the health of themselves, of the rest of the population and having to endanger their livelihood by posing problems of conscience and being neither chemists nor biologists, their role is limited to implement what they totally ignore.

[Exnihiloest]

... We can not prove the dangerousness of any product for lack of resources, technology precisely ...

I have already explained to you the absurdity of your position consisting in limiting yourself to what we know today and in refusing all that is new under the pretext that we could not have any certainty about potential risks. All the human past shows that it is the taking of a certain number of risks which allowed progress.
The cowardice that you advocate that we adopt, which has already been seen in the past with the Amish, is the refusal of our generation to take risks for the next, as we ourselves today take advantage of the daring of our ancestors . The cowardice you advocate is an insult to the human condition.

[Ahmed]

Talking about "cowardice" is not a perfect example of neutrality (sic) and can advantageously be likened to indirect ad hominem * (a little indirect, but not that much!). Otherwise we can retain the appeal to feelings or repulsion ...
In any case, this kind of epithet brings nothing to the debate

* I would speak more readily of ad personam, but this kind of pompous subtleties lead to nothing ...

[Janic]

I have already explained to you the absurdity of your position consisting in limiting yourself to what we know today and in refusing all that is new under the pretext that we could not have any certainty about potential risks. All the human past shows that it is the taking of a certain number of risks which allowed progress.

You think you have science infused once again by believing that your positions are the only possible ways! History teaches us on the contrary that these progresses, of which we boast, were revealed, very late, with negative effects far superior to its positive effects real or supposed.

The cowardice that you advocate that we adopt, which has already been seen in the past with the Amish, is the refusal of our generation to take risks for the next, as we ourselves today take advantage of the daring of our ancestors . The cowardice you advocate is an insult to the human condition.

Here, too, you confuse a small group of individuals with the whole of humanity.
Certainly we, the wealthy, profit (sic) from our "modern" society, but as the saying goes " you can't have your cake and eat it too "And the underprivileged are the ones who suffer the most from the side effects of tes progress; but you are too "cowardly" to recognize it.
For cowardice therefore stop using words which you do not even understand the meaning and its application on this very subject.
B. - Lack of bravery, courage, especially in the face of danger
Assuming you stop at this definition:!.
The notion of danger implies the perception of it, but human achievements make fun of any danger since their main and even sole objective is to make money, still money, always money. and therefore courage, bravery have nothing to do with it, nor to refer to it.
For example, orphan diseases, rare diseases of all kinds are not supported financially by large labs because they are not profitable financially despite the billions of profits that are distributed to shareholders rather than invested in research. So these patients just do not benefit from what you say:. The cowardice you advocate is an insult to the human condition. And these are the cowards you support! But can we be surprised by such a selfish attitude coming from you!

[Exnihiloest]

...
You think you have a lot of science ...
You confuse, there too ...

You don't think you have it, you really do. When you have learned to express yourself on the subject and not on those who speak, let us know.

[Exnihiloest]

Talking about "cowardice" is not a perfect example of neutrality (sic) and can advantageously be likened to indirect ad hominem * (a little indirect, but not that much!). Otherwise we can retain the appeal to feelings or repulsion ...
In any case, this kind of epithet brings nothing to the debate

* I would speak more readily of ad personam, but this kind of pompous subtleties lead to nothing ...

On the one hand, "perfect neutrality" does not exist. On the other hand the "ad personam" and the "ad hominem" have absolutely nothing to do with my answer, it is an amalgamation that you make. I am not attacking the person, I am saying that what they are advocating is a loose position.

Your amalgamation is what fundamentalists practice when we criticize their religion. They tell us "if you don't respect my beliefs, you don't respect me". We do not have to respect beliefs, any more than ideological, philosophical or political postures, and this non-respect has nothing to do with personal attacks. One can criticize attitudes like the refusal of all progress. Yes I see it as cowardice. We stay in the field of ideas.

[Ahmed]

If “perfect neutrality” does not exist, we are however very far from it when we choose to move the debate of ideas towards moral judgment which necessarily involves the sender of the idea which appears to us to be false. As a result there is an appeal to emotion, since everyone disapproves of cowardice although possibly for opposing attitudes, which does nothing.

[Janic]

Your amalgamation is what fundamentalists practice when we criticize their religion. They tell us "if you don't respect my beliefs, you don't respect me". We do not have to respect beliefs, any more than ideological, philosophical or political postures, and this non-respect has nothing to do with personal attacks. One can criticize attitudes like the refusal of all progress. Yes I see it as cowardice. We stay in the field of ideas.

so that's exactly what you're doing though. You despise what is supposed to give substance to your speech, namely a referral to an independent scientist and therefore not linked to any industries that you believe to be indicators of progress.
Otherwise your posture is effectively and only ideological and you can not blame others for what you do yourself.

[Exnihiloest]

If “perfect neutrality” does not exist, we are however very far from it when we choose to move the debate of ideas towards moral judgment which necessarily involves the sender of the idea which appears to us to be false.

Morality is everywhere, and even more than elsewhere, in "econology". By criticizing capitalism, especially finance, you have entered morality for a long time.
That we say that our own morality would present this or that as an advantage compared to the morality of the other, I would understand it, but that we criticize their morals for others as if we were above ourselves. is a little big. I knew you better inspired.