Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

[Moindreffor]

still funny coming from a rigid psycho

you can give me your definition of psycho-rigid, let it make sense

[Moindreffor]

if you had to pay out of pocket, like many countries in this world, you would make a fixation on ton money.

I live with the constraints and advantages of my country, you cannot always have your cake and eat it too much, I have enough to live on and I do not jealous those who have more, are they happier?

[Janic]

janic wrote: always so funny coming from a rigid psycho

you can give me your definition of psycho-rigid, let it make sense

Already we must not cut the answer from its context which is:

you should put a little fantasy in your life, and in the second degree,

still funny coming from a rigid psycho

Clearly what do you know in my life to know if she has fantasy or not?
So to a silly assertion, the response of the shepherd to the shepherdess, does the same
So that you are really psycho rigid I don't know, any more than you about my fantasy or my second degree? Therefore :
no need for MY definition, dictionaries are there for that.

psychorigide \ psi.ko.ʁi.ʒid \ identical male and female
1. Who mentally lacks flexibility, self-criticism, fantasy, which shows authoritarianism and mistrust.
2. (Psychology) Who is psychically unable to put himself in the place of the other. Characteristic of paranoids:

Both seem to fit perfectly with what you write on this site
Clearly what do you know experimentally on the subjects that you denigrate? Apparently nothing and therefore you turn out to lack flexibility, self-criticism, on your own beliefs, conditioning. Nothing more !

janic wrote: if you had to pay out of your pocket, like many countries in this world, you would fix on your money.

I live with the constraints and advantages of my country, you cannot always have your cake and eat it too much, I have enough to live on and I do not jealous those who have more, are they happier?

Happiness is not actually related to money, but many misfortunes are linked to them ! It is therefore not a question of jealousy, but of balance, of justice guaranteed by the declaration of human rights and of the citizen that you should read and reread.
That said, you do not answer the question. If you had to take out of your pocket 40.000 euros instead of 220 and this every month, you would indeed make a fixation on TON money that would fly away quickly, if Ms. SS, was not there to spit in the pelvis, and with no way to access treatments, identical, at 220 euros. [*]

[*] our governors could also provide themselves with these "generics" rather than those at 40.000 euros! Would there be a plot?

[Moindreffor]

Clearly what do you know in my life to know if she has fantasy or not?

I know what you let it show here, at best you agree with us when we go your way, but most of the time you answer side by diverting our words, at worst you distort our words when you quote, and when you run out of arguments you turn a deaf ear,
after like a man who finishes serving 40 years in prison, it is no longer the prison that scares him but freedom, and he finds that his life as a prisoner is not so bad all accounts made in relation to external dangers ,

which would be a constraint for me, can very well be part of your routine, you you see a benefit there, me not, to read you, I find that you are much in the belief and for me all belief is associated with fears , paradise has only one interest to escape hell, so for me you have a lot of fears which imprison you in a certain way, you created a world for yourself, you even went so far to describe it in books, you build ramparts and from the top of them you castigate anything that does not suit you or scares you

if you had to pay out of your pocket, like many countries in this world, you would fix on your money. If you had to take out of your pocket 40.000 euros instead of 220 and this every month, you would indeed make a fixation on TON money that would fly away quickly, if Mrs. SS, was not there to spit in the bassinet, and with no way to access identical treatments at 220 euros. [*]

you give yourself the answer, me, you, nobody pays for their medication, so nobody asks the question, in any case I don't ask myself, because the answer is simple without the safety i will be already dead, so I will not ask the question

after how long it will work, the generics have arrived, when the social security can no longer pay, it will also lower prices, for now no one has yet found a way to make things change faster, we live in a soft dictatorship, power is not in our hands

[Janic]

janic wrote: Clearly what do you know in my life to know if it has fantasy or not?

I know what you show through here,

So you have become a soothsayer, you read in the stars and the maps more? And as it is on the same criteria that I recognized you as psychorigid, transparency does not seem to be a sufficiently solid criterion.

at best you agree with us when we go your way,

Oh, the keen observer! do you yourself disagree with what you think is right? YES NO? strike out the unnecessary mention!

but most of the time you answer by diverting our words,

It is the rule in any debate, of any palaver. That is, do not submit to the criteria from a point of view that the other wants to impose. For example H vs A.

at worst you distort our words when you quote them,

Here then ! You mean that when you distort words, not just mine, that's good, justified, normal,

and when you run out of arguments you turn a deaf ear,

What never happens to you is obvious. Bring in evidence, by at least one concrete example.
For example, I asked this simple question about the supposed efficacy of vaccines by providing incontestable evidence. And not one of the fans of the vaccination could not bring the least, radio silence from this moment (how could they since there is none)
And since we are still on glyphosate: what evidence can its supporters bring that in future generations (as for DDT) this product, among others, will not be recognized as harmful to health by its indirect effects , like others before him that have been widespread or used, like dyes for example, without seeing any direct and immediate effects.

after like a man who finishes serving 40 years in prison, it is no longer the prison that scares him but freedom, and he finds that his life as a prisoner is not so bad all accounts made in relation to external dangers ,

Oh, the fantasy thoroughly! You watch too many comics and films for two pennies.
Now it turns out that compared to you, I am free from ambient conformism, therefore free from my thoughts and my actions, while you are trapped in ready-made ideas, conformist, without trying to get out of it, psycho-genic, so much does it comfort your beliefs and illusions.

which would be a constraint for me, can very well be part of your routine, you you see a benefit there, me not, to read you, I find that you are much in the belief and for me all belief is associated with fears ,

Ouarf, ouarf! who is afraid of breaking his pipe now, and who clings to his illusions, his beliefs, his head stuffs? (what I understand besides and in the same situation I might do the same) do not talk about supposed to be afraid of others when it is you who is most concerned and who, like anyone else would do, clings to anything, even if it is only illusory. Who is afraid of viruses, microbes, bacteria, those nasty little things that want your life, and who wants to see the whole world sterilized to save (illusively incidentally) his little person, even at the cost of suffering 'many that you prefer to ignore.

paradise has only one interest to escape hell, so for me you have a lot of fears which traps you in a certain way, you created a world for yourself, you even went so far describe it in books, you build ramparts and from the top of them you castigate anything that doesn't suit you or scares you

Do not talk about things that you ignore and where you are content with crude Epinal images. If this is not brainwashing what will be more? On the contrary, fear was before, when populations are kept in terror that the smallest of viruses, bacteria, will make them miserable because they have been mean, even when they are billions of viruses and bacteria that make us and stay alive! You are always afraid, plus me!
So afraid of what? Give concrete examples rather than trying to transfer your problem to others.

janic wrote: if you had to pay out of your pocket, like many countries in this world, you would fix on your money. If you had to take out of your pocket 40.000 euros instead of 220 and this every month, you would indeed make a fixation on YOUR money which would fly away quickly, if Mrs. SS, was not there to spit in the pelvis, and without way to access identical treatments at 220 euros. [*]

you give yourself the answer, me, you, nobody pays for their medicine,

You see you, how do you say? " but most of the time you answer aside by diverting our words, at worst you distort our words when you quote them, »Ah yes that's right! you turn away from the subject.
It is not me who grumbles about the price of drugs since I do not use them, (but for 50 years I pay those of others and I do not even complain) but a world organization of doctors, no bibi ! So the question is: is it normal to spit in the pelvis, the SS, for medicines at 40.000 euros when she could not pay them which 220 as in INDIA?

so nobody is asking the question, in any case I am not asking myself, because the answer is simple without safety I will be already dead, so I will not ask the question

You don't ask yourself the question of the price it costs…to others and where the SS will butt out for a few cents not to reimburse here and there, among the poor most of the time.

after how long it will work, the generics have arrived, when the social security can no longer pay,

The safety is you and me, not BP who is full of pockets. We pay, they cash!

it will also lower prices, so far no one has yet found a way to change things faster,

Oh, deep illusion! India did it without difficulties! All administrations, health in this case, at their highest level are under pressure from financial lobbies of all kinds, in France as elsewhere, and these administrations are placed under the usual threat, of no longer being supported financially, (more of sub to the research units subsidized by these lobbies) of unemployment if one does not give in to their desires, etc… and the social security lowers its frock, even if that does not do him good.

we live in a soft dictatorship, power is not in our hands

In a society that claims to be a democracy!
The term democracy (from the ancient Greek δημοκρατία / dēmokratía, combination of δῆμος / dêmos, “territory” (from daiesthai, “to share”) then “people”, and kratein, “to order”), most often refers to a political regime in which citizens have power.
So you maintain that we are not in a democracy, then! It is good to end up realizing it, but all dictatorships (which have nothing soft about it anyway) always end up being undermined by the fed up of oppressed populations (like GJ or the revolution from 1789)

[Moindreffor]

you really think i read it all

[Janic]

you really think i read it all

I don't even have to believe anything, it shows even without glasses. Our difference is that I read, I watch, your (you and your fellow men) texts and videos and I analyze them by the menu.

[Moindreffor]

you really think i read it all

I don't even have to believe anything, it shows even without glasses. Our difference is that I read, I watch, your (you and your fellow men) texts and videos and I analyze them by the menu.

to analyze is sometimes to find positive, sometimes negative and sometimes to question oneself
so you do not analyze them, you pass them through your personal prism to focus them in one direction, yours
you see when you're short i read you

[Janic]

to analyze is sometimes to find positive, sometimes negative and sometimes to question oneself

There is truth in it; hence the difficulty of this exercise. This duality is found in trials where the arguments of the prosecution and those of the defense are the result of these analyzes. But what must prevail is not the art of presenting its part, but the complete file who will decide to tip the scales on one side or the other.

so you do not analyze them, you pass them through your personal prism to focus them in one direction, yours

. All do the same, it is the rule of the game, but beyond the personal prisms, there are the facts indicated above which must carry a court decision, independent of the individuals.

you see when you're short i read you

That's good, continue!
But I don't write for a particular person, but for any possible reader where the shortcuts, too simplistic, are not sufficient. Otherwise the courts would be satisfied with a simple A4 sheet, and on one side, written in very large letters. This is the case with videos, books where a simple summary is supposed to be sufficient in itself.

[Moindreffor]

to analyze is sometimes to find positive, sometimes negative and sometimes to question oneself

There is truth in it; hence the difficulty of this exercise. This duality is found in trials where the arguments of the prosecution and those of the defense are the result of these analyzes. But what must prevail is not the art of presenting its part, but the complete file who will decide to tip the scales on one side or the other.

so you do not analyze them, you pass them through your personal prism to focus them in one direction, yours

. All do the same, it is the rule of the game, but beyond the personal prisms, there are the facts indicated above which must carry a court decision, independent of the individuals.

you see when you're short i read you

That's good, continue!
But I don't write for a particular person, but for any possible reader where the shortcuts, too simplistic, are not sufficient. Otherwise the courts would be satisfied with a simple A4 sheet, and on one side, written in very large letters. This is the case with videos, books where a simple summary is supposed to be sufficient in itself.

there you speak pleadings, you always forget the principal, the proofs, without proof not guilty, although now with a good dose of catastrophism one carries the adhesion of the most credulous or sensitive and the effect of mass does the rest

glyphosate is not condemned for what it causes, but for what it could cause, because the prosecution still does not bring evidence but manipulates opinion, by fear the other side of belief we always come back to it

without proof, we must believe

in a court we are always presumed innocent and it is the prosecution to prove the guilt, for the glyphosate, we presumed guilty from the start, but we still did not bring the proof of its guilt, but we have already condemned it, shouldn't justice be the same for everyone