Double standards in health PDFs?

Kimberly White63 said:While I was typing this up, I already got hit with a bunch of new insults. I'll just wait and see if the mod actually does something about it (though, honestly, I doubt they will).

dustyharbor18 said:Has anyone else caught that Bud Light commercial where those guys are shouting inside a locker room?

dustyharbor18 said:...but honestly, nobody would’ve guessed this kind of thing could actually happen on a forum.

anyone catch that Budweiser ad where those guys...

Morgan Hernandez5 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii77H...FEA127&index=0

ironmarlin1 said:From what I can tell, Ryan Gomez4 is overreacting. It’s just like those guys over at the Green Party who ban anyone from their forums if they don't agree with them. The truth is, their little marketplace isn't big enough to sell all their supplements through DMs, so they want to expand. Having some actual standards—like the ones we have in the Health section—is a good thing. We shouldn't be letting this forum turn into a storefront for people selling toxic junk.

Laura Evans3 said:it isn't Budweiser, it's actually Budweiser, ughhh 😬

Kimberly White63 said:This post serves as such a perfect illustration of the exact point I was making earlier. My intention isn't to hawk products or promote some specific supplement or brand; rather, my objection was directed at those qualifications being tossed around in a single media outlet as if they were an established public forum.

Ultimately, an electronic forum functions as a digital medium subject to the regulations governing electronic communications, which mandate that one must "respect human dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms while contributing to the respect of others' opinions and beliefs."

Kimberly White63 said:On the health forum, there’s this thread titled "Alternative treatments that don't work for anyone." Every time I try to ask what kind of actual data or research proves that certain things "don't help anyone," I just get hit with insults like, "You clearly didn't finish middle school," or "Try using your brain for once."

I honestly think if you're going to label people as "human scum" for exploiting someone's desperate need to heal from an illness, you should probably have some better arguments than that. Some folks in the debate might actually have professional expertise that gives them an edge over a layperson, but most of them are just being arrogant and aggressive, and the moderator—who also started the thread—doesn't seem to mind one bit.

What's your problem with juice? My holistic doctor recommended I drink half a glass of carrot juice and half a glass of beet juice every morning, so that's my regular routine. Besides, vodka definitely kills all known microbes.

I just drink it and enjoy it; I'm not in the habit of questioning what makes me happy, and I'm fine letting someone else's happiness potentially kill me. That's why I can't stand it when others try to force their version of "good" on me.

Look, whether vodka kills microbes is super easy to check—just put some microbes in a petri dish, pour vodka over them, and watch under a microscope.

Vodka 100% certainly only causes alcoholism if taken in proper amounts on a regular basis.
America has an enviable rate of alcoholics, but nothing less than any other country when it comes to infection rates.

And how exactly do you know that...?

Look, if you don't already get that hitting the booze too hard leads straight to alcoholism—not to mention the dehydration that kicks off a whole mess of other health issues—then I honestly have no clue what else I can say to make it click for you.
If you really want to dig into that second part, go ahead and look it up yourself—you’re plenty tech-savvy enough to handle a quick Google search if you're curious.

Honestly, I’ve always been pretty tech-savvy when it comes to this stuff, so whenever I drop a point or a theory here, I make sure to include a direct link right alongside it instead of just telling everyone to go out and Google it themselves.

Look, that’s just common sense, man—it's a basic concept that clearly isn't clicking for you.

Look, I’m honestly not even going to bother trying to explain this to you, because what you're saying just doesn't pass the common sense test, and frankly, it's pretty lacking in basic decency too. It feels like you haven't even wrapped your head around stuff most kids master back in elementary school.
So, you gonna drop that thesis?
As far as links go, I could easily fire off some URLs claiming that lizard people in human suits are pulling all the strings, but honestly, anyone with half a brain wouldn't even consider that a valid point.
Sometimes you just gotta switch your brain on and actually think for a second.

Morgan Hernandez5 said:it's just how they talk, unfortunately. 😵
And now they’re acting all surprised when they can't get away with that kind of stuff over at the Green Party. That style of communication just isn't allowed there, and honestly, I think that's where the whole issue lies.

On top of that, even the title of this thread feels like a total jab at the entire Green Party alternative medicine guide.

ironmarlin1 said:There’s no law out there forcing people to respect someone else's opinion that the Holocaust didn't happen. It's like saying there's a law forcing people to respect someone eating trash. What you're making up about the law actually refers to something else entirely. I'm curious where you even found that.

Section 199.

(1) Anyone who insults another,

shall be punished by a fine of up to one hundred days' income or imprisonment for up to three months.

(2) Anyone who insults another through print, radio, television, before a group of people, at a public gathering, or in any other way that makes the insult accessible to a larger number of people,

shall be punished by a fine of up to sixty days' income or imprisonment for up to six months.

Section 200.

(1) Anyone who expresses or conveys untruths about another that could damage their honor or reputation,

shall be punished by a fine of up to sixty days' income or imprisonment for up to six months.

(2) Anyone who expresses or conveys untruths about another that could damage their honor or reputation through print, radio, television, before a group of people, at a public gathering, or in any other way that makes the libel accessible to a larger number of people,

shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.

(3) If a person facing criminal proceedings for libel proves the truth of their claim, or provides a justified reason why they believed the content they expressed or conveyed was true, they will not be punished for libel, but may still be punished for the crime of insult (Section 199), or the crime of accusing someone of a crime (Section 202).

Kimberly White63 said:But there is a law (the United States Penal Code) which states