tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post7559616044922618679..comments2023-09-15T08:07:28.542-06:00Comments on Western Hero: Tuesday News DaySilverfiddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-21304604808846561062012-02-13T01:12:24.445-07:002012-02-13T01:12:24.445-07:00Oh dear. It didn't help.
Sorry kid, you'r...Oh dear. It didn't help.<br /><br />Sorry kid, you're just too dumb. Maybe you're just stubborn, but either way is equally boring, and stubborn is a flavour of dumb, isn't it dumb-ass?<br /><br />"It's a nonsensical argument you're making"<br /><br />Argument I'm making, or your straw man? (Hint for the terminally hard of understanding: it's your straw man).jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-50285064218544954532012-02-11T09:19:35.585-07:002012-02-11T09:19:35.585-07:00Jez,
Smoking is so deeply causative of lung cance...Jez,<br /><br /><i>Smoking is so deeply causative of lung cancer, though, that the overwhelming majority of cases (up around 90%) are caused by smoking. This, to say the least, is an unusually strong link.</i><br /><br />The same can be said of abortions being causative of cervical and uterine cancer and oral contraceptives being causative of ovarian, liver, and uterine cancer vs. the risks incurred by women who never have an abortion or never use oral contraceptives. Multiple abortions increase the likelihood of cancer, as does long-term use of oral contraceptives. <br /><br />The cancer risk factors compound and accumulate from abortions and oral contraceptives just like smoking over a long period of time compounds and accumulates the risk factors. No one's getting a abortion every day, but oral contraceptives are taken daily, just as someone who smokes likely smokes daily. <br /><br />So, you're back to arguing that some cancers are preferable for a "cancer-fighting" organization to support funding the causality thereof over others.<br /><br />It's a nonsensical argument you're making, but at least you're no longer unaware that you're making a nonsensical argument, as you yourself have discovered and made quite plain.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-65024285419909303392012-02-11T07:31:05.595-07:002012-02-11T07:31:05.595-07:00The reason it's a question of scale is because...The reason it's a question of scale is because most activities elevate risk of certain cancers while protecting against other cancers. There are just so many categories cancers, if you think (try it, you might like it) about it, you actually should be surprised when an activity has zero effect on any of them. I quite expect that most of the things I do simultaneously elevate and reduce risk for two handfuls of cancers.<br /><br />Smoking is so deeply causative of lung cancer, though, that the overwhelming majority of cases (up around 90%) are caused by smoking. This, to say the least, is an unusually strong link. It is therefore quite correct to think of smoking primarily as a cancer <em>risk</em>. On the other hand, it makes roughly as much sense to think of eg. the pill as a cancer risk as it does to think of it as a cancer <em>preventive</em>.<br /><br />Hope that helps, and good bye.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-5985213926431444752012-02-10T21:50:49.356-07:002012-02-10T21:50:49.356-07:00Now YOU'RE lying, Jez.
I've never claimed...Now YOU'RE lying, Jez.<br /><br />I've never claimed the cancer risks from getting an abortion, or eating oral contraceptives, or smoking are the same. Look above in this thread. You have no basis for claiming I've said that whatsoever.<br /><br />What I have claimed is that all three pose increased risks for various forms of cancer. <br /><br />Now, if you'd like to display literacy and reading comprehension skills that you so far haven't, address my actual argument and question: <br /><br />Why should a charity dedicated towards finding a cure for cancer give it's donors money to a corporation that provides elective abortion services and contraceptive pharmaceuticals quite scientifically demonstrated thoroughly to be identifiable causes of elevated cancer risks?<br /><br />When that particular cancer risk-elevating corporation does no cancer diagnostic, treatment, or research at all?<br /><br />Why not finance cigarette marketing with cancer-fighting charity dollars too? Is sponsoring a corporation's business of increasing six different forms of cancer risks with cancer-fighting charity dollars somehow better than supporting the tobacco industry's business of increasing three different forms of cancer risks?<br /><br />Why not both, so a "cancer-fighting" charity can be said to be funding the increase of nine different cancer risks?<br /><br />It's not a question of scale, it's a question of intuitiveness. <br /><br />Should "cancer-fighting" include financing cancer risk increases, or not?(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-13897519234911968202012-02-10T20:11:29.162-07:002012-02-10T20:11:29.162-07:00Not the nci, beamish. You. The jfk doesn't cla...Not the nci, beamish. You. The jfk doesn't claim th!t oral contraceptived increase risk of uterine (endometrial) cancer (quite the opposite): you do. They don't claim the risk is comparable to smoking: you do.<br /><br />You can make your little point without lying, why keep doing it?jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-22301309894578350002012-02-10T16:54:40.587-07:002012-02-10T16:54:40.587-07:00Jez,
Post hoc justification? Oral contraceptives ...Jez,<br /><br />Post hoc justification? Oral contraceptives were found to be increasing various cancer risks in women long before you began your campaign to call the National Cancer Institute "liars."(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-61758710304123925102012-02-10T12:25:07.685-07:002012-02-10T12:25:07.685-07:00Oncologists identify uterine cancer with endometri...Oncologists identify uterine cancer with endometrial cancer. If you didn't mean the same, why did you name them both? stinks of post-hoc justification. uncool.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-78473214619853598382012-02-10T08:57:04.203-07:002012-02-10T08:57:04.203-07:00Hint: uterine cancer and cervical cancer are not t...Hint: uterine cancer and cervical cancer are not two different types of cancer, but rather the same type of cancer in different parts of the uterus.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-45289419515971502512012-02-10T08:52:54.796-07:002012-02-10T08:52:54.796-07:00I see your illiteracy extends to biology and anato...I see your illiteracy extends to biology and anatomy as well. You probably even believe the uterus and cervix are two unconnected, unrelated body parts in a female, rather than that the cervix is a specific part of the uterus as all informed people are aware. You could have even read that at the National Cancer Institute website you claim is misinforming people.<br /><br />"Evidence shows that long-term use of OCs (5 or more years) may be associated with an increased risk of cancer of the cervix (the narrow, lower portion of the uterus)" <br /><br />Really Jez, you don't have to be stupid forever.<br /><br />In analogy, you're trying to distinguish a phalanges from a finger and waving a flag thinking your've actually said something.<br /><br />You really ought to get to that admission that you're aware of your blithering idiocy right now.<br /><br />Next, we'll work on how a corporation that is increasing the risks of any kind of cancer in women is a bad and counter-intuitive thing for a charity working towards a cure for cancer in women to put its donor's money into.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-5732986583639959462012-02-10T00:53:42.612-07:002012-02-10T00:53:42.612-07:00You're admitting now, whether you realise it o...You're admitting now, whether you realise it or not, that contraceptives reduce the risk of uterine cancer.<em>That</em> counts for something.<br />Now if you will only recognise that the magnitude of risk from smoking exists on a whole different existential plane, we'll have finally made a bit of progress.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-91289640112947053662012-02-09T17:13:14.330-07:002012-02-09T17:13:14.330-07:00Jez,
From #1 - Researchers have focused a great ...Jez,<br /><br />From #1 - Researchers have focused a great deal of attention on OC users over the past 40 years. This scrutiny has produced a wealth of data on OC use and the development of certain cancers, although results of these studies have not always been consistent. The risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers is reduced with the use of OCs, <b>while the risk of breast and cervical cancers is increased</b><br /><br />From #2 - A 1996 analysis of worldwide epidemiologic data conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer found that <b>women who were current or recent users of birth control pills had a slightly elevated risk of developing breast cancer. The risk was highest for women who started using OCs as teenagers. However, 10 or more years after women stopped using OCs, their risk of developing breast cancer returned to the same level as if they had never used birth control pills, regardless of family history of breast cancer, reproductive history, geographic area of residence, ethnic background, differences in study design, dose and type of hormone, or duration of use.</b><br /><br />From #4 - <b>Evidence shows that long-term use of OCs (5 or more years) may be associated with an increased risk of cancer of the cervix (the narrow, lower portion of the uterus) [...] A 2003 analysis by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found an increased risk of cervical cancer with longer use of OCs. Researchers analyzed data from 28 studies that included 12,531 women with cervical cancer. The data suggested that the risk of cervical cancer may decrease after OC use stops. In another IARC report, data from eight studies were combined to assess the effect of OC use on cervical cancer risk in HPV-positive women. Researchers found a fourfold increase in risk among women who had used OCs for longer than 5 years. Risk was also increased among women who began using OCs before age 20 and women who had used OCs within the past 5 years</b><br /><br />From #6 - <b>Several studies have found that OCs increase the risk of liver cancer in populations usually considered low risk, such as white women in the United States and Europe who do not have liver disease. In these studies, women who used OCs for longer periods of time were found to be at increased risk for liver cancer.</b> <br /><br />You may not be able to read, but hey, at least you've got a left-wing Naderite stalker fag cheerleading for you now. <br /><br />That should count for something, right?(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-90118551746660515862012-02-09T15:54:52.090-07:002012-02-09T15:54:52.090-07:00Beamish: read your own link. Read the 3rd bullet p...Beamish: read your own link. Read the 3rd bullet point. Don't worry about the apologies you owe me, just stop lying.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-6845740371818653712012-02-09T10:07:15.302-07:002012-02-09T10:07:15.302-07:00Here ya go, Jez
Go argue with the "misinform...<a href="http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives#1" rel="nofollow">Here ya go, Jez</a><br /><br />Go argue with the "misinformed" folks over at the National Cancer Institute, dipshit.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-913419609472725732012-02-09T09:55:39.598-07:002012-02-09T09:55:39.598-07:00"Don't tell me I'm lying."
stop...<b>"Don't tell me I'm lying."</b><br /><br /><i>stop lying, then.</i><br /><br />This is where I demand verification that we're having an honest, productive, respectful discussion by asking you to admit that you're aware that you're a blithering idiot before we proceed.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-80501829240723388912012-02-09T09:21:59.877-07:002012-02-09T09:21:59.877-07:00"Don't tell me I'm lying."
stop..."Don't tell me I'm lying."<br /><br />stop lying, then.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-40981267904812420802012-02-09T08:34:03.057-07:002012-02-09T08:34:03.057-07:00I haven't mentioned Susan G Komen, against who...<i>I haven't mentioned Susan G Komen, against whom there may well be a valid point to make.</i><br /><br />That IS the topic of discussion, Sparky.<br /><br /><i>You are not making that point, because you're instead lying (you are wrong by 180 degrees about uterine cancer)</i> <br /><br />Don't tell me I'm lying. Go argue with the medical community and their scientific journal editors that keep clearing for publication all their data on increases in risks for cervical, ovarian, uterine, and liver cancers in women who've had an abortion. <br /><br />I chide that they may laugh their asses off at your desperate bullshittery a little less charitably than I do.<br /><br /><i>...and, almost as bad, drawing a false and potentially damaging equivalence between contraception and smoking.</i><br /><br />Hmm. Tobacco products have a mandated Surgeon General's warning on the label. Many oral contraceptives merely list increased risks of breast, cervical, and liver cancer in their side effects documentation.<br /><br />Thanks for playing.<br /><br />Please, boil the Rice-A-Roni before eating. You may chip a tooth otherwise.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-8531356972778964202012-02-09T06:28:29.488-07:002012-02-09T06:28:29.488-07:00Add this name to your ENEMIES LIST:
DIANA DeGETTE...Add this name to your ENEMIES LIST:<br /><br /><b>DIANA DeGETTE</b>, D, Colorado, who bears a close ideological and personal resemblance to Patricia Schroeder -- remember Patsy?<br /><br />What REPULSIVE woman this DeGette creature is! On C-Span right now touting Women's Right to choose Womb-Based INFANTICIDE.<br /><br />CRIB-based infanticide will surely be next. We wouldn't want any poor female cursed with the care of a newborn baby to be forced to endure the terrible stress it causes her when her infant starts to cry, would we?<br /><br />And then there will be the problem of sharing FOOD, CLOTHING and SHELTER, which are growing ever more costly, with noisy little beings who contribute nothing, are not earning any money and serve only as a drain on the household economy. When they become burdensome or too annoying, any set of parents ought to have the right to dispose of them in any way they choose, right?<br /><br />In fact once a child begins to feel more like a Nuisance than a Blessed Event, why SHOULDN'T the woman whose body gave it life be able to terminate that life at will?<br /><br /><b>After all, surely it's an affront to Human Dignity for any woman to be required to put up with anything that displeases her, right?<br /><br />It's time for women -- that sorely oppressed class of martyred beings who've had to endure being fed, housed, clothed, sheltered, protected and otherwise supported by --- UGH! -- MEN! -- for countless centuries -- to realize that surely Woman's highest purpose in this benighted existence is the achievement of SELF-FULFILLMENT.<br /><br />Anything that stands in the way of that Supreme Goal must be EXCISED and THROWN on HISTORY'S SCRAP HEAP.</b><br /><br />After that the OLD, RETARDED, MENTALLY ILL, CHRONIC INVALIDS, and other MISFITS should be targeted for EXTERMINATION, right?<br /><br />Does any of this sound familiar?<br /><br />Think <b>THIRD REICH</b>, and you will be dead on target.<br /><br /><i>With all this in mind the whimsical, satirical term <b>FEMINAZI</b> brilliantly coined by Rush Limbaugh twenty-odd years ago seems chillingly appropriate.</i><br /><br /><b>DOWN with the DIANA DeGETTES of this world!<br /><br />If anyone, it is THEY who should be targeted for extermination.</b><br /><br />~ FreeThinke<br /><br />PS: Good LORD! The verification word for his post is MATERS. It gets eerier and eerier, doesn't it? - FTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-40072346769520305602012-02-09T04:45:20.753-07:002012-02-09T04:45:20.753-07:00I haven't mentioned Susan G Komen, against who...I haven't mentioned Susan G Komen, against whom there may well be a valid point to make. You are not making that point, because you're instead lying (you are wrong by 180 degrees about uterine cancer) and, almost as bad, drawing a false and potentially damaging equivalence between contraception and smoking.<br /><br />I'm only talking about you. Enjoy the attention while it lasts. The Komen stuff is not what I'm talking about. I don't mind you taking them to task, I only request that you do so without spreading misinformation about cancer risk factors.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-92001328487331485492012-02-09T04:03:20.129-07:002012-02-09T04:03:20.129-07:00well shit, every girl should be lied to about canc...<i>well shit, every girl should be lied to about cancer risk factors. You are not serious.<br /><br />Please notice that smoking is a completely different league of risk factor to any contraceptive. I notice you've still not found that sense of scale. Hint: if it looks really small, that just means it's far away.</i><br /><br />So PP Inc's increasing the likelihood of occurance of cervical and uterine cancer in the abortion purchasing population is something the Susan G Komen Foundation should divert its cancer-fighting dollars into, but tobacco corporations increasing the risk of lung and throat cancer in the cigarette purchasing population is something the Susan G Komen Foundation shouldn't divert its cancer fighting dollars into?<br /><br />Why not? Smoking doesn't cause breast cancer, <a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/brea.htm" rel="nofollow">in fact it decreases the risk of breast cancer.</a> ;)<br /><br />Oh wait, NOW you want to talk about actually fighting cancer.<br /><br />Abortions don't increase the risk of breast cancer, but do increase the risk of cervical and uterine cancer. Smoking doesn't increase the risk of breast cancer, but does increase the risk of throat and lung cancer.<br /><br />Again, should the Susan G Komen Foundation be picking and choosing what sort of cancer it should fight and what sort of cancer it should promote in women?<br /><br />Especially if PP Inc. is more carcinogen than cancer clinic?(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-22736005896521987092012-02-09T02:34:34.616-07:002012-02-09T02:34:34.616-07:00Beamish: well shit, every girl should be lied to a...Beamish: well shit, every girl should be lied to about cancer risk factors. <em>You</em> are not serious.<br /><br />Please notice that smoking is a completely different league of risk factor to any contraceptive. I notice you've still not found that sense of scale. Hint: if it looks really small, that just means it's far away.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-22774442952817858832012-02-08T17:22:38.238-07:002012-02-08T17:22:38.238-07:00AN OBSERVATION
A penchant to be disputatious
Fome...<b><i>AN OBSERVATION<br /><br />A penchant to be disputatious<br />Foments an atmosphere ungracious.<br />Defaulting e’er to ridicule<br />Reveals an urge to fight a duel.<br />Recognizing others’ worth,<br />Showing just a trace of mirth,<br />Acknowledgement of others’ virtue<br />Helps bridge gaps, and could not hurt you.<br />Verse with wit’s unique, distinct,<br />Clear, concise, brief and succinct.<br />Engaging in a barroom brawl<br />Accomplishes nothing of value at all.<br />Pugnaciousness is not a crime<br />Instead it’s just a waste of time.</i></b><br /><br />~ FreeThinkeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-46915539118089045552012-02-08T10:11:56.163-07:002012-02-08T10:11:56.163-07:00It's not a game Beamish, and I strongly reques...<i>It's not a game Beamish, and I strongly request that you stop treating it as such.</i><br /><br />Having criticism for the Susan G Komen Foundation caving to pressures to renew funding to Planned Parenthood due to: <br /><br />a) PP Inc. is not a cancer diagnostic or treatment organization. The best they can do is book a referral to an actual cancer specialist. Show me the Planned Parenthood cancer diagnosis statistics. What, there are none?<br /><br />b) Abortion increases the risk of cervical cancer, more so with repeated abortions. Given PP Inc.'s life work towards making abortion services widely available and convenient (at least for urban minorities) should the Susan G Komen Foundation be picking and choosing what kind of cancer it is fighting? <br /><br />You say my argument lacks scale, but how then are you prepared to say which cancer is preferable, breast or cervical? <br /><br />And beyond that, how does a woman "plan" to be a "parent" if PP Inc's multiple, repeat customer abortion services increased risk factor actually causes her cervical and / or uterine cancer and after the radiology and chemotherapy regimens and a last ditch hysterectomy she can't have children? <br /><br /><i>I didn't know you were talking about abortions, but please note that even they significantly protect against uterine cancers, as well as colon and breast cancers.</i><br /><br />Well shit, every girl should have an abortion then.<br /><br />You're not serious.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-78117186340941183852012-02-08T09:35:43.524-07:002012-02-08T09:35:43.524-07:00Again the gay Naderite stalker comes to class unpr...Again the gay Naderite stalker comes to class unprepared. <br /><br /><b>all adj \ˈȯl\<br /><br />Definition of ALL<br /><br />1<br />a : the whole amount, quantity, or extent of [needed all the courage they had] [sat up all night] <br />b : as much as possible [spoke in all seriousness] <br />2<br />: every member or individual component of [all men will go] [all five children were present] <br />3<br />: the whole number or sum of [all the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles] <br />4<br />: every [all manner of hardship] <br />5<br />: any whatever [beyond all doubt] <br />6<br />: nothing but : only: <br />a : completely taken up with, given to, or absorbed by [became all attention] <br />b : having or seeming to have (some physical feature) in conspicuous excess or prominence [all legs] <br />c : paying full attention with [all ears] <br />7<br />dialect : used up : entirely consumed —used especially of food and drink <br />8<br />: being more than one person or thing [who all is coming] <br />— all the <br />: as much of … as : as much of a … as [all the home I ever had]</b><br /><br />While you're still sputtering inanely over your failure to discern between military service pensions and a system of universal welfare safety net "entitlements" drunks and drug addicts get to cash in early on while your granny is dying, I want you to figure out which definition of "all" you want to pseudo-philosophically stick on stupid about for the next four months about.<br /><br />Something a little less tedious than your present topic illiteracy.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-89389702624749521392012-02-08T09:10:35.689-07:002012-02-08T09:10:35.689-07:00It's not a game Beamish, and I strongly reques...It's not a game Beamish, and I strongly request that you stop treating it as such.<br /><br />Please keep looking for that sense of scale you misplaced (or did you never have one?) 13 (smoking) is a fuck sight bigger than 5.<br />I didn't know you were talking about abortions, but please note that even they significantly protect against uterine cancers, as well as colon and breast cancers.<br /><br />God help anyone who's even slightly influenced by the misinformation you flippantly broadcast.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7674333464171899932.post-51184181500672672032012-02-08T07:23:34.430-07:002012-02-08T07:23:34.430-07:00Personally, I hate it when one's sense of scal...<i>Personally, I hate it when one's sense of scale (assuming you ever had one) is abandoned or denied: relative risk for cervical cancer after 10 years increases by a factor about 2.4.</i><br /><br />Relative risk of cervical cancer increases by 3.22 after one abortion, up to 4.92 after a second abortion.<br /><br />Thanks for playing.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.com