The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-19-2013, 08:14 AM   #51
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by misturanderson View Post
Poor reading comprehension/misrepresentation much (yes I understand that you didn't write it)?

Regardless, given the fact that Jolie's mother did in fact die from breast cancer, her choice is absolutely justified based on current research.
One should not mutilate one's body based on inconclusive science.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 08:19 AM   #52
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
One should not mutilate one's body based on inconclusive science.
Because it would displease the reptilians, eh?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 08:24 AM   #53
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Because it would displease the reptilians, eh?
Actually if they do in fact exist human self mutilation would please them greatly.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 08:27 AM   #54
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Actually if they do in fact exist human self mutilation would please them greatly.
I just snickered.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 12:43 PM   #55
myMind
splinters reality until
 
myMind's Avatar
 
We Grok

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,574

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Actually if they do in fact exist human self mutilation would please them greatly.
So you feel comfortable with your knolwedge of the likes and dislikes of a "species" that doesn't exist huh?
myMind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 12:43 PM   #56
misturanderson
Ring of Famer
 
Why not?

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diago
Posts: 1,791

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DemaryiusThomas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
One should not mutilate one's body based on inconclusive science.
What part of it was inconclusive? The question was whether the statistics could be applied to the general population. There wasn't really any question of increased cancer risk if a person grew up in a family where someone with the gene died of breast cancer.

If I were in her shoes, doing a risk benefit analysis of surgically removing the breast tissue vs dying a slow, agonizing death due to metastatic cancer, I'd personally choose the surgery. It's lucky for her that she has enough money to afford the procedure and a good doctor to perform it.

Last edited by misturanderson; 05-19-2013 at 12:46 PM..
misturanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 12:47 PM   #57
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by misturanderson View Post
What part of it was inconclusive? The question was whether the statistics could be applied to the general population. There wasn't really any question of increased cancer risk if a person grew up in a family where someone with the gene died of breast cancer.
If you want to cut off body parts because of what MIGHT happen go for it.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 12:48 PM   #58
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myMind View Post
So you feel comfortable with your knolwedge of the likes and dislikes of a "species" that doesn't exist huh?
When conversing with Wags you have already entered the world of the absurd
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 12:48 PM   #59
misturanderson
Ring of Famer
 
Why not?

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diago
Posts: 1,791

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DemaryiusThomas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
If you want to cut off body parts because of what MIGHT happen go for it.
I think you mean "probably will happen." That is if 87% means what I think it means.
misturanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 12:52 PM   #60
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

If you had an 87% chance of getting into a car accident, would you continue to drive? Why would you criticize someone else's choice not to?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 12:54 PM   #61
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by misturanderson View Post
I think you mean "probably will happen." That is if 87% means what I think it means.
If you had a gene that limited studies told you there was a 90% chance of contracting cancer would you cut your dick off?

What the hell is wrong with you people.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 01:02 PM   #62
misturanderson
Ring of Famer
 
Why not?

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diago
Posts: 1,791

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DemaryiusThomas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
If you had a gene that limited studies told you there was a 90% chance of contracting cancer would you cut your dick off?

What the hell is wrong with you people.
Considering that isn't an equivalent choice (dick =/= breasts) it's not an apples to apples comparison.

That being said, I might if I believed that study was legitimate and was repeatable. I probably wouldn't make that choice until later in life, based on the statistics. I've seen people die of cancer eating them away from the inside over months, being pumped full of drugs just to try to keep them from being in perpetual agony. I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

I'm still torn as to whether or not I would commit suicide if I ever became afflicted with a terminal cancer. Euthanasia should be legal.
misturanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 01:09 PM   #63
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by misturanderson View Post
Considering that isn't an equivalent choice (dick =/= breasts) it's not an apples to apples comparison.

That being said, I might if I believed that study was legitimate and was repeatable. I probably wouldn't make that choice until later in life, based on the statistics. I've seen people die of cancer eating them away from the inside over months, being pumped full of drugs just to try to keep them from being in perpetual agony. I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

I'm still torn as to whether or not I would commit suicide if I ever became afflicted with a terminal cancer. Euthanasia should be legal.
Yup never figured that one out either. Women are legally allowed to abort their babies based on the right to decide what happens to their bodies yet it is against the law for one to decide when to leave their body no matter the circumstances
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 01:15 PM   #64
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by misturanderson View Post
Considering that isn't an equivalent choice (dick =/= breasts) it's not an apples to apples comparison.

That being said, I might if I believed that study was legitimate and was repeatable. I probably wouldn't make that choice until later in life, based on the statistics. I've seen people die of cancer eating them away from the inside over months, being pumped full of drugs just to try to keep them from being in perpetual agony. I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

I'm still torn as to whether or not I would commit suicide if I ever became afflicted with a terminal cancer. Euthanasia should be legal.
Oh and why is your dick more valuable that a woman's breast you know the gland that feeds her new born.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 01:19 PM   #65
misturanderson
Ring of Famer
 
Why not?

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diago
Posts: 1,791

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DemaryiusThomas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Oh and why is your dick more valuable that a woman's breast you know the gland that feeds her new born.
Because there are replacements for breast milk (either from another woman or formula) for one. Also because losing the breast tissue doesn't mean that the sensation is lost from the breast and there are implants to replace the tissue removed from an aesthetic standpoint.

If you could retain the sensation of my dick and just take out tissue in the middle while replacing it with a synthetic material, there would be no question that I would do the surgery you are proposing if it dropped my cancer risk from 90% to 5%.
misturanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 01:21 PM   #66
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by misturanderson View Post
Because there are replacements for breast milk (either from another woman or formula) for one. Also because losing the breast tissue doesn't mean that the sensation is lost from the breast and there are implants to replace the tissue removed from an aesthetic standpoint.

If you could retain the sensation of my dick and just take out tissue in the middle while replacing it with a synthetic material, there would be no question that I would do the surgery you are proposing if it dropped my cancer risk from 90% to 5%.
If cancer wants you she will find you.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 01:24 PM   #67
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default Even thought this is a little restrictive I should live cancer free for over 100 years.


Last edited by baja; 05-19-2013 at 01:30 PM..
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 09:18 PM   #68
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
If you had a gene that limited studies told you there was a 90% chance of contracting cancer would you cut your dick off?

What the hell is wrong with you people.
The real question is what the hell is wrong with you?

Her case is pretty clear: 87% of people with this defective gene who've had a family member with breast cancer develop breast cancer too. Regardless of any potential uncertainty of causal factors, that much is based on solid evidence.

The only detrimental effects of mastectomy are appearance, possibly some minor sensation loss and breast feeding, all of which are extremely mild consequences.

To compare that to penis removal is absurd.

And of course, hilariously given your statement, millions of people do have part of their penis removed due to concerns of disease. Of course, the consequence of that removal is similarly very low (appearance and sensation) which for most people makes that trade off quite palatable.


Why are you so upset that she made the decision she made? What right do YOU have to judge the decisions she makes about her own body?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 09:26 PM   #69
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The real question is what the hell is wrong with you?

Her case is pretty clear: 87% of people with this defective gene who've had a family member with breast cancer develop breast cancer too. Regardless of any potential uncertainty of causal factors, that much is based on solid evidence.

The only detrimental effects of mastectomy are appearance, possibly some minor sensation loss and breast feeding, all of which are extremely mild consequences.

To compare that to penis removal is absurd.

And of course, hilariously given your statement, millions of people do have part of their penis removed due to concerns of disease. Of course, the consequence of that removal is similarly very low (appearance and sensation) which for most people makes that trade off quite palatable.


Why are you so upset that she made the decision she made? What right do YOU have to judge the decisions she makes about her own body?

She is one of the most recognized women on the planet - I don't agree with the message she is sending to other women. I respect her right to do what she wants with her own body but I would like to see dietary strategies tried first.

Science is routinely wrong it just takes time to show it self.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 10:35 PM   #70
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
She is one of the most recognized women on the planet - I don't agree with the message she is sending to other women. I respect her right to do what she wants with her own body but I would like to see dietary strategies tried first.
Provide evidence of the efficacy of such strategies, and I would be 100% behind you.

Quote:
Science is routinely wrong it just takes time to show it self.
Science is indeed wrong quite often. It's a process subject to human error just like any other endeavor. Still, it is better than wishful thinking and plain making **** up which is all you and others like you engage in.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 10:50 PM   #71
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Provide evidence of the efficacy of such strategies, and I would be 100% behind you.



Science is indeed wrong quite often. It's a process subject to human error just like any other endeavor. Still, it is better than wishful thinking and plain making **** up which is all you and others like you engage in.

We live during amazing times. It is so easy to research an idea or claim.

If I heard that diet might have a significant affect on cancer I think I would look into it before I cut my tiets off as a preventive measure but that 's just me.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 11:03 PM   #72
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
We live during amazing times. It is so easy to research an idea or claim.

If I heard that diet might have a significant affect on cancer I think I would look into it before I cut my tiets off as a preventive measure but that 's just me.
Who said she didn't?

I'll ask again, where's the evidence that dietary changes are

a.) effective and
b.) as effective

as this treatment bubba?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 11:06 PM   #73
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Who said she didn't?

I'll ask again, where's the evidence that dietary changes are

a.) effective and
b.) as effective

as this treatment bubba?

"Green for life" start there
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 12:43 AM   #74
IHaveALight
the sun is gone
 
IHaveALight's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by misturanderson View Post

Regardless, given the fact that Jolie's mother did in fact die from breast cancer, her choice is absolutely justified based on current research.
You mean based on the current research that the highly profitable cancer industry is feeding the masses. There is loads of research out there that says other wise, and those people aren't raking in billions of dollars in the process, they're just concerned about actually helping people is all, and making real progress. What progress have you seen from the cancer industry? A higher percentage of people have cancer now more than ever. They're still using technology from decades ago to "fight" it. Have you not seen how far technology has advanced since radiation treatments were introduced? Look at the auto industry, look at the technology industry, how drastic have things changed since then. Where is that drastic change in cancer treatments and prevention? There is none (intentionally). How big of a problem was cancer 100 years ago? All of a sudden we just have these crazy, abundant genetic issues that never existed before. What gives? Environment, lifestyle choices, manipulation of consciousness and mental manifestation.

Wakey wakey

Last edited by IHaveALight; 05-20-2013 at 12:52 AM..
IHaveALight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 12:55 AM   #75
misturanderson
Ring of Famer
 
Why not?

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diago
Posts: 1,791

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DemaryiusThomas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHaveALight View Post
You mean based on the current research that the highly profitable cancer industry is feeding the masses. There is loads of research out there that says other wise, and those people aren't raking in billions of dollars in the process, they're just concerned about actually helping people is all, and making real progress. What progress have you seen from the cancer industry? A higher percentage of people have cancer now more than ever. They're still using technology from decades ago to "fight" it. Have you not seen how far technology has advanced since radiation treatments were introduced? Look at the auto industry, look at the technology industry, how drastic have things changed since then. Where is that drastic change in cancer treatments and prevention? There is none (intentionally). How big of a problem was cancer 100 years ago? All of a sudden we just have these crazy, abundant genetic issues that never existed before. What gives? Environment, lifestyle choices, manipulation of consciousness and mental manifestation.
You have no idea what kind of advancements have been made in medical treatment of cancer (Hint: there have been major advances in technology, chemotherapy and cure rates). That much is clear from your post. I therefore don't have any interest in any of the so-called "research" you are peddling because you don't understand how to objectively review research anyway.

Cancer was probably a huge issue 100 years ago, but we didn't know how to find it unless it was a huge tumor causing the issue AND an autopsy was performed. They didn't even have antibiotics 100 years ago.

You can go on believing whatever the hell you want, but most of the "medical" beliefs you have aren't founded in reality.
misturanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 AM.


Denver Broncos