Recognised facts where the autority can still lose the room

Shiraz 4.99

Bit of a wordy title but stick with me, nobody likes being preached to, even when they know they are in the wrong but there's 2 factoids that I hate to see trundled out by experts in an argument.

(1) "4 drinks in one sitting is binge drinking".
I've come to listen to you but now you've just railed against my common sense. I don't care if every respected medical publication & professional agrees with you you've just lost me at hello. My bottle of Shiraz watching Graham Norton is not a binge, goodbye.

(2) "Cows methane emissions are signicantly respionsible for greenhouse gases"
So the ice caps will melt cause Daisy keeps farting. I don't care if every Noble prize winning scientist backs this up it sounds so daft it makes your argument laughable. The concept of a single species emissions being so large as to affect a planets weather is beyond normal comprehension so it would be better to drop it. It's not as if Earths ever growing population is going to give up beef now is it.

There must be others where you throw your eyes to heaven.

Mr. Incognito

My bottle of Shiraz watching Graham Norton is not a binge, goodbye

I think that you'll find it is. Even though you'd probably need more than a bottle to get through that vacuous dribble.

Just because you don't like something and decide to throw your eyes up to heaven doesn't mean you are right.

Or in words in your vernacular, "Loike... Hello!!"

Jimoslimos

But they're both correct, the alcohol one though is usually quoted as units though.

Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and intensive cattle farming exacerbates this.

Problem?

BBDBB

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

My bottle of Shiraz watching Graham Norton is not a binge, goodbye.

It is a binge, that's far too much irish camp whimsy for anyone in one sitting, try recording it and watching it over a few nights in 10 minute segments

Shiraz 4.99

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I think that you'll find it is. Even though you'd probably need more than a bottle to get through that vacuous dribble.

Just because you don't like something and decide to throw your eyes up to heaven doesn't mean you are right.

Or in words in your vernacular, "Loike... Hello!!"

Jimoslimos wrote: »

But they're both correct, the alcohol one though is usually quoted as units though.

Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and intensive cattle farming exacerbates this.

Problem?

I've conceded their points are correct & indisputable, 100% backed up by science.

I just don't care for them & how the logic is presented, it turns me off listening to the rest of their argument.

Seedy Arling

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I just don't care for them & how the logic is presented, it turns me off listening to the rest of their argument.

Yeah! The arguments against crystal meth are boring too. I'm off to take another hit dude. Screw those nerds!!

Riskymove

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I've conceded their points are correct & indisputable, 100% backed up by science.

I just don't care for them & how the logic is presented, it turns me off listening to the rest of their argument.

then just stick your head in the sand and live your life how you want...no probs

MilanPan!c

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

Bit of a wordy title but stick with me, nobody likes being preached to, even when they know they are in the wrong but there's 2 factoids that I hate to see trundled out by experts in an argument.

(1) "4 drinks in one sitting is binge drinking".
I've come to listen to you but now you've just railed against my common sense. I don't care if every respected medical publication & professional agrees with you you've just lost me at hello. My bottle of Shiraz watching Graham Norton is not a binge, goodbye.

(2) "Cows methane emissions are signicantly respionsible for greenhouse gases"
So the ice caps will melt cause Daisy keeps farting. I don't care if every Noble prize winning scientist backs this up it sounds so daft it makes your argument laughable. The concept of a single species emissions being so large as to affect a planets weather is beyond normal comprehension so it would be better to drop it. It's not as if Earths ever growing population is going to give up beef now is it.

There must be others where you throw your eyes to heaven.

Don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be confusing your incredulity with reality.

Many people are able to look at facts and, even when they seem incredible, base their opinion on what's true, not on what SEEMS true.

Cabaal

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I just don't care for them & how the logic is presented, it turns me off listening to the rest of their argument.

so basically,
You recognise these things as fact but to hell with facts you'd rather do what you wan with no regard for yourself, your health or anyone else?


Seems smart
:rolleyes:

Mr. Incognito

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I've conceded their points are correct & indisputable, 100% backed up by science.

I just don't care for them & how the logic is presented, it turns me off listening to the rest of their argument.

Ah okay, so when people start talking about specific things you find particularly uninteresting or often repeated you find yourself tuning out.

I know how you feel, I got that rush of disinterested reading your original post but thanks for sharing. I believe I speak for the internet when I say, I find your ideas intriguing and illuminating. Please tell us some more factoids that you can't stand.

MilanPan!c

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I've conceded their points are correct & indisputable, 100% backed up by science.

I just don't care for them & how the logic is presented, it turns me off listening to the rest of their argument.

Wait... So you know it's true, you just don't like how it's presented???

That certainly wasn't clear in the OP at all.

Shiraz 4.99

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I believe I speak for the internet when I say, I find your ideas intriguing and illuminating. Please tell us some more factoids that you can't stand.

My sarcasm detector is showing more spikes than MH370's black boxes.
I've never addressed someone who spoke for the internet before, I'm in awe.

swanronson

I think I find people who assume an air of authority and spew rubbish much worse tbh

Banjo String

"Playing Grand Theft Auto, while drinking Dutch gold and smokin weed is good for your heart" - Decko down the pub.

I call BS on this.

kc90

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

Bit of a wordy title but stick with me, nobody likes being preached to, even when they know they are in the wrong but there's 2 factoids that I hate to see trundled out by experts in an argument.

(1) "4 drinks in one sitting is binge drinking".
I've come to listen to you but now you've just railed against my common sense. I don't care if every respected medical publication & professional agrees with you you've just lost me at hello. My bottle of Shiraz watching Graham Norton is not a binge, goodbye.

(2) "Cows methane emissions are signicantly respionsible for greenhouse gases"
So the ice caps will melt cause Daisy keeps farting. I don't care if every Noble prize winning scientist backs this up it sounds so daft it makes your argument laughable. The concept of a single species emissions being so large as to affect a planets weather is beyond normal comprehension so it would be better to drop it. It's not as if Earths ever growing population is going to give up beef now is it.

There must be others where you throw your eyes to heaven.

I'm with you there. I detested the 'only looking for attention by behaving badly' that used to be thrown about all the time.
Although, sometimes I think the issue is more the connotations associated with some terms publicly that may not be recognized in a research setting. More often than not, when these sort of facts or figures are used, it's by someone with an agenda who probably doesn't completely understand them (or based on a biased study).
For example, someone might argue that increased levels of methane is not a human problem because cows are producing such a significant quantity, but that's not the point. The cow population is so huge and contributing such a significant amount due to human demand for beef/dairy etc.

Ray Palmer

Yeah damn right why should reality and science be accepted there is only proof backing them up. I often walk across water no problem until people tell me I can't possibly do that and then I sink. Luckily nobody told me while I was flying around like Superman

Pherekydes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I think that you'll find it is.

What's the definition of binge drinking? Who defines it? Is it anything other than an arbitrary definition?

The World Health Organisation has defined binge drinking as drinking six or more standard drinks (about 3 pints of beer) during one drinking occasion. However some researchers have argued against this definition. As this level of consumption could occur over the course of an evening of eating and socialising it is clearly inappropriate to equate it with a binge.

Here's another "factoid" that is demonstrably wrong:

...your body gets rid of roughly one standard drink - that’s half a pint, a small glass of wine, or a single pub-measure of spirits - per hour.

That comes from drinkaware.ie.

They also mention the way your body processes alcohol depends on the following:

However the exact time that the body takes to absorb alcohol varies from one person to another. There are many factors that may affect BAC levels:

Gender
Size
Health
Psychological
Rate of drinking
Drinking on an empty stomach
Medication

jester77

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

(1) "4 drinks in one sitting is binge drinking".
I've come to listen to you but now you've just railed against my common sense. I don't care if every respected medical publication & professional agrees with you you've just lost me at hello. My bottle of Shiraz watching Graham Norton is not a binge, goodbye.

Get up from your seat after every 3 drinks and you'll be ok.

FunLover18

I agree with the OP. People who rely on proven facts to win an argument are the lowest of the low.

jane82

What you have is denial op I think. Alot of people are like you. Its like they believe what their parents told them and wont accept anything else no matter how scientific.
If you want to down all the wine do so. Im not one to judge but accept that it is causing you harm.
Ive been telling myself for years the pain in my kidneys in the mornings was a part of my bad back problem. Its only lately Ive addressed my drinking.

ScumLord

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

(2) "Cows methane emissions are signicantly respionsible for greenhouse gases"
So the ice caps will melt cause Daisy keeps farting.

There's no need to go to extremes, cow farts probably do contribute to greenhouse gases. We can see the affect our exploded numbers have on the ecosystem, cattle also have artificially exploded numbers, we've spread them all over the planet eradicating local ecosystems to create an artificial human one that allows cattle grazing. We have our cattles digestive systems running at optimum efficiency for longer periods too. They have no down time like they would in the wild.

I don't care if every Noble prize winning scientist backs this up it sounds so daft it makes your argument laughable.

So you just refuse to accept it. It's barely even science, just basic common sense.

The concept of a single species emissions being so large as to affect a planets weather is beyond normal comprehension so it would be better to drop it.

There are plenty of single species that can have a huge effect on their environment, most species are essential in some form or another. Besides the obvious, humans. Bacteria probably affect just about everything that happens in ways humans could only dream about.

Davarus Walrus

I think some people are guilty of dismissing facts when they don't sit easily with the ideological axe they have to grind. It's especially prevalent on message boards.

Femme_Fatale

It's like obese people saying "I believe you can be big and healthy." Believe it all you like but believing doesn't change a person's wrongness.

poundapunnet

Banjo String wrote: »

"Playing Grand Theft Auto, while drinking Dutch gold and smokin weed is good for your heart" - Decko down the pub.

I call BS on this.

Erra, it's good for the soul.

I think the OP's attitude is a fairly common one. The more invested someone is in an issue, whether it's something relating to their lifestyle or some deeply held ideological conviction of theirs, the more likely they are to disregard facts and even get angry when they're presented. For example you see it very often on both sides of the abortion and cannabis debates.

Maximus Alexander

That's the problem with reality, OP. It just doesn't seem to care how we feel about it.

MagicIRL

This is the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen.

yeahimhere

Reading the thread, couldn't help but have Cartman in my head

Donkey Oaty

I agree with all the government and health authorities advice, which is basically this: under no circumstances should people be allowed to enjoy themselves.

ratracer

There must be others where you throw your eyes to heaven.

This thread....

catallus

This was all dealt with in 1984 (the book) when O'Brien explains that science is basically another propaganda tool for the elites to control the masses!

mfceiling

To be fair to the OP the oul binge drinking 4 units is some ball of dung.

I'm not a big drinker at all but if I went to a wedding I might drink 4 bottles of beer over the evening...so I've been binge drinking, even though I'm as sober as a lord and well in control of my functions.

There's a sniff of the " world health organisations" so called 5 a day we need to consume...or now some people claim we need 10...next week 7 or 11 or 18!!

catallus

^^^^^

Presactly! The WHO's official behind the scenes recommendation is for 14 a day of fruit and veg but they only say five because they know no-one will pay attention if they say 14, it's all part of the scheme to turn us into super-robot-warriors for the coming Mega-War.

poundapunnet

mfceiling wrote: »

To be fair to the OP the oul binge drinking 4 units is some ball of dung.

I think the problem with it is that 4 drinks=binge, bottle of wine=binge, three bottles of wine=binge. There needs to be some distinction between drinking enough alcohol in one sitting that could be damaging to your health if you do it regularly, and drinking enough alcohol that you can't stand up. Putting them all in the same category just makes the word lose all meaning.

Muise...

OP isn't so much arguing against facts as not caring that they are true and being annoyed when they make implicit criticisms of his/her lifestyle. There's facts we like and facts we don't like. I don't mind that Ouagadougou is the capital of Burkina Faso (in fact, I'm delighted with that name) but I do mind that my body is not capable of flight. Luckily these facts do not affect the little pleasures I enjoy, and no one preaches about them. If I was in the OP's shoes, I'd just enjoy my bottle (though it certainly wouldn't be cheap Shiraz ) as a deliciously unhealthy indulgence, and not start unwinnable threads.

Also, the x per day of fruit and vegetables makes no sense to me as there's a lot more eating in a spud than a stick of celery.

Artful_Badger

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I don't care if every Noble prize winning scientist backs this up it sounds so daft it makes your argument laughable. .

To be honest OP if Nobel prize winning scientists armed with actual facts don't convince you because you don't like the sound of what they say then you're probably not worth trying to convince in the first place.

Call Me Jimmy

Banjo String wrote: »

"Playing Grand Theft Auto, while drinking Dutch gold and smokin weed is good for your heart" - Decko down the pub.

I call BS on this.

No, it's true.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Jimoslimos wrote: »

But they're both correct, the alcohol one though is usually quoted as units though.

Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and intensive cattle farming exacerbates this.

Problem?

Isn't the methane released also by melting ice? That might be wrong.

sopretty

catallus wrote: »

^^^^^

Presactly! The WHO's official behind the scenes recommendation is for 14 a day of fruit and veg but they only say five because they know no-one will pay attention if they say 14, it's all part of the scheme to turn us into super-robot-warriors for the coming Mega-War.

Can you imagine the farts? We've evolved to digest low volume, high density foods. Devolution? lol.

As for the OP. I'm totally with you. There is this study, that study, Oxford, Boston, Massachusets, Cambridge etc etc.

Load of bollix.

ballsymchugh

FunLover18 wrote: »

I agree with the OP. People who rely on proven facts to win an argument are the lowest of the low.

do you remember when wesley snipes was in emmerdale?!

danniemcq

Jimoslimos wrote: »

But they're both correct, the alcohol one though is usually quoted as units though.

Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and intensive cattle farming exacerbates this.

Problem?

Cows? What about the termites!

poundapunnet

Muise... wrote: »

Also, the x per day of fruit and vegetables makes no sense to me as there's a lot more eating in a spud than a stick of celery.

Actually I think spuds don't count, they're too starchy. A 'serving' of fruit and vegetables isn't just a piece of fruit of veg though, depending on what particular fruit or veg it is it'll be different

handy guide

Muise...

poundapunnet wrote: »

Actually I think spuds don't count, they're too starchy. A 'serving' of fruit and vegetables isn't just a piece of fruit of veg though, depending on what particular fruit or veg it is it'll be different

handy guide

That defeats the simplicity they were probably going for with the 5-a-day slogan.

Is a punnet a serving and what's the exchange rate?

Mr. Incognito

Moral of the story- Never argue with cheap wine!

poundapunnet

Muise... wrote: »

That defeats the simplicity they were probably going for with the 5-a-day slogan.

Is a punnet a serving and what's the exchange rate?

Yeah, 'approximately 400g of non-starchy fruits, vegetables or legumes, with no more than 80g to consist of legumes' isn't too catchy :pac:

This is the first time my username has been relevant to a thread, yaaaaaaaaay