Someone posted this in a /pol/ thread

>Yea, why do they prescribe those hormones for people trying to be the opposite sex anyways?

Are you implying that the amount of """""""xenoestrogens""""""" you're getting from the residual intake of whatever it thinks you get it from, is comparable AT ALL to a concentrated large dosage injection?

I mean, we don't talk like this around here often, but are you fucking retarded?

An anonymous, entirely unsourced, and openly racist and homophobic text document about chemicals in food being bad for your manliness?

Because insults won't change the minds of anyone who would actually believe it, I would just encourage healthy skepticism, if not immediate outright rejection based on my earlier objections.

Dieting advice based on avoiding chemicals is notoriously difficult and most people doing it outside of a medical context have an interest in either selling you something (Chemical free! TM) or are doing it out of a personal fear of the unknown; that chemicals not known are dangerous.

Always ask for scientific sources and look for opinions which carry weight; anyone can say anything and it's your job to filter unsubstantiated garbage.

>openly racist and homophobic text document
Yeah, I couldn't even finish reading it got so bad. I'm literally shaking right now

>avoid beef, chicken, pork, milk, butter, cheese, ice cream, flax, toothpaste, sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, dried fruit, processed meats, most chocolate, most candy, and alcohol

Is this a joke?

Oh fuck off troll, you ain't fooling anyone.

I think I just didn't read my post or you were overcontextualizing it. I was merely responding to

>le estrogen is female and le testosterone is male (is a) meme

wtf i hate science now

You removed the "mass produced" part in that quote.

Veeky Forums is full of feminized cuck lords.

>triggered /pol/sters being BTFO as expected and infiltrating into Veeky Forums

>still offering zero sources for their claims in the documents
>still offering zero credibility from the author

Pretty much how I thought this thread would go.

>science
>encouraging people to reject something immediately because of 'racism and homophobia'
wew

Still not an argument. Pretty much how I expected Veeky Forums to handle this.

/pol/ trolls provide some actual damn sources that can be talked about or just leave.

The guy that posted the thread expected you geniuses to refute the image's claims with ease. All we've got so far is "omg are u kidding me?"

tu quoque.

They have been refuted.

Things which are asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Expecting Veeky Forums to exhibit any form of masculinity in demonstrative argumentation is like expecting a woman to grow a cock with a T injection.

Except if you guys have knowledge on this stuff you could refute the claims with substantive arguments right?

We have. Numerous posts have provided text-book responses to claims such as these by using deductive reasoning.

If you're asking Veeky Forums to do more than that when literally zero applied sciences are being used and it's all vague jingoism that's being applied, you're sorely mistaken.

I propose renaming this board /ndt/

The fact that you still expect people to just instantly dismiss any random claim just shows you have very unclear idea about what expertise is.

Anybody can make up a long list of random claims. Assessing them takes a lot longer. And there's no reason to do that job if they are not sourced in the first place.

OP is a fgt who can't handle the fact he's a low-T cuck.

Veeky Forums couldn't even save OP

many lulz were had

tl;dr

Fine, is the popular concept of xenoestrogens correct in that certain synthetic chemicals e.g. BPA can have negative or unintended consequences when ingested or absorbed by the human body. Will plastic containers containing BPA have any significant or unintended effects on the endocrine system and the body as a whole, particularly in regards to testosterone production? I am neutral in this debate and I'd be interested in answers if you have prior knowledge

eat organic, non-processed foods. avoid plastic containers when eating drinking. avoid known chemicals in products known to reduce T hormones

And yet no one thought to link to any of these? Or even mention this fact before? surely there is an archive or screengrabs that do the job. I mean even shoe0nhead has a literal button she can press that explains the earnings gap between men and women,

I'm actually kind of interested in what is and isn't real. I just avoid heating plastic and styrofoam and try to eat healthy fats. I'm skeptical on a good bit of the post.

>broscience image with no sources or citations

Worthless in every aspect. Only sub-110 IQ brainlets would give this any second thoughts.

>Worthless in every aspect. Only sub-110 IQ brainlets would give this any second thoughts.
Mooom, LOOK I posted it again!!!

Not an argument. Thanks for conceding, brainlet.

>lulz

You need to be at least 18 to post here.

/b/ is for underages, go back to where you came from.

certainly not for the same reasons that they RX women with certain issues estrogen or derivatives there of either.

Just give us a source to work with and we will go through the claims. If there is no source there is no evaluation that can be made that won't be removed cause the source chosen to refute is some "shill for the world government trying to make everyone into girls man" leaving those arguing against the broscience unable to respond because there is no way to evaluate how substantial the claims made in this piece of literature are and how likely they are to be biased.

>farmer's market and local produce shill
Fucking kek

The reason you're scrawny is because your genes are absolute dogshit. Remember this: genes are all that matter. Drinking water out of a mason jar won't change that, genelet.

>expecting someone to counter a non argument with an argument

I remember this guy from that Strangelove movie.

I thought he died.

here work through this
>westonaprice.org/health-topics/effects-of-antenatal-exposure-to-phytoestrogens-on-human-male-reproductive-and-urogenital-development/

After all I'm sure it's going to take an Einstein level intellect to deduce that majority female sex hormones or mimics there of, have a negative effect upon males when present in over abundance. Seems crazy almost how like an over abundance of primarily male sex hormones have generally considered negative effects on females, who would have thought.

The author on scientific issues matters. He, when claiming things, stakes his reputation on his claims being correct or at least having been made the claims that they did in good faith.

Racism and homophobia are effectively the trivial case of acting in bad faith: a person, based solely on the parents they were born to and factors they can't control, the racist or homophobe disparages.

It can and should represent a serious stain on your opinion of an author and the intellectual value of his work, even before specificncriticisms of content.

>antenatal

Do you know what that word means? Just asking.

Pointing out how unsubstantiated claims are worthless and can be tossed aside, unless sources are provided, is a sound argument.

I don't make mistakes, unlike the less fortunate posters here, with mediocre IQs in the 120 range.

literal ad hominem

You can prove someone knows nothing and/or is acting in bad faith if you debunk a few of their arguments...after that it's logical to dismiss them. But unless they're making bad arguments for what you consider to be sexist/racist/homophobic, you're really not addressing the issues.

>literal ad hominem

It's "literally" not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

>mediocre IQs in the 120 range.
Hey, we gained 10 points.

>Is the popular concept of xenoestrogens correct?
Very probably, but the specific examples given are probably bullshit. Many preservatives, dyes, and additives can have disruptive effects on your body. Most educated people would agree that processed food is usually bad and "organic"(so much as that label means anything) food is usually better. All those chemicals in processed food can have ill effects on the endocrine system, but any food is so chemically complicated that narrowing it down to anything specific is usually meaningless. One day omega-3s are good, but then fish has too much bad fats, then good cholesterol, but then mercury, blah blah blah. Food science isn't advanced enough to be able to tell you which foods affect your systems on a broad level or how, so any claim, especially unsourced broscience claims, about "fuck lavender" "pine soap is good for you" "canola oil is literally the devil" etc etc is 98% certain to be absolute bullshit.
What I'm telling you is, xenoestrogens are probably the least of your worries, and you couldn't avoid them specifically even if you tried.
>Will plastic containers containing BPA have any significant effects on the body?
I'll admit before saying anything that I know little about it. From my personal experience, I can say that although I have seen numerous fearmongering clickbait articles about "hurr durr plastics are evil," I have yet to see any substantive science behind the idea. But again, processed things are often bad for you. I personally doubt BPA has anything to do with anything, but who knows?

tl;dr
If it sounds like a retarded child wrote it, it's probably not true. If it sounds like clickbait, it probably is. Not always; but very probably.

are you seriously trying to imply that these hormones or derivatives are only harmful during the fetal stages?

The dipshit doesn't even specify mean and stdev. He's clearly a moron.

nah, literally is. Can you not argue against the assertions of a person who has a cognitive bias? If someone is making the asinine assertions short of denying reality, can you not just point out a few of their numerous logical or factual flaws and say "I rest my case" if they can't respond?

How's that 122 baby IQ treating you?

You'll never come close to my 146 composite IQ score on the WAIS.

In the amounts currently being specified, yes, or during very very very early child-hood, where you likely won't be subjected to much of it in the first place.

You would need to see consistent, heavy exposure to it on a daily basis for it to effect your bodies endocrine system in a significant way.

If you are on Veeky Forums you can safely remove 50 points.

True. Because I'm way beyond 146 in the upward direction. The fact that you didn't take that into account in your statement proves how far below me you are.

>mfw not even lying
>mfw my IQ is more than five standard deviations above the mean
>mfw I'm just enjoying this small roast for a few minutes

what amounts are being specified as I didn't see that anywhere?

I would've expected a more intelligent response.

Racism and homophobia are bad arguments. If someone endorses flat-earth, they are much less credible than an intelligent person. In a similar way, racism and homophobia have been shown to be intellectually lazy and biased arguments.

Further, this directly corresponds to the author's argument. He says estrogen is bad because it leads to feminine traits, which is inevitably going to lead to bias against anything he sees as feminine, even if its unbiased. He also says he hates niggers because they have a different hormonal system, which, although I am not an expert, sounds like an atrociously bullshit claim.

No shit I'm not gonna trust someone like that. That's not an ad hominem, thats being smart enough to filter out the retards.

You just got your ass handed to you.

Weak post.

150+ iq masterrace reporting in

Since it's all residual, the amounts can't be more than miniscule. We're talking micrograms, if that.

Another 170+ IQ? Awesome. What were your subcategory scores and what test did you take, friend?

>masterrace
I'd just like to say that as a Jewish man of faith that term is horribly offensive. Please refrain from using it in the future, thank you

>you just got your ass handed to you

Different person.

I'm like another Christopher Lagan. I destroyed the WAIS IV.

>Different person.

Does that even matter on an anonymous board? You can't even get on our level.

Veeky Forums is a low-T, low-IQ cuckboard.

shalom apologies

If this is what it sounds like to have a 170 IQ, then I'm very glad.

Thank you, youre a good go.. I mean guy

I would be inclined to agree with you if everything that was called "racist" and other ists were shown to be false. Yes, things like eugenics and some of the early racialism was bunk, but now if you don't say that everyone is categorically the same, then you're some sort of ist. The issue with the Morton skulls is why I will not immediately dismiss a person just because they're accused of Racism nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=0 The same with Phillip Rushton.

We waited almost an hour and a half, but finally we got a decent response to OP. Not a straight debunking, but it was definitely more insightful than all the "I can't even" posts. Thanks.

yea and the effects are cumulative. And we don't know what we're talking for dosages because for the longest time governments and science in general found no problems with exposure. It's only now after long time exposure with complete saturation into our lives and bodies that we're starting to see negative developments. It's very similar to the whole BPA thing, countless infants and children received heavy exposure to what was considered safe until it wasn't. And it's still not definitive what the end result of that is going to be as they age.

What'd you get on PSI? Or the others? I'm mostly interested in that PSI.

Poor low-IQ cuck. His low I.Q. causes him to make unintelligent assumptions from a few posts on an anonymous board, as can be expected of those with a low I.Q.

>the effects are cumulative

You don't know how intake works. Effects are cumulative when they are in excess for extended periods of time. Fat doesn't build if your intake is constant but your metabolism is high.

This isn't something like a dam, where the pressure builds over time, we're talking about an organic regulatory system whose job it is to filter and expend daily. This is why testosterone levels vary wildly any given year. Your testosterone levels are subject much more to your activities and genetics than they are to your actual intake, unless you're taking substantive supplements, like with people who want to change their gender.

My PSI score was the highest the psych had seen in over three decades of testing adults. Assuming a minimum of two evaluations per day over the course of 30 years, that gives 30*365*2 = 21900; thus, my score was higher than all 21899 prior evaluations.

Basically, my scores were incalculable.

Francis Crick has an IQ of 115 and he's still smarter than you'll ever be.

(Not him) but is the system entirely effective at processing excesss consumption? Even if 98-99% is dealt with, we could see some greater effects over a long period of time

Heh. Francis Crick is a low-grade hack who made one little insight into reality while under the influence of LSD and the help of his partner.

Try again, cucklord.

>being this mad

Lol, looks like uncontrollable rage is a side effect of being a beef-brain.

> newly appeared in the 21st century
they didn't even get past the first sentence without making a mistake.

Still making unintelligent assumptions.

>Not even mad.

>Enjoying this roast of low-IQ peons on the Veeky Forums cuckboard.

I hardly ever come to Veeky Forums because it's full of pretentious wannabes like yourself who always have something to prove and no basis for proving it.

umm yes we know that phytoestrogens build up in the body and that they are endrocrine disrupters. Again you use a logical fallacy to try and make a point but sorry it doesn't work. I should have called you out the first time with equating a small dosage as safe, when you tried saying we're talking micrograms, which by the way doesn't in anyway mean that could be safe or even relatively safe nanograms could be harmful for all we know.

You /sci bros really need to visit /pol and at least learn to not fallacy. We take a lot of shit for being racist nazi's but at least we can argue correctly
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/

Nice meme. Thanks for exposing yourself, brainlet.

My scores were also incredibly high, to the point of being incalculable, and they prompted me to take the Stanford-Binet and a Ravens IQ test. That's why they do with every prodigy, unless, you were lying. In the case that you aren't, I've got a little question that will determine if you're a brain-chad like me. Which test do they prompt you to take, afterwards?

Tweedledum nitpicking is the best that Veeky Forums can do when posed with a challenge.

Utter failure.

>but is the system entirely effective at processing excesss consumption

Unless you start swallowing ink, or ethanol, then yes. But even then, those are two examples where the body is subjected to extremes.

You'd sooner build tolerance to it rather than it begin to seriously effect you, much like with alcohol, unless you over-load your body with it all at once. If you took all those chemicals you consumed in a week and concentrated it down into a single days worth, then you would see a major reaction.

Wow, I've read the nytimes article! One can only imagine the shitstorm this would cause if released in todays politically correct safe space...

Hey, those were both me. Fun.

I'm not saying that everything that implies a difference between races is false, or that it should be dismissed out of hand. If an intelligent, credible person says "Look, I think people of African descent tend to be less intelligent, based on these studies that show a strong correlation," then I would take that seriously and attack his arguments based on their own merit.

But as a rule, if your argument includes "nigger," "inferior," "monkey," "go back to Africa" etc etc, your beliefs are motivated by racism and not science.

Accusing someone of racism because they disagreed with you, thats intellectually dishonest and likely an ad hominem attack. Accusing someone of racism because they said monkey land belongs to Aryans.... that's probably justified. We've had numerous discussions on Veeky Forums about whether racism is scientifically justified, many of which I've put in my two cents, and the consensus is that its unscientific.

Why does /pol/ get so triggered to the point that they shift into full shitposting mode, whenever people don't agree with them? What underlying insecurities do they have?

>umm yes we know that phytoestrogens build up in the body and that they are endrocrine disrupters. Again you use a logical fallacy to try and make a point but sorry it doesn't work. I should have called you out the first time with equating a small dosage as safe, when you tried saying we're talking micrograms, which by the way doesn't in anyway mean that could be safe or even relatively safe nanograms could be harmful for all we know.

Quit being a stupid cuck please.

fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/abstract

They asked me to take the Ravens, CCFIT, and Bonnardel.

But you're wrong. That line of testing doesn't prove anything by comparison. A low IQ like yours making false assumptions is typical, however.

top kek you realize that endocrine disrupters don't get processed out the body like normal hormones do right? It's literally why they pose a problem, if they were simply normal hormones our bodies could easily break them down and deal with them, the problem is they aren't natural chemicals usually found within our bodies yet they mimic the effects of them.

>A low IQ like yours making false assumptions is typical, however

Has much less to do with low IQ and much more to do with narcissism (IE mental illness)

Making generalizations from anonymous posts. How typical of the Veeky Forums cuckboard. Reality can be difficult to confront, I suppose, when your mind can't make much sense of it but instead have to be guided by the prior thoughts of those before.

You could've said that in a lot less words.

what the literal fuck is this entire exchange

Two idiots arguing over IQ.