-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
This Young Living shit has got to stop
- Thread starter Nothing Loud
- Start date
Real natural is the lazy man way, not this MLM BS. Basic soap, citrus, vinegar, salt, alcohol, and some good ol' elbow grease... these are all things I have lying around anyway and are cheap. I'm not gonna buy special cleaning products for my tub or sink or anything, that's dumb.
Only the car gets specially bought nasty-ass chemical wash and waxing, 'cause she's worth it.
Only the car gets specially bought nasty-ass chemical wash and waxing, 'cause she's worth it.
I've not heard of this particular brand OP, but this "strategy" is becoming ALL too rampant.
While most of my friends love to make fun of the conspiratorial and impressionable nature of the far-right, they fail to recognize the ways they're being swayed by the very same bullshit on the left - in particular through pseudo-science.
Anti GMO, anti nuclear energy, astrology, etc... people just don't believe in science anymore and it's really made me dig in my heels and speak up to call people out on their pseudo-scientific beliefs on a regular basis.
Doesn't always go super well, but I suppose I care less about friends than I care about reminding people not to believe in bullshit?
It's honestly making me poignantly sad lately.
While most of my friends love to make fun of the conspiratorial and impressionable nature of the far-right, they fail to recognize the ways they're being swayed by the very same bullshit on the left - in particular through pseudo-science.
Anti GMO, anti nuclear energy, astrology, etc... people just don't believe in science anymore and it's really made me dig in my heels and speak up to call people out on their pseudo-scientific beliefs on a regular basis.
Doesn't always go super well, but I suppose I care less about friends than I care about reminding people not to believe in bullshit?
It's honestly making me poignantly sad lately.
Functionality is thrown out of wack, and has more to do with physcis and mechanistic operations. It's like overfilling a balloon.
Not toxic as a synonym for poisonous, actual toxicity as in the degree to which a substance is damaging to living things, e.g. a single snakebite can be lethal for a human but so can drinking 17 bottles of water.
I think the larger point is, when attributed to a product, "non-toxic" is almost pure marketing that shouldn't be given any more weight than other ambiguities like "natural"... Some of these terms are fairly regulated, and others you can slap on almost anything (in the US, anyway).
Thankfully many of the minds who have and who will continue to make the greatest advances don't think that rigid. Lack of evidence in a current time period does not equate to lack of evidence in a future time period.
The problem with the "rigid pro science" zelot is that thier mental model and perceptual frame creates a presupposition and cognitive bias towards staying within the existing model. When entertaining a new idea or faced with new data, the questioning within their internal dialogue is most likely going to skew towards asking "why is this wrong or how something is not possible" versus asking "if something was possible how could it be possible".
One is intentionally rigid while the other is intentionally flexible. One could argue that the flexible approach may lead to over manipulation of data to fit the hypothesis. This is indeed possible, but this is a flaw in the application of the approach not the approach itself. However the inverse is not true. A ridgid approach has an inherently limiting quality by it's very nature.
One of our brains primary functions is various forms of pattern recognition. The brain will also attempt to auto fill any gaps or blind spots during it's recognition and meaning making processes. Our presuppositions, existing data sets and mental models (beliefs, past experiences, perceptual disposition, etc) are what drive both our pattern recognition and auto fill processes.
Hence the problem with the overly ridgid approach. It sets the foundation up so that your less likely to see or notice new data by default. It psychologically makes one a pessimist of possibility.
Last edited:
Your contention is entirely incorrect and incompatible with how toxicity is actually medically defined (as opposed to being used as a bullshit marketing term).
Vitamins are a requirement of a healthy diet, but also toxic at extremely high doses. Conversely, certain pharmaceutical compounds have been developed using low levels of some of the components of snake venom.
The dose makes the poison.
Irrelevant. Water intoxication meets the definition of toxicity.
Eh? Your equating an aspect of personality to a meta quality of cognition and thought...
Anytime I have tried "enviro friendly" products they pale in comparison to the ozone reducing blow the planet up "good" products. If anyone can recommend me something that actually works over say Scrubbing Bubbles in the aerosol can, I'd be happy to try it out. Until then I am Captain's Planet enemy when it comes to cleaning my place.
This is incoherent rambling based on an entirely false view of what science actually is.
Living in a major city, i'm seeing this stuff every so often. Definitely a rising trend
I'd like to think this can all be countered with the right PSAs/Knowledgebombas. Since it is making you sad, you should show your friends the light on this kind of stuff....assuming your friends aren't unswayable lunatics.
The irony is that this stuff is probably learned through fake news/social media, like you said the same way far-right shit is spread.
I'd like to think this can all be countered with the right PSAs/Knowledgebombas. Since it is making you sad, you should show your friends the light on this kind of stuff....assuming your friends aren't unswayable lunatics.
The irony is that this stuff is probably learned through fake news/social media, like you said the same way far-right shit is spread.
your contention is wrong. Because your usage of "toxic" purports "deadly"
Reads like re-purposed intelligent design rhetoric to me.
Only other time I've heard these theoretical rigid pro-science zealot people called out.
Essential oils are the most annoying shit to see around these days, right behind Nugenix. i'd like to know the etymology of the term "essential" for this crap anyway, because it sounds like it was started by a con man.
Won't lie though, I've been trying really hard to find a right way to stop using shampoo. I'm not going to turn to this super dark side hippie crap, but I've been off soap for almost 10 years now and have been trying to get off shampoo for almost as long.
Won't lie though, I've been trying really hard to find a right way to stop using shampoo. I'm not going to turn to this super dark side hippie crap, but I've been off soap for almost 10 years now and have been trying to get off shampoo for almost as long.
The entire point of science in general is to pose a hypothesis and then provide evidence to support that hypothesis. 'Rigid pro-science' is an oxymoron - by definition, scientists keep an open mind because they have to for theories to even come into existence at all. However, just because someone keeps an open mind doesn't mean they have to take every single stupid bullshit assertion made by some cultist at face value.
They're "essential" in that they represent the "essence" of a particular plant's aroma or fragrance. But it does make for a quite convenient marketing term.
You'll sometimes see other, more unscientific definitions - like they're essential to a plant's functions or whatever, but this obviously isn't true. They just smell nice.
Lets say your wife dumps vineger into the laundry and runs it through. There are vinegar remenants in the machine, unbenownst to you. In the slot where the bleach goes, and in the plastic bucket as well there lies molecules of vinegar concoction.
You need to do some whites. You're fat dumb and happy and joyously pour bleach in the slot just were your wife added in the vinegar. You also up the dose and pour out some bleach into the tub. Unbenowst to you chlorine gas is instantly formed and you, in a moment of curiousity smelling something odd stick your head down there to get a whiff. Almost immediatly you will feel strange, if not worse. You recoil. If you realized what you just inhaled you would panic.
Is this inhalation harmless?
Whoa I struck a nerve, I should have put /s at the end. I was joking, before the OP I never knew what young living was, and now thanks to the OP I do. I don't buy into that kind of snake oil.
Thats your assumption, that by toxic I meant deadly. Thats not my contention at all. Not even remotely.
Then by that metric, Alcohol is toxic. Breathing air is toxic. Etc. It's lost all meaning.
On the whole I agree with you. I'm mostly just poking at the forum discussion. It's mostly related to the language some use when discussing certain subject matter. Some of the conviction and sense of infallibility is enjoyable to push and discuss in my self and in others. 😁
So basically they're one of the ingredients of La Croix. Maybe that's why that stuff tastes so shitty. Any time I see "natural flavor" or in the case of La Croix "naturally essenced" I roll my eyes.
So you've described a senario in which someone is exposed to chlorine gas beyond that recommended by workplace safety limits. I'm not sure why you think this refutes anything I said, when it actually supports it.
Let's say your wife dumps vinegar in the laundry, and later, because there are tiny trace amounts left, when you use bleach a few dozen chlorine molecules are formed. Is this toxic? Is this harmful?
You're trying to argue against what is literally one of the foundational principles of toxicology.
This is completely moronic.
At certain doses consuming too much H2O can be lethal. Does that make it toxic? O2, or oxygen, can also be lethal at extremely high doses.
Is the inhalation harmless? I already know the answer and so do you. You neglected to answer it, which comes as no surprise given your bearing and your disenginuousnes. The answer to the question proposed at the end of the simple scenario? Thats my point.
Not very polite. My revelations are in the conversation with cupcake.
Everyone dies and cancer is in everyone's dna. Your genetics play a much larger role in your lifespan than anything. Environmental factors may help trigger health issues, but people who go out of their way to avoid shampoos with "chemicals" are a special type of dumb.
Your scenario is not harmless. Obviously. Your point is still utterly moronic.
Yeah, the Mrs. Meyer's cleaning sprays and hand soaps are pretty nice. They smell great, work well, and use no animal testing.I use this stuff
Not because it's supposedly "natural" but because it smells pretty great. It's also not terribly expensive, it's around $5 and it lasts me about a month.
Overall though, I generally don't fall for the "all natural" sales pitch. If it's relatively cheap, smells decent, and cleans fine then I'll use it.
I don't think they participate in woo-based marketing, so that's a plus.
Either chemicals aren't inherently toxic, or all chemicals (aka every combination of atoms and molecules known to man) are toxic. Because like the OP said, it's the dose that makes the poison. Nearly all seafood contains mercury, which is known to cause health problems in humans, but does that mean seafood is toxic? Of course not, because it's the dose that makes the poison, and those trace amounts of mercury are not enough to cause problems in most adults.
False. Water intoxication can cause hyponatremia (abnormally low serum sodium) which will fuck you up.
OP
OP
Science isn't infallible, but it's far more logical to lean on it and its successes and discoveries than it is to lean on feelings, pseudoscience, tradition, or any other low-evidence frameworks for choosing to believe in something. Science is humanity's "best guess" at the knowledge of something, so it is the most likely to be the most accurate we can describe a phenomenon, and when it comes to chemistry, it's pretty darn good. We could always use more research into what is and isn't harmful, especially at a systems physiology level over many years of human use, but that takes time, and funding. And it's anti-science rhetoric that leads to governments defunding science research that would answer these questions!
Regarding the toxicology discussion going on here, sorry Atisha you're demonstrating a lot of fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry and toxicology.
I agree. The hand soap smells incredible. Too bad the brand and community brainwash people into thinking they have to buy $15 hand soap otherwise they will suffer adrenal failure and fibromyalgia and asthma.
So what are we to call chemicals that aren't considered "toxic", then?
if you're just using it as an air freshener, you're good. I have a "friend" who believes in ghosts and burns sage around her house. She's crazy.
Fortunately they're good folks, so I think I'm likely influencing their thinking... albeit slowly [too slowly].
I diffuse lavender in my shop and apartment every day.
It smells lovely, full stop.
I mean, I go with more natural cleaning products in general, but I wouldn't pay a premium for them.
I mean, they seem to think that water and table salt are chemicals, so I doubt it.
"Toxic" in everyday layman's use is just fine to describe something that would be considered of relatively high toxicity in scientific terms. Like, a substance that would be harmful in quantities that you would normally encounter in daily life.
The point is, the flexibility of the term allows manufacturers and marketers to claim almost anything that doesn't require a cancer warning as "non-toxic." The point is, don't be ripped off by people taking advantage of your good intentions.
You'd think it would be the opposite, that good information would be disseminated more quickly than faulty ones, but these companies spend a ton of time and money carefully curating what comes up when you search for them on google and the like.
I would agree. It's useful shorthand.
It's just a shame that there's an association between something being toxic and having chemicals in it. The presence of chemicals is irrelevant because that's a given. People picture a barrel of purple sludge or something when they hear the word chemical instead of focusing on the what and the how much (and also in what context).
Easier to believe than to research.
Research takes effort.
Believing only requires gut feelings.
User banned (1 day) hostility over series of posts
As I said to the other numbskull who can't read, it was the OP who came out with the stupid assertion about chemicals.
Go send that sass their way, get me blud.