Should celebrities who do “research” be taken seriously as public policy advocates just because they are celebrities?
-
-
Buy this e-book from this Nationwide Concealed Carry ad and the publisher will make a donation to Black & Right
-
My oldest, now on iTunes
No. Their research stands on its own. Neither celebrities, nor politicians, nor scientists, nor any other kind of expert, have any credibility beyond the evidence they offer. Their legitimacy should not be identified with their status, nor should it correlate with any title they may hold.
In sufficient concentration, all chemicals are toxic, including water and oxygen. How does she propose they confirm toxicity and establish the minimum concentration without clinical trials? They have previously used animals, but proponents of animal rights argued that humans should be the subjects of those experiments. Well, guess what, now they are. And, despite progressive classifications, we are individuals, with unique requirements. The best we can hope for is to establish a statistical distribution which will accommodate the majority of people.
As for consumption, there is only one safe measure, and that is in moderation. It is not really expensive to locate quality products, but they cannot be consumed in concentration, and they require personal effort to prepare for individual consumption.
Another problem exists with nations that manufacture and grow products which do not comply with our standards.
I really hate when people rely on emotional appeals to support their argument.
In any case, the problem has a comprehensive cause, and the solution must also be comprehensive. This piecemeal approach to treating symptoms only serves to enrich a select few, especially lawyers and professional advocates.
Hopefully, Alba is following a strategy different from what was revealed in this interview.
As a liberal, how does Alba reconcile her enduring love for children, with her support for sacrificing virginal human life? I wonder if she is aware of the progressive techniques utilized to end the existence of human offspring. They are actually comparable to the means used by soldiers in wars to survive a battle with their enemy.
I think toxins are the least of her concerns. While their presence is an issue of merit, it does not supersede the long-term significance of the original deviant behavior, "pro-choice", which promotes a depraved condition for individuals and society.
Pampers Rorschach Test
It would appear that the people at Pampers are pro-life.
Now a question. Do people decide to assume the risk inherent to entrepreneurship in order to provide a product or service which they believe is truly useful, to profit from an open market, or both? I think for the pioneers it is primarily the former, then with the assumption of responsibility by managers, it becomes progressively the latter.
The reason I ask, is to understand if the people at Pampers are truly pro-life or does their message follow from the business they are in? Was the video produced in conjunction with a marketing campaign designed simply to ensure the perpetuity of their market? And, in this context, do their motives actually matter? How can anyone not approve of new human life.
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!
Morons. Pretty faces, vapid intelligences. Hollyweird.
You know, a significant number of people die from improper use of Dihydrogen Monoxide every year! It's just scandalous! If the FDA doesn't impose an outright ban; should there not, at least be warning labels?