Hi, that was me. This place is pro-science, which is why when people post articles with only the most tenuous possible connection to the conversation at hand in order to promote the pro-stink agenda they’re spouting all over the thread, it tends to be quite the turnoff.
The same way that stinky people tend to be quite the turnoff.
I don’t have to like the science - it just needs to actually be relevant to the conversation (that is, people showering and using deodorant), and not a handful of essentially random studies dug up as flailing, ad-hoc support to a thread-wide crusade against basic hygeine.
Edit: To be more clear, if I hadn’t already noticed all of your other comments spammed around the thread, I probably wouldn’t have downvoted the studies you posted. It was the specific impression of disingenuously throwing any science you could at the wall and hoping it stuck that made me want to downvote.
Same reason I downvote most studies posted by vegans and creationists, actually - the distasteful practice of taking an ideological position and then trying to find/manufacture “science” to support it after the fact.
I don’t like eating aluminum. I like licking armpits. I am biased.
This is a very fair point that I admit I did not take into consideration.
It’s absolutely a reasonable position to not be in favor of anti-perspirant if it’s likely you’d be in a position to ingest it, at least for your potential partners specifically.
That said, I also think that’s likely a minority position in the thread, enough so to warrant a disclaimer when you posted the original studies.
This is especially the case if that fact is what your argument against using anti-perspirants is actually resting on, and you’re not just trying to find post-hoc support of your dislike of anti-perspirants in general.
It still doesn’t really explain the studies about miners and zebrafish though.
We don’t have to agree, except on one thing. Chuds suck because they’re assholes, not because they stink.
The closest I can get is “Chuds suck because they’re assholes, and the fact that some of them stink is a very small but valid additional reason to not want to be around them.”
deleted by creator
Hi, that was me. This place is pro-science, which is why when people post articles with only the most tenuous possible connection to the conversation at hand in order to promote the pro-stink agenda they’re spouting all over the thread, it tends to be quite the turnoff.
The same way that stinky people tend to be quite the turnoff.
deleted by creator
I don’t have to like the science - it just needs to actually be relevant to the conversation (that is, people showering and using deodorant), and not a handful of essentially random studies dug up as flailing, ad-hoc support to a thread-wide crusade against basic hygeine.
Edit: To be more clear, if I hadn’t already noticed all of your other comments spammed around the thread, I probably wouldn’t have downvoted the studies you posted. It was the specific impression of disingenuously throwing any science you could at the wall and hoping it stuck that made me want to downvote.
Same reason I downvote most studies posted by vegans and creationists, actually - the distasteful practice of taking an ideological position and then trying to find/manufacture “science” to support it after the fact.
deleted by creator
It’s relevant in the same way that equating using a salt scrub in the bath with death from directly eating a pound of table salt is relevant.
“I really like using my salt scrub - it gives me super smooth skin.” “Bro, sodium HAZ negative effects on the body. THIS IS RELEVANT.”
Also, I made a late edit to the above comment that might be of interest since this thread is originally about why I downvoted you.
deleted by creator
This is a very fair point that I admit I did not take into consideration.
It’s absolutely a reasonable position to not be in favor of anti-perspirant if it’s likely you’d be in a position to ingest it, at least for your potential partners specifically.
That said, I also think that’s likely a minority position in the thread, enough so to warrant a disclaimer when you posted the original studies.
This is especially the case if that fact is what your argument against using anti-perspirants is actually resting on, and you’re not just trying to find post-hoc support of your dislike of anti-perspirants in general.
It still doesn’t really explain the studies about miners and zebrafish though.
The closest I can get is “Chuds suck because they’re assholes, and the fact that some of them stink is a very small but valid additional reason to not want to be around them.”
deleted by creator