[breezybottom]

Huh? You're on the side of RFK Jr and the MAHA nutjobs. This is the kind of "science" they believe in.

[margalabargala]

Sometimes among large groups of people there are varying opinions, you'll see this more as you grow up. The american right wing is one such group.

[breezybottom]

So it's not as simple as "questioning bad science makes you a conservative". Glad we agree.

[margalabargala]

Absolutely we agree. Being able to recognize and intelligently question bad science does not appear to have much overlap with conservatives, at least in America.

The only point I'm making is that it's nonsensical for you to claim to be receiving "Soros bucks" for shilling ultra-processed food as healthy. That's not a stance the Soros foundation takes.

[breezybottom]

I didn't say ultra processed foods are healthy. I said the entire idea of ultra-processed is vague and incoherent.

[margalabargala]

It's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though.

The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed" but it will improve society overall by increasing the communication ability of some of its currently less skilled memebers.

[breezybottom]

No, the label itself is incoherent. If we had a better education system, we probably wouldn't have quack science like this being accepted.