Profile overview for rationalinquisition.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

2 submissions to music

1 submissions to Voat

1 submissions to atheism

1 submissions to ForcedOrgasms

1 submissions to ideasforvoat

This user has so far shared a total of 6 links, started a total of 2 discussions and submitted a total of 400 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 15 and downvoted 38 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 81 and downvoted 82 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Hey Voat. I'm here because I believe that access to uncensored communication between people is a basic human right., submitted: 6/19/2015 9:21:47 PM, 7 points (+7|-0)

I Built the Sky - Translucidus, submitted: 6/20/2015 10:12:21 AM, 6 points (+6|-0)

Hitachi Torture Belt, submitted: 7/28/2015 10:40:52 PM, 5 points (+5|-0)

The Afterimage - O N Y X, submitted: 6/29/2015 10:26:29 PM, 2 points (+2|-0)

Allow multiple subverse requests on /v/subverserequest, submitted: 7/22/2015 12:07:57 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)

5 lowest rated submissions:

Atheist Experience #931, submitted: 8/18/2015 7:55:27 AM, 0 points (+2|-2)

Allow multiple subverse requests on /v/subverserequest, submitted: 7/22/2015 12:07:57 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)

How I felt leaving Reddit, submitted: 7/23/2015 3:12:52 AM, 1 points (+3|-2)

Born of Osiris - Abstract Art, submitted: 6/24/2015 11:27:00 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)

The Afterimage - O N Y X, submitted: 6/29/2015 10:26:29 PM, 2 points (+2|-0)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Twitter is deleting stolen jokes on copyright grounds submitted by flyawayhigh to news

rationalinquisition 2 points 38 points (+40|-2) ago

The people ISIS hurts are all poor, so Twitter doesn't really care. They only get involved when real (i.e. rich) people start getting hurt.

66% of Americans support mandatory GMO labeling. 27% are neutral. 7% oppose it. (More stats in comments) submitted by rwbj to news

rationalinquisition 2 points 23 points (+25|-2) ago

There are rational arguments against the use of GMOs and in favor of labeling. For example, someone who is opposed to the widespread use of pesticides that harm global bee populations would be opposed to GMO use, because the use of pesticide-resistent crops greatly increases the global usage of pesticides. By pushing for GMO labeling of foods, a person could decide if they want to monetarily support crops that are harming bee populations. It is rational to want to protect bees, because they are responsible for 80% of the world's insect pollination. Losing the bees would have severe negative consequences for global food production. Because you are accusing people of being anti-science, I have included the science backing up my position:

We can say that there is a very strong direct link between the widespread use of pesticides and the decline in global bee populations:

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063858 Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022575315413#page-1 Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7422/abs/nature11585.html

The biggest reason the bees are dieing is actually due to the virus caused by the Varroa Destructor parasitic mite that attacks and infects honeybees. Varroa Destructor is resistant to pesticides; however, pesticide use weakens the bees' ability to fight off Varroa Destructor, greatly exacerbating the problem.

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-bees/5375684

Comcast Really Wants Me To Stop Calling Their Top Lobbyist A 'Top Lobbyist' submitted by bill.lee to technology

rationalinquisition 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago

Chief of Bribery and Political Manipulation

3 lowest rated comments:

66% of Americans support mandatory GMO labeling. 27% are neutral. 7% oppose it. (More stats in comments) submitted by rwbj to news

rationalinquisition 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago

The fact that they experts haven't decided doesn't mean we should not assume they are dangerous. It is irrational to assume something is dangerous without any evidence to that support. If there really was no evidence of danger, the rational position would not be to assume that there is. That being said, it is also wrong to say there is no evidence to support the opinion that GMOs can have danger.

We know pretty well the potential dangers of GMOs (even if the research isn't comprehensive into the actual statistical danger these potential dangers represent). There are a few primary categories of danger to human health (this excludes environmental/dangers to other animals like bees). First is the danger of increased pesticide use (glyphosate). Next is the chance of unintended effects due to gene splicing/transmission. Finally, there is some evidence (minor evidence) that certain types of GMOs could affect metabolic function and cell aging.

With regards to glyphosate, long-term exposure to large amounts of glyphosate has a possible connection with increased multiple myeloma incidence, but the association is fairly minor and was studied with licensed pesticide applicators who were exposed to large quantities of glyphosate. Glyphosate exposure had no general cancer association, nor association with other cancer subtypes.

Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3435746?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The gene splicing/transmission thing is the hardest of the risks to study. Generally, it just means that GMOs might have a higher chance of having unintended gene sequence insertion as compared to traditional crop cloning/breeding, and while the vast majority of these gene sequences will not be expressed, there is a chance that a deleterious sequence could accidentally be inserted and expressed, causing harm. Additionally, a subtle unintended expression could make it through screening and be released to the general public. As you might imagine, it is very very difficult to quantify this risk or even observe in a laboratory environment.

Finally, I haven't really read up on the affect GMOs can have on liver function and cell aging, but I'll attach the paper. Its still such an infantile area of study that I couldn't draw any rational conclusions yet anyway:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00418-008-0476-x#page-1

Fatty insists there are tons of studies that support starvation mode and slow metabolisms, can't give a single example submitted by awesomepossum to fatpeoplehate

rationalinquisition 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago

To be fair, glycemic index is an important part of dieting, it just isn't nearly as important as caloric intake & macro/micro-nutrient breakdown. If you eat 1800 calories a day, but you eat them all at once, you will gain fat for a few hours after you ate them, and then lose muscle along with your fat when you haven't eaten for around 6-8 hours. Additionally, when you don't space your food out, you DO go into starvation mote (muscle catabolisis), your metabolism drops, and your body releases increased amounts of cortisol. That being said, I don't think that's what the OP was referring to.

Can Music be Objectively Good? submitted by ericoneillmusic to music

rationalinquisition 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

That isn't objective, it is subjective. In order for something to be objectively good, the opinions people have about music would have to be irrelevant, i.e. even if everyone in the world thought a piece of objectively bad music was good, it would still be objectively bad. The problem is, the belief that something is "good" is itself subjective. No matter how many objective criteria you apply to evaluating something, if it is subjective by nature the objective evaluations do not make it become objective.