Jump to content

Gross women

dulwich2020

By dulwich2020
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

????

????

Posted
Posted

Vicanna Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lots of pseudo-scientists and sociologists (a.k.a

> losers) desperately vying for their anonymous

> peers' inconsequential approval, too.

>

> Kudos to those who've lead them so easily up the

> garden path. No, really.


This could be applied to 90% of threads on here surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

Couch potato? Not my style. There's a dilapidated red telephone box at the bottom of Upland Road with two panes of glass fallen out and a faint whiff of stale urine.


Assuming the wife's washed my camo utility trousers and I can find my Argos headtorch - it's game on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TE44

TE44

Posted
Posted

dg No it is not the same misinformed belief system, the banning of additives in cosmetics and the continueing

scientific studys on ingredients like the phthatates,are a real concern and it has been recognised what dangers lie

with some of these chemicals, hence the banning.


I am aware of louises view but the belief there are toxins so strong they are a public

health issue is a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

No it's not a reality...look at the report I posted. It's full of recognised medical bodies disproving those kinds of claims.


Just on phthatates alone the report says.....


The Campaign?s most recent report, Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance

, claims that perfume manufacturers use ?secret? ingredients that are not safe for use in their fragrances. Specifically, the report argues that the cosmetic industry is using a chemical ?cocktail? of phthalates and other compounds that, when inhaled or absorbed through the skin, can stunt genital development and is linked to sperm and hormonal damage.


Furthermore, these groups argue most of the ?complex mix of clandestine compounds? has never been

tested by the FDA, the International Fragrance Association, or ?any other publicly accountable institution.?


The charges that phthalates are a health risk have been completely and directly refuted by experts. Every regulatory agency and science panel that has ever studied the data has concluded there is no evidence that phthalates are an endocrine disrupter or safety risk. This includes the National Toxicology Program at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the European Union?s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety, Cosmetic Ingredient Review, and Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.


There is no evidence...and data and evidence is what counts...that supports your 'reality'. If there were evidence I would support your view. And what's truly unforgiveable is that those making the claims can provide no damning evidence either, which is just bad science, and designed to fool the public into thinking there's a problem when there isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voyageur

Voyageur

Posted
Posted

There are a number of things that could end up sending me and others near me to our grave. I am confident that my twice daily application of moisturiser and once daily application of make-up isn't one of them :)


Long live the painted ladies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voyageur

Voyageur

Posted
Posted

Voyageur Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are a number of things that could end up

> sending me and others near me to our graves. I am

> confident that my twice daily application of

> moisturiser and once daily application of make-up

> isn't one of them :)

>

> Long live the painted ladies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

The report reinforces it's view as follows.....


Dose and the degree of exposure.


Most of us are familiar with the basic foundation of toxicology, that ?the dose makes the poison.? The Swiss Renaissance chemist Paracelsus laid out the principle back in the 16th century: ?All substances are poisonous, there is none which is not a poison; the right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy.?


Yet one of the key approaches of the anti-chemical campaigners?with which the media too often goes along?is

to completely disregard the amount of exposure or dose when reporting on the risks of chemicals.


The cosmetic preservative parabens, for example, is said by the Campaign and other environmental groups to be linked to breast cancer and hormone dysfunction. Yet scientists have refuted the claims, arguing that concentrations of parabens in personal care products?ranging from 0.01 percent to 0.3 percent are too small to have an adverse effect, and are at levels in our bodies much lower than naturally produced estrogens.


THAT's why I believe the science over bad science and wild claims. A chemical naturally produced by the body in higher quantities can not possibly be harmful if present in lower quantities in cosmetics. That's just common sense.


You might want to give the report a read TE44 and find some credible conflicting science if you want to to disagree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No it's not a reality...look at the report I

> posted. It's full of recognised medical bodies

> disproving those kinds of claims.


Ah so that makes it ok does it DJKQ?



>

> There is no evidence...and data and evidence is

> what counts...


why is it? how is it? Are you up on all the latest data from science around the world? not all of it is published into the public forum so we are only guessing and/or relying on CURRENT published data.


> the claims can provide no damning evidence either,

> which is just bad science, and designed to fool

> the public into thinking there's a problem when

> there isn't.


The claims might not be able to supply this damning evidence you ask for DJKQ, but numerous people are put at risk, potentially (apparently there is no published evidence, I disagree) from unknown chemicals which could in a small space create and or enhance existing conditions. What about asthma? We just do not know.



I'm glad some other people are finally coming out in full support of my views on here. I spent a rather chilly afternoon in Dulwich Park munching on an ice cream thinking about all of this and whether I had overstepped the mark in my countering DJKQ and her argument. I've now read through recent posts and come to the conclusion I'm more mind made up on this topic than ever. I know I'm right.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UncleBen

UncleBen

Posted
Posted

Vicanna Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Looks like I've got under *Bob*'s skin. Disabled

> kid(s)?


I have no idea but I suspect it's your derogatory language that is causing offence. That and your laughable UrbEx

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

http://www.healthfoodemporium.com/index_dangerous-ingredients.php


I've had a read up on this and the mention of environmental cancers, is quite a frightening link. I did not want to post this earlier because people will try to rip it apart, but if medical and scientific studies currently unpublished back up any such claims then certain cosmetics could be hazardous to lots of people. Less than half a century ago people were working with asbestos unmasked until it was found that it could cause untold numbers of health problems.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadyDeliah

LadyDeliah

Posted
Posted

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Isn't this discussion really about taboos?

>

> The threat of deadly makeup and homicidal leather

> jackets may well be technically 'true' but the

> risk is so vanishingly small that there has never

> been a documented case to support these ornate

> theories.

>

> It's certainly not big enough to justify the

> visceral overreaction of some individuals to such

> 'gross' women.

>

> So isn't this protest really about 'gross' women

> upsetting the natural order and threatening the

> very fabric of society?

>

> The fact that the protestors on this thread

> regularly find themselves on other threads voicing

> traditionalist, conservative, reactionary opinions

> would seem to support this?

>

> The challenge with public makeup is that it

> reveals the design and application behind a

> woman's outward appearance. It's a statement of

> independence - a rejection of the idea that women

> are somehow naturally demure, feminine and

> retiring 'pretty little things' in favour of more

> complex motivations and machinations.

>

> So these protestations are perhaps the last gasp

> of Victorian traditionalists resentful of female

> equality?

>

> For 'gross women putting on makeup in public'

> instead read 'women should know their place'.



10/10 Totally agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...