Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Cell Phone in Bra Causes Breast Cancer?" video.

No... Theories are why and how something happens. Scientific tests are about what did happen. In another words if they test that will people get radiation from it, and test shows that no radiation. Then it's a fact. It's a theories which explains why it doesn't get radiation.
1
How stupid are you? Are you seriously saying that you can't start doing test before saying to press that "THIS IS MY THEORY FEAR CELL PHONES UNTIL I'M PROVEN WRONG!" idiot...
1
Sure we can end this part of debate. It was nothing more than semantics in the first place. PS: next time reply to me. It's hard enough to find your messages from comment sections enough, simply because someone marks them as thrash so I can't see did someone reply to me neither.
1
You examples fails, simply because you haven't yet even pointed out how you can prove that this invisible ghost pink unicorn doesn't exists. This is why you made example of thing which isn't actually even close of my example. Prove to me that pink unicorn doesn't exists in your logic and then your point is right.
1
You obviously missed my point that I was trying to say to you. I was pointing out that with logic of assuming guilty before proven innocent causes more problems than making assumption of innocent before proven guilty. Since it's much easier to make claim that something is dangerous and demand long term evidences for it. Oh yeah and if cell phones would cause cancer. We all would have cancers in our ears right now.
1
Since can't find actually article about disproving negative. Then let's assume that you are right. I did use words wrong. It doesn't change the fact what I was really trying to point out. Which is you can't prove that X doesn't exists. You can only prove that something exists but you can't prove that something doesn't exists. In a other words it's up to you people prove that cell phones cause cancer, and not my job to prove that it doesn't cause.
1
Wrong. You can't disprove negative. In another words if I make claim that there is pink invisible unicorn in my house which can't be verified by scientific methods. There is no way you could disprove my claim. There is also this logic called as innocent until proven wrong. However since you seem to like the idea of guilty until proved wrong then you probably wouldn't mind If someone would claim that you raped a person and you would walk into jail freely because of that.
1
Only one doing circular is you. You never address my argument, but instead run back to your strawman and keep attacking it. Still waiting you to prove that pink invisible ghost unicorn doesn't exists.
1
Do you not realise that, that was exactly my point. I might have used words wrong, but that what I was trying to tell. Still waiting for you to disprove that invisible ghost unicorn doesn't exists. Or are you still going to attack against position that I don't hold? How can you disprove that something that doesn't really exists, doesn't exists. This is my point. And answer is you can't.
1
No shit genius. Facts don't change. I never claimed that. Why do people try to use strawman claims all the time on me? Read the whole fuckign debate before jump in to the conversation. this theory presented in this video has no information or not studie at all. It's nothing more than fear mongering. This is why they shouldn't have given them any publicity. It's same as giving publicity to claim that walking in park causes cancer. Stupid as fuck.
1
And I was talking in context of video where was no test yet done. I'm sorry if I caused you misunderstanding of what I did really mean. I should write bit more clear. I'm suggesting that this theory doesn't have any evidence yet in order to point out that cellphones would cause cancer. There isn't even a study about this.
1
Yeah keep creating different scenario so it fits you better and ignore what I said. Again you are missing the point. First of all if invisibility is impossible (which actually isn't, we already have technology for that if you haven't been watching science news). But assumption that something is undetectable, how can you prove that it doesn't exists if someone makes that kind of claim that being that is undetectable exists? This is what I meant that you can't disprove negative.
1
Actually you sound like lobbyist for all natural. First of all if cell phones would cause cancer, I think that we would've already seen spread of cancer now. EAR cancer. Also I think I did already give link somewhere in here where they said that it's impossible that cell phones could affect your cells in way that it could cause mutation.
1
part 2 for you twisting words. What you try to do here is to try to make you claim to look like that it would work. But everyone who has brain can see that you are actually that you can prove positive. In another words if I would make claim "prove me that computer exists" Then you show that computer exists. This is proving positive, you are proving that something exists, but you are not disproving that something that doesn't exists doesn't exists. It's totally different subject.
1
Correlation does not imply causation. If bird flies above and I punch you in the face. Does that mean that I will punch you every time bird flies over you?
1
yes you misunderstood the part where I was stating that you don't seem to understand what cancer is.^ However I don't even remember why I did reply to you. Might have replied on accident to you instead of the one I should've replied.
1
Learn to check your facts. Darwin never published his theory before he had facts. Have you ever even read origin of species? Theories are always based around facts in science. Observation, and after it they wonder how or what causes it. In this case there isn't really enough data. In fact there is even less data in this claim than in walking in sunny beach causes cancer.
1
You can't disprove negative. I should also mention that if they do test that will people get radiated and will it even affect our cells in a way it needs to affect to get cancer. And they end up with 0 results and see that cellphones doesn't have waves to do that kind of affect. Then by default they can't do it. Big difference. Enjoy your folio hat. There were test done this way.
1
Didn't notice this comment because it was marked as trash. Darwin didn't get his theory of evolution out of nowhere. There were facts which did support this theory. He published theory after he had facts to support it. This is how science works. First you find facts, then you make theory around them. Beside read my previous comment to you. About time you should answer to my question.
1
Again answer my damn question already. You are avoiding it like plague since you know what it would mean to answer to it. What if Tespri wouldn't exists. How would you prove that there Tespri wouldn't exists in this scenario? This is what I have been saying all the time. Don't try to use strawman on me and attack on position that I haven't even made.
1
They really should improve it so that it would be easier to find own comments and responses to them. It only helps to find most recent...
1
You still keep talking bullshit. Disproving negative: "prove to me that god doesn't exists" Proving negative: "prove to me that god exists. Aka you are the one who is confused in here. Also I did give response to darwin. Read it up. I can repeat it though. Darwin did make his theory after he did see some facts how nature works. He didn't publish theory before he had evidence to support it.
1
You're trying to debate against facts here. IT seems that you don't even understand what cancer is.
1
Sayings doesn't make things to facts. Better safe than sorry? You know that there is no long term evidence that touching keyboard doesn't cause cancer. In fact there is no long term evidence that using computer doesn't cause cancer. And still you use them. There is neither any evidence that walking outside doesn't cause cancer. Being paranoid and being careful aren't the same thing.
1
"but excessive exposure to the sun with no protection CAN lead to skin cancer, that is a FACT not an opinion." No shit sherlock. Did I ever say that It's a opinion? That's why I used it in here as example. BECAUSE IT'S A FACT. Since you idiots are so paranoid about everything, without realizing that things you do and like to do causes even more harm and have been even proven to do harm you just ignore them.
1
1.Again, in this case there is no evidence nor fact to support that cell phones causes cancer. Darwin and pretty much everyone who made a scientific theory had facts to support it. Science works like this. First you find out what are the facts, then you base theory around them. Instead of first making theory and trying to find facts to support it(called as biased research).
1
No you can't especially because this unicorn is invisible. Which means you can't see him. Not to mention that I could give unicorn a quality which makes him impossible to find or identify. For example make claim that spirit of pink unicorn is on mars. Just admit that you are shitty troll or a person who can't even use logic.
1
News like these just make people paranoid. It's known fact that cell phones can't cause cancer. What to do with pseudoscience claims? Don't fucking publish them unless theory is actually proven.
1
"you can't disprove negative" In another words. Negative means that something that doesn't exists. For example flying pink invisible unicorn. You can't disprove existance of it. You can only prove that it exists but you can't prove that it doesn't exists. Learn to read, and still waiting for your answer. Accusing of straw man? I did explain pretty well that you are attacking position that I never held. This is what strawman means.
1
now for my third comment on you. There is no good reason to assume that there actually is pink unicorn. This is why we have neither no good reason that cellphones causes cancer. This is why default position is either it doesn't cause until it's proven to cause. This is most logical option. Otherwise you should be fearing pretty much every claim in world.
1