• sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Somewhat more charitably…

    Causal misattribution.

    They both got cancer because they both eat meat with too much of some kind of carcinogenic toxin in it, (or waaay too much red meat in general), because they are both poor and live in a polluted area or at least area with poor food standards.

    That also correlates with the ignorance, but still an attempt to craft an explanation: never had the chance to get well educated, else they’d know cancer is not … contagious, broadly transmissable.

    Poor dumbass tried to spell ‘Prevent’ and ended up with ‘Pervert’.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Not myself a doctor, but, basically yes?

        https://health.clevelandclinic.org/link-red-meat-cancer-need-know

        Cancer is not… one thing.

        It is a huge family of diseases that… work in the body in very similar ways, but … more or less, each different kind of tissue in your body has different things that are either known to, or are strongly suspected to increase the likelihood that a cancer will develop in them.

        (Not counting ‘so i accidentally bathed in the light of the demon core’ or something like that.)

        Anyway, again to the best of my not an expert understanding… you have to have a considerably red meat heavy diet, for your chances of colon cancer to rise.

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Red meat is ‘probably carcinogenic’

          Depending on cooking method

          Processed meats are carcinogenic

          Always

          Checks out

    • AscendantSquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It’s not the point at all, but can dogs be poor? Like, their human can be poor, but does that then apply to the dog too? Applying a financial status to a dog feels weird, it’s not like it can open a bank account.

      • Tm12@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Maybe dogs can’t be wealthy, but some eat/live really well.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I mean strictly speaking, yes, it is odd to describe a dog directly with human socioeconomic descriptors.

        But yeah, I meant it as ‘the dog is owned by a poor human’.