A treat for those of you wondering why all the dumb shit happens in America

[inasuma]

So basically they are disputing that people need to be drinking water. Great. But the whole "drinking water helps avoid dehydration" is still relevant. lol

It's saying that drinking water doesn't prevent dehydration. As in, you can drink water and be hydrated from that but it doesn't prevent you from getting dehydrated. It's a matter of semantics, really. But people are stupid enough to not comprehend the difference. It's just that dehydration can be caused by a variety of things (diuretics, for one) and water is not always able to stop it.

But when they already say "it helps you avoid dehydration," then what is there to debate? It's really just good advice. It helps you avoid it, of course it won't prevent dehydration. Not trying to debate, really just trying to understand what they're attempting to accomplish.

idk lol

 

[Cosmic+Amarna]

Yeah I know right lol, it's pretty simple. I have never thought that if I drink this water bottle right here I will be set on hydration for a while(1 month), it is not like a vaccination shot that you do once and it lasts a few years. People somewhere are distraught about this.

 

[MegaWallflower]

It's saying that drinking water doesn't prevent dehydration. As in, you can drink water and be hydrated from that but it doesn't prevent you from getting dehydrated. It's a matter of semantics, really. But people are stupid enough to not comprehend the difference. It's just that dehydration can be caused by a variety of things (diuretics, for one) and water is not always able to stop it.

It's the same thing with sports drinks that have electrolytes. You can't say that they "prevent dehydration" but you can say they allow you "rehydrate faster".

That's what I was thinking it said. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Just had to look past the title. Not as dumb as it seemed at first.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

But when they already say "it helps you avoid dehydration," then what is there to debate? It's really just good advice. It helps you avoid it, of course it won't prevent dehydration. Not trying to debate, really just trying to understand what they're attempting to accomplish.

idk lol

Well that's just it. There's a huge difference between "helps avoid dehydration" and "prevents dehydration". Dehydration cannot be absolutely prevented.

 

[Ehres]

Were you talking to me?

If so, there's no need to get so defensive. You can admit fault once in a while, it isn't like you're personally responsible for it.

Also, even small teams eat up budgets much larger than they need when doing research, it isn't a simple think tank in a conference room. If it were, their credibility would be zip and no one would listen to a word they said ever again.

Also, it's exactly the same scale, and if that wounds your ego I'm sorry, but everyone else is just as likely to say stupid things as an American organization, they just tend not to let it get a lot of public viewership. By the way, who said the EU? This was the UK, and America never said that water doesn't prevent dehydration.

Kindly calm your tits.

Er, what? Don't speak to me like that. I was just saying that it wasn't as dumb as the article made it sound.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

Well that's just it. There's a huge difference between "helps avoid dehydration" and "prevents dehydration". Dehydration cannot be absolutely prevented.

It can if you actively remain hydrated. Now obviously a single bottle of water will not stave off dehydration forever, but the more you drink, and most importantly the more often you drink, it will sustain your body in a hydrated state for longer, therefore preventing dehydration. There's really no saving this one, regardless of whether or not it is true, it is absolutely inane and not worth the effort it would take to write it out.

The overall point is, it's a silly waste of time.

 

[MegaWallflower]

It can if you actively remain hydrated. Now obviously a single bottle of water will not stave off dehydration forever, but the more you drink, and most importantly the more often you drink, it will sustain your body in a hydrated state for longer, therefore preventing dehydration. There's really no saving this one, regardless of whether or not it is true, it is absolutely inane and not worth the effort it would take to write it out.

The overall point is, it's a silly waste of time.

There's saving it, because it is not as silly as it seems at first glance.


We've already establish that there are certain conditions that can cause dehydration that drinking water may not prevent, and also, what you describe is staving off dehyradation, I think, rather than preventing it.

They're just trying to get the water advertisers to be more "correct" with their wording and claim. They didn't deny that water can hydrate you.

...And you still kind of owe Ehres an apology or something; you were sorta out of line back there, I think.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

There's saving it, because it is not as silly as it seems at first glance.

And if this had been done in America, it would be an entirely different story. It is easily just as silly as it ever was, because the simple idea that a government agency would bar you from claiming that water does exactly what water is meant to do IS silly.

We've already establish that there are certain conditions that can cause dehydration that drinking water may not prevent, and also, what you describe is staving off dehyradation, I think, rather than preventing it.

I must have missed these conditions, because I can't think of any myself, aside from intense, near instantly dehydrating, heat.
Also, preventing and staving off is really just a semantic difference, it's almost entirely the same thing.

...And you still kind of owe Ehres an apology or something; you were sorta out of line back there, I think.

Oh, absolutely not.

 

[MegaWallflower]

And if this had been done in America, it would be an entirely different story. It is easily just as silly as it ever was, because the simple idea that a government agency would bar you from claiming that water does exactly what water is meant to do IS silly.

It makes no difference to me where it was done. It's banning it from saying something kind of misleading -it does say that water can hydrate. Water does hydrate. This is not the same as preventing dehydration.

I must have missed these conditions, because I can't think of any myself, aside from intense, near instantly dehydrating, heat.
Also, preventing and staving off is really just a semantic difference, it's almost entirely the same thing.

The article mentioned them, but didn't name any, although Johnny Stooge named diuretics s one possible factor. It is a semantic thing; Saying it the way they are is misleading and not 100% accurate.

Oh, absolutely not.

Very well, not like I can make you or anything. c:

 

[Ehres]

Guess people just don't apologise for unnecessary rudeness anymore, lmao. What use are manners.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

It makes no difference to me where it was done. It's banning it from saying something kind of misleading -it does say that water can hydrate. Water does hydrate. This is not the same as preventing dehydration.

I can see we're having a difference of perspective here. So let me rephrase the topic. What does this accomplish? Is it worth the time, effort, and funds required to have compiled this end?

I'm not arguing that they are ultimately making sense, in a semantically skewed manner. I'm arguing that is a deleterious and a piddling away of their efforts in a time when they are pressed to the wire to take care of actually important issues. Most especially, the guilt of the media for pandering to the citizens.

Very well, not like I can make you or anything. c:

Certainly not, but more importantly, I will not be bombasted into a childish apology for something that was never an insult in the first place. It is a common phrase where I'm from, it means relax. It has no gender-relevant connotations or condescending hidden meanings. I'm not willing to give an apology that means nothing and that I have no cause to be sorry for.

If that means I have no manners, then by all means. We have a different definition of manners.

 

[MegaWallflower]

I can see we're having a difference of perspective here. So let me rephrase the topic. What does this accomplish? Is it worth the time, effort, and funds required to have compiled this end?

How much were they funded for this project anyway? Those involved decided to use their time and effort for it, and it's not as though it was unproductive. I'm sure there are funded studies that have no hope of helping anyone or anything, and are just for gaining information. This does raise awareness that the claim the whole public took for granted to be true is not entirely so, right? That is, for those who will look past what they think the article is saying and see what it actual says. So, I don't think it was a waste, really. They did what they were supposed to do.

I'm not arguing that they are ultimately making sense, in a semantically skewed manner. I'm arguing that is a deleterious and a piddling away of their efforts in a time when they are pressed to the wire to take care of actually important issues. Most especially, the guilt of the media for pandering to the citizens.

So this is the only project they have had going on for the entirety of the study? It is weird that they'd focus on this, I suppose, but I somehow doubt this was the only thing they have worried about for its 3 years of time. Maybe actually important issues take a while to figure out how to resolve well -if they're worth they're salt they should acknowledge them and try to think of ways to fix them, but it isn't exactly always easy. For example, here in the US(this is the only example I know off the bat; I'm not saying this to make fun of the country) there has been a problem of a national debt for quite a while, but a study won't fix it. Does that mean while we twiddle our thumbs we should only consider this issue and not do any studies or anything, even if those studies aren't our main focus?

Then again, it's pretty clear I'm not particularly smart- maybe there's something I'm not seeing, and if that's so, I'm sorry.

Certainly not, but more importantly, I will not be bombasted into a childish apology for something that was never an insult in the first place. It is a common phrase where I'm from, it means relax. It has no gender-relevant connotations or condescending hidden meanings. I'm not willing to give an apology that means nothing and that I have no cause to be sorry for.

If that means I have no manners, then by all means. We have a different definition of manners.

I know about the phrase, that wasn't exactly what I was referring to.. Although there was nothing from her post to show that she wasn't calm in her response. Still, I'm sorry to ave bothered you about it, I'll drop this right now, because I'm not looking to start any personal disputes or anything.