221–230 of 250 posts
I’ve heard that fecal transplants are also good for curing former lawyers. The bigger the hose the faster the cure.
I DONT NEED CURING. There’s nothing wrong with me.
I have IBS - which could lead to nutrient deficiencies - and I've passed the initial pre-screen gate for ADHD assessment (coming soon). I also suspect autism, but the reward to cost ratio for assessment of that doesn't thrill me at the moment.
A different gut microbiome might simply be a way to solve nutrient deficiencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you also think "treatment for cancer" caused cancer where there was none?
The keyword there is "treatment". It can be "cure" or "remedy" or something like that. But the title has "transplants". The contrast is obvious, though I'm not native, so YMMV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I see the word "DX'ed" and immediately think of getting clotheslined by Triple H.
Now I'm even more confused. I can read every word in that sentence but I have no idea what it means.
Many autistic children have extremely limited diets. For example, a geneticist friend of mine saw a case where an autistic child had been referred for genetic testing because of horrific, chronic, spontaneous wounds on gums and skin. Turned out to be scurvy, because he had exclusively eaten Wheat Thins for the last 3-4 years, which aren’t fortified with vitamin C. I would fully expect that a monotonous diet leads to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The keyword there is "treatment". It can be "cure" or "remedy" or something like that. But the title has "transplants". The contrast is obvious, though I'm not native, so YMMV.
A transplant in a medical context is a type of treatment. I’d be willing to bet using ‘for’ like this works the same way in your native language.
And you'd lose the bet, in my case that would be a word that dual-serves as a directional preposition meaning "away"/"from" and depending on the situation it's an opposite of "for", but not exactly "against", closer to "for dealing with smth"/"for solving smth.".
If you think more about it, perhaps the stumble is understandable, if you conceptualize Autism not simply a disorder requiring treatment, but a type of neurodiversity. Then the intuition of interpreting the "for" as the "X for Y" conventional medical syntax does not trigger and the title reads awkward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A transplant in a medical context is a type of treatment. I’d be willing to bet using ‘for’ like this works the same way in your native language.
A retina transplant is for vision, not for blindness. And you'd lose the bet, in my case that would be a word that dual-serves as a directional preposition meaning "away"/"from" and depending on the situation it's an opposite of "for", but not exactly "against", closer to "for dealing with smth"/"for solving smth.". If you think more about it, perhaps the stumble is understandable, if you conceptualize Autism not sim…
What’s your native language?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A retina transplant is for vision, not for blindness. And you'd lose the bet, in my case that would be a word that dual-serves as a directional preposition meaning "away"/"from" and depending on the situation it's an opposite of "for", but not exactly "against", closer to "for dealing with smth"/"for solving smth.". If you think more about it, perhaps the stumble is understandable, if you conceptualize Autism not sim…
A retina transplant is a treatment for blindness, and you can optionally leave out “a treatment”. Note that saying “treatment for blindness” doesn’t actually fix anything, it doesn’t mean you treat someone so that they become blind. You seem to be failing to grasp that someone who says something is “for” a problem generally and commonly means that thing helps solve the problem. It’s an accepted and understood figure…
Absolutely not. In German itself it's "gegen" - "against". In French and Spanish you definitely wouldn't just omit "treatment" from "traitement de/pour"/"tratamiento de/por" and expect the meaning to not change, and both sometimes would use "contra", though less likely.
> You seem to be failing to grasp that someone who says something is “for” a problem
See above, the special-case medical reading of the construction triggers when the object is unequivocally considered a problem.
If someone's fighting anything, it's you, who fail to grasp that the title could actually read ambiguously, depending on your disposition towards Autism and conceptualization of a transplantation procedure.
Lear to embrace ambiguity as a source of humour and have fun, instead of trying to tell people they use a language wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A retina transplant is a treatment for blindness, and you can optionally leave out “a treatment”. Note that saying “treatment for blindness” doesn’t actually fix anything, it doesn’t mean you treat someone so that they become blind. You seem to be failing to grasp that someone who says something is “for” a problem generally and commonly means that thing helps solve the problem. It’s an accepted and understood figure…
> in English and many other languages as well - pretty much all Germanic languages Absolutely not. In German itself it's "gegen" - "against". In French and Spanish you definitely wouldn't just omit "treatment" from "traitement de/pour"/"tratamiento de/por" and expect the meaning to not change, and both sometimes would use "contra", though less likely. > You seem to be failing to grasp that someone who says something…
Nobody said the words can’t literally be ambiguous in English, I actually mentioned that above already, in case you missed it. It’s a common complaint, but complaining doesn’t fix it, and learning how it works does. It’s up to you. Das ist mir Wurst.
Even though you can misread the title, there are no people researching transplants that cause autism. The assumption you have to make to mis-read the title is relatively non-sensical. Even if you do make that assumption, since you are aware that “for” is ambiguous, making an assumption and acting on it clearly risks being wrong. Plus it takes all of 3 seconds to click on the article and realize what the title meant. My sympathy for your argument is somewhat limited. :P