Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 The way I see it, the do-gooders who have used the force of the government (which is ironically the enforced threat of fines and prison VIA THE USE OF ARMS) cause more damage to the health of society than if people were just allowed to make their own choices. Problem 1 - once a law is passed, no matter how harmful it turns out to be, its virtually impossible to get rid of (without tons of money and political influence). I like to think of milk. the do-gooders " saved " us from unpasteurized milk. Yes, a while ago some farms started to slack off on sanitation and the milk was poor. The solution is simple to save us from sickness, outlaw it. Well, decades later we have all the knowledge and technology to ensure good, safe, healthy milk for the masses. But you can't get it, because the old laws and regulations are still there. If they had never passed the laws, a few people would have gotten sick, people would start to demand better milk, the suppliers would have responded. How much sickness has resulted from this? Problem 2 - no one knows everything, not even do gooders They thought they were doing us a favor. " We know the right diet, one high in carbs and low in fat. " They had all the studies to prove it. It makes perfect sense to use the resource of the government to esentially brainwash people to eat this way because they are too stupid to know on their own. Again, how much death and suffering has resulted from this I know better than you attitude? Most junk food like oreos are fine to eat in many people's minds because of what the government says. They are carbs, and they usually have the right kind of fat, not saturated. Problem 3 - when it comes to laws, the idea with the most political influence wins, not the always right idea. The whole medical monopoly is designed this way. It exists for the benefit of the suppliers. The medical establishment has the money and influence in government circles to ensure this continues, and any threats to it which may make people healthier but result in less revenue, are quickly squashed with laws and regulations. I believe if you just stopped butting into people's lives and decisions, if you let people live their life, make mistakes and learn from them, you will find that good ideas NATURALLY thrive and grow in society and bad ideas die out. We need this no place more desperatly than in health and nutrition. -joe --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > > >Legislate our behavior; we will not consent. We are freemen (and are > >responsible for ourselves.) We will not be subjugated. We have the guns to > >prove it. " Anonymous: The Register > > I find it entirely unsurprising, if still disheartening, that the threat of > armed resistance is raised in response to the suggestion that a poisonous > non-food item currently used by industry to boost profits at the expense of > gross injuries to health be banned from the market. > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 I can't believe this. This is like the evil demonic thread that wouldn't die. We might need to call ghostbusters or get a priest in here or something. I've been gone over a week and you guys are still beating this horse. Well I suppose some credit needs to be given for the sheer willingness and determination to resolve these two polar ideologies that have plagued mankind for nearly its entire history. On a discussion group no less. Bravo! DMM --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Joe- > > >The way I see it, the do-gooders who have used the force of the > >government (which is ironically the enforced threat of fines and > >prison VIA THE USE OF ARMS) > > The sad irony is that you (and others of your political stripe) seem caught > by the idea that all these problems have been caused by well- meaning > inadvertent villains -- " do-gooders " as you all call them -- when in fact > that practically couldn't be further from the truth. At most, some > misinformed do-gooders were recruited to the cause early on, but the real > prime movers couldn't have cared less about any kind of public good. They > only used the rhetoric of health and safety to cover their true purpose. > > Are you familiar with the expression " follow the money " ? This is one of > its best possible applications. > > >I like to think of milk. the do-gooders " saved " us from > >unpasteurized milk. > > Not at all. Industry was faced by a problem: raw milk required local > production and local distribution, but huge, concentrated profits required > centralized production and centralized, wide-scale distribution. Bogus and > incomplete science was marshalled to create a perception of a need for > pasteurization, and the march towards factory farming of milk was > underway. So-called " do-gooders " didn't start the transition, they were > mere tools of those who did. > > >Problem 2 - no one knows everything, not even do gooders > >They thought they were doing us a favor. " We know the right diet, > >one high in carbs and low in fat. " > > Again, " do-gooders " were at most peripheral to the problem, recruited to > the cause -- they didn't create it themselves. And again, follow the > money. A high-carb diet is much more amenable to industrial production and > distribution than a high-fat one, and a high-carb diet is also much more > amenable to massive centralized profits. Where, after all, do you think > the money to promote and " prove " the virtues of a high-carb low- fat diet > came from? > > And the same is true of hydrogenated oils. Hydrogenation allowed expensive > lower-profit animal fats and tropical oils to be replaced by cheap domestic > vegetable oils and an inexpensive industrial process. > > Admittedly, these ideas were easy to foster and attracted strident > proponents in part because of a puritanical sense that anything tasty or > enjoyable must be bad for you (IOW the ideas created many do- gooders, not > the other way around) but note that expensive, labor-intensive and > low-profit foods like fat and milk fell under that gun while equally tasty > but highly profitable, low-overhead foods like sugar didn't. > > I strongly urge you to read _Trust Us, We're Experts_, which describes how > PR is used to deceive and to deform public attitudes on a massively wide > scale. Yes, corrupting our government is one technique the perpetrators > use, the illegality of raw milk in most areas being a good example of the > fruits of that corruption, but it's far from their only technique, and > government is the only macro-scale tool we as individual citizens possess > to fight the macro-scale influence of industry. Rather than trying to rid > ourselves of our one tool -- a phenomenon which itself is an incredible > accomplishment of industry PR -- we should do our utmost to purge it of > corruption and return its full function and power to our hands. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 I might also add that this thread is pure evidence of the true evils of Oreo's. DMM > > Joe- > > > > >The way I see it, the do-gooders who have used the force of the > > >government (which is ironically the enforced threat of fines and > > >prison VIA THE USE OF ARMS) > > > > The sad irony is that you (and others of your political stripe) > seem caught > > by the idea that all these problems have been caused by well- > meaning > > inadvertent villains -- " do-gooders " as you all call them -- when > in fact > > that practically couldn't be further from the truth. At most, > some > > misinformed do-gooders were recruited to the cause early on, but > the real > > prime movers couldn't have cared less about any kind of public > good. They > > only used the rhetoric of health and safety to cover their true > purpose. > > > > Are you familiar with the expression " follow the money " ? This is > one of > > its best possible applications. > > > > >I like to think of milk. the do-gooders " saved " us from > > >unpasteurized milk. > > > > Not at all. Industry was faced by a problem: raw milk required > local > > production and local distribution, but huge, concentrated profits > required > > centralized production and centralized, wide-scale distribution. > Bogus and > > incomplete science was marshalled to create a perception of a need > for > > pasteurization, and the march towards factory farming of milk was > > underway. So-called " do-gooders " didn't start the transition, > they were > > mere tools of those who did. > > > > >Problem 2 - no one knows everything, not even do gooders > > >They thought they were doing us a favor. " We know the right diet, > > >one high in carbs and low in fat. " > > > > Again, " do-gooders " were at most peripheral to the problem, > recruited to > > the cause -- they didn't create it themselves. And again, follow > the > > money. A high-carb diet is much more amenable to industrial > production and > > distribution than a high-fat one, and a high-carb diet is also > much more > > amenable to massive centralized profits. Where, after all, do you > think > > the money to promote and " prove " the virtues of a high-carb low- > fat diet > > came from? > > > > And the same is true of hydrogenated oils. Hydrogenation allowed > expensive > > lower-profit animal fats and tropical oils to be replaced by cheap > domestic > > vegetable oils and an inexpensive industrial process. > > > > Admittedly, these ideas were easy to foster and attracted strident > > proponents in part because of a puritanical sense that anything > tasty or > > enjoyable must be bad for you (IOW the ideas created many do- > gooders, not > > the other way around) but note that expensive, labor-intensive and > > low-profit foods like fat and milk fell under that gun while > equally tasty > > but highly profitable, low-overhead foods like sugar didn't. > > > > I strongly urge you to read _Trust Us, We're Experts_, which > describes how > > PR is used to deceive and to deform public attitudes on a > massively wide > > scale. Yes, corrupting our government is one technique the > perpetrators > > use, the illegality of raw milk in most areas being a good example > of the > > fruits of that corruption, but it's far from their only technique, > and > > government is the only macro-scale tool we as individual citizens > possess > > to fight the macro-scale influence of industry. Rather than > trying to rid > > ourselves of our one tool -- a phenomenon which itself is an > incredible > > accomplishment of industry PR -- we should do our utmost to purge > it of > > corruption and return its full function and power to our hands. > > > > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 > > >Good grief! We'll need some good civil disobedience when it comes to this - > >ban homemade food at church functions??? Yikes! > > They have already done so in the schools, at least in this state! To avoid > food poisoning. Ah well, I didn't bring a vial of my favorite > kefir-bacteria either ... > Have people lost their minds? How much more over-regulated can our world get? Dawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.