RE: OT: Re: POLITICS RELIGION Can we stick to native nutrition?

[Guest guest]

> Idol

> Masterjohn

>

> It seem you have a lot to say to each other, maybe you can email each

> other privatly.

Hi Jiska,

This isn't going to happen because this list has always welcomed off topic

political posts as long as they are labeled appropriately. To avoid reading

these posts, you'll just have to delete them. Besides, this is the list

owner and list moderator you're addressing and if they didn't want political

posts they wouldn't be posting them :-)

Personally, I'm very glad they are posting on this subject because they

happen to be two of the people whose opinions on various issues I value the

most and this debate has been very informative for me. When there is a

subject I don't have any interest in, I simply delete those posts without a

glance. Because this list periodically has long political threads, those not

interested simply have to get used to deleting them or leave the group.

Hopefully, most people chose the first option.

Suze Fisher

" Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. "

~Albert Schweitzer

[Guest guest]

I think it would be very helpful to have a description of our list

that someone receives when they join. I certainly can understand how

disconcerting it might be to join a nutrition list only to to find

yourself smack dab in the middle of a huge political argument!

Perhaps something that describes the posting protocol, what the

culture of our list is like, and so on, that a person receives upon

joining would do away with this " can't we just stick with nutrition? "

post that comes up every time we get into a long political or

religious thread. I also know people who have left the list because of

this and might not have done so had they been told about the culture

of our list up front. Of course maybe they wouldn't have joined either

but that's okay in my book.

, Wanita, is this possible? I have been on a number of

lists where they do this type of thing.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> I think it would be very helpful to have a description of our list

> that someone receives when they join. I certainly can understand how

> disconcerting it might be to join a nutrition list only to to find

> yourself smack dab in the middle of a huge political argument!

I don't mind the POLITICS / RELIGION tags for off-topic posts. But I do think

that any posts (posted " politics " or " religion " or not) that may potentially

hurt certain kinds of folks are generally a bad idea, and only belong on lists

specifically set up for that purpose.

For example, there was some debate here about what " causes " gay people. Did it

occur to any so posting that there may actually be ( " eek! " ) gay people *here*,

and that perhaps they don't care to listen to others going on about what makes

them what they are? That perhaps it's just as offensive to them to listen to

this, as it would be to Jewish people to listen to people debate what makes

someone Jewish, or what causes asian eye folds, or even what makes women think

like women? I doubt it was meant to be, but in truth, to talk about and debate

people while they are basically standing right here is just rude. And that's

the only thing that's made this list look poorly to me, to date.

I would suggest continuing the off-topic tags, but also that in such a public

forum people should be restricted by common sense and courtesy (and

moderation, if the other two fail) to debating IDEAS and not PEOPLE.

Jent

" The greater part of what my neighbors call good, I believe in my soul to be

bad, and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What

demon possessed me that I behaved so well? " -Henry Thoreau

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

Jent-

> I don't mind the POLITICS / RELIGION tags for off-topic posts. But I

> do think

> that any posts (posted " politics " or " religion " or not) that may

> potentially

> hurt certain kinds of folks are generally a bad idea, and only

> belong on lists

> specifically set up for that purpose.

I understand your feeling on this matter, and of course I'd prefer it

if everyone maintained a scrupulously kind and polite manner on the

list, but censorship based on the anticipation that some people's

feelings might be hurt is essentially arbitrary and thus winds up

being a slippery slope.

> That perhaps it's just as offensive to them to listen to

> this, as it would be to Jewish people to listen to people debate

> what makes

> someone Jewish, or what causes asian eye folds, or even what makes

> women think

> like women? I doubt it was meant to be, but in truth, to talk about

> and debate

> people while they are basically standing right here is just rude.

> And that's

> the only thing that's made this list look poorly to me, to date.

Is anyone really likely to be offended by an academic discussion of

what factors might cause the formation of epicanthic folds, though?

More to the point, SHOULD anyone be offended? It seems like a

reasonable topic, albeit probably a stunningly trivial one.

Similarly, I think the question of what factors might cause or

contribute to homosexuality is a legitimate one, and by itself implies

no moral attitude one way or another towards homosexuality. I think

all questions should be open to scientific inquiry and debate, and

personally, my hope is that if the silly idea that homosexuality is

merely a " choice " is definitively put to rest, some of the edge might

be taken off anti-gay bigotry and it might even recede somewhat over

time. Some people might be offended by such discussion, and indeed

it's sadly likely that any such discussion is likely to include some

pretty unpleasant nonsense, but pretending the nonsense doesn't exist

and that people don't believe it is probably the surest way of keeping

it around. On the flip side, I also think the question of what

factors incline people to religiosity is equally legitimate, even

though the discomfort in that case is likely concentrated on the other

side of the aisle.

IOW, I'm not a big fan of taboos, and I think preserving them opposes

the critical thinking required for progress, so while I truly regret

any pain some of the freewheeling discussions on this list might cause

anyone, and while I really do empathize with anyone who finds such

discussion injurious, I think that pain is by far the lesser of two

evils.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> IOW, I'm not a big fan of taboos, and I think preserving them opposes

> the critical thinking required for progress, so while I truly regret

> any pain some of the freewheeling discussions on this list might cause

> anyone, and while I really do empathize with anyone who finds such

> discussion injurious, I think that pain is by far the lesser of two

> evils.

I think one of the drawbacks to these discussions is the science on

both sides is generally politicized, poor, and frequently composed of

bogus arguments. The arguments that soy or estrogens cause

homosexuality is bogus; the argument that it is evolutionarily

disadvantageous and its existence disproves evolution is bogus; the

argument that it is hardwired from birth is bogus; the idea that there

is any compelling evidence for or against the distinction of " who you

are " from " what you do " on either side is bogus. So at some point,

the discussion inevitably hits a conclusion-less dead end.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I don't have her email in front of me, but it seemed to me this morning to be an

extraordinarily good post - clarifying the issues. She made several of the same

points that I have, but she took much more care in their formulation. Great

post.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " " <oz4caster@...>

> --- Jent Lynne <jentlynne@...> wrote:

> > It comes down to what's really the topic here, though

>

> Jent,

>

> I like the wide open discussions on NN. I've been on this list for

> almost two years now and I find that the discussions here can be quite

> entertaining at times

>

> If I lose interest, I just quit reading the uninteresting messages and

> move on. There's usually plenty of other topics to read/discuss.

>

> I applaud list owner and moderator for allowing wide

> ranging discussions, as long as those involved don't resort to

> character assassination of list members. I'm quite happy to ignore

> topics that are not interesting and I would never expect all topics to

> be interesting to all people on the list.

>

> My advice is that if you don't like a topic, don't read the message

> Instead, start a topic that you like.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with .

Also a lot of the politics stuff is pertinent to discussions of health and

nutrition. NAIS and other issues are very real and they are trying very

hard to take away our rights to get the food we want. Supplements and

alternative health care too.

You all should watch the documentary " The Future of Food " . I rented it on

Netflix. It shows you the revolving door between the FDA and companies like

Monsanto. The FDA isn't regulating Monsanto. Monsanto is running the FDA.

That's the problem with government meddling in everything... the door goes

both ways and pretty soon you have people we are supposed to be protected

against running things.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:57 PM

Subject: OT: Re: POLITICS RELIGION Can we stick to native nutrition?

--- Jent Lynne <jentlynne@...> wrote:

> It comes down to what's really the topic here, though

Jent,

I like the wide open discussions on NN. I've been on this list for

almost two years now and I find that the discussions here can be quite

entertaining at times

If I lose interest, I just quit reading the uninteresting messages and

move on. There's usually plenty of other topics to read/discuss.

I applaud list owner and moderator for allowing wide

ranging discussions, as long as those involved don't resort to

character assassination of list members. I'm quite happy to ignore

topics that are not interesting and I would never expect all topics to

be interesting to all people on the list.

My advice is that if you don't like a topic, don't read the message

Instead, start a topic that you like.