mythness

Not trying to start a debate or derail the thread, but from what I've read and listened to, cancer cells will break up proteins into amino acids, then convert the amino acids into glucose, and finally burn this glucose inefficiently with glycolysis, mostly bypassing mitochondrial respiration. Due to this inefficient burning of energy and rapid replication, cancer cells theoretically give off more heat (hence the up-and-coming use of non-invasive thermography to detect cancer.) This is all done in addition to burning off glucose directly. In both cases, the mitochondria is mostly bypassed, and the end-product is lactic acid instead of carbon dioxide. I could be mistaken, though. More importantly, and nothing else matters... Stef! You are the most inspirational person in my life, hands down. You may think you know how much you've helped and changed people's lives for the better, but let me tell you that you are wrong. Whatever benefit you may think you've given to society, multiply it by 100! Now you're got a more accurate answer. Before I even joined these message boards, I was changed by your writings and podcasts. I practically did not exist from your point of view. Trust me, there's a lot of people who you've helped that simply haven't voiced their gratitude to you directly. I.... CANNOT... THANK... YOU... ENOUGH! All the best, Stef! All the best!

Yes and no. While they do no explicitly say it, some do accept that "hard discipline" is what forged such a happy, positive, and polite child. I'm sorry, but once they go back into the privacy of their car and house, it's a different world. The child and the parents act completely different when not in public. The observer's idea of "happy, polite, sweet, cute" is based on overt behavior; not what's going on in the child's mind. Why do I feel confident about this? Well, as usual, I don't want to share information that will reveal who I am (if anonymous people read this), but I can say for a fact that I've seen the "public vs private" interactions between parent and child of many different families. They accidentally "slip" from time to time and give me a sneak peak of what their private family life is like, even in the presence of a non-member (myself). However, in public, everyone is so sweet and happy, and life is wonderful! You would never guess it is a family that spanks, shouts, threatens, ignores each other, mocks, humiliates, throws things, and so on. It makes me sick. It makes my frustrated.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/business/report-questions-nutrition-groups-use-of-corporate-sponsors.html This has been known about for a while, but it's good to see it getting some recent coverage. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), formerly the American Dietetic Association (ADA), is kept afloat with funding from "health-conscious" food and drink manufacturers, such as Coca Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Hersheys, McDonald's, Monsanto, et al. These corporations also sponsor events and allow registered dietitians (RDs) to earn continued education credits. Just another rigid institution that kowtows to upper management. It's no wonder that the AND was (and still is) attempting to squeeze out competitors nation-wide in the United States: http://www.anh-usa.org/campaigns/monopoly-over-nutritional-therapy/ http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8992 Here is the full report (PDF) by Eat Drink Politics, if interested: AND Corporate Sponshorship Report

Meanwhile in Iraq on the same day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863 At least 31 people killed and over 200 people injured from multiple car bomb explosions. Which do you think is going to get more coverage here in the States?

Eat fruits as your main source of fuel and carbohydrates. The rest of your nutritional requirements can then be obtained from certain meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables. Most fat intake should be stable and saturated; coconut oil comes to mind (not just for cooking, either.) Don't undercut your caloric requirements, or else your metabolism will slow down in response. If vegan, opt for supplementation of certain nutrients that are only available (or feasible) from animal-based food sources. Avoid or minimize intake of allergens and harmful foods, especially packaged foods. Try to incorporate some unpasteurized fermented foods, if possible, as a garnish (make it yourself or buy it from Asian / ethnic stores). Everyone's happy. Everyone's happy?

Sometimes the "larger issue" is said outright, such as supporting slavery if you buy certain foods of a non-FairTrade brand. As an example, if I ask "What if these 'slaves' who are 'exploited' have their source of income taken away, what will become of them?", I am met with suspicion or a generic response like "let's agree to disagree". Or that they will find better jobs. Or that their children will get an education. Meanwhile, I am left with the impression that I support slavery. The theme is usually "convenience over suffering." I, and others like myself, should feel bad that we would value convenience over someone else's suffering or preserving the planet. Unless I am not understanding a deeper symbolism? (E.g, "exploited slaves" may represent their child-self being taken advantage of by their parents; endless chores, no compensation, only allowed to participate in the adult's activities, forced to play sports, et al.) But I could just be fishing as this point... This is why I'm curious if such views, sometimes outright invoking guilt, can be traced to childhood. It would make more sense in that context. After all, I agree that people around the world shouldn't suffer. I can truly sympathize. I just figure that buying Brand A instead of Brand B doesn't make a difference, and may even be counterproductive. I have come to accept that only through freedom can people experience better living and work conditions. This type of reasoning doesn't phase them. They've dug their boots in the ground. I rarely even get that far with anyone, since it only gets ugly should the conversation get to that point. I would never dare ask them about their childhood, because that is one of the most taboo subjects to bring up.

Using one too many tissues. Choosing a plastic bag over a paper bag at the grocery store. Showering for a few minutes too long. Choosing generic products over "FairTrade" products. Throwing something in the trash instead of the recycle bin. You get the idea. I find many people will judge others over trivial things, without much of a coherent explanation (other than bumper-sticker responses). Fine. I get they are being irrational, since if they did the math or started from first principles they would realize their beliefs are either contradictory or even harmful. That's not my issue, nor is it where my confusion lies. My question is, why do people become so judgmental over trivial things? Why would they value these over their own friends or family? If you explain it to them logically, they will either cut you off or become defensive. Is it likely they were raised in a household in which they were always judged for every little thing they did? Every little mistake? Every little detail? Sometimes they will dedicate their life (or at least where they have the most control in their life) to the one single most important issue: recycling, only buying FairTrade, using as little water as possible, et al. I have read some Alice Miller, and she writes that children who do not acknowledge the harm done to them by their caregivers will, as adults, continue to view their parents in a good light; however, they will then find "substitutes" to direct their anger and frustrations towards. Such substitutes (just my guess) would be the government, a corporation, an industry, an ethnic group, an influential individual, and so on. This doesn't make sense in the context of judgmental people who will look down on you for not recycling or saving water, since you, as a peer, cannot really fit the role of the "substitute" parent. To drive the point even further, they will support government initiatives that force everyone to participate in what they deem to be of great value. I'm sick of being judged for such minor things, while bombs and drone strikes continue to kill people overseas. While people are forced to pay taxes under the threat of imprisonment. While consumers suffer because of government regulations against businesses. While parents still treat children with the same level of respect they would treat a dog. Why do these people hold such judgmental views? Is there any way I can respond to them with tact that will not develop into an argument or debate? Perhaps I can somehow figure out what's really going on in their minds?

This is nothing more than wordplay to make a point. You would have an issue with this: You: "Object: that which has shape" Me: "Has? Has as in 'contains' or 'holds', like a bucket holds water? It has shape?" You: "Shape is an attribute. Object is defined by its attribute: shape." Me: "Again, shape?" You would then go on to explain spatial separation, boundaries, something, nothing, something just is. And this is all "rational" and "critical thinking" because you say so, or because you invoke someone else (e.g, Bill Gaede.) However, I cannot use such wordplay. You ask me to explain "reflects", as if I am treating "truth" as a physical object, which I've already said is nothing more than an abstract concept (like love, happiness, anxiety, fear, et al.) One can conceptualize "truth" (concept) as one can conceptualize "shape" (concept). But you, and huttnedu, are clever, and you think I don't notice your subtle exception to relying on subjective senses. Every time we state that "so and so can conceptualize such and such objectively" it is immediately preceded with interaction or observation by the subject, even when we don't notice at first (e.g, seeing, touching, hearing, relating things from experience, et al.) Which brings me to... A kid is born blind, deaf, numb, without olfactory nerve, and without cochlear nerves. (His autonomous functions keep him alive somehow, don't ask.) Do explain how he can objectively conceptualize "shape", "space", "boundary", "object". This time you cannot invoke any subjective senses or interaction with physical matter or relating things from experience. There is nothing to relate. You cannot even define "nothing" by your own standards without going around in circles, thinking no one will catch your use of "something" as "not nothing". Really cute. Uh oh, I just used the terms "physical" and "matter" above, and here we go, 'round and 'round in an endless circle because we're too afraid to assume. The concept "shape" only exists in your mind, like it or not, just like the concepts "truth" and "aggress". But each time you define it, and use new terms within the definition, I will continue to ask you to define these terms further. Otherwise, you're simply imploring me to just accept what you're saying, no matter how fancy or formally structured it is. And for some reason, you have an issue when someone says that "it's just your opinion." For people who reject "absolute", they act quite absolutist in their discussions. Whoops! I just used the term "absolute". There I go again... Apparently, no one knows what anyone is talking about, since we must define terms unambiguously. Yikes! I used the term "know". There I go, yet again... I cannot conceptualize "shape" if you cannot conceptualize "truth" or "aggress" or "love" and so on. Your response will of course be "rational" because you say so. Not a matter of fact or opinion. Because you say so. Oh, and no need to define "rational" because that one gets off the hook, or something. How about you get creative and instead of using the familiar terms "object", "shape", "space", "boundary", and so forth, make up new words, and then try to objectively define "flaggerdurp" (or whatever creative mashup of letters you think up) to a complete stranger. I say a complete stranger, because while this was fun for me at first, it's lost my interest. If you want, you can borrow mine: Flaggerdurp: that which has moosef

And would you be okay if I said that a two year old can conceptualize the concept "truth" by correctly pointing to which glass container holds a marble when asked to do so? You see! He is able to point to the container with the marble when asked to do so. And guess what? Someone else tested if he understood the concept of "false" by observing him consistently point to the empty container when asked to point to the container with the marble! No need to go further than that, just like there's no need to go further with "shape", "space", and "nothing" after the simple statement of "object: that which has shape". Oh, and I do have a consistent definition for truth. I'll just pull one out of a bag... Truth (concept): a statement which reflects reality Look, it's consistent too! You see, if a statement does not reflect reality, it is not truth. If a statement does reflect reality, it is truth. Please don't ask me to define "statement" and "reality". That's just not fair! My definition for truth is consistent! If it does not have shape, it is not an object. If it does have shape, it is an object. Consistent, as well! What's this? Don't like the fact that I'm not further defining the terms "statement" and "reality"? I don't have to. Any two year old understands the concept of truth. Just ask him which glass container holds the marble. He conceptualizes "truth" and can make a distinction between "truth" and "not truth", just as with "object" and "not object". Oh, he's blind? Well, he's allowed to use his hands to feel inside the containers.

And truth = absolute. It's as simple as that. Oh, what's this? You want me to define these terms, or else I have no business using them? Well, then I must be fair and consistent, and ask you to do the same with "space" and "nothing". What do the following have to do with "defining terms unambiguously in such a way that it can be used without contradiction"? Now you're just borderline on special pleading.

Cool. Now, unambiguously define this term "shape". I want to be on the same page as you. SHAPE is not a key word, shape is a concept that a two year old can understand. You must have overlooked this part of my post... ...which is pretty much what you just did. Oh, and did you forget... Back to the subjective senses. I could be an (annoying) automated bot (no eyes) for all you know. Great, another term, this time "space" (or it could have been "gareft" for that matter. Let me guess, any two year old can understand? Well, any two year old can understand the concept "truth". That takes care of the whole "truth" debate, then. So, how about that unambiguous definition for the term "space" (or "gareft")? After all...

According to...? Now you're just making up rules to fit the argument. And you do this throughout the rest of the post. Watch: Here, let me by annoying again: What you wrote is just your opinion. Still, though, you can even disregard this reply, because I'm more interested in my above post. (Defining terms.)

Cool. Now, unambiguously define this term "shape". I want to be on the same page as you. You could have just as easily said: "Object: that which has flurg." To which I would have asked you to unambiguously define the term "flurg". Otherwise "flurg" (and "shape") are just meaningless sounds (or letters), and thus so is "object". Here are a few other examples of meaningless terms: Blartop, zeblok, nashtin, truth, absolute, immoral. If I used them, you would ask me to unambiguously define these terms. So, I ask you to do the same with your use of the term "shape" (or "flurg" or any term). You see, after all... I won't accept "Come on, you know what I mean. Don't feign ignorance."

He's an interesting guy, and I'm all for people treating circumcision as mutilation. I have no problem, of course, if a person chooses on his own to be circumcised. I couldn't find much about Dean Edell. I did read a bit of his article on drmomma.org, as well as an interview about his history and views on "alternative" medicine. Based on what he's been through, I can understand why he dismisses supplements and alternative medicine as a waste of time. However, it felt like the same reasons why some people reject "capitalism" because of their experiences with "greedy capitalists." I don't take homeopathic pills. I don't get my "vibes checked". I don't do "muscle testing". I don't have people stick needles in me (acupuncture). I do, however, take a B-complex with every breakfast. I can make the distinction for myself. I don't jumble alternative medicine into one big group and call it "non-allopathic vs allopathic." He later goes on to ask for the "proof" for their effectiveness. Fine. But I have yet to see the "proof" for the effectiveness of statins, of fluoride, of antibiotics, of hypertensive medication, of psychotropics, of "eat less, exercise more", of "essential" fatty acids, and so on. (Not simply their effectiveness, per se, but how they are currently used. Antibiotics for a life-threatening infection is a modern miracle.) I would also like to see how focusing on acute symptoms is more effective than preventative measures. Sure, an aspirin can knock out a headache. But if you suffer from frequent headaches, perhaps it's about time to figure out why (magnesium deficient?), make the changes (magnesium citrate daily?), and see how much it helps (fewer headaches? decreased severity?) If I listened to the doctor, I would be taking two weeks of antibiotics to get red of this infection I currently have. I have yet to get the prescription filled (unknown to him), since I am going to let it run its course without intervention. It's day 3 now, and already the inflammation is beginning to subside on its own. Now, let us say it does heal on its own. What are the implications? I would have done myself more harm than good had I simply followed the advice of the "established" medical protocols. Personally, I don't take that too lightly.

You might not have the intention, but you're lumping all supplements together. Homeopathy, isolated minerals and vitamins, probiotics, whole-food powders, herbal extracts, et al, are not the same thing. I also do not have as much faith in our soil and food quality as you do. No, I do not eat junk, but I don't think our food supply, even the "organic" stuff, is as good as it was 20, 50, 100 years ago. Homeopathy, I dismiss simply because its story keeps changing and its very idea is interpreted differently between different companies. Even the official historical story about how homeopathy works makes no sense logically. Isolated minerals and vitamins, while not a replacement to food, can be very beneficial for those who do not (or cannot) get it in their diet. It can also make a difference for someone with digestive disorders or special needs / lifestyle. Probiotics are essentially microorganisms that fill the role of our natural gut flora. There's more to it than that, but it's a brief description. They cannot be categorized with things like multivitamins. Whole-food powders are just that: concentrated / freeze-dried greens, fruits, herbs, et al, with the water removed. Fundamentally, the same as what you do with your salad mixes. However, companies will standardize the process and measurements. Herbal extracts are simply a concentrate / extract from a therapeutic herb; many times they standardize a particular constituent (e.g, 95% curcumin from the turmeric rhizome). Some have heavy research behind them; others are purely anecdotal / historical use; and others have low to moderate research. Judge them for yourself. I've found some highly effective. I don't mind experimenting on myself if it's not life threatening (e.g, testing out standardized oregano oil on an upper-respiratory infection.) I don't want to expose too much of my regimen, but I will share some: I regularly take probiotics, and I make sure to go through different brands. I will also stretch out their use. (A 60-day supply I can stretch for 120 days by taking one every 2 days.) I take a high-quality B-complex with every breakfast, once a day. This is my "insurance plan", and it's quite inexpensive. (This is probably the cheapest way to safeguard yourself in the long haul.) I mix a powdered nutrient-dense plant concentrate with some juice. I do this on and off. Sometimes every day, and sometimes I'll skip a few days. I will often throw in a dash of sodium ascorbate (or calcium ascorbate) into a drink or plate of food for non-acidic vitamin C. Kind of hard to overdose on vitamin C, and it's also fairly inexpensive, even for USP grade. That's pretty much it, really. On occasion I will use specific herbal extracts when I feel they may help. (Recently, I went overboard with andrographis, echinacea, elderberry, zinc, and vitamin C when I felt I was coming down with a cold. Well, I did in fact get a cold, with all it's familiar phases, but it lasted only a couple of days. After these two days passed, I had to recover my lost energy, but the symptoms were already gone by then. Did I get lucky? Was it my immune system taking care of this on its own? Did I simply catch a head cold that ran a quick course? Or was it the indeed the supplements? How can I ever know, really. The previous time I got a cold, it lasted about a week, after which I had to recover my energy.) So that's (sort of) my take on that.

From my understanding, Edell is one of the few who speak out against the forced circumcision routine most American boys are subject to in our hospitals. I can forgive drinking fluoride in my childhood. Is he against forced cirumcision on principle, or for health reasons? If he opposes it on principle (infringement of invidual liberty), then it's hard to understand how, at the same time, he supports forced fluoridation. If he opposes forced circumcision due to health reasons, then it means he would accept forced circumcision if someone convinced him it iis ndeed the healthier option?

What turns me off about NaturalNews, as mentioned before, is the hyperbole. Their articles would hold more weight if they dropped the over-the-top tone. I would read their articles more often and take them more seriously if they turned down the volume a bit. I actually like Joseph Mercola's site (mercola.com). Sometimes I wonder how he's able to hold his own in the sheer amount of stuff he writes and researches, and the numerous interviews he's done. Is he authentic and truly looking out for our best interests? No idea. But then again, I will read an article on WebMD, not because I believe they're "looking out for my best interest", but because it's nice to understand the pathology of a certain illness, for example. I have to give Mercola props for promoting coconut oil years ago, even before it became accepted as healthy. (Sadly, to this day, there are still some who use the same out-dated arguments against coconut oil, mostly from medical-oriented folks.)

No, but you see, Moncaloono, I was asking huttnedu to define this elusive term, due to his use of it. Besides, citing a dictionary is just an appeal to authority.

Here. I shall apply to you the same standards that fatfist applies to everyone else. In order for me to be on the same page as you, without any confusion, please define "object". You use this term a lot, and I have no idea what it is. That's all. Define "object" with a clear, concise, unambiguous definition.

There's no magic. And you're focused on what structures in particular can possibly be living. I am not attempting to develop a theory as to WHAT objects can be living, just that the term living means "this object has naturally developed the ability to move itself against gravity." And that's why I ask for the mechanism of this movement (against gravity). This is the same type of question posed to those who argue for "free will". The parts that make up the physical brain of a human are all subject to the same physical laws, so one asks "Where does this exception to the physical laws occur?" You've got a brain made up of cells made up of atoms. The atoms interact with one another on a determined course, just like the atoms in a bucket of water. I am not saying I do not accept free will. I'm just bringing this up because it's the same type of question posed to those who accept free will. You have to recognize that "the house" is NOT a function and we do not define OBJECTS. Not by functions or relations or anything at all! Objects merely have a particular SHAPE which can be illustrated. I don't define "a cell" or "a house" or "a brick". I just point to the object and I give it a name. When refering to an object, we are simply referencing a shape. I'm not trying to be rude, but you responded to a typo of mine. (I meant to type the word "of" in my sentence.) It should have read "...of the house". The house (*object) shelters (verb) its occupants (which a single brick cannot.) *It's actually a bunch of bricks that shelters an occupant; not the concept house. A house is, after all, a description. You can't "point to" a house, just like you can't "point to" a forest. You can only describe them. (See below.) You can call them whatever you want. Someone can point to a bunch of bricks and say "house", while another person will say "bunch of bricks." In the end, there are still a bunch of individual bricks, and bricks do what bricks do. In the end, a cell is still just a bunch of atoms, and atoms do what atoms do. So, I just want to know the mechanism by which these atoms defy gravity. I'm guessing you're going to say something along the lines of "The atoms don't move. The cell does." And once again, I'll just say "There is only an 'object' for you to call a cell (or point at) because there are atoms." How can you tell whether a person is pointing to a bunch of bricks or a house? "House" might not even register for this person. He may not even see the "shape" of the house (no matter how hard you try to point it out), but rather the tiny shapes of the individual bricks; thus the house does not exist according to his subjective sensory input. (See Person A vs Person B below). Going back to objects and concepts, why is a cell exempt from being a concept? You are, after all, only describing the interactions of atoms when you speak of a cell. Sure, you may short-hand the description, but it's still a concept (description of the relationship between objects), after all. When you describe what a forest is, you cannot escape essentially describing the relationship between the individual trees in your description of "a forest" (concept; there is no object "a forest", even if you can supposedly "point to one"). The same can be applied to the tree itself (relationship of the individual cells). Then you can go further and describe the cell by the relationship of the individual atoms. An atom of carbon does not "roll" down a hill. A piece of *coal does roll down a hill. However, it is because of the very atoms of carbon, interacting with the atoms of carbon around them and the atoms of the hill, that these carbon atoms "roll" down a hill. No carbon atoms, no coal to roll down the hill. *It is in fact not the concept "coal" that "rolls" down the hill, but the carbon atoms which move. If a timber company chops down a bunch of trees, we casually say "They destroyed the forest." But they did not destroy the forest, since forest is only a concept. You would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a single example of the destruction of a concept, let alone how a concept can interact with objects (impossible.) None of this even takes into account the possibility that there is no "moving against gravity", for the assumption of gravity may be incorrect. As a thought experiment in an alternate world, what if someone were to smugly claim that balloons "move against gravity", and no one around him understood that it is the helium in the balloon that is less dense than the surrounding air. Then, what if a stranger were to come by and say "Guys, perhaps the balloon isn't actually moving against gravity. Maybe we just got this gravity thing all wrong. Let's try again?" I'm being pretty annoying, right? This is the style I've noticed of fatfist. He can word anything to fit his argument. If you use the term "energy", it gets really ugly. If you use the terms "mass" or "weight", don't be surprised if you're "schooled" for your ignorance. We supposedly "point to" objects, objectively. Yet, this is done through an individual's subjective sensory input. This is not about labeling something with two different words. This is about making objective labels using subjective means. Person A: Look, Person B. I am pointing to an object. I shall call it a rock. This rock exists. Person B: Person A, you point at nothing! This object does not exist. I do not see it. Person A: Then surely you can hear it as I drop it on the ground. Person B: I do not hear anything. Person A: Here! I placed it in your hands. You can surely feel it. Person B: I think you are losing your mind. I feel nothing! Person A: Okay, smartass! (throws rock against Person B's head) Now you're dead, idiot. How's that for a rock that doesn't exist? Person C: Who's dead? Person B is alive, and he's talking to me right now. Person A: (gets ready to throw the rock again) And so on and so on. How can it be argued that any objective labeling of objects takes place when it is done through subjective senses? Annoying, right?

Huh? What does that even mean? I could say something random like "beauty is more of a synonym for art." For one to have "volition", one chooses. We do not say that plants are willful or have volition. More like implying that "the whole" is contingent on there being parts to begin with. Let's not talk about the concept "whole" and disregard the parts which allow us to even talk about "the whole" in the first place. Pray tell, how on earth does this "cell" move? By what mechanism? A bi-pedal human moves about using his legs. We say this "person moves", taking for granted the mechanism behind his movement. However, such movement is not possible without his legs (part of his "whole" body) to begin with. (Please don't say he can always drag himself forward with his arms. This is only to illustrate a point.) I ask you, without the atoms that make up a "cell", how does this cell move against gravity? Remember, these atoms are at the mercy of gravity, just like the same atoms that make up a rock or a drop of water. By what mechanism does this cell "move against gravity" (live)? Here are some atoms at the mercy of gravity: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen Nothing special. Here they are again, but in relation to each other to form what we know as amino acids. Nothing special. And let us continue this structure until magically, with the addition of just one extra molecule (or even atom), this "whole" we now call a "cell" moves against gravity, and not with it. A house of bricks is still comprised of individual bricks. The nature of each brick does not change, regardless of the other bricks around it. You could argue that "the whole" (house) "provides" shelter, which an individual brick cannot, but that is only a meaning that we give to the function "the house". I would like to hear by what mechanism a cell (or any object) "lives" (AKA: moves against gravity). Then I will accept that "to live" boils down "to move against gravity."

Fatfist is very intelligent and knows how to communicate his message, but the guy is hard to take seriously when he engages in a conversation with anyone who isn't stroking his ego: Really, for a guy who is all about "defining your terms", he should define "cult" before throwing it around so loosely. (Yes, he's used "cult" to describe Stef and FDR multiple times in the past.) A pattern I've noticed with him is that he loves to throw the following words around in his articles and comments. They're almost always used in a negative connotation to describe those who do not accept his arguments: priest, religion, cult, church, absolutist, god / god-like, and so on. I used to follow his articles regularly, but his personality started to bore me, and it began to sound like a broken record after a certain point.

To "move against gravitational pull" does not clear anything up, if you ask me. Are not the molecules that make up a "living entity" bound by the same limits of gravitational forces? Fatfist has used the term "volition" in the past to define life, yet this is incompatible with his rejection of free will. Where, in the interactions of the molecules and atoms that make up a living thing (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, et al), does this resistance to gravitational forces occur? Serious question.

I'm confused by this. If your child has been vaccinated, why worry? Nice catch.

You can get straight to the point and cut out all the pretenses with simple questions, such as: "What would the lobbyists do without the government?" or "Why exactly are the lobbyists going to the government in the first place? What can the government do that they or their partners cannot? What do those in government have that they or their partners do not?" No need for formal education or a PhD to ask such questions. In fact, it's those who keep it simple and based on principle that have less to hide. Avoid people and discussions that obfuscate and complicate everything. It's not worth your time.