J Ham

How is the argument that being the parent of the victim reverses morality when it comes to hitting children any different from the argument that putting on a blue costume reverses morality when it comes to kidnapping and assaulting innocent people? Also why is it more ok for somebody whom you love and trust implicitly to hit you - somebody you would expect to be even more kind to you than most people - than somebody who you barely know? Let me ask you a question, since I've been fielding all of the questions so far. Why do you think parents ever started spanking their children in the first place? Same reason people mug people. Using force gets you what you want in the short term, without having to reason or negotiate.

Meat is poison because it causes toxic reactions in the body that eventually lead to a premature death becaus ethey promote atherosclerosis. There is science to support these claims. Arguing that it isn't a poison because it doesn't kill very quickly is missing the point. So far as I am aware Innuit average life expectancy is into the 40s largely because their lungs are damaged by the harsh climate. 400yo innuit mummies have been found with atherosclerosis. That's not what the science says. The populations with the greatest health and longevity live on a carbohydrate plant based diet. Are you serious? In which part of the program "Modern Meat Not Ahead of the Game" in my post above did you not see the primary research clearly being displayed along with the citations? It might seem trivial, but I keep hitting the point that it seems like a rash conclusion to dismiss an entire category of food as poison, when it provides an entire people enough sustenance to live and perform physical tasks that most of us couldn't handle. It isn't just Inuits that consume copious amounts of fatty animal matter. What about the infamous french paradox? Do they not have a lower incididence of cardiovascular problems while consuming significantly higher levels of saturated fat? I' am not saying that all of this is 100% concrete, but does it not leave you slightly hessitent to dismiss a food group as vast as meat, at least on human biological grounds? Directly from the Wikipedia page of Atherosclerosis: "Because fat and cholesterol are the substances of which plaque consists, they are both considered to be contributors to the cause of atherosclerosis, though this remains unverified" It briefly goes on to explain how Atherosclerosis is believed to be caused or worsened by many factors including infections, stress, drug use, tobacco use, and even genetic factors. "The assumption that artherosclerosis is predominantly lifestyle-related has been challenged by the detection of the disease in mummies. In 2011, CT scans of Egyptian mummies revealed the presence of artherosclerosis suggesting that the disease was present in people who had a different lifestyle than modern people. While this study was limited to members of the Egyptian upper class, findings were extended in a study in 2013 examining 137 mummies from Egypt, Peru, southwest America, and the Aleutian Islands with individuals of various ethnic and social backgrounds. Artherosclorosis was seen in over a third of the subjects. It was suggested that our current understanding of the disease is incomplete and that emulation of pre-modern lifestyle patterns may not avoid its problems. It is possible that artherosclerosis is part of the human condition reflecting some inherent inefficiency in breaking down and processing fats." The ancient egyptian diet was notoriously carbohydrate based, yet these mummies show a similar condition to the Inuit mummies. I would say there is no scientific consensus on this issue. The science says many things. I apologize for not viewing the first video you posted. I only watched the two you posted in response to me. Now, after watching it and looking into the study myself, I' am a little weary. At least from my knowledge, this is the only study of its kind. The inflammation is tested after only one meal for only two hours. What is are the results from a week of this diet? a month? Does this become chronic? Could we consider the higher caloric density of the fattier wagyu beef for the higher spike in inflammation? Another factor that I haven't seen discussed is human interference. The wagyu or 'modern' beef is a hybrid with extremely high levels of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat with low levels of saturated. If you are going to claim that more natural or even wild, highly saturated fat containing meat, is akin to poison and chronically inflammatory, this study is flimsy ground at best. If there are similar studies with more extensive tests and results, please post.

I have yet to see you respond to the question of how one determines what is the 'right' way of spanking and the 'wrong' way of spanking, or why your judgement on this is any more valid than the shmuck who spanks his kids every day. You don't even need to worry about that pretzel if you just condemn it as wrong and violent from the beginning.

Why don't you account for the scientific data I presented above that demonstrates that even game food is cytotoxic? But in answer to your point: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoAflQdc3CE] [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6j75BDq6DQ] That is myth unsupported by scientifc facts, see sources reported above in the videos. I used your original quote to simply show that if all meat was poison to human beings, many Inuit people would not be living into old age at all. Considering their diet is almost exclusively meat, if meat was as poisonous as you claim, would they be able to live into old age at all? Regardless of how cold and harsh the environment is, if meat is poison to humans, logically it would follow that these people would deteriorate rapidly, let alone participate in the extremely hard labor that is required to live in those conditions. Additionally, I think you are neglecting the effect of western dietary trends mixing in with traditional Inuit foods. Do a simple web search of accounts of Inuits who moved away from the culture and how this has changed things significantly. Some claim that many of their friends and family back home have a 50/50 traditional Inuit/western diet. In regards to the mummies, I' am aware of the presence of Atherosclerosis but as I understand it, this is not necessarily the cause of CVD or heart attacks, but rather inflammation is the primary cause. This inflammation is primarily due to PUFA's, trans fats, and generally a high consumption of vegetable oils and refined carbohydrates. It is definitly interesting seeing how these different diets play out with friends and family. My relationships are a sort of laboratory for dieting. I can say without a doubt that my friends and family who had high carbohydrate consumption, including a multitude of 'healthy' grains, were more obese, had more acne and skin issues, worse sleeping problems, and were generally lethargic. On the other hand, people consuming the high saturated fat and low carbs were leaner, had better skin, more energy, and seemed to be in all around better health. I know it's no double blind study but why deny my senses? Oh, and I looked for studies regarding the cytotoxic effect in wild game and didn't find anything. Could you post the link for me?

This is definitely not a good comparison, given the child's cognitive development and overal experience of the world. Children are not "little persons" (like they are seen in old paintings) who process hand slaps and abuse in the way you seem to believe. Children will internalize abuse as self attack, and their dependency to the adults in their lives is an actual psychological experience of unity with them, not some sort of political or social landscape where they must be given "respect". All forms of abuse, conscious and unconscious result from this fundamental lack of empathy, which is very sad and unfortunate. What evidence do you have other than Stef's podcasts to support this? This is quack talk. Don't water down abuse. Everybody talks about self knowledge as if it was an abstract. I wasn't always a grown up. I had some spankings when I was little, and some hand slaps. It didn't traumatize me. There is a bond of care with good parents and they show so much love that a little hand slap is not some kind of huge big deal. It's not abuse. It's not rape. I know for me it was just a discipline tool. I never felt it to be a sign that I wasn't liked, loved, or that I was less of a person. A hand slap, or spanking should never cause severe pain. If it does, THEN it's being done wrong. When done right, it is just a way to prevent a toddler from doing something he doesn't understand is dangerous again. You can't always reason with children who are too young to rationalize danger, but you can give a little hand slap or spanking to stop a child from doing something dangerous when they are about to. Then they relate that little spanking to the situation and don't do it again. Like running into traffic, or touching a stove top. It's not abuse. Abuse is very different, and associating abuse with something like a small, harmless handslap is wrong to do. You might not have been traumatized, but others surely have. Doesn't it make more sense to condemn the practice as a whole, rather than leaving it to parents to do it 'the right way'? Surely, spanking is always awful, but in your lens, do you not feel slightly responsible for the parents who do it the 'wrong way'? Perpetuating this logic simply leaves it open to each parent to say, "well I' am doing it the right way.' What makes your right and wrong way of spanking more valid then the parent who spanks consistently every day? If that parent thinks atheism is dangerous, according to your logic they can simply spank it out of them to prevent future danger. Leaving it to subjective whim is the problem. There were times when many men surely agreed that beating women was a way to keep them from doing what they deemed as dangerous (adultery, etc.) We can wholeheartedly say that this is wrong, because we evaluate it with definitions and principles.

"That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal." How do you account for Inuits and similar cultures who consume copious amounts of fatty animal meat? What about the scientists who have gone and lived with them, consumed their traditional diets, and manage to have all of their nutritional needs met? You may be confusing overly processed, cooked, hormone-added, lean meats with the fresh and fatty meat that has sustained robust individuals for centuries.

Thanks you for taking the time to look!

My girlfriend is writing a Psychology paper on the effects of child abuse on the developing brain. Any relevant statistics, studies, or articles I could give her for a more concrete argument?

Thank you for the encouragement. Since then, I have moved away from my hometown and started a new. Of course, we can't escape the ubiquity of the state but it's nice to move away from all that agression back home. &I recently started putting some old work up on the web. http://jayshomemade.tumblr.com/

Greetings from the liberal haven of San Francisco/Berkeley CA. My name is Jay. Just wanted to introduce myself to the community and give a brief background. My parents split up when I was 3 years old. They have pretty much hated each other since. My father is a devout muslim. When I was about 8 years old, he began to forcibly send me to an Islamic weekend school to learn the holy text, prayer, and communicate with 'like-minded' individuals. Even at a young age the rituals and stories seemed ridiculous. Losing my weekends was hard enough. I could have been down by the creek, studying the natural world, but instead I was locked in a stuffy room, threatened with hell and condemned for deviation. I proceeded to lock myself in the school bathroom, with a pen and paper, drawing fantasies to escape fantasies. Somewhere in the teenage years, I discovered punk rock, heavy metal, outsider art, and libertarianism. Of course parental bullying ensued, along with accusations of homosexuality and blasphemy. At this point, I was pretty much disowned. My mother attempted to raise me on her own, but much to her dismay, the divorce had already done its damage on my psyche. She worked day and night to support us and simply couldn't be around. I spent the majority of my time in public school or in the on-campus day care fascilities. By junior high, the typical school bullies discovered my friends and I. We were the artsy 'faggots.' Bullies had no problem using violence against us to re affirm their statuses and to deal with their own previous abuses against themselves. It's a vicious cycle. I rememeber those years, as a time where I simply wanted to be left alone. Discovering libertarianism was an investment in a future for all children like me, for all the kids who just wanted to be left alone to discover for themselves; No threats, no coercion. Discovering Freedomain radio enlightened me to the vital connections that we all have with our childhoods. After listening to Stef's work, I now understand that it' s the most important factor in the whole discussion. So, all in all, glad to finally be here. Thanks for reading.