FreedomPhilosophy

Actually before capitalist scum treated water and distributed water and got rid of cholera, water flowed purely and freely from the peepee holes of pink unicorns.

Just something to give you a brain hemorrhage! Enjoy, or not... http://gift-economy.com/the-disease-of-patriarchal-capitalism/ The Disease of Patriarchal Capitalismby Genevieve Vaughan Women’s Worlds, Ottawa, July 6, 2011 Download a PDF We European/Americans have been infected by the disease of patriarchal capitalism and we have carried it to all the populations where we have settled. For many of them it has been fatal, others have adapted but some have succeeded in defending themselves and their traditions against all odds. This disease hurts us as well as everyone else. It is the cause of wars and oppresssions of all kinds. It magnifies racism, ageism, nationalism, religious prejudice. Let me try to say what I think it is. I believe it is an economic disease which originates inthe merging of patriarchal values with market values, creating a link between the man at the top of the hierarchy and money.These are both false concept models of value and they pull people towards being them or having them. They seem to offer and justifydominance, power and the ability to judge. Bilateral exchange for money, giving in order to receive an equivalent,cancels the unilateral gift. We base the economic market on exchange and consider it to be the only economy while forgetting that the unilateral giving of goods to needs is also a mode of distribution. Market exchange is a way of eliminating free gifts, making them valueless and invisib while appropriating them as commoditiesle. Who even thought of the gift of fertile seeds until their species were privatized and free fertile seeds were replaced bycommercial terminator seeds? Who even thought of the gift of free clean water until it was commodified and made scarce by pollution? Who thought of the gift of free housework until it began to be counted in monetary terms? It seems that the only way we can recognize the value of anything in our society is byexchanging it, naming it with money. For me this way of doing things comes from the denial of the importance of mothers, mothering and being mothered for the definition of human beings.Our society has isolated mothering in the nuclear family rather than generalizing it to society as a whole. In fact unilateral gift giving (and its values) cannot be generalized if the main social nexus is exchange. Because babies are born unable to care for themselves, their motherers have to give to them unilaterally without expecting a return. The unilateral gift has a logic of its own, and it creates relations of mutuality and trust. It unites people and a syllogism is connected to it. If A gives to B and B gives to C then A gives to C.The unilateral gift by which we satisfy others’ needs also gives value to the other person by implication. The receiver is not passive but creative, and the success of the gift depends on her use of it.The unilateral gift can be repeated by the other person,taking turns. That is the other person has a turn at taking the initiative to give to the previous giver or to someone else again. This can be seen in the interactions between mothers and children which are not exchanges but alternations of unilateral gift giving initiatives. Our ability to satisfy other’s needs unilaterally(and pass it on) has been left out of our vision of the world because we base our thinking on exchange, giving in order to receive an equivalent. Exchange requires quanitification and measurement and places an equation between giver and receiver which actually covers up an adversarial relation – because each tries to get more out of the exchange than the other, not realizing that this means that each one is actually trying to get something free, that is a gift, even if it is forced. In fact that is what profit is, a forced or leveraged gift, which is unrecognized because it is called by another name. With the gift of their free housework women contribute to this profit because the capitalists and corporations do not have to pay for the so called work of reproduction. Then there are the many gifts of nature and culture that are given low cost or free, and the savings corporations make by not cleaning up their own pollution and letting nature supposedly take care of it. These gifts of profit accumulate and form capital, which is then re invested to leverage more gifts. All of this market thinking and doing, upon which I could expand ad infinitum, makes gift giving difficult. It creates scarcity in order to maintain control. In abundance gift giving is easy and delightful, but in scarcity it becomes difficult and even self sacrificial.The giving of gifts of profit to the few takes gifts of subsistance away from the many. When too much abundance accrues in the economy the overage is wasted in wars and symbolic excesses. Abundance would make the population difficult to control and people would not work for capitalists if they lived in abundance. They would rematriate, they would return to a maternal gift economy. This possibility is a real danger for capitalism which therefore creates the scarcity which makes it impossible. These strange characteristics of the market economy seem normal and natural to us. In fact we do not question them until they begin to make our own lives difficult. I submit that the market avails itself of the unilateral gifts of all, and that these are the gifts of the maternal model. They belong to an economy of mothering, supplying needs without the intention of getting a return. Unilateral giving can be elaborated in many ways. I believe it is the basis of language and I have done a lot of work in the directionof showing how words are verbal gifts, and sentences are gift constructions. In this case language would be virtual mothering, mothering with gifts and services in the medium of sound. Therefore humans would be an extremely mothering species since we do mothering not only much longer than most other species but we do it virtually as well as materially. And we do it in language all of our lives (not just in child care). We use it to create and communicate all our thoughts, our literature and science but we do not recognize it as such because the mentality of exchange has wiped gift giving and mothering out of our world picture. Instead we are told we have inherited behaviors and inherited grammars, inherited altruism and indeed inherited superiority. Finding mothering in language and the economy allows us to generalize it, or to say that it is already general but unrecognized as such. It is by the return to the interpretative key of mothering-and- being-mothered, unilateral giving and receiving that we can begin again to understand the relational side of life. Egalitarian non authoritarian motherers mind-read the needs of the child and adapt their gifts to the childs needs. The child is a creative receiver who in her turn can give to the mother, vocalizations,gestures, coos and smiles, which the mother receives and gives some more of her own. The child and the mother create moments of joint attention in which they point at parts of the world and receive those perceptions together. That is, when they attend to the same thing, they are both receivers of the same perceptual gift. In doing this we also project the mother onto theworld around us and receive this motherworld’s gifts of perceptions and experiences because we have learned to be creative receivers by having been cared for by our human mothers. The interface between ourselves and the environment is a nurturing motherly relation in which we are the receiving role. Moreover we preconsciously select which perceptions and events to give our attention to. That is, preconsciously we are like a mother who selects the most important things to give to her children.So we are unconsciously, pre consciously and physiologically ourselves mothering nature regarding ourselves and we also turn this towards others. Maternal interactions, whether the mother is only one person or many, an extended family or a whole village, provide the basis for communication in the rest of life. If we say all this behavior is inherited we cut out the social importance of mothering and unilateral giving. Then we do not use that logic any more for understanding what human beings do. I believe we need a rematriation of Western philosophy and science. We need to bring back unilateral giving as a basis for understanding who we are as human beings before and beyond patriarchy and the market, and act accordingly. We need to rematriate European Americans to the mother in our own society and ourselves, respect the rematriation of the Native Peoples to their lands and traditions and stop the destruction of the Great Mother world wide.

What do the Milgram Experiment and courts of law have in common? In program 32 I explore the disturbing implications of a legal system where authority figures figure so strongly in the prosecution and direction by judges.

What scientific evidence (i.e. primary research, not fad diet books) do you have that supports the notion that vegan diets are unhealthy? What scientific evidence (i.e. primary research, not fad diet books) do you have that supports the notion that paleo diets are healthy?

Morality as I have defined it above is simply a label for a certain kind of human activity, as such it is a material phenomena and can therefore be objectively observed. For example, when I drove my car down a street busy with pedestrians, did I drive slowly because I wanted to avoid harm to others, or did I drive heedlessly and imperil others? One kind of action is moral, the other immoral. I really don't see a need to get into complex theories, morality is something we intuitively understand - courtesy and consideration to others is common to all cultures, and likely has a biological basis. What confuses issues is the lack of consistency in application, and deliberate attempts to avoid moral censure that predatory people engage in - this is where philosophy can help.

If we define morality as taking the interests of others into account when we act, then an immoral action is one that intentionally or neglectfully harms others. (even defensive actions can be measured with restraint) We can then, to a fairly objective degree, identify harmful behaviors both physical, with medical science and emotional, with psychology and personal experience. Given this ability to identify harmful behaviors to a fairly objective standard, we can have an objective (but imprecise) sense of morality. I think this is basically the argument Sam Harris uses.

Children and animals are violated for much the same reasons, they are vulnerable, they don't have a voice and there is a culture of denial. I think the struggle is on parallel lines.I do think there is much merit to the argument that if children are treated kindly then they are more likely to grow up as sensitive individuals who, one would hope, treat animals with compassion. I also advocate for children and my partner and I blog on http://ethicalparents.com/ regarding raising children peacefully. I guess you are referring to plants or insects? An isolated nerve cell in a Petri dish could "feel pain", I don't think that has any moral connotations. The question is whether the organism in question has interests of its own that it's aware of, and whether it is practical to take this into consideration?

So there are some more crazy people with mixed up ethics, just they happen to be polar opposites in their ethical inconsistencies.

Not everyone is into abusing people, some of us are naturally more empathic than others and just need information. Some people go vegan when exposed either to the facts about animal use or the philosophical arguments. I did.

it means "long live the french" - http://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_'Vive_le_francais'_mean long live France is "vive la France" Just my attempt at a little humour, France may not last long if it is "sclerotic".

We don't and we don't hold the mentally ill morally accountable either. Those who lack the intellect to be held morally accountable still have interests in living in comfort. If they are sentient and look after themselves then they also have self ownership. Killing is the same action, what you do afterwards with the remains isn't implicitly morally relevant. Evidence does support that those engaged in repeated killing of animals are emotionally harmed. One extensive study suggests the form of psychological damage suffered by slaughterhouse workers. In Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing, Rachel M. MacNair describes Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress ("PITS") as a form of post- traumatic stress disorder that results "from situations that would be traumatic if someone were a victim, but situations for which the person in question was a causal participant," i.e., where the person suffering from PTSD has those symptoms because he was involved in creating the traumatic situation. MacNair describes the symptoms as including drug and alcohol abuse, anxiety, panic, depression, increased paranoia, a sense of disintegration dissociation or amnesia, which are incorporated into the "psychological consequences" of the act of killing. A Slaughterhouse Nightmare: Psychological Harm Suffered by Slaughterhouse Employees and the Possibility of Redress through Legal Reform, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1016401

That's usually what it means in a legal context. Generally it just means a dogmatic (unsupported) statement.

Egalitarians want to create a fairer society, which seems to mean one where people have equal opportunities and status.Invariably they argue against "privilege". Does the making of this argument require both privilege in the forming and stating of it, and also the government solutions necessitate privilege?

If you are interested in a thorough philosophical discussion of animals and ethics, I suggest the works of Scott D Wilson. http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/ Also Pluhar's 'Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals' is worthy of attention. Taking unfertilized eggs doesn't seem to be morally problematic, anymore than say finding a dead beast and making use of it as meat. It is the context within which these actions occur that raises ethical concerns.Domestication would be seen by many vegans as exploitative because it views other beings as a means to an end. Such behaviour still reduces a subject to an object. Cruelty is also involved in raising chickens and dairy animals because the females are more productive, males are exterminated. So extermination is still an inherent part of these systems.I also think that there are ethical concerns when one is encouraging others to exterminate animals as these activities are harmful to the psyche of those who do the killing.

Ipse dixit - it's not true just because you say so. Simple philosophy with profound implications for society.

France is “finished” and Britons should get their investments out of the country quickly, according to the managing director of John Lewis. After a visit to Paris this week, company executive Andy Street said France was "sclerotic, hopeless and downbeat" and he had “never been to a country more ill at ease ... nothing works and worse, nobody cares about it". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11137889/France-is-sclerotic-hopeless-and-downbeat-says-John-Lewis-boss.html

You may find this relevant as well...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKTCAZqc4dQ

anyone please? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHCAi1MBBA

There's a plethora of scientific evidence indicating that elevated cholesterol is the primary cause of CVD. Why do you keep denying this? The evidence comes from a wide range of scientific fields and I'll summarise it here as I have else where on these boards: 1) hundreds of cholesterol feeding experiments on animals - every species examined succumbs to atherosclerosis eventually when fed cholesterol 2) people with genetic defects that cause elevated cholesterol levels have higher incidence of atherosclerosis 3) people with genetic defects that limit cholesterol synthesis have lower rates of atherosclerosis 4) the majority of relevant population studies 5) numerous dietary intervention studies where patients reduce fat intake, lower cholesterol and REVERSE their atherosclerosis6) drugs designed to lower cholesterol levels reduce heart attacks The above findings are why the lipid hypothesis is accepted in medical science. Have you seen any science that refutes the findings above and leads to a different conclusion? Here's Attias credibility getting shredded I won't bother addressing your Mercola article.

Where did you read that tryglycerides are the primary predictor of CVD? It's always been LDL so far as I know. "...LDL cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, it's the main focus of cholesterol-lowering treatment" Mayo Clinic Your TC is at a desirably low level but TC is only a proxy, LDL is what counts. I wonder how long you can follow this diet though? I achieved these results on a low fat, high carb fully raw vegan diet and maintained these sorts of figures for many years doing so and felt great, no colds no flu, no headaches or other ailments. Total Cholesterol 93mg/dl LDL 39mg/dl HDL 39mg/dl tryglycerides 53-80mg/dl LDL below 70 is what to aim for, your move from 79 to 86 LDL is not an improvement. "The normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol range is 50 to 70 mg/dl for native hunter-gatherers, healthy human neonates, free-living primates, and other wild mammals (all of whom do not develop atherosclerosis). Randomized trial data suggest atherosclerosis progression and coronary heart disease events are minimized when LDL is lowered to <70 mg/dl. No major safety concerns have surfaced in studies that lowered LDL to this range of 50 to 70 mg/dl. The current guidelines setting the target LDL at 100 to 115 mg/dl may lead to substantial undertreatment in high-risk individuals." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15172426 It's both possible and preferable to achieve healthy LDL levels without ketogenic diets using a varied low-fat diet.

It's propaganda! And there's nothing wrong with circulating information to promote a good cause. But is the propaganda factual and the cause good? This is a response to a false propaganda piece that I saw on facebook some months ago. It concerns a cartoon by Milt Priggee that seems to lay blame for the US foreclosure crisis upon "free market capitalism". But is the property market an example of free market capitalism?

Where did a group of individuals come to a consensus about how society is run? Representative democracy certainly has not achieved consensus, instead majorities discriminate against minorities. Many societies are also the product of conquests, they did not arise spontaneously through consensus.A problem with government is that the people who constitute this institution do not comply with the rules they seek to have enforced upon the rest of society. So government constitute a separate society one that is parasitic on the wider population. Government is about rulers, not a consistent set of rules that all people must comply with.

They think people should change their behaviour to please others, and are callous hypocrites.It wasn't his choice to be gay, but it was their choice to worship a homophobic god. They could worship a non-homophobic god, or no god, their choice. Why do they not change?

The asian countries are full of cronyism and corruption. It's no different from the West, maybe worse. The asian countries are full of cronyism and corruption. It's no different from the West, maybe worse.

So you accuse me of what I accuse you of? Not very original, lets deal with the facts...As I said, the Adventist Health Studies are the nearest thing to controlled studies showing that meat eating increases mortality and morbidity, did you miss that? Also, the evidence that meat is harmful comes form a range of different scientific fields, not just from population studies, also toxicology, clinical intervention studies (double blind) and more.If sugar causes cardiovascular disease, how do you explain CVD in the Maasai, 400yo Innuit mummies or 5000yo Otzi or the Andamanese? No, sugar is a potential contributing factor not causative.Anyway I've got to the point where I am repeating so I have reached my limit of giving you anymore of my time.Write yourself a research paper and submit it to a reputable journal, see how far it gets. There's little point publishing your false propaganda here amongst people who lack the required knowledge and expertise, unless of course you are looking for the comfort of finding other believers. But as you can see there are skeptics here.