Soren

Here's a link which does not require iTunes: http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable

What does that even mean?

Well because people are afraid of saying I don't know, and our perpetual need to justify our actions and opinions.What is missing here is a discussion of what health means to the individual. When I was highly diet focused I was constantly troubled by the fact that I actually could not know what was going on inside my body. I only had external makers like skin, eyes and nails, complexion. And internal feeling like pain, discomfort, temperature, happiness, need to move about, mental acuity. So instead I used mental images of my condition and compared how I used to feel to how I felt afterwards. Unfortunately at the time I disregarded the social relations and my negative emotions. which skewed my perception a lot.Also Animals are not humans they are not human children, they are not benevolent. And we can not have any sustainable food plant growth of appreciable size without using animals. So we have to trap animals anyway, we have to breed them and we have to make sure they are healthy to fulfill the role so we have to kill some of them off.

Nevermind - missread

So you come from a holistic approach what makes you think I am going to waste my time researching further about the topic when you are acting like a jerk, providing no evidence, just statements, which are highly controversial. How do you know what I have researched and what I have not researched? I grew up on a farm and I have read about various methods, I will readily admit that I am no expert. You never claimed anything in regards to DDT and malaria? yes you did: What I said was "Insects facilitate mass murder of humans too what is it 60 mio during DDT ban." those people died from malaria so right there you have already said something about malaria and DDT. And given it was not holistic farming which was performed back then in those locations, even if your holistic method is correct, using DDT could have saved a lot of humans because they did not have the protection you claim holistic farming methods can provide.Yes I did actually read the paper, I guess you didn't which is why you had to fall back on a BS scientific sounding line. The paper shows a pretty strong correlation between usage of DDT and cases of malaria. They stop using it and the incidences grow quit a bit, then they start using it again in Ecuador and what do you know incidences fall again. From the paper we can clearly see that they have not gotten immune to DDT otherwise how could it have been effective in Ecuador in the 1990'es. they even address the resistance in mosquitoes "Although DDT resistance is often posed as a reason for malaria control failure, resistance of vector populations to DDT is not widespread in South America (10)." page 298I will recommend the book "The true story of DDT, PCB and Dioxin" by Przemyslaw Mastalerz a former chemistry professor. For some perspective on the toxicity of DDT. Interesting story about bat houses, but I don't see how he was forcibly suppressed? Failing to get funding from a private institution is not forcibly suppressing somebody. And obviously he was unable to sell his idea to that many others. Isn't all those bats going to skew the biodiversity if it was implemented? I do not, I am an anarchist, but not everything the government says is a lie. Actually this was about vegan/vegetarianism not agriculture so much I am not sure which question I have not responded too please post it again. Brought it up as a last resort, I was talking about malaria the whole time? I just pointed out that bugs can infect humans with deadly decease and has done so quit a lot, even while there was options to avoid those deaths.

Retracted my emotional response. DDT does help with fighting malaria: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/3/3/97-0305_article

Why do you assume I have no understanding of farming?A captain of a passenger ship is incompetent and hits some rock formation tipping the ship casting the passengers into the sea. You are the captain of another ship sailing past with plenty of flotation rings. The crew ask you permission to throw them in but you denies them the opportunity. Later others find the dead bodies and your sailing log and ask you why didn't you throw in the safety device's. "That I didn't throw them in is not the cause of their death it was their incompetent captain fault. I would not risk littering the water to save them."This is assuming your holistic argument is true. Now since you know so much about farming you also know that the plants used in farming have been bred so as to provide max nutrition and the plants natural defenses hav been bred out to make them less difficult to eat and to use their energy to grow larger. This has effectively left many of them undefended which is why you have to provide that defense for them. Don't strawman me man. I didn't say ALL insects. And I said enjoyment because bugs are really unpleasent but as long as they are not near me I could care less and I am not gonna spend money on a bug genocide.And you kinda have to decide whether you want farms or biodiversity and far from all land is effective farm land but can be used to farm animals.Biodiversity does not need us? Then why does it need mosquitoes?The only reason that we might be able to live with out eating animals is industrial farming.If organic holistic farming gives a better product then we don't have to worry. Cause all farms are gonna switch from less effective means. Though right now anything organic I can buy is small and puny and cost extra too boot.

Rights is a human concept and does not exist in reality. Humans don't have a right to live, they do what they have to too survive in nature, and animals do the same. Insects facilitate mass murder of humans too what is it 60 mio during DDT ban. And no people does not try to kill all insects only those which are in the way of our enjoyment of life.

No you need to go away or stop arguing against your own strawman argument. I don't use the NAP to justify killing animals what I am trying to say is that NAP only applies to Humans. To human interaction. Not Human to animal interaction. And you think you can just walk away from defining vegetarian animals as impossible to be perpetrators. because you haven't made a case against killing animals I don't see how that follows?

How do you know that they can't when they are biological humans, they have the faculties required? Just because somebody is insane or retarded doesn't stop them from making human choices they act the same as us non retards, to remove uneasiness. How do your factory farm retards? I don't see what the NAP has to do with food anyway, do you think its a NAP violation to eat carrots too? The NAP is a strictly human concept and doesn't pertain to non biological humans.How do you get off saying that vegetarian animals can't be perpetrators? Being vegetarian does not remove the ability to kill other beings or attack others with out killing them. Who are you talking too?

OMG. Animals are not just victims they are perpetrators also. The NAP dose not apply to them because they can't abide by it, and they don't have the potential of doing so. Only humans have the ability to chose to abide by the NAP.

I do not have a dog but I would not eat my dog no. Why because I did not buy the dog to serve the purpose of acquiring energy or nutrients for me, I can use it as a guard dog, for emotional comfort, for getting me of the couch and out walking etc. Cats, dogs and pets can fulfil those tasks to varying degree. Farm animals are not pets they cannot provide the same functions and value as pets can. Wild animals are even less capable. All pets are animals, not all animals are pets, Why is it that you keep dogs and not cobras and lions (look up Christian the lion if you haven’t already) as you know the value of animals? And why are you posting on a web forum if all animals have the same value then why trouble yourself by communicating to humans when you have dogs in your house maybe you have rats or mice somewhere they can provide value too. You do know how evolution work right? A lot of death of the mal adapted is how. A slave is an immoral tool not a nutrient. And we are not dinosaurs clearly, and wait dinos ate plants too are you not casting your lot with those who say the same thing only about plants? ”dinosaurs ate plants so we have to eat plants”. So humans of all cultures have been eating some form of animal products since humans, and now you come about say prove that we need to eat meat. Of cause, this is impossible as you do not have to eat meat, you do not have to eat anything at all in fact. However, maybe that is not what you meant. From what I understand, no group of humans in nature is vegan, that of cause does not prove animals products are required but it is a clue, as surely it would be easier skip hunting or farming animals. There the trouble with children, there is quit a few cases of children killed by their parents vegan diets. The problem with establishing the viability of a diet is that unless it has very rapid negative consequences (like all protein, rabbit starvation) you might be able to live a long long time on a deficient diet. Look at breatharians they believe that you can live on air and water and starve them self for a long time only to go back to eating food again and then starve them self again and over and over in a merry go round of misery. They then make the excuse that it is only because they had food as a child that they cannot lose the habit. Because they feel so much better when they are not eating. Now this behavior is just stupid if you want to live anyway. But Vegans and other focused diets have the same propensity to make excuses and find sinners. “They touched a piece of animal matter once”, “they did not follow the diet right”. This is a problem in the case of children because how can you feed them with this apparently highly technical diet, which is difficult to follow and make sure you get enough nutrients in the right amounts. And small children have no health reference to reflect on they can’t express clearly how they feel in a detailed way. They are trapped by their parents and you don’t know if they would chose this diet if they had a choice later. Meat and dairy is an easy and convenient way to make sure they obtain the required nutrients. In addition, it is a time proven method. And how do you know that: “All the vegan supporting argument have proven exactly how to get all the nutrients the meat eaters said we need, through other sources aside from meat, so that argument, no matter how many times you type it out in different words, has already been countered”. I mean here we have vegans arguing that eating animals dead by accident, road kill, is okay to obtain B12. I mean I cannot stop laughing. Or that eating dirty plants is the answer, good luck with em teeth. Also just because there is the presence of nutrients it doesn’t meant that you are going to absorb them as they pass through your body. The whole problem is that a lot depends on interpretation of the data if you want to see it as supporting veganism then you can do that, I guess, like “FreedomPhilosophy” does in his paper totally disregarding the influence of fat. I haven’t been convinced by vegan arguments and have read a lot of counter arguments so I guess I could say: “if you have an actual argument to defending eating only plants, that pertains to the here and now, that hasn't been countered 10 times over again, then I would love to hear it, but please stop repeating yourself! If you can't come up with an argument, then that is fine, you can simply say that you eat plants because it makes you feel righteous no matter the health consequences. But stop acting like a mistreated child or an adult in current society by arguing something while being constantly proven wrong. Thank you!” But I am not going to do that because I don’t know which is the best diet for the life I want to lead. I can only observe that a lot of vegans/vegetarians look unhealthy and unattractive, they often describe nature as some great place to be saved, use lousy arguments like, this person got old because plants while this other unhealthy person got old as a fluke. Eating meat is okay if it died by accident or age. They often equate humans to animals while trying to moralize only humans. I think I will just pass on by.

I am not an historian. But from what I have read the military is very conservative in its ways, and military technology is the same riding the coattails of the discoveries of the free market. With the added bonus that they push resources in to immature technologies that would come about later when the market had a need. So while there are some bonuses to death dealing the hidden cost of misallocation of resources to generally unwanted products. Maybe we will need to shoot depleted uranium rounds out of a barrel at 1600m/s some time in the future but we don't know the cost of having that tech available now when there is no free market need.

No it is not, the non aggression principle doesn't apply to animals. People who grow up away form animals have no idea about them, they think they are pets. I have been rammed assaulted a couple of times by peaceful vegetarian sheep as a child. And this environment thing. Right now we are spraying dead dinos to grow plant food which makes it so cheap that they feed it to animals too instead of gracing. Its a cicle of life animals can't live with out plants and plants can't live with out animals. You need to a lot of animals to grow food plants au naturel.

Was there ever even a chance that you would have said yes I am gonna continue eating meat? As a former food focused person of the Paleo/ extreme low carber variete I would warn against focusing on diet other than not eating to optain comfort. I approach dieting in the same way Stef approachs marrige, what did more free people come up with. I have used Weston A Price as inspiration and what I take away form that ist a Spectra around "omnivorism" with no vegans or straight meat eaters to be found in nature. To focus on this platonic ideal of the "perfect" diet I think is a distraction. Akin to a boob job, some external change to try and resolve an internal problem. You start lying to yourself to justify your choices, "I feel so much better, than I used to". And as your gut flora changes you will actually feel worse for some time if you for some reason eat what you used to eat. If you wanna loose cravings I found that when I weened my self of sugar and carbs I did it over a month and it was no problem. If I had sugar cravings I would buy a small piece of chocolate to satisfy that craving but no more. I guess you can do the same with meat. like some small portion of dried meat I guess?

I am Danish and live in Denmark, the Copenhagen area.

"... any soft and new baby skin would have done the trick, ...." - yay

Wow I didn't know it was so bad I Sweden . I don't know where you live but homeschooling is allowed in Denmark, so there's the possibility of commuting, Steiner schools and living in a culture not too far form your own.

Wow that is an horrid story. Attacking people is bad enough, attacking them in their sleep, seems yet worse to me. How is he or you ever to sleep soundly knowing that at any moment you can be attacked in a defenseless state by your caregiver. I am sorry you had to experience that. Do you have or have had trouble sleeping?

I got human herpesvirus 3 as a child and have not had it since as usual but I once overheard some grownups talking about rushing their kids to a sick kid's house to get infected so they would get immunity later in life. Is this on the same moral level as a vacination?

I Work some sundays setting up som gymnastics props for 2-8 year olds to play on. A few times I have vitnessed parrents verbally abuse their children. I am yet to find the curage to really say something to the parrent, which I feel really bad about, I always fogg up in my mind. On another job I was once watching some props during summer vacation. And vitnesed a dad getting mad at his children because of some food. His Little daughter fled 5m away from him but could not get futher because of the tribune they where on watching her face as he went to pick her up was terrifying. It was like he did not see her fear at all. I felt very small and cowardly seeing that. To my surprice she later came running to me and sat in my lap, as i was sitting on a gigant airtrack watching some kids play. How can you approach people like that in a professional manner and tell them, not to yell?

One of my dads favorite fairytales is about a Young lad who takes employment at a trolls farm. The troll Works him hard and dosen't feed and dosent pay him as promised so he takes revenge by basically slaughtering the trolls Family, kids first. Turning the skin indside out on one of them. I have always had a very vivid imagination but find that I am much more upset by the story now than when I was a kid.

Yes I do eller ja

Great when will I get my own carrier group? I don't get what you are trying to say here?

I don't get how Stefan listening to an unknown audio book by Chomsky 7+ years ago where Chomsky mentions somthing about domestic policy. Is firm evidence that stefan had intricate knowlege of Chomskys other intrest subjects? Could just have as well turned him of investigating futher and just focus on the valuable parts. Also I don't understand how its a moral problem? Soren