Anti-vax

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I anti science. If it was 1970 right now and I said that the central dogma (DNA->RNA->Protein) is not correct I would be laughed at, and called "unscientific." Our understandings of the world around us changes all the time. This is science.

I actually had a lot of sympathy for paradigm667 at the beginning of the thread. He seemed so reasonable. However, slowly but surely he started slipping into:

What you don't realize when you cite those studies is that they are bogus. They cheat. They compare people at different times of the year, or different age groups, etc. If someone gets a flu shot, comes down with pneumonia the next day, that's "coincidence" and doesn't get listed as an adverse effect. If you actually worked in the medical field and were around these people and saw them day in day out, you would know what most nurses do: those who get the flu shot, are not any healthier than those who do not.

When they measure "time away from work" they only take into consideration if it was from the flu. If it is from pneumonia, or from some other kind of adverse reaction (which are numerous) it simply doesn't get counted.

But bravo to you for copying and pasting without actually understanding how the numbers and figures are derived. You see, you think are you are so well informed. You're not. You're given bogus papers to cite and since you never look into them, you just assume they must be legit.

You don't have to include the word "conspiracy" in order to describe one.

It's a long thread and I'm tired of reading it so I won't respond to very much. I didn't even go and look for more "conspiracy theories" from paradigm667. I just quoted the first one I noticed off the same page. I would like to ask paradigm667 some questions...

You vigorously attack a wide variety of vaccines. If you want to discredit vaccination in general, why don't you attack some of the flagship titles like smallpox or polio. Next to these giants, who cares about the measles? It would greatly discredit vaccines if old icons turned out to be fraudulent...

You also mentioned in one of your posts that there is a known mechanisms for the induction of autism from vaccines. What is that?


Finally, on a very personal note, your use of acronyms like LOL and LMAO is hideous and looks foolish. They don't facilitate communication and they don't help your point at all...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I actually had a lot of sympathy for paradigm667 at the beginning of the thread. He seemed so reasonable.

Of course, the very first thing he did was lie, and claim that he wasn't talking about conspiracies.

If you read a 9/11 "Truth" thread on this site, or read anything from Creationists, you'll see the same sort of bullshit that paradigm667 is spewing here. Like the "Truthers," paradigm667 believes that all the evidence against him is faked by an evil cabal that has fooled the masses for decades if not centuries. And like Creationist "scientists" he is seeking an education in a made-up field where he already knows everything he needs to right now: "herbs and twigs and berries are good, medicine based on evidence is bad!"

The conclusion is established long before any research is done, so the outcome is a forgone conclusion, especially since the conspiracy theorist believes that the mountains of evidence that show her to be wrong is all faked by the conspiracy. I'm not sure there's any point to talking to someone who is that deluded and full of themselves (covering up for some failing or inadequacy, most likely.) The reason to push back is to make sure no one else is swept up in their delusions.

 

[Giliell]

Well...science says so.
And whose "in nature"...well...I don't believe I see what you're asking or getting at here. Forgive me for my ignorance. I honestly don't understand what your point is that you are trying to make.

Wait, the same science who totally got everything wrong about nutrition and vaccination?
OH, and did you know that milk changes it's components and tastes during time and will become less nutrituos and "thinner" at about 1 year after birth? Tell me how children do that to their mummy's bodies.

They spit out fruits when you gave them to them? If so, was this after you introduced them to refined junk food? If not, were the fruits ripe?

C'mon now, you're talking nonsense. You simply have neither knowedge about nor experience with babies. Ripe organic banana. Leaves practically no stains.

So much for grains in general, lets look at wheat in particular. The gluten in wheat is causes serious problems to several people - celiacs in particular (people who suffer from gluten intolerance) approximately 30% of the population

Apart from the 30%...
Yep, there are people who can't eat gluten. And that proves? There are people who can't eat fruit. From mild forms like a simple intolerance that will only make them spend the rest of the day on the toilet to a serious form where they die from.
No-one would suggest that this is because we shouldn't eat fruit...

See, that's a valid point. And the answer: I cannot find any species that does also wear clothes.
But lets see what clothe's have done for us:
If they are made out of synthetic materials, often times we can have skin reactions to them, if we wear too many, too often we become deficient in vitamin D, if we wear them too tight it messes up our circulation. Show me animals in nature that need clothes.

We wear clothes in the winter because the use of our intelligent brains allowed us to come up with novel make-shift ways of adapting to other environments than the natural African Savanna that we inhabited for the majority of our evolutionary time here on earth.

You're example, only proves me own point.

????
Only to you

Which is why I do not eat either beans or potatoes. Nor eggplants. Which is why I do not eat it (Rhubarb).

Just compare it to your question:

How many fruits do you know that you have to cook to make edible, or that need spices or sugar or ketchup or mustard added to them to make them taste good?

You asked for examples, I gave them top you.

@the pictures
So the mother is fine with it? Nice, how about the kids? What may they feel like in 8 years time? As I said, I have no problems about nudity, especially about nude babies and children. the most beautiful pictures of my daughter are nude pictures. That doesn't change a thing about them being private.

I can disprove that claim immediately anyways. I just got back from Sedona, AZ 3 weeks ago and I was foraging with a big plastic bin lined with paper towels for ripe delicious blackberries. Totally in their wild state, right alongside the creek that runs through the town. Totally ripe, sweet, amazingly delicious.
Go and find wild coconuts, or wild durian, or wild melons...in the tropics...I think you will be sad to find out how amazingly sweet and good they taste.

Quite frankly, I can't even believe I have to make this point...lol. Unreal.

Ehm so, mankind should live on blackberries and coconuts? Good luck. Yes, wild blackberries are tasty, and they are hardly cultivated at all. But they are only avaible in small amounts in a short period of time. So are wild strawberries
Try your luck with crapapples or wild cherries, or the famous banana.
Fact is that the diet you propose as "natural" was never avaible to us ever since the tropical forests in Africa retreated and it became a grassland. And that's a long time ago and we've changed a lot since those days. Indeed, you could say that it was the starting point of our evolution as modern man.

@Autism/vaccines
That still doesn't explain why autism still increased in Japan when MMR vaccination ceased for a while.
Either the vaccination had no impact on the autism rate, or the number of vaccinations has no effect (in which case we should see a static number, not an increase) and so on and so on.
Oh, and you yourself said that YOUR scientific approach could not be proven by the method of changing one variable at a time, but you expect others to do it...

 

[Talono]

Right, and still patients continue to outlive their doctors.

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

I was not asking about how doctors have the right to diagnose disease. They are moderately OK at this. What I asked was were is the authority to diagnose HEALTH.

Actually, this is what you said: "What kind of authority do doctors have, btw to define health."

Now that I look at that post again, it's ironic that you "have asked doctors how they define it." But I do realize it was only slightly ironic, considering that that bit was just baseless rhetoric.

Doctors do not even know what this means. This is a significant problem. We have an entire "health" industry that is really a disease-identifying industry.

With this point, I will agree. We have a system which inadequately allocates resources to preventive health, including vaccines.

What do doctors know about health? Very little.

Prove it.

This is why their patients don't improve their quality of life

That's a generalization. Evidence that the majority of patients don't improve their quality of life?

and this is also why doctors themselves do not walk the walk. They get heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc, just like the rest of the average joes out there.

I've already addressed this in the last paragraph of my response to the article from NaturalNews.com article you posted earlier:

"In my opinion, it is not health education that is the problem. It is about people caring about their own health. In high school, my biology teacher, who was also practicing podiatrist, would tell us about doctors who smoke, were obese, or were just plain careless about their own health. I doubt that these doctors were ignorant about the harmful affects of smoking and obesity. They were probably just more concerned with their own ambitions, work, and other aspects of their lives just as many other people are.

To say that these people are 'uneducated when it comes to their own health' is just a setup to lure people into the intellectual cesspool that is the "natural health" industry. 'These people don't know about health, but I do! Sign up for my newsletter to read the entire article!' is the message of this article. Just visiting the website to read the article, I am bombarded by ads that promote such unsupported crap like acupuncture training, 'top anti-viral remedies' book, the book's publisher themselves, and 'Valley of Longevity Shampoo' that is sold by the damn article writer."

In addition, I add: Doctors do walk the walk. The biology teacher I mentioned above carries around aspirin in a little bag in his pocket at all times. From what I can remember, he does that so he can take the aspirin if he ever has a heart attack. He was also always giving us lectures on early detection, staying active, etc.

Well, I appreciate your opinion. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?

What did this have to do with anything anyone was discussing:

"In the future we will laugh at the inhumanity and idiocy of this medical paradigm. It's only been in existence for 100 years. It's in its last throws. It doesn't work. And people are starting to realize it. Slowly, slowly...there will be a silent rebellion. It is already started. I will be on the front lines educating people myself and leading the way." - You

Pure propaganda.

Ohh my god! Homeopathy: The treatment that kills hundreds of thousands a year! Wait...that's modern medicine...nevermind. And it's over 300,000 per year now that diet due to perfectly "normal" prescriptions and procedures that go awry.

Red Herring.

Yeah, lets get angry at homeopathy.

My point is that they don't don't teach logical concepts. For example, they also teach vitalism, colloidal silver as treatment for HIV, and other bizarre stuff.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/atwood.html

You know what's funny...since we ARE on the topic of vaccination...lets look at homeopathy, which by they way I consider a fringe pseudoscience myself, as you do...but lets look at the homeopathic law of similars. This is the EXACT same concept as vaccination and yet, everyone who is pro vaccine is against homeopathy. Interesting, isn't it.

NO IT IS NOT. Either that is a straw man or your have absolutely no grasp of how the immune system works.

1. Vaccines are based on the fact that the body acquires immunity to certain diseases by recognizing the antigens of pathogens. When a person becomes sick with one of these disease, such as chicken pox, the body produces memory cells which are specific for the disease as part of the primary immune response. When the person is exposed to the pathogen again, the memory cells function in a heightened and faster (and thereby a more effective) secondary immune response. By purposely exposing the body to dead pathogens, we can allow the body to produce memory cells specific for the pathogen without causing the disease.

Here's a schematic (Don't mind the spelling errors):
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/bio4fv/page/aviruses/immuneresponse.jpg


2. Homeopathy is based on the idea that by diluting a random substance in water to the point where there are no molecules left in the solution and that "a 'memory' of the substance is retained" in the water.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

See, I'm not a fan of homeopathy, but I extend that same skepticism to vaccination as well, as it is one and the same as homeopathy.

Then why are you becoming an ND, even though you know it they teach homeopathy, and by extension, irrationality?

Because the power of nutrition is superior to ALMOST any drug out there

That's a big claim that's going to need a lot of evidence. Of course, I want you to provide it.

By the way "side effects" is nothing more than Bernaysian PR bullshit. It's not a "SIDE" effect when it happens with regularity and severity. It's an effect. But that sucks to say that, because then it sounds like you're ingesting poisonous substances doesn't it. lol...

Dictionary.com defines side effect as "any effect of a drug, chemical, or other medicine that is in addition to its intended effect, esp. an effect that is harmful or unpleasant." It is called a side effect because it's not intended, not because it's some PR trick.

LOL. Sure I can. When it's blatantly obvious that the claim is wrong.

If it is so blatantly wrong then call her on the burden of proof or debunk her claim as it is. "Haha, you're wrong!" is still unproductive.

I don't really know where I am running to though. If you read the original post that I said "bullshit" to...it was a post made based on speculation. In court, one would say "objection your honor, speculation." And the judge very simply would say "sustained."

In this case, this is what I am referring to this:

nd yes, he's right: Anti-vaccinationists blamed the mercury. It was removed, no change, so they blamed the aluminium. You say they started to vaccinate more, but that's not true either, because nowadays there are kombi-vaccines, so the amount of aluminium or any other substance injected into the body is much, much lower than it was 10 years ago when you'd get 6 times 0.5ml of vaccine with it's component of mercury or aluminium instead of one shot now.

Your response: "...bullshit. "

Like I said, call her on the burden of proof or debunk her.

Btw, courts are HORRIBLE places for determining the truth.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

You know what's funny...since we ARE on the topic of vaccination...lets look at homeopathy, which by they way I consider a fringe pseudoscience myself, as you do...but lets look at the homeopathic law of similars. This is the EXACT same concept as vaccination and yet, everyone who is pro vaccine is against homeopathy. Interesting, isn't it.
See, I'm not a fan of homeopathy, but I extend that same skepticism to vaccination as well, as it is one and the same as homeopathy.

I can't believe you wrote this and are still expecting to be taken seriously. You started off so well but now you've gone bonkers. It really hurts your credibility...

First, let me address the claim that homeopathy is taught in your program. Doesn't this upset you at all? Doesn't it ring any alarm bells for you? Doesn't it, at least, make you suspicious of your program?

Secondly, you really think homeopathy is "exactly" the same "concept" as vaccination? There's no significant distinction between the two? You don't think there's a difference in their mechanisms? Such as vaccination having one and homeopathy not having any...

Seriously, to confuse the two is like being afraid of blue mugs because you were once hit by a blue car. It's a false association. Yes, they have this one thing in common but you're concentrating on the wrong commonality. There's no causal relationship, there's no analogy, there's nothing. I can't believe you even wrote that. What were you thinking?

 

[paradigm667]

You vigorously attack a wide variety of vaccines. If you want to discredit vaccination in general, why don't you attack some of the flagship titles like smallpox or polio. Next to these giants, who cares about the measles? It would greatly discredit vaccines if old icons turned out to be fraudulent...

You also mentioned in one of your posts that there is a known mechanisms for the induction of autism from vaccines. What is that?

Sure, that's very easy.
Smallpox:

1797 Edward Jenner sends a paper to the Royal Society about variolae vaccinae orsmallpox of the cow and its potential similarities to human smallpox, and tries topopularize the folklore that exposure to inflamed cow utters with correspondinginflammation or eruptions on the milker's hands is the cow form of human smallpox. Thepaper is rejected and returned with a warning "He had better not promulgate such a wildidea if he valued his reputation."

1798 Edward Jenner publishes his Inquiry variolae vaccinae, or smallpox of the cow.

1799 Jennerian doctrine and the practice of vaccination spreads all over England.

1800 Jennerian vaccination doctrine spreads all over the world. Benjamin Waterhouse ofHarvard University brings it to the U. S.

1803 Baron, in his "Life of Jenner," vol i., p. 604, says that Mr. Allen, Secretary to LordHolland, writing to Jenner from Madrid in 1803, observes:"There is no country likely toreceive more benefits from your labours than Spain; for, on the one hand, the mortalityamong children from small-pox has always been very great; and, on the other hand, theinoculation for the cow-pox has been received with the same enthusiasm here as in therest of Europe." .. . ."The result, however, was the reverse of satisfactory; the inoculationof the spurious sort has proved fatal to many children at Seville, who have fallen victimsto the small-pox after they had been pronounced secure from that disease."

1839 Smallpox epidemic sweeps England and kills 22,081 people.

1840 Inoculation is outlawed by the British Parliament.

1850 In 1850, in the U.S. frigate Independence, with a ship's company of 560 peopleaboard, there were 116 cases of smallpox, seven fatal. Fleet-surgeon Whelen wrote: "Thecrew of this ship almost universally presented what are regarded as genuine vaccinemarks. The protection, however, proved to be quite imperfect."

1853 In England, The Compulsory Vaccination Act is passed by Parliament. Every parentis required to have their baby vaccinated within 3 months of birth or face a fine of 20shillings.

1855 Medical Inquisition begins in U. S., as Massachusetts is the first state to adoptmandatory vaccination laws.

1860 The following is part of a letter which appeared in the Lancet on July 7th, 1860,signed a "Military Surgeon:""VACCINATION AT SHORNCLIFFE., SIR,, Having seenin the Lancet of last week an article commenting on a return moved for by Mr.DUNCOMBE, respecting those who have died from Vaccination, the number ofamputations required to save life at the camp at Shorncliffe, I can only say that it wouldbe advisable to extend this return, and ask for the number of those who have died or hadtheir arms amputated since the promulgation of an order from the late Director-GeneralALEXANDER, limiting the performance of the operation to a particular part of the arm,viz., two inches above the elbow-joint in front, immediately over the insertion of thedeltoid muscle. The results from this unfortunate erroneous rule, have, I fear, producedan amount of injury that will never be known, as it will be exceedingly difficult, even inthe present day, to procure an accurate return, as military medical men are too fullyalive to the injury likely to occur to their future prospects of promotion in the service,were they found ready and willing to expose such mistakes. The irritation, inflammation,and consequent loss of limb, and in some cases of life, from adopting this rule, I myselfam practically acquainted with, as I was on board, not very long since, in a case where afine healthy young soldier had his arm amputated at the shoulder-joint to save his life, inconsequence of mortification supervening upon erysipelatous inflammation of theforearm after Vaccination."

1864 "Upon the U.S. steamship Jamestown, serving in Japanese waters, there occurred,in 1864, among a ship's company of 212 persons, 31 cases of small-pox, with fourdeaths. The entire crew had been vaccinated after leaving the United States."

1867 Nonpayment of fines for skipping smallpox vaccination result in harsher penalties.Thousands defy the medical Inquisition and leave Britain rather than submit theirchildren to the practice.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/book.html

Smallpox Vaccination in the Phillipines 1905-1920

In the Philippines, prior to US takeover in 1905, case mortality from smallpox was about 10%. In 1905, following the commencement of systematic vaccination enforced by the US Government, an epidemic occurred where the case mortality ranged from 25% to 50% in different parts of the islands. In 1918-1919 with over 95% of the population vaccinated, the worst epidemic in the Philippine's history occurred resulting in a case mortality of 65%. The highest percentage occurred in the capital Manila, the most thoroughly vaccinated place. The lowest percentage occurred in Mindanao, the least vaccinated place owing to religious prejudices. Dr V de Jesus, Director of Health, stated that the 1918-1919 smallpox epidemic resulted in 60,855 deaths. The 1920 Report of the Philippines Health Service contains the following comments:

"From the time in which smallpox was practically eradicated In the city of Manila to the year 1918 (about 9 years) in which the epidemic appears certainly In one of its severest forms, hundreds after hundreds of thousands of people were yearly vaccinated with the most unfortunate result that the 1918 epidemic looks prima facie as a flagrant failure of the classic Immunization towards future epidemics".



"We were fortunate enough to address their own medical (and) health officials where we reminded them of the incidence of smallpox in formerly "immunized" Filipinos. We invited them to consult their own medical records and asked them to correct us if our own facts and figures disagreed. No such correction has been forthcoming, and we can only conclude that between 1918-1919 there were 112,549 cases of smallpox notified, with 60,855 deaths. Systematic (mass) vaccination started in 1905, and since its introduction case mortality increased alarmingly. Their own records comment that "The mortality is hardly explainable."---Dr Kalokerinos (Second Thoughts on Disease by Kalokerinos & Dettman)

In 1918, the US Army forced the vaccination of 3,285,376 natives in the Philippines when no epidemic was brewing, only the sporadic cases of the usual mild nature. Of the vaccinated persons, 47,369 came down with small-pox, and of these 16,477 died. In 1919 the experiment was doubled. 7,670,252 natives were vaccinated. Of these 65,180 victims came down with small-pox, and 44,408 died. In the first experiment, one-third died, and in the second, two-thirds of the infected ones died. ----- from Dr. William Koch's book, The Survival Factor in Neoplastic and Viral Diseases.

"When the Philippines were taken over by the U.S.A., in 1898, they became a shop-window for the sale of vaccine. They had had plenty of vaccination, of course, under Spanish rule, but the Americans began to clean the place up, and the smallpox figures took a big dive, as might have been expected,and the vaccinators took the big bows, as usual.
The sale of vaccine was enormous. The health reports prove this,an account rendered for the taxpayers to pay. When, however, the inevitable epidemic came, in 1918-20, it is worth noting that, out of a population of 10,000,000, the huge total of 71,000 deaths was more than equalled by several other epidemics during the same three years. Malaria took 93,000, influenza 91,000, tuberculosis 80,000, while dysentery, cholera and typhus together took another 70,000. It will be seen, therefore, that, during one of the very worst epidemics in all history, the deaths from smallpox were well below 1 per cent of the population. Yet we are always being told of the millions of lives saved by the noble work of Jenner and his prosperous followers."--Lionel Dole

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes10.html



Now as far as Polio, it a much different story than all the other vaccines because it increased while other "infectious" diseases were unilaterally decreasing (whether there was a vaccine for them or not, btw). Now why would this happen? Novel virus? Or something NEW introduced into the environment?
We LOVE making this error. Two great examples are the mysterious "colony collapse disorder" in honeybees, and the mysterious facial cancers of the tasmanian devils. Both of these conditions were once thought to be caused by viruses. We now know for certain, mainstream news, that the honeybees were simply being poisoned by chemicals. With the tasmanian devils, the "inexplicable" cancer all the sudden becomes much less mysterious when we find out many animals in the area where the tasmanian devils are found including the tasmanian devils themselves, test for incredibly toxic levels of certain chemicals including various fireproofing chemicals (known to cause cancer).

but let's look at the honeybees:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm <-- "virus implicated in colony collapse disorder"

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=22&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.israel21c.org%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D6874%3Abee-colony-vaccine%26catid%3D56%3Atechnology%26Itemid%3D62&ei=pNaOSqD6N4HktAPtsK3aDg&usg=AFQjCNHRNAN4WNfdq8nsDz88d4Gnbs1ZJw&sig2=HBaQ-oePUJGst9RDWD_wpw <--- "new vaccine could save the honey bees"

but then we fast forward...
http://wildlife-conservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/update_on_bee_colony_collapse_disorder <--- "Pesticides, Monoculture, Parasites and Viruses All Have Roles in CCD"

And now..
http://www.naturalnews.com/023679.html <--- "CCD debunked." It's the pesticides, stupid.

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/honeybee.htm <-- pesticides

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/05/18/bees_pesticides/ <--- pesticides

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/bayer-in-court-over-clothianidin-pesticide-colony-collapse-disorder.php <--- wanna guess?

"Bayer maintains that clothianidin has entered the environment because farmers have not used the pesticide properly,failing to use an adhesive agent which fixes the pesticide to the seed coats.

Bayer Passes the Buck
Ah, nothing like passing the buck. Even if entirely accurate, to my mind, at the absolute naked bare minimum a shared responsibility needs to be acknowledged by Bayer on this one. Even the US EPA, the same agency which won't even disclose whether Bayer filed the proper paperwork before clothianidin was registered in the United States, admits that this class of pesticides as a whole can be highly toxic to honey bees. What sort of compensation, if any, should be awarded is open to debate but passing responsibility entirely over to farmers is unacceptable."


I won't post a bunch of links to the tasmanian devil cancers, but I can show you countless other instances where viruses are blamed for what is otherwise toxic exposures.
When I hear "bacterial infection" I think "this person probably is not eating enough food, not absorbing enough nutrients, drinking tainted water, or is under persistent stress"
When I hear "viral infection" I think "toxic exposure to a harmful substance."

Indeed it's not always the case, but more often than not....it is.

Nevertheless, the idea is that it is never in the business interests of chemical companies (like Bayer for instance) to have these disorders, cancers, and "viral" diseases be examined as possible toxic exposures, rather, as viral, genetic or "unknown" causes. Why? Because then there is no money that needs to be paid to the victims, or to clean up the mess, etc.

Polio is NO different.

http://westonaprice.org/envtoxins/pesticides_polio.html

http://www.sparks-of-light.org/poliomyth.html

http://www.harpub.co.cc/

....any questions?


And smallpox vaccines can be debunked by one very simple quote as well:

Again...are you SERIOUSLY still going to call me a "conspiracy theorist?"
Really? You're going to lump me in with crop circle people and alien people and 2012 people? I'm talking about SCIENCE here. Unfortunately, my version of science IS NOT the business model version. There version where first you ask "wait a minute, if that's true, then what does it mean for our business?"
I don't subscribe to that bullshit. That's not science, and the fact that I get accused of conspiracy theory is a crying shame. Address the points. Stop flinging dirt.

Finally, on a very personal note, your use of acronyms like LOL and LMAO is hideous and looks foolish. They don't facilitate communication and they don't help your point at all...

I'll make a deal with you. You don't call me crap like "conspiracy theorist", and I won't use any hideous looking acronyms that make me look foolish. Is that fair?
"They don't facilitate communication"? Really...and what does calling someone "conspiracy theorist" facilitate exactly. It would be nice to have people hold themselves up the standards they demand of others. Come on now, lets be fair. You can't just shove me around criticizing all I say but it doesn't matter if you are guilty of the same things you claim I am guilty of...

@ImprobableJoe

Of course, the very first thing he did was lie, and claim that he wasn't talking about conspiracies.

Improbable indeed. You would think you have ANYTHING more intelligent to add than "conspiracy theorist"..."comes to conclusions before even doing the research"...etc etc etc. This is simply ridiculous argumentative tactics that do not further any information, what they do is promote your own ignorance. Read my posts, read the info I link to, then respond to it. Intelligently, if possible. And then we will be doing what is called "communicating."
But some of you seem to not wanna do that. You seem hell bent on calling me a name, labeling me a conspiracy nut, trying to suggest I am a pedophile, or that I should be discredited because I use acronyms that are "hideous".... Come on now...lets grow up.


@ G,

Wait, the same science who totally got everything wrong about nutrition and vaccination?

Yes ma'am. It is possible for one field of science to be wrong and others not to be. I am suggesting that nutritional science, physiology and anatomy is far less controversial than vaccine "science", so yes...precisely what you are suggesting.

OH, and did you know that milk changes it's components and tastes during time and will become less nutrituos and "thinner" at about 1 year after birth? Tell me how children do that to their mummy's bodies.

I love how "thinner" means less nutritious. We should be breast feeding our children for anywhere from 3-6 years after birthing. The fact that the baby's body and composition requires different nutrients doesn't mean anything? Anyway, you completely didn't understand my point about the weening. The point is that baby's have a certain biological need for milk for a certain period of time. It's not the mother's choice to say "well, I don't feel like it's very convenient in today's society" or "I'll do it, but only for a few months." The baby demands to be taken proper care of, if it is not "convenient" for some reason, it's not justification to change the mother/child biology and interaction, rather, that is reason to restructure society such that healthy children are produced.
It's such a joke the things most people value. It's like a 180 compared to where we were as a species not even that long ago. Actually, you know what I think people still value health, they just have NO IDEA how to attain it anymore. They don't breastfeed, then their babies have lower IQs, more infections, etc, and the mothers wonder why.
In all honesty it isn't their fault entirely, because the nature of our society right now is such that it promotes sickness. It's like Dr. Gabriel Cousens calls it "the culture of death." It's not a culture of life. It promotes rancidity, obesity, lethargy, excuses, infertility, morbidity and mortality.

C'mon now, you're talking nonsense. You simply have neither knowedge about nor experience with babies. Ripe organic banana. Leaves practically no stains.

You wanna wager that your definition of a "ripe" banana and mine are night and day apart? I'll wager 1000 dollars that says if I came into your house and I saw the "ripeness" of your bananas I would smack my forehead and shake my head in disappointment.

part from the 30%...
Yep, there are people who can't eat gluten. And that proves? There are people who can't eat fruit. From mild forms like a simple intolerance that will only make them spend the rest of the day on the toilet to a serious form where they die from.
No-one would suggest that this is because we shouldn't eat fruit...

Way to set up a strawman G. Way to go.
First of all, like I said before, there is no such thing as a human who is born allergic to all fruit from birth. Doesn't exist. There are however, many cases of being born with grain sensitivities, or allergies.
Your point is irrelevant. Total straw man. Bravo.

????
Only to you

Really, because I thought I did a pretty damn good job of explaining your comment about clothes. If I didn't write that last bit at the end were I said "your example, only proves my own point" what would you have responded to then? You took the very last closing comment I made, and responded to that...why? respond to the POINT I made. Come on G, don't be so cheap. This is really poor argumentation from you. I think not only do I deserve a little better, but I think you ought to hold yourself up to some higher standards. Come on now...

Which is why I do not eat either beans or potatoes. Nor eggplants. Which is why I do not eat it (Rhubarb).

Just compare it to your question:
How many fruits do you know that you have to cook to make edible, or that need spices or sugar or ketchup or mustard added to them to make them taste good?

You asked for examples, I gave them top you.

@the pictures
So the mother is fine with it? Nice, how about the kids? What may they feel like in 8 years time? As I said, I have no problems about nudity, especially about nude babies and children. the most beautiful pictures of my daughter are nude pictures. That doesn't change a thing about them being private.

OK G, I think you need to be explained what a fruit is. Beans are not fruits G. Neither are potatoes, I know I know...even though in French they are called "apples of the earth"(pommes de terres)...that's not gonna cut it. Rhubarb...a fruit!? Come on G. You happen to be lucky about eggplant, it is technically a non-sweet fruit in the nightshade family. And yes, it is poisonous to humans if eaten raw. But guess what? It smells bad raw, and it tastes HORRIBLE if you try it raw. Indications it is not for consumption. When I said fruits I meant them in the general sense of the word aka "sweet fruits." Most people don't say "I brought home some fruits" and have a bag full of tomatoes, eggplants, bell peppers, and cucumbers. They are indeed technically fruits but, I think you know what I was talking about when I said fruit.
And no, your examples were horrible. You showed me some VEGETABLES that must be cooked. And I totally agree with that. Some things on this earth we do not have the physiology to digest. One of those things is GRAINS. Another is LEGUMES.

So I asked for examples, and you didn't get any to me. Failure.

Now as far as the pictures, G, you need to really ease up. Suggesting I am a pedophile? WTF woman? That is a picture of a BEAUTIFUL baby boy. You even went as far as to contact the mother thinking she would somehow be angry with me or something? She apparently is perfectly fine with my usage of the picture. And so now what do you do? "What about the child? How do you know they wouldn't be offended?"
My goodness G, it's a baby picture. GET OVER IT! It's a beautiful healthy child raised naturally, with no meat, no cooked food, and look at the amazing healthy and full of life picture. Most people's children I see are not even close to having that appearance. I don't beat around the bush. My own family members who have recently had children, they are nowhere near as healthy looking as the picture I posted.
Get over it!

Ehm so, mankind should live on blackberries and coconuts? Good luck. Yes, wild blackberries are tasty, and they are hardly cultivated at all. But they are only avaible in small amounts in a short period of time. So are wild strawberries

G, you really do need to get educated a bit more on this issue. Have you ever heard of SEASONAL eating? Some fruits do grow year round. These are called STAPLES. Some do not. These are the SEASONAL fruits. Berries, are often seasonal.
Why do you CONTINUE to make straw men? I never said mankind should live on coconuts and strawberries, jesus.
I said mankind should eat the foods that mankind is evolved to eat. You know...EVOLUTION. Don't tell me you don't believe in evolution. If you don't then I guess I will bid you adieu and you can have fun with Kent Hovind and the gang, but if you have common sense, and agree that evolution is good science, then you would also agree that species develop species-specific diets.
I simply argue we should get back to our diet we are physiologically evolved for. Which happens to be? FRUIT BASED. It's clear. Unequivovally.

Fact is that the diet you propose as "natural" was never avaible to us ever since the tropical forests in Africa retreated and it became a grassland.

Yes, and when this climactic change happened, our ancestors would have failed and gone by the wayside if not for our brains which allowed us to conceive of finding other food sources. Novel sources. But all of these sources where always associated with increasing rates of disease and shorter lifespan.
I'm not interested what is available to us. I'm interested what we are most able to utilize and what is healthiest. A caveman might ask what is available. An eskimo might ask that. A man on the top of a mountain somewhere...maybe. But not now. Not today when we can use SCIENCE to determine our proper diet. Guess what? Grains ain't part of it. Not one bit. Meat isn't either. Although if one eats a little bit I suppose I cannot hate them for it, but by all means 100% vegan is the best.

@Autism/vaccines
That still doesn't explain why autism still increased in Japan when MMR vaccination ceased for a while.
Either the vaccination had no impact on the autism rate, or the number of vaccinations has no effect (in which case we should see a static number, not an increase) and so on and so on.
Oh, and you yourself said that YOUR scientific approach could not be proven by the method of changing one variable at a time, but you expect others to do it...

G, I'm going to start asking you to post your data. Because if it's just going to be we can make all the claims we want, this debate will become quite annoying. If I don't cite my sources everyone here gets angry. Which is fine, but hold yourselves up to the same standards. Cite your source please.

Thanks.

@Talono

With this point, I will agree. We have a system which inadequately allocates resources to preventive health, including vaccines.

Yes, vaccines do prevent health. I agree. If you want to prevent yourself from being healthy, vaccines are a marvelous choice.

What did this have to do with anything anyone was discussing:

"In the future we will laugh at the inhumanity and idiocy of this medical paradigm. It's only been in existence for 100 years. It's in its last throws. It doesn't work. And people are starting to realize it. Slowly, slowly...there will be a silent rebellion. It is already started. I will be on the front lines educating people myself and leading the way." - You

Pure propaganda.

It's my opinion. Sorry it makes you uneasy.

Red Herring.

Dodging the point.

My point is that they don't don't teach logical concepts. For example, they also teach vitalism, colloidal silver as treatment for HIV, and other bizarre stuff.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... twood.html

Ohh and chemotherapy is logical? Vaccines are LOGICAL? Wow. OK. Taking medication with severe side effects is logical?
And wait a minute...just what is "illogical" about vitalism? I agree colloidal silver is no good. I agree that many of the homeopathic principles are wrong, but why are you lumping?

NO IT IS NOT. Either that is a straw man or your have absolutely no grasp of how the immune system works.

The dilution theory of homeopathy is ONE aspect of it. THERE ARE OTHERS. For instance the LAW OF SIMILARS. I hate this because I'm not in any way shape or form defending homeopathy, but clearly you do not understand it even. You don't even know all its principles apparently.

2. Homeopathy is based on the idea that by diluting a random substance in water to the point where there are no molecules left in the solution and that "a 'memory' of the substance is retained" in the water.

Yeah..that's ONE aspect of it. I didn't connect this to the vaccines, IF YOU WERE LISTENING you would have picked up on this. Go somewhere else other than industry sponsored "quackwatch.org" for your info. My goodness.
This is what happens when the true quacks are in charge of quackwatch. Gotta love it. The quacks make the "anti-quack" website and they attack anything that is anti-business.
Quackwatch.org? Yeah...great info there. Baahhhhh baahhhhhhh bbaaahhhhh-ahhh

Then why are you becoming an ND, even though you know it they teach homeopathy, and by extension, irrationality?

Because they do not require me to use it. The rest of the things that are taught are:
Nutrition, Biochemistry, Toxicology, Physiology, etc. Also I am not pressured into vaccinating my patients, which I would never do. And also I am not pressured into prescribing pills. Which I would not resort to as a first line of defense. Pills can be useful, but like anything else, they have to be used only when all other non-toxic options have been exhausted, and prescribed very very carefully. Not willy nilly like most MDs today, that are nothing more than walking vending machines. Pfft.

That's a big claim that's going to need a lot of evidence. Of course, I want you to provide it.

Sure, go read the book Blue Zone by Dan Buettner. Longest lived cultures in the world...they don't take vaccines, take pills, etc. Ever notice how people on many meds, are always sicker and sicker in proportion to the amount of prescriptions they are on? Ever notice that?
If modern medicine worked, the more pills you would be on, the healthier you would be. Or, the more pills you would be on, the less you would need, and thus you would be on less pills...but we don't see this. Just the opposite.
Over 300,000 people die each year from modern medicine. Not from "complications" or from "accidents" or from "overdoses" but from following doctors orders.
FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

Dictionary.com defines side effect as "any effect of a drug, chemical, or other medicine that is in addition to its intended effect, esp. an effect that is harmful or unpleasant." It is called a side effect because it's not intended, not because it's some PR trick.

I see, and that's not PR right? So we intend to blow up a building, we happen to blow up the entire village there because we used a nuclear weapon, and so we are not murderers, because even though we KNEW the nuclear bomb would do much more than just blow up the small building we were targeting, we can just say "hey, it was collateral damage." It was just "side effects."

Right...as if it matters what you intend. Since when does that matter in science? Well, I INTENDED for your infection to go away Mr. Smith, I hope that counts for something. When I build this elevator I intended for it to be steadily suspended, I know I used a cable 10 times smaller than what is supposed to be used, but I certainly didn't INTEND for the elevator to snap and freefall from the 20th floor...I'm sorry. That was just a side effect. Totally unintended.

YES IT'S FUCKING PR. Ohh my goodness. Wake up.

If it is so blatantly wrong then call her on the burden of proof or debunk her claim as it is. "Haha, you're wrong!" is still unproductive.

Here's an idea. Let G respond for G. How about that? K, thanks.

Like I said, call her on the burden of proof or debunk her.

Btw, courts are HORRIBLE places for determining the truth.

Yes, they are. But the point I was making was about the veracity of my objection, which has nothing to do with the court system, but with the argumentation principles that were long established since the Platonic days.


In friendship

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

I'm not jumping into the debate, but I must say that you get your pics from rather peculiar sites, paradigm667.

These are from http://www.lovethetruth.com/. Just take a look at the main page:

Was your distant grand-daddy a gorilla? Sadly, some people would like for you to be believe so. There is not one shred of proof of evolution, only unproven theories and speculation. Evolution is a big Hoax! Where are all those elusive transitional forms, such as lizards with feathers, etc? There should be MILLIONS of them, but NOT ONE has been found. The "missing link" will NEVER be found because it does NOT exist. Evolution is NOT observable, testable, or repeatable. Evolution is NOT science! Evolution is a faith, a belief, the RELIGION of atheism and humanism!

This one:

Is from http://www.whale.to which also has this thought-provoking article on atheism.

Atheism and it's evil twin Darwinism (we are alone/no higher power/God--came from swamp life via apes/Darwinism, this is hell) is spiritual blindness, poor birth karma that you can see in peoples astrology chart.

Again, this isn't an argument, just an observation. But dude, seriously. :facepalm:

 

[Canto]

Ok, lets go think about things that are "natural" that you are advocating.

I'll only look at the banana for now because I dont want to complicate things.

The banana we eat today (available in stores worldwide) is not a "natural" banana. To claim that it is is false. A wild banana doesn't LOOK like what we eat today, does not TASTE like what we eat today. They aren't even native to where human life first evolved, and you can make the claim that we evolved to eat them?

Fruits and nuts in general we evolved to eat and process them certainly, but there is evidence that it was MEAT that fueled our growth both physically and mentally. We differ significantly in our digestive system from the great apes who were our precursors and the differences are FOR the digestion and defecation of meat and its remains. Humans are omnivores, not herbivores and you know this. Studies are showing that our brain size was able to increase in part because of ingestion of meat ( http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html ). And if we are evolved to eat only fruits and vegetables, why is there a large and diverse collection of supplements targeted at the vegan market? Why does every single vegan I know take supplements to get vitamins that they are not getting enough of through their vegan diet? You can easily mask nutritional dysfunction with supplements, I do it all the time, its the reason I take vitamins every day. There is no evidence that the vegan life style is superior to a balanced diet containing meat that I have found from a non biased source. I admit that I don't live a good nutritionally balanced diet, and I do have corresponding health issues. I dont treat them with medication, and my doctor advised that I dont NEED medicine unless a change in diet and lifestyle does not change the situation.

You sir, are a walking logical fallacy full of inaccurate information and you seem to base your logic for accepting things based on anecdotal evidence and data rife with bias. The vast majority of your sources are heavily biased towards your point of view. It could be considered criminally negligent when you diagnose and suggest treatment before you have completed your studies and been certified to practice any form of medicine, worse when you diagnose over the internet without a reccomendation to seek help in person.

Now, I'm going to go against that and ask you for your medical opinion. My mother suffers from peripheral neuropathy caused by pernicious anemia and diabetes. Your reccomended treatment would be? Note that SHE asked me to ask you as she has been reading the thread over my shoulder and is curious and wants to know simply to satisfy her own curiousity.

 

[ExeFBM]

You even went as far as to contact the mother thinking she would somehow be angry with me or something?

That wasn't Giliell, that was me, and I'd do it again and here's why. You may say that it's perfectly fine for a paedophile to be sat at home with a picture of a naked child as long as they're not out committing crimes, but the fact is is that it took me two minutes to go from that photo that you posted to finding out the full name and location of that child, as well as being able to send a message to the mother. You've not only provided a naked photo of a child, you've provided all the information someone would need to find that child. Not only that, but it was not even your own child to potentially endanger. That is what is unacceptable.

It has been clear from your posts that you have no personal experience with children, and seem to be displaying a breath taking naivety concerning naked photos of children and the internet. This combined with the attitude you've presented of assuming I contacted her to get you in trouble. The sheer arrogance is mind blowing. My concern was for the potential safety of the child. The mother (who you did not notify or ask permission of) replied to my message thanking me for letting her know. I make no apologies for what I did, and the only person who is unhappy with a mother being notified that a naked photo of her child was placed on a public forum is you, and for completely selfish reasons.

 

[paradigm667]

Again, this isn't an argument, just an observation. But dude, seriously.

Seriously what? I'm capable of formulating arguments and examining data without "guilt by association" connections.
Many scientists who had a hand in discovering DNA believe in god. Does that mean everything else they say or have done is bunk?

I quote Dr. Sherry Tenpenny as well, and she is a religious believer, but that doesn't mean her science or her facts are wrong. And as far as whale.to, that website is nothing more than a compilation of various viewpoints on controversial matters. Many of the people who the site quotes are atheists, some are not. I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Grow up.

That wasn't Giliell, that was me, and I'd do it again and here's why. You may say that it's perfectly fine for a paedophile to be sat at home with a picture of a naked child as long as they're not out committing crimes, but the fact is is that it took me two minutes to go from that photo that you posted to finding out the full name and location of that child, as well as being able to send a message to the mother. You've not only provided a naked photo of a child, you've provided all the information someone would need to find that child. Not only that, but it was not even your own child to potentially endanger. That is what is unacceptable.

It has been clear from your posts that you have no personal experience with children, and seem to be displaying a breath taking naivety concerning naked photos of children and the internet. This combined with the attitude you've presented of assuming I contacted her to get you in trouble. The sheer arrogance is mind blowing. My concern was for the potential safety of the child. The mother (who you did not notify or ask permission of) replied to my message thanking me for letting her know. I make no apologies for what I did, and the only person who is unhappy with a mother being notified that a naked photo of her child was placed on a public forum is you, and for completely selfish reasons.

Give me a break. Most cases of molestation, pedophilia, etc come from WITHIN THE FAMILY or from PEOPLE CLOSE TO THE CHILDREN. It's not from "strangers" on the street.
Your view of humanity is disgusting. As if there are people out there who go around finding random little children to go harass. Give me a BREAK. Sheesh.
How about the fact that:
-that picture is available for ANYONE to see, because it's on the internet. PUBLICLY available. If some pedophile wanted to harass fruitarian children, all he (or she) has to do is google "fruitarian babies" or "fruitarian children" and that site will be on the first page.

Furthermore, what would a person like that be doing on a forum called "League of Reason"?

I'm personally ashamed that you would even feel the need to raise such a rawkus about this. And then send a message to the mother bothering her, embarrassing me for no reason. Unbelievable.

Can we drop that subject already. And honestly, if you can't handle a picture of a naked child...that is just EPIC FAIL.

[REMOVED]
OMG!

[REMOVED]
Ohh no! Nudity!! Run!!!

[REMOVED]
Buttocks! NO!!!

[REMOVED]
Careful, these children are now at risk of being tracked down and stalked by sick people!

[REMOVED]
Not again! No!


....OK...do you see how stupid it is raise a fuss about nudity? You know what else is funny...the picture is of a male baby...and I don't see any nudity in the picture. So basically you must be just afraid of bare skin. Either way. GROW UP!

 

[ExeFBM]

Give me a break. Most cases of molestation, pedophilia, etc come from WITHIN THE FAMILY or from PEOPLE CLOSE TO THE CHILDREN. It's not from "strangers" on the street.

Wow, another generalisation. I guess strangers never do anything untoward to children then.

Your view of humanity is disgusting. As if there are people out there who go around finding random little children to go harass. Give me a BREAK. Sheesh.

Your attitude is niave, and verging on dangerous. If you don't believe people go around harassing children who they don't know, then have a look at stickam.com.

I'm personally ashamed that you would even feel the need to raise such a rawkus about this. And then send a message to the mother bothering her, embarrassing me for no reason. Unbelievable.

No rawkus was raised. I sent an email, she replied, thanking me. If someone was posting naked pictures of my child on a public forum, I would want to know about it. Secondly you've made it about you again. Why would you even be embarrassed about it, if there's nothing wrong with anything you did?

....OK...do you see how stupid it is raise a fuss about nudity? You know what else is funny...the picture is of a male baby...and I don't see any nudity in the picture. So basically you must be just afraid of bare skin. Either way. GROW UP!

I have no problem with nudity. I've explained my issue with you posting the photo. It's the protection of the child. Something you seem to have no interest in. And what does the sex of the child matter? You can joke about people tracking them down, but i managed it in less than 2 minutes, and I'm not particularly skilled with computers. This really isn't the issue to be dismissive of, or be making glib comments about.

 

[paradigm667]

Wow, another generalisation. I guess strangers never do anything untoward to children then.

Jesus you really are ignorant. I studied this kind of stuff all through college and high school. I have a DEGREE in psychology.

But since that won't do for you, here's a link, and an excerpt:

"Which Children Are Molested?

Children are most at risk from the adults in their own family, and from the adults who are in their parents' social circle. In fact, 90 percent of abusers target children in their own families and children who they know well. Furthermore, research suggests that the risk is across the board: Child molesters come from every part of our society, and so children from every part of our society are at risk.

TABLE 4
Which Children Do Child Molesters Target?

CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY

Biological Child

19%

Stepchild, Adopted or Foster Child

30%

Brothers & Sisters

12%

Nieces & Nephews

18%

Grandchild

5%

CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Child Left in My Care

5%

Child of Friend or Neighbor

40%

CHILDREN WHO ARE STRANGERS

Child Strangers

10%
"

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

OK, now, if you go back to my initial quote I never said ALL molestation cases, but I did say MOST. Now show me were I generalized incorrectly please.
...Exactly. I didn't.

Your attitude is niave, and verging on dangerous. If you don't believe people go around harassing children who they don't know, then have a look at stickam.com.

I could get a really nasty view of the world by watching the news. I would be led to believe that I am at risk of getting robbed and having my car stolen if I watch the news. I could be under the impression that I have a significant chance of being killed by terrorists if I watch the news. Likewise, you go to stickcam and what? You see some sick people. How many actually take it so far as to track down certain children and stalk them and then abuse them? You tell me. And then because there are some people who might have those inclinations I am all the sudden a bad person for posting a picture of a beautiful young baby. Please.
You need to lighten up and get a grip. Seriously.

No rawkus was raised. I sent an email, she replied, thanking me. If someone was posting naked pictures of my child on a public forum, I would want to know about it. Secondly you've made it about you again. Why would you even be embarrassed about it, if there's nothing wrong with anything you did?

I'm embarrassed that you would contact a mother of that child and try and suggest I am perhaps acting as, or somehow supporting pedophilia. And yeah. She "thanked" you, because she's a very kind hearted woman.

Here's the FACT. That picture is ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE, open to ALL EYES TO SEE. It is not from a private photo account or anywhere that cannot be accessed by ANYONE, ANYTIME. I fail to see how I "posted pictures of her children" as I somehow found these pictures of hers and, against her will posted them up. HER WEBSITE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. How is this in violation of her will? It's a PUBLIC WEBSITE. How many times do I have to say that before you realize you were completely ridiculous to even say anything about it. Yeah I'm embarrassed. You bet I am. I'm embarrassed at you. Sheesh! Grow up.

I have no problem with nudity. I've explained my issue with you posting the photo. It's the protection of the child. Something you seem to have no interest in. And what does the sex of the child matter? You can joke about people tracking them down, but i managed it in less than 2 minutes, and I'm not particularly skilled with computers. This really isn't the issue to be dismissive of, or be making glib comments about.

OK since you won't let this go, I'm getting a bit pissed off and sick of your shit so listen to me very, very carefully:
-The photo is from her website.
-The website is open to the public.
-The fact that you can "track her down" is because that website has the info there, which I didn't put up, but the mother did, indicating she's totally FINE with people knowing that information.
-I posted a link to that photo, that was available to the public.

Do you understand that I didn't do anything wrong?

Now, if that photo was to a website that was private, or not intended to be in the public domain, then that is one thing. That is a violation of privacy. But that's not what the case was.
Did I ever provide you a name for the child? No. It's on the mother's website. Did I ever provide you with any contact info? No. It's on the mother's website. Did I ever provide anything other than a simple link to a beautiful and healthy baby? No. You invented all these contrived and SICK ideas. You obviously didn't even know that over 90% of pedophilia cases do NOT have anything to do with strangers, and that even less of those have anything to do with internet stalkers and that even of the internet stalkers, less than 1% actually make an effort to do anything about their intents, and even a smaller percentage of those end up doing any kind of damage.

Now PLEASE,

DROP IT

And please don't make such ignorant and quick decisions in the future because it not only embarrasses people like me, but it embarrasses people like yourself too. And if you're thinking "but I'm not embarrassed about anything"...then you should be re-reading this message I just posted all the way back from the top, because it hasn't sunk in.

In friendship

 

[ExeFBM]

Jesus you really are ignorant. I studied this kind of stuff all through college and high school. I have a DEGREE in psychology.

But since that won't do for you, here's a link, and an excerpt:

Which Children Are Molested?

CHILDREN WHO ARE STRANGERS

10%

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

OK, now, if you go back to my initial quote I never said ALL molestation cases, but I did say MOST. Now show me were I generalized incorrectly please.
...Exactly. I didn't.

Whether you said most or not is irrelevant. Your attitude is that because it's a minority that are molested by strangers the odds of it happening are insignificant. Using the reference you supplied, we can see that:

"Fact one: Today, 95 percent of child molestation can be prevented. We have the knowledge to stop it."

I guess that 10% of strangers stat falls firmly into this category.

"Fact two: Today, living in the United States, there are 39 million adults who have survived child sexual abuse."

10% of 39 million. So at least 3.9 million children have been abused by strangers in the US. Doesn't seem like such a small number now does it?

...Likewise, you go to stickcam and what? You see some sick people. How many actually take it so far as to track down certain children and stalk them and then abuse them? You tell me. And then because there are some people who might have those inclinations I am all the sudden a bad person for posting a picture of a beautiful young baby. Please.
You need to lighten up and get a grip. Seriously.

Your statement was " As if there are people out there who go around finding random little children to go harass." I gave you an example of people harrassing random little children daily, en masse. You made a statement, i provided an example that disproved it. Also I never said you were a bad person. I said you were niave.

I'm embarrassed that you would contact a mother of that child and try and suggest I am perhaps acting as, or somehow supporting pedophilia. And yeah. She "thanked" you, because she's a very kind hearted woman.

I made no suggestions about you being a paedophile, or supporting paedophilia in my email. You clearly haven't seen it. I was letting her know that there was an image of her child on a public forum. What she decided to do from there was her ownchoice.

Here's the FACT. That picture is ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE, open to ALL EYES TO SEE. It is not from a private photo account or anywhere that cannot be accessed by ANYONE, ANYTIME. I fail to see how I "posted pictures of her children" as I somehow found these pictures of hers and, against her will posted them up. HER WEBSITE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. How is this in violation of her will? It's a PUBLIC WEBSITE. How many times do I have to say that before you realize you were completely ridiculous to even say anything about it. Yeah I'm embarrassed. You bet I am. I'm embarrassed at you. Sheesh! Grow up.

My concern was that the child in the photo was clearly not yours. I am unaware of any search engines that I could upload a photo to, to see if it appears on other websites public or otherwise. I would rather notify a parent about an image of their child when there is no concern, than not notify one when there is. How could I have possibly found out if you were posting it against her will, unless I contacted her myself. I also never said that you posted it against her will, only without her knowledge, which was accurate.

Did I ever provide you a name for the child? No. It's on the mother's website. Did I ever provide you with any contact info? No. It's on the mother's website. Did I ever provide anything other than a simple link to a beautiful and healthy baby? No. You invented all these contrived and SICK ideas.

Actually you did provide that information. I had no idea she had a website until you mentioned it. From the image you posted (and nothing more) I got the mothers name and location. I found the childs name as a consequence of getting the mothers email address. This is the digital age, and more information is contained in a jpg than an arrangement of pixels. Your ignorance of this is one of the reasons I said you were niave. Could you tell me what sick ideas I invented? My message was letting the parent know where images of their child were appearing. Any ideas you get from that are your own.

You obviously didn't even know that over 90% of pedophilia cases do NOT have anything to do with strangers, and that even less of those have anything to do with internet stalkers and that even of the internet stalkers, less than 1% actually make an effort to do anything about their intents, and even a smaller percentage of those end up doing any kind of damage.

I've dealt with the 90% stat above. Seatbelts are only useful less than 0.01% of the time, but we still use them.
Do you have sources for your other claims here?

Now PLEASE,

DROP IT

And please don't make such ignorant and quick decisions in the future because it not only embarrasses people like me, but it embarrasses people like yourself too. And if you're thinking "but I'm not embarrassed about anything"...then you should be re-reading this message I just posted all the way back from the top, because it hasn't sunk in.

No, I won't change my responses in the future. I'd much rather embarras you, myself or anyone else a thousand times over, than do nothing and have a childs life ruined because of it. Why does your embarrasement take precident over a childs potential safety?

 

[Don-Sama]

so I guess he never was acting..

 

[Giliell]

@The picture issue
No-one accused you of being a pedophile.
There were issues with the privacy and the safety of the children.
Obviously, the mother has no problems with this, but tell you what: I don't care!
Parents aren't Jahwe or any other god you name. They can make mistakes.
The numbers you posted yourself should clearly indicate that (before you start screaming: No, I don't think that woman abuses her children sexually)
There is something called privacy.
You may have no problems with nudity, I don't have any problems with nudity. But there are people out there who have and who'd not like pictures of themselves naked on the internet. And those kids might think differently about the whole thing than you and me and they have a DAMN right of their will being respected and the decission left to them. If they're adults and decide that it's OK to post those pictures they might do it themselves.

And they look healthy and that's a criterium to decide about science? I could post you pics of my kid (which I won't) and she looks perfectly healthy, too. So, where's the argument?

Yes ma'am. It is possible for one field of science to be wrong and others not to be. I am suggesting that nutritional science, physiology and anatomy is far less controversial than vaccine "science", so yes...precisely what you are suggesting.

Basically you're saying that science got it right whenever they agree with you and wrong whenever they disagree with out.

I love how "thinner" means less nutritious. We should be breast feeding our children for anywhere from 3-6 years after birthing. The fact that the baby's body and composition requires different nutrients doesn't mean anything?

And funny how mummy's milk almost perfectly complies with it. So tell me, does the baby have a remote control over my body to tell it what it needs?

You wanna wager that your definition of a "ripe" banana and mine are night and day apart? I'll wager 1000 dollars that says if I came into your house and I saw the "ripeness" of your bananas I would smack my forehead and shake my head in disappointment.

Ahhhh, again, people are simply too stupid to decide when a banana is ripe.
Who died and made you god?

First of all, like I said before, there is no such thing as a human who is born allergic to all fruit from birth. Doesn't exist. There are however, many cases of being born with grain sensitivities, or allergies.
Your point is irrelevant. Total straw man. Bravo.

Hereditary fructose intolerance starts at birth and will damage liver and kidneys. Oh, I forgot, you deny that the genes might have anything to do with health and sickness.
Intestinal fructose intolerance is estimated to be about 1/3 of adults. Hey, that matches your gluten-intolerance numbers.

OK G, I think you need to be explained what a fruit is. Beans are not fruits G. Neither are potatoes, I know I know...even though in French they are called "apples of the earth"(pommes de terres)...that's not gonna cut it. Rhubarb...a fruit!? Come on G. You happen to be lucky about eggplant, it is technically a non-sweet fruit in the nightshade family. And yes, it is poisonous to humans if eaten raw. But guess what? It smells bad raw, and it tastes HORRIBLE if you try it raw. Indications it is not for consumption. When I said fruits I meant them in the general sense of the word aka "sweet fruits." Most people don't say "I brought home some fruits" and have a bag full of tomatoes, eggplants, bell peppers, and cucumbers. They are indeed technically fruits but, I think you know what I was talking about when I said fruit.
And no, your examples were horrible. You showed me some VEGETABLES that must be cooked. And I totally agree with that. Some things on this earth we do not have the physiology to digest. One of those things is GRAINS. Another is LEGUMES.

ROFL
Oh, but didn't you say yourself that just because something tastes good it doesn't mean that it's fit for human consumption?
Again, your definition of fruit is "things I declare to be fruit".
And shall we elaborate a bit on the good old banana?
There are types of banana called "cooking banana" whicht are totally horrible when eaten raw. And they gained those attributes by the exact same process the other ones gained their sweetness: Human breeding.
So your argument happens to be a total strawman.

G, you really do need to get educated a bit more on this issue. Have you ever heard of SEASONAL eating? Some fruits do grow year round. These are called STAPLES. Some do not. These are the SEASONAL fruits. Berries, are often seasonal.

If I may remember you, it was YOU who brought up the berries as a perfect example of wild fruit, not me.

I said mankind should eat the foods that mankind is evolved to eat. You know...EVOLUTION. Don't tell me you don't believe in evolution. If you don't then I guess I will bid you adieu and you can have fun with Kent Hovind and the gang, but if you have common sense, and agree that evolution is good science, then you would also agree that species develop species-specific diets.

Nope, I don't believe in evolution. I know it happens. Oh, and seems like the species-specific diet for humans seems to be that of an omnivore. As other people here pointed out: no meat in our diet, no evolution towards modern man. We've changed a lot since those days, haven't we?

Yes, and when this climactic change happened, our ancestors would have failed and gone by the wayside if not for our brains which allowed us to conceive of finding other food sources. Novel sources. But all of these sources where always associated with increasing rates of disease and shorter lifespan.

This is the best one: increasing diesease and shorter life-span. That's wishful thinking at it's best. Can you show me the source indicating that our distant fruit-eating ancestors used to live 140 years in perfect health?
Ever heard of stuff like disease and cancer and infections in wild living animals who never get fed any food but what's been avaible for them for ages?

G, I'm going to start asking you to post your data. Because if it's just going to be we can make all the claims we want, this debate will become quite annoying. If I don't cite my sources everyone here gets angry. Which is fine, but hold yourselves up to the same standards. Cite your source please.

Why should I do that AGAIN?
The site Improbable Joe linked and you dismissed totally cited numerous studies.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

BTW... eggplant isn't poisonous when raw. All you have to do is look up "raw eggplant recipes" and you'll see that the Vegans eat raw eggplant all the time. I thought Paradoodle was a Vegan, but he doesn't know that Vegans eat raw eggplant?

This guy doesn't know anything about anything.

 

[CosmicSpork]

Enough of this, the law and rules apply, if anyone posts pictures like this particularly when it isn't necessary to get a point (in this case it was completely unnecessary) across then they will be removed and you'll receive a warning.

This site is hosted in the UK and is subject to UK laws, not to mention the liability falls upon the owners of this site.

 

[paradigm667]

BTW... eggplant isn't poisonous when raw. All you have to do is look up "raw eggplant recipes" and you'll see that the Vegans eat raw eggplant all the time. I thought Paradoodle was a Vegan, but he doesn't know that Vegans eat raw eggplant?

This guy doesn't know anything about anything.

Raw eggplant recipes require the eggplant to be denatured by soaking in an acid, such as lemon juice, which indeed, changes it's structure, and makes it no longer "raw". I have myself made a raw baba-ganoush recipe a few times, as this was a food I used to eat growing up in my romanian household.

By the way, I find it so funny that you result to attacking me for as many little nitpicky things that YOU clearly know nothing about but assume I am ignorant of.
I'll let you in on a little secret about beans as well now that we're on the subject. Some raw fooders eat raw beans as well, even though they are poisonous. How? They sprout them. Yeah, but that changes their chemical composition to something resembling a vegetable (sprout), not a legume. But keep chugging away Improbable, I'm sure you're gonna "expose my ignorance" on the subject soon enough.


@ G

There were issues with the privacy and the safety of the children.
Obviously, the mother has no problems with this, but tell you what: I don't care!

...Well perhaps you should leave the mother to make her decisions about these issues. You're not the person to tell her what to or not to do. That's more of an infringement on her rights than it is on her children's.

You people are so uptight. It's like you walk around with broom sticks stuck up your butts all day or something.

What if the mother wanted to go to a nude beach? Is that OK or should we outlaw all those as well just because of the chance that some pedophile would potentially find out about this beach and stalk or try and catch a glimpse of some nudity? Should national geographic censor those naked pictures of those tribal women who got their breasts hanging out?
The bottom line is this, there is something called pornography and it has less to do with nudity, and everything to do with context. Do you know what that means? Context? I can't believe I am still talking about this subject.

How about I simplify: Take the broom stick from out of your ass, and RELAX a little for fuck's sake.

GET OVER IT.

Parents aren't Jahwe or any other god you name. They can make mistakes.

Yes, now repeat that but this time stand in front of a mirror.

The numbers you posted yourself should clearly indicate that (before you start screaming: No, I don't think that woman abuses her children sexually)
There is something called privacy.

There is also something called RELAX. It's just like the drug problem. It's so taboo in our culture and what happens? We get drug addicts everywhere. Make it legal, like in some countries, and it's no issue. We live in a White Anglo Saxon culture that is uptight about nudity and something as natural as a human body, and what does it produce? Neuroses. Sick people. You want people to stop being sick and pedophiles? Stop making such a big deal about it. Indeed be mindful of who the children are around, but there is no reason to look at pedophiles as "predators"...I have studied this like I said and MOST of them are actually not trying to harm the children. They, for one reason or another have developed a lust for that youthful innocence, etc. And that's fine, the line is drawn when they feel the need to act on their impulses sexually, because the child may not be at an age where they can consciously make their own decisions.
But the answer to the problem is not one of "protecting the children" but rather trying to understand the phenomenon better and structure society in such a way that this doesn't have such frequency. Perhaps we could start by asking why it is that virtually no asians, or native americans, or blacks sexually molest little children.
But the response of just flipping out and trying to "protect" the children...give me a break. Please.
And you guys call me naive, haha!

So once again, RELAX. Is that possible? Just fucking relax.

You may have no problems with nudity, I don't have any problems with nudity. But there are people out there who have and who'd not like pictures of themselves naked on the internet. And those kids might think differently about the whole thing than you and me and they have a DAMN right of their will being respected and the decission left to them. If they're adults and decide that it's OK to post those pictures they might do it themselves.

Ohh my god you are uptight. Jesus.
Giliell, RELAX woman. Ohh my god. RELAX. It's just a picture. I think the mom posting up pictures of her baby is a beautiful thing, I'm sorry you have to ruin it and spoil it by screaming foul like some kind of fundamentalist fanatic. Holy shit. Is this the League of Reason or the Lack of Reason?

RELAX.

Basically you're saying that science got it right whenever they agree with you and wrong whenever they disagree with out.

No I'm saying my opinion changes with new information. I used to assume all the textbooks were infallible and that all science was right, because I had no contradictory information. So, admittedly, I took it on faith. How do you know for instance some obscure fact about a field of science which you have never studied is true? Well you basically assume that since its in a textbook it has some veracity. You don't pronounce absolute certainty about it, but you have reason to believe it is true because the process of science that derived that fact is for the most part a process you have trust in.
Well, sometimes, that process is tainted.

Don't start pointing fingers at me because I'm better informed than yourself. I'll be quite frank with you. You CLEARLY have no idea how fraudulent the medical sciences are, and how fraudulent they were since around the days of Pasteur.
For instance it is well known that scientific dishonesty is RAMPANT:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6425036.ece

"The study included scientists from a range of disciplines. Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/05/30/147221/How-Common-Is-Scientific-Misconduct



Conduct and Misconduct in Science
by David Goodstein

" Whatever the situation is now and has been in the past, it seems likely to change for the worse in the future. Throughout most of its recent history, science was constrained only by the limits of imagination and creativity of its participants. In the past couple of decades that state of affairs has changed dramatically. Science is now constrained primarily by the number of research posts, and the amount of research funds available. What had always previously been a purely intellectual competition has now become an intense competition for scarce resources. This change, which is permanent and irreversible, is likely to have an undesirable effect in the long run on ethical behavior among scientists. Instances of scientific fraud are almost sure to become more common, but so are other forms of scientific misbehavior. For example, the institution of peer review is now in critical danger."


And if you ever have managed to read books like-
The 800 Million dollar pill
or
The Truth About the Drug Companies

You would know this stuff. You wouldn't be so fucking dismissive of me and you would actually LISTEN. But no, I'm just some "anti-science" idiot. Right. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Ohh we didn't even mention the GHOST WRITERS...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/health/research/05ghost.html?_r=1&em

By the way, notice how its not RAMPANT ghostwriting, but rather ISOLATED to ONE SPECIFIC FIELD OF SCIENCE: medicine.

But let's go back to your inflammatory accusation of me:
"Basically you're saying that science got it right whenever they agree with you and wrong whenever they disagree with out (or did you mean "you")."
Anyways, like I said before....NO. I'm not making reality fit into my worldview. Rather, I am finding OUT what reality IS, such that my world view reflects it. Do you see the difference? I sure hope so, because I really get sick of repeating myself over and over to people who can't grasp my position and continue to call me names like conspiracy theorist.
It's not my fault they haven't woken up. But that's not gonna excuse them from their arrogant and ignorant comments to me as if I should be treated like some filthy animal and just kicked around and made a mockery of just because I do not "baah baah" like all the other nice sheep in the pasture.

And funny how mummy's milk almost perfectly complies with it. So tell me, does the baby have a remote control over my body to tell it what it needs?

And how funny that you don't understand developmental biology, and the fact that in nature the mothers production of milk and the baby's development have been evolving together for millenia, and my point was that when mothers try and make the conscious decision to ween their children it is unfair to the child, who may very well still be in need of breastfeeding. You misunderstood my point. Indeed the mother's body begins to produce less fatty milk as the time goes on, this is for many reasons, but either way, this doesn't mean the milk is less beneficial to the baby. This is where you made mistake number one. Mistake number two is assuming I was referring to the fact that the mother's body doesn't alter its milk production. Of course it does. But this is another issue. Under lots of stress, the mother may stop producing milk, or under poor nutrition, the milk will be of low quality (yes grain eating makes the milk much less nutritious just so you know, and yes I have studied this as well). So therefore it is not enough to look at the composition of milk from the mother or whether or not she is producing, because those are much easier to result in false indications. Whereas the baby's needs are not subject to being being altered. The baby still will have the need, and thus feel the drive to breastfeed. So, the idea is, in a sane society, when we raise children, we structure society such that mothers can have the ability to nurse them up to 3 years or more if that is how long the baby continues to desire the mother's milk. We give them paid leave, or help them work from home, etc, to be able to produce healthy children.

But back to my point, when a woman just decides (out of laziness, or ignorance, or due to stress, or incompetence) to not breastfeed, she is harming her child and literally lowering their IQ actively. There is clear evidence in the literature that the more one is breastfed, the brighter they will be. Unequivocally. Bottle fed babies are nowhere near as perceptive, as able to function, and as healthy as breastfed babies. And when the mother makes the decision, rather than allows the child to naturally ween him or herself off milk, it is a shame and only acts as a detriment to the baby.

Ahhhh, again, people are simply too stupid to decide when a banana is ripe.
Who died and made you god?

Yes. I wouldn't use the word stupid, but ignorant, yes. I think I am far more qualified to explain to you when a banana is the correct ripeness to best facilitate digestion and nutrition for our body.
But notice how you didn't answer the question. I would have been far more impressed if you at least gave it a shot. But alas you did not. Effectively avoiding the question. I can only make guesses why.

Hereditary fructose intolerance starts at birth and will damage liver and kidneys. Oh, I forgot, you deny that the genes might have anything to do with health and sickness.
Intestinal fructose intolerance is estimated to be about 1/3 of adults. Hey, that matches your gluten-intolerance numbers.

No you are wrong about this actually.
You are mistaking Hereditary Fructose Intolerance where the person lacks the liver enzymes to break down fructose and convert it to derivatives that can be used for energy metabolism, of which the University of Maryland Medical Center says:
"The condition may be as common as 1 in 20,000 people in some European countries."
That's not 1/3 Giliell. In fact that is a gross error on your part. Shame on you for making up bullshit.
There is another condition which has to do with fructose malabsorption, which is a small intestine issue absorbing fructose, but this is a problem only in people who consume high amounts of fructose either in the presence of protein, or in the absence of proper amounts of glucose (which alleviates these symptoms). Indeed about 1/3 of the population has this, but guess what, unlike the lactose intolerance, this is a NEW phenomenon since the days of processed foods, HFCS and all the refined sugars out there.

I used to have this issue too. I would get gassy and have indigestion from eating fruits that had a high fructose to glucose ratio. But as I cleaned my diet up, guess what? Yes, it went away. I now often times can eat 5-10 granny smith apples (which normally if I had even 1 I would be bloated like a pregnant woman) and be totally fine. Your body is in constant flux. The fact that 1/3 of the population appears to have this issue is indicative not of their biology, but of their diet, as, again, like I said this was not a common problem just over 100 years ago, whereas lactose issues are as old as mankind.

If I didn't know my nutrition and science and physiology, I very well may have believed you. As I said above G, instead of telling others how little they know, look in the mirror first. Your whole point here was a complete EPIC FAIL. I expect better next time. I also expect for people to admit when they are wrong, and change their mind based on the data. Can you do this? And can you stop making straw men left and right just because you ASSUME or want to believe your point is right. It's getting old having to correct your constant errors.

ROFL
Oh, but didn't you say yourself that just because something tastes good it doesn't mean that it's fit for human consumption?

I was castigated for using "hideous acronyms" earlier. But it is OK for you to do so? Well, in that case I will assume once again what is going on is the deck is being fixed in your favor. The game is rigged. But OK, whatever. I'll hold up my end and not use those "hideous" acronyms for fear of being castigated some more...
I did say that just because something tastes good it is not absolutely proof positive that we should eat it. However that is not the same as something tasting BAD. If something tastes BAD, you can be quite sure its not meant to be eaten.
Again G, if you can't grasp these very simple concepts and you have to have your hand held through this entire discussion, I might just give up. I assume people who I speak to, especially in the League of REASON, would have SOME understanding of concepts like these.

But since you need an explanation here it is:
Something CAN taste good, and be good for you. Yes.
Something CAN taste good, but be bad for you. Yes.
Therefore, just because something tastes good, it doesn't necessarily mean, it is good for you. Yes.

OK. That is what I said before. You then read my comment about legumes and other foods that smell and taste bad to us raw, and I said "the fact that they taste BAD is indicative that they are not to be consumed by us."
And then you said
"ohh, but didn't you say yourself that just cuz it tastes good it doesn't mean it's necessarily good?"

Do you see the error in your judgement? The properties of something that tastes good, are not symmetrical to those of something that tastes bad.
For instance if something tastes bad, you can be quite sure it is not good for you.
With things that taste good, it is an open ended situation. It MAY or MAY NOT be good.

Do you understand?

Again, G...you need to READ my comments and understand my argument before you respond willy nilly without your knee-jerk reactions assuming I am contradicting myself.

I know you can do it. I believe in you.

Again, your definition of fruit is "things I declare to be fruit".

But by you connecting POTATO (a tuber) and RHUBARB (Stalk), and BEANS (Legumes) to FRUIT, aren't YOU actually the one making this error?

All I said was that when the average person hears the word "fruit" they think of sweet fruit like bananas, oranges, apples, and papaya or something. Not cucumber, eggplant and bell peppers. So I was using fruit in its colloquially generally accepted form, not by the dictionary definition, because in general, people refer to non-sweet fruits as vegetables. I have seen someone eat a tomato cucumber and bell pepper salad and call it a veggie salad even though there are no vegetables in their salad.

Again, G, JESUS CHRIST woman, you are coming up with just horrible arguments here and once again the real issue is YOU, not me. I know the definition of fruit very well, as I have been eating a fruit based diet for years now, and have read up quite a bit on the subject in the process. You on the other hand appear to not know that a potato or bean is NOT a fruit, by ANYONE's definition. And yet somehow you find a way to try and attack me for "declaring things to be fruits."

You really are making some shit arguments and I think you need to stop doing that, if you have any humbleness or honesty in your bones.

And shall we elaborate a bit on the good old banana?
There are types of banana called "cooking banana" whicht are totally horrible when eaten raw. And they gained those attributes by the exact same process the other ones gained their sweetness: Human breeding.
So your argument happens to be a total strawman.

Wrong again, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST G, if you don't know anything about a subject, PLEASE stop talking. "Cooking" bananas are cooked because they are plantains and they have not yet been allowed to RIPEN. So yes, UNRIPE bananas or plantains are NOT edible, hence some people cook them. But if they simply allowed them to ripen naturally, there would be no problem.
As far as bananas in the wild, they ARE edible and they taste even better than the ones we get in the stores today. Some of them have big fat seeds in the inside of them, that is true, but you talk to anyone who has had a large variety of bananas from around the world, they will tell you they are yum yum. That is, the TOTALLY wild and non-cultivated ones are delicious.
So no, there is no god damn straw man, and please STOP TALKING ABOUT THINGS YOU KNOW....NOTHING ABOUT. FUCK.

If I may remember you, it was YOU who brought up the berries as a perfect example of wild fruit, not me.

They are! They are great wild fruits. The fact that they are seasonal doesn't make them un-great. I don't even get your arguments G. Honestly I hope its that time of the month for you something and you're just a little on edge and can't focus, but fuck, you're responses just suck. Seriously.

Nope, I don't believe in evolution. I know it happens. Oh, and seems like the species-specific diet for humans seems to be that of an omnivore. As other people here pointed out: no meat in our diet, no evolution towards modern man. We've changed a lot since those days, haven't we?

Once again FAIL.

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/09/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores-2

http://www.whale.to/a/frugivore_h.html

http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm

http://www.markblackburn.org/diet1.htm

When you say "omnivore" what you mean is omnivore by choice. We can CHOOSE to eat anything. By that definition we are "transfatty acid-vores" and "fast foodtarians" and "Ben and Jerry's Icecream-vores".
But I'm not speaking about our choices. I'm talking about our physiology, our ancestors history, our presence of disease according to what we eat, our anatomy, comparative species studies, and so on. You can argue that cows are grain-eaters because they are fed massive amounts of grains these days in the factory farming conditions, but that would be a HUGE error. Same with calling a human an omnivore.
Omnivorous animals all share traits with carnivores. Hey all have acidic saliva for instance. We do not. They all have short, smooth guts, we do no (ours are many many meters long). The differences do not end there, and if you read the above links like you should have, you would know this already, but I know you didn't so I decided to throw in a few nuggets there for you just so you didn't feel cheated.

Again, G, EPIC FAIL. You have not made one single logical or honest comment YET, lets see if you do on this next line...

This is the best one: increasing diesease and shorter life-span. That's wishful thinking at it's best. Can you show me the source indicating that our distant fruit-eating ancestors used to live 140 years in perfect health?
Ever heard of stuff like disease and cancer and infections in wild living animals who never get fed any food but what's been avaible for them for ages?

False dichotomy. What I look at is evidence of physical disease. Lifespan, in the wild, is hard to ensure. For instance chimpanzees in the wild, versus in captivity is NIGHT AND DAY.
But what we can look at is things like tooth disease, bone disorders, etc. It is CLEAR that as our diet shifted to grains we got dental disease, and we were much shorter and weaker than before. When we started eating meat it is clear that we had weaker bones and disease. The ancient greeks even spoke of this. Have you read the Hippocratic writings or the works of Plato and Pythagoras who predicted the eventual decline in health due to usage of grains and meat in the diet? Yeah. They were the same "crackpots" who said "first do no harm." Imagine that.

Animals in the wild who get cancer, are almost always exposed to some form of toxin. If you can find a legitimate source of proof of cancer randomly happening to animals out in nature that are not exposed to chemical contaminants, I will capitulate. But you won't be able to find it. So, in this case, I do Giliell, demand you for once cite a source because that's a damn hefty claim woman. Put your cards on the table and provide a link (which I am quite confident you either cannot provide, or I will be able to refute within a few minutes of researching it, based on previous attempts of others to "prove" to me that cancer can happen randomly in wild animals who are not exposed to carcinogens).
I'm waiting...

Why should I do that AGAIN?
The site Improbable Joe linked and you dismissed totally cited numerous studies.

Yeah, you're right...why cite sources. Giliell knows everything anyways, why should I question her. For instance about Fructose Intolerance.




Just as a side note, Giliell, you really did fail miserably in this last post of yours. My god. That was VERY poor logic, argument, and (mis)use of reason. I really hope your future posts will be a bit more informed and well argued, because this was bad. I mean...just, flat out pathetic. You can do better.

And yeah, RELAX about the naked children too. Take the broom out of your ass.



In frienship

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Raw eggplant recipes require the eggplant to be denatured by soaking in an acid, such as lemon juice

No, it doesn't... but since you're the sort of person who posts inappropriate and potentially illegal pictures, gives health advice over the Internet out of stupidity and arrogance, and basically behaves like a terrible human being, your ignorance about cooking is the least of your problems.

 

[paradigm667]

No, it doesn't... but since you're the sort of person who posts inappropriate and potentially illegal pictures, gives health advice over the Internet out of stupidity and arrogance, and basically behaves like a terrible human being, your ignorance about cooking is the least of your problems.

Yes they do. And it's not like eating a raw eggplant will kill you, but the FACT is that raw eggplants contain the solanaceous alkaloid "Solanum melongena" and if left raw, this will irritate and react in your body. The fact is, if we only ingest very little of it, it's not gonna kill us, but the more we ingest, the worse the symptoms. You can get by eating a few bites of raw eggplant, but go and try a whole one. You will find two things:
-Tastes like shit
-You feel like shit

If you were to eat 20 raw eggplants in one day, you would be feeling VERY ill by the end of the night. Raw eggplant is poisonous. It's a matter of degree. MOST raw eggplant recipes require soaking it or somehow denaturing it in lemon juice or vinegar.

here are some random recipes I just googled with raw eggplant notice how they all require soaking it and letting it sit in acid for an hour at least:
http://www.vegan-food.net/recipe/402/Eggplant-Ganoush-Raw/
http://kitchen-parade-veggieventure.blogspot.com/2009/07/raw-eggplant-salad.html
http://www.allrawrecipes.com/eggplant-lasagna-recipe-466

And as far as the "inappropriate" and "potentially illegal" pictures...you know what dude...seriously give me a break ok.
And my health advice is not stupid and as far as arrogant...well, (ok, I can be arrogant at times).

And as for you, the least of my problems are none of your concern sir. But I would certainly put you below most of my problems. You're like a wandering fly that just landed on my shoulder. Look, I just flicked you off...


In friendship