Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has becoming primal/paleo ruined your life?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
    That wasn't really my point. I think we spend a shit load of money on people who would rather die. I don't see my dad and say "waste of money" or "he'd getting his share". I see my dad and think what we are doing to him is rather inhumane. We are quite OK with the idea of euthanizing animals to prevent/cut suffering. We don't do that for people, instead we do the opposite and extend suffering. It's like spending money to cause human suffering. I just remember the last time I saw him, he wanted pain meds. Give the man all the pain meds he wants. "No, they can kill him". But they keep pumping him full of antibiotics that do the same thing, only more slowly, painfully and expensively.

    I guess the corporation does win in this case. Is that their intention? To profit from misery? I'd like to think that they view what they do as positive (extending life). I hope they aren't gleefully in a boardroom making a chart of extending a bedridden patients life by X to sell Y more drugs.
    "First do no harm" does not seem open to the interpretation that extending life can actually inflict harm.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Rojo View Post
      Huh? So if I'm an expert on the Civil War, how would that work exactly.
      First, that's a different level of abstraction. You were claiming that Karl was an expert on a category (capitalism). Now you are talking about being an expert about an instance within that category (The US Civil War circa 1861-1865). That's simply bad logic on your part.

      If we remove your fallacy and say you are an expert on civil war (vs "The Civil War") just as you said that Karl was an expert on Capitalism (vs. European Industrial Capitalism Circa 1840-1880), then you have this:

      Darfur
      Chad
      Palestine
      Ivory Coast
      Libya
      Syria
      Azawadi War of Independence
      Colombia
      Afghanistan
      Uganda
      Somalia
      Sa'dah insurgency
      Iraq
      Burma
      Republic of Ingushetia

      Those are all within the last 10 years. Go, join in, show 'em how it's done. Or report on the civil wars, using your expertise to explain what's going on. Or use your knowledge to stop/shorten the damned things, thus reducing the destruction of wealth which will put you in a position to skim off some of the peace dividend. There are many ways to profit.

      If you want to retain your fallacy, well, what the hell, go join one of those civil wars anyway. Maybe your knowledge of Sherman's march to the sea will help you in Syria.

      No, it's not "factually incorrect". A capitalist is someone who makes money from money. It doesn't matter how they got it.
      Sorry, your definition contains a glaring omission. A Capitalist is someone who makes money from their own money. You aren't a capitalist just because you work for a capitalist, even if the labor you provide is something a capitalist would normally do for herself. If you invest and earn a return you are a capitalist. If someone else invests and you get a cut of the reward you are labor. Did Engels qualify as a capitalist? No. He ran a factory, but he did not own it. His father owned it, he worked for his father. Engels was a nepotist, he was a manager, he was not a capitalist.


      I can't really argue with you using your definitions.
      They aren't really my definitions, and the definitions aren't the problem anyway. The logical fallacy you are trying to use is called "Discarded Differentia". You are leaving parts out of the definition in order to support your point, like leaving out the fact that to be a Capitalist you need to use your own capital. The reason you can't argue is that your position depends on such fallacies.
      Last edited by Him; 02-06-2013, 01:45 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
        That wasn't really my point. I think we spend a shit load of money on people who would rather die. I don't see my dad and say "waste of money" or "he'd getting his share". I see my dad and think what we are doing to him is rather inhumane. We are quite OK with the idea of euthanizing animals to prevent/cut suffering. We don't do that for people, instead we do the opposite and extend suffering. It's like spending money to cause human suffering. I just remember the last time I saw him, he wanted pain meds. Give the man all the pain meds he wants. "No, they can kill him". But they keep pumping him full of antibiotics that do the same thing, only more slowly, painfully and expensively.
        It is unfortunate when a person can no longer express their own will and is therefore trapped into following the judgment of others. Especially when the prevailing judgment goes against what that individual would have wished. There are ways of avoiding that situation but they aren't used nearly so often as they should be.

        I was addressing the motivation behind that norm. In other words, why is the normal view that heroic measures are great? They aren't great from a quality of life standpoint. They aren't great from a pain standpoint. They aren't even great from a conscious longevity standpoint. The only way the norm is really reasonable is from one point of view: "I paid into the insurance system my whole damned life, now it owes me every cent back..." That's a perfectly fair (from a monkey back-brain perspective) way to approach the situation, and most people in the US have paid into one form of insurance or another. Unfortunately, because it's the normal view, it gets applied to everyone even when it's a poor fit (e.g. people who opted out of insurance), and that then becomes the justification for requiring everyone be more normal (individual mandate) rather than broadening the definition of normal to include those different views.
        Last edited by Him; 02-06-2013, 01:46 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
          So help me, if anyone ever sticks a tube in me, I will strangle them with my last strength.
          This.

          Comment


          • #80
            THats my theory but I have been told I am going to hell for believing that.

            Originally posted by ssn679doc View Post
            Wouldn't he just touch them, and heal them and not ask for an insurance card?
            You know all those things you wanted to do: You should go do them.

            Age 48
            height 5'3
            SW 215 lbs
            CW 180 lbs (whole foods/primal eating)
            LW 172 lbs
            GW 125ish lbs

            Comment


            • #81
              Maybe reinstate the draft, but instead of drafting military conscripts we draft representatives. Treat it like jury duty where a big pool of potential representatives are called, there is a selection process (popular vote but the only choices are the draftees?), and the people chosen to serve get a pay check for the 6 years or whatever of their term and everyone else goes home. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be better than what we have today.
              Now that is a good idea. How do we institute it?
              You know all those things you wanted to do: You should go do them.

              Age 48
              height 5'3
              SW 215 lbs
              CW 180 lbs (whole foods/primal eating)
              LW 172 lbs
              GW 125ish lbs

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Him View Post
                The reason you can't argue is that your position depends on such fallacies.
                No. The reason I can't argue is that you have very Him-specific definitions that you keep trotting out. An expert has to leverage theory into action? Who knew? A capitalist can't inherit money? Again, who knew?

                I enjoy a good political argument. This isn't one.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                  No. The reason I can't argue is that you have very Him-specific definitions that you keep trotting out. An expert has to leverage theory into action? Who knew? A capitalist can't inherit money? Again, who knew?

                  I enjoy a good political argument. This isn't one.
                  There are at least three named fallacies in that response.

                  Those aren't Him-specific definitions. How so? I never said anything like either statement.

                  An expert doesn't need to do anything, but someone who cannot apply knowledge is not an expert. Google define:expert to see why.

                  A capitalist can inherit and I never said otherwise. Engels did not. What someone else can do has no bearing on Engels. Engels, not capitalists in general, is the subject.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Him View Post
                    There are at least three named fallacies in that response.

                    Those aren't Him-specific definitions. How so? I never said anything like either statement.

                    An expert doesn't need to do anything, but someone who cannot apply knowledge is not an expert. Google define:expert to see why.

                    A capitalist can inherit and I never said otherwise. Engels did not. What someone else can do has no bearing on Engels. Engels, not capitalists in general, is the subject.
                    Hey, terrific. I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to you. To me, it's gibberish. So I'd just be wasting our time.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                      Hey, terrific. I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to you. To me, it's gibberish. So I'd just be wasting our time.
                      Maybe you will have better luck if you look at the Engels situation this way...

                      Let's say you have two people. Al and Bob. Both are young men, fresh from university. Both have parents who own fast food restaurants. Both receive unexpected phone calls.

                      Al's call goes like this: "I don't know how else to tell you: Your parents are both in the hospital. They still have the restaurant but if you don't run it, it will go out of business."

                      Bob's call goes like this: "I don't know how else to tell you: Your parents are both dead. You now have a restaurant but if you don't run it, it will go out of business."

                      Both men proceed to do exactly the same thing: Take over and run a restaurant. However, only one man has inherited a restaurant. Only one man becomes a restaurateur. Al is working at the restaurant, Bob owns the restaurant.

                      Engels worked at a factory for his father. That doesn't mean that he inherited one. He worked as a manager but it was still working for someone else. He was like Al in the story above.

                      To be a capitalist you must use your own money to make money. Capitalists OWN the means of production. Engels didn't do that because it wasn't his money and it wasn't his factory any more than the restaurant Al ran was Al's restaurant. This doesn't say (as you tried to claim) that capitalists can't inherit. It says that since Engels didn't inherit he wasn't a capitalist any more than Al in the story above is a restaurant owner.

                      Work through it a few times. It will become clear. Don't beat yourself up if it takes you some time though. Logic is like math...everyone can learn it, but not everyone can learn it the first try. It used to be that if you had a high school education you would've been at least exposed to this sort of thing but nowadays, well, the conspiracy theorists like to say that education is being dumbed down to make people easier to control but I think it's just incompetence.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Your post would have read better without the final paragraph, Him.
                        Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                        Griff's cholesterol primer
                        5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                        Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                        TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                        bloodorchid is always right

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          True. Of course I'm speaking of the USA and don't mean to impugn high schools in other parts of the world.

                          Rojo sounded frustrated by the whole thing and that's not my goal. Everyone can be logical but most people are never taught to use logic as a tool, which is just about criminal in my opinion. Logic is a skill, not something people are born with, but it's a very important skill. Not teaching kids how to use it is like not teaching kids how to cook. Yet here we are and this is the world we live in....

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Yup. Definitely have noticed the same thing.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Your post would have read better without the final paragraph, Him.
                              No, no, the last part was vital. Him's a wise man leading us from darkness. Him never makes short posts. And more words means more smart.
                              Last edited by Rojo; 02-06-2013, 11:00 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                                No, no, the last part was vital. Him's a wise man leading us from darkness. Him never makes short posts. And more words means more smart.
                                Wikipedia:
                                According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, the killings done by communist regimes can be explained with the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology Marxism.
                                "Of all religions, secular and otherwise," Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide." He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X