Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: semmelweis, stupidity, and going Gordon Ramsay page

  1. #1
    stevehtcyl's Avatar
    stevehtcyl is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    55

    1



    I think this week's topic on semmelwise was really interesting with loads of great points.


    One that came up that I want to tackle is that of personal choice and getting into conflict. I think that western society has gone way overboard with tollerance. It is a great catastrophy that humans are the only creatures on this planet that have no natural predators, the great circle of life the weeding out of the weak and the stupid does not happen to us as it happens to every other living thing on this planet.


    And so we have to listen to these people and we are taught to be tollerant. I think it's ok up to the point where you aren't affecting anyone but once you step over that boundary and start affecting other people's liberties it becomes a real problem and we should be standing up to those people who question the PB and make our point heard. The french are especially well know for this in the field of politics, they dont agree that stand up and do something about it.


    Mark has written numerous posts where stupidities are so very present, like the one on grok tag, where children are now no longer able to compete against each other sometimes ending up with cuts and bruises, or how about the one talking about what you put into your body has the biggest impact on whether you are likely to get cancer, as opposed to other things like chemicals and the environment.


    Why is it ok for someone to spend a lifetime eating crap like grains, or drinking drinks high in aspartame and then expect other people to cough up not only their medical expenses bill but also suffer increased premiums for themselves when they eat nothing but healthy diets and exercise regularly. Why is it ok for people to choose not to do anything at all with their lives and then sponge off the system to pay for everything for them, that doesn't just affect them, that affects everyone.


    I love Gordon Ramsay, I think he has an amazing attitude when he's in the kitchen, he doesn't take crap from anyone and most importantly he gets things done. Perhaps when people ask us why we are primal we should not be afriad and lay it down for them and then follow it up with something like "oh and btw because of your sugar cravings I can't afford to put my kid through college, here's the bill"


  2. #2
    MichaelA's Avatar
    MichaelA is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    281

    1



    Let me quote you:


    "I think that western society has gone way overboard with tolerance. It is a great catastrophe that humans are the only creatures on this planet that have no natural predators"


    and


    "I think it's ok up to the point where you aren't affecting anyone but once you step over that boundary and start affecting other people's liberties"


    These two quotes contradict each-other...


    And we do have natural predators. Other people!!! One way or another, majority of the death for Homo Sapiens is directly or indirectly because other people. I dont see any difference in a death by a faulty Toyota (used this one because it's trendy lately) or being attacked and killed by a hungry lion. The latter has a reason, but who cares of ethics? Ethic is another way of expressing tolerance or the lack of it.


    Personally I think it's more of a problem the hypocrisy behind our chain-food. Raised to be killed (organic, grass fed, cage free or cornfed). We, the Paleos and PBs are concerned if it's grass-fed or corn-fed but we loose the most important aspect: Those animals are Raised for one purpose only, opposed to a free wild one that is growing on their own with only one purpose... perpetuation of their species. Denying to an animal any rights to survive is the big problem here, while acting "uhhh, uhhh, how about that one trillion part of PBS in farmed salmon...


    I hope I dont sound extreme


  3. #3
    frogfarm's Avatar
    frogfarm is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    trudgin' across the tundra, mile after mile
    Posts
    45

    1



    A great deal of the problem is institutions and cultures which promote, encourage or make mandatory the collectivization of harm. As a result, choices which normally would only affect the individual now affect the group, and thus the group -- or rather, some individuals in the group -- claim the moral authority to dictate, limit and prohibit those choices.


    I also agree that "tolerance" has become a catch-all for putting up with anything, no matter how stupid or vile.


  4. #4
    Greg B's Avatar
    Greg B is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    One could argue that domesticated animals have actually won the evolutionary game. The cow is raised to be killed, but we also guarantee that the species will live on.


  5. #5
    MichaelA's Avatar
    MichaelA is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    281

    1



    Cows live because we have electricity and are egoistic. And while we do live or until a department of knuckleheads decide to keep them or not for some arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with the cows.


    Cows are extinct actually. Can you see them wild? Their existence is in a box. Artificial insemination and ending to the slaughterhouse, no exemption. They are meat and milk machines in an organic way.


  6. #6
    Greg B's Avatar
    Greg B is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    But the genes ARE passed on, and that is the goal of any living creature. So what if another species is doing all the work? That's all the better for the cows.


    There are still wild buffalo, so I see no reason a cow wouldn't be able to survive in the wild, provided we ever let one go.


  7. #7
    LX's Avatar
    LX
    LX is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    256

    1

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification


    greg B: Well, an individual cow might not have that much luck. They are herd creatures after all. But yeah, no reason cows couldn't live happily on acerage of plains. Wasn't that long ago that cows were left on their own until it came time for roundup and the drive to the trains. The animals haven't evolved to the point of uselessness in a mere 150 years.


    @ MichaelA: Now, its far more efficient for modern facilities to breed using artificial insemination than to let nature take it's course. It's not cost effective to send prize studs around the country when you could just ship a vial instead. Same thing with horse and dog breeding these days. Plus the ability to keep "stock" from a good individual after their long dead is invaluable. (I don't know if you've ever seen horses breeding naturally, but if I were a mare I would vastly prefer AI to letting nature take it's course.) Humans have never let a domesticated food animal go extinct. Breeds may go extinct, but not the species.


    @Steve: Lots of animals don't have natural predators, barring occasional opportunities when they are young (a category that would include humans as well). Tigers, Great Whites, Blue Whales, Elephants - to name a few. They can be hunted by man, but I wouldn't say we're a natural predator of these creatures. We'd kill them for trophies, but not as a main form of sustenance.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •