Re: oreos

[Guest guest]

The way I see it, the do-gooders who have used the force of the

government (which is ironically the enforced threat of fines and

prison VIA THE USE OF ARMS) cause more damage to the health of

society than if people were just allowed to make their own choices.

Problem 1 - once a law is passed, no matter how harmful it turns out

to be, its virtually impossible to get rid of (without tons of money

and political influence).

I like to think of milk. the do-gooders " saved " us from

unpasteurized milk. Yes, a while ago some farms started to slack off

on sanitation and the milk was poor. The solution is simple to save

us from sickness, outlaw it. Well, decades later we have all the

knowledge and technology to ensure good, safe, healthy milk for the

masses. But you can't get it, because the old laws and regulations

are still there. If they had never passed the laws, a few people

would have gotten sick, people would start to demand better milk, the

suppliers would have responded. How much sickness has resulted from

this?

Problem 2 - no one knows everything, not even do gooders

They thought they were doing us a favor. " We know the right diet,

one high in carbs and low in fat. " They had all the studies to prove

it. It makes perfect sense to use the resource of the government to

esentially brainwash people to eat this way because they are too

stupid to know on their own. Again, how much death and suffering has

resulted from this I know better than you attitude? Most junk food

like oreos are fine to eat in many people's minds because of what the

government says. They are carbs, and they usually have the right

kind of fat, not saturated.

Problem 3 - when it comes to laws, the idea with the most political

influence wins, not the always right idea.

The whole medical monopoly is designed this way. It exists for the

benefit of the suppliers. The medical establishment has the money

and influence in government circles to ensure this continues, and any

threats to it which may make people healthier but result in less

revenue, are quickly squashed with laws and regulations.

I believe if you just stopped butting into people's lives and

decisions, if you let people live their life, make mistakes and learn

from them, you will find that good ideas NATURALLY thrive and grow in

society and bad ideas die out. We need this no place more desperatly

than in health and nutrition.

-joe

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

>

> >Legislate our behavior; we will not consent. We are freemen (and

are

> >responsible for ourselves.) We will not be subjugated. We have the

guns to

> >prove it. " Anonymous: The Register

>

> I find it entirely unsurprising, if still disheartening, that the

threat of

> armed resistance is raised in response to the suggestion that a

poisonous

> non-food item currently used by industry to boost profits at the

expense of

> gross injuries to health be banned from the market.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I can't believe this.

This is like the evil demonic thread that wouldn't die. We might

need to call ghostbusters or get a priest in here or something.

I've been gone over a week and you guys are still beating this horse.

Well I suppose some credit needs to be given for the sheer

willingness and determination to resolve these two polar ideologies

that have plagued mankind for nearly its entire history.

On a discussion group no less.

Bravo!

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Joe-

>

> >The way I see it, the do-gooders who have used the force of the

> >government (which is ironically the enforced threat of fines and

> >prison VIA THE USE OF ARMS)

>

> The sad irony is that you (and others of your political stripe)

seem caught

> by the idea that all these problems have been caused by well-

meaning

> inadvertent villains -- " do-gooders " as you all call them -- when

in fact

> that practically couldn't be further from the truth. At most,

some

> misinformed do-gooders were recruited to the cause early on, but

the real

> prime movers couldn't have cared less about any kind of public

good. They

> only used the rhetoric of health and safety to cover their true

purpose.

>

> Are you familiar with the expression " follow the money " ? This is

one of

> its best possible applications.

>

> >I like to think of milk. the do-gooders " saved " us from

> >unpasteurized milk.

>

> Not at all. Industry was faced by a problem: raw milk required

local

> production and local distribution, but huge, concentrated profits

required

> centralized production and centralized, wide-scale distribution.

Bogus and

> incomplete science was marshalled to create a perception of a need

for

> pasteurization, and the march towards factory farming of milk was

> underway. So-called " do-gooders " didn't start the transition,

they were

> mere tools of those who did.

>

> >Problem 2 - no one knows everything, not even do gooders

> >They thought they were doing us a favor. " We know the right diet,

> >one high in carbs and low in fat. "

>

> Again, " do-gooders " were at most peripheral to the problem,

recruited to

> the cause -- they didn't create it themselves. And again, follow

the

> money. A high-carb diet is much more amenable to industrial

production and

> distribution than a high-fat one, and a high-carb diet is also

much more

> amenable to massive centralized profits. Where, after all, do you

think

> the money to promote and " prove " the virtues of a high-carb low-

fat diet

> came from?

>

> And the same is true of hydrogenated oils. Hydrogenation allowed

expensive

> lower-profit animal fats and tropical oils to be replaced by cheap

domestic

> vegetable oils and an inexpensive industrial process.

>

> Admittedly, these ideas were easy to foster and attracted strident

> proponents in part because of a puritanical sense that anything

tasty or

> enjoyable must be bad for you (IOW the ideas created many do-

gooders, not

> the other way around) but note that expensive, labor-intensive and

> low-profit foods like fat and milk fell under that gun while

equally tasty

> but highly profitable, low-overhead foods like sugar didn't.

>

> I strongly urge you to read _Trust Us, We're Experts_, which

describes how

> PR is used to deceive and to deform public attitudes on a

massively wide

> scale. Yes, corrupting our government is one technique the

perpetrators

> use, the illegality of raw milk in most areas being a good example

of the

> fruits of that corruption, but it's far from their only technique,

and

> government is the only macro-scale tool we as individual citizens

possess

> to fight the macro-scale influence of industry. Rather than

trying to rid

> ourselves of our one tool -- a phenomenon which itself is an

incredible

> accomplishment of industry PR -- we should do our utmost to purge

it of

> corruption and return its full function and power to our hands.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I might also add that this thread is pure evidence of the true

evils of Oreo's.

DMM

> > Joe-

> >

> > >The way I see it, the do-gooders who have used the force of the

> > >government (which is ironically the enforced threat of fines and

> > >prison VIA THE USE OF ARMS)

> >

> > The sad irony is that you (and others of your political stripe)

> seem caught

> > by the idea that all these problems have been caused by well-

> meaning

> > inadvertent villains -- " do-gooders " as you all call them --

when

> in fact

> > that practically couldn't be further from the truth. At most,

> some

> > misinformed do-gooders were recruited to the cause early on, but

> the real

> > prime movers couldn't have cared less about any kind of public

> good. They

> > only used the rhetoric of health and safety to cover their true

> purpose.

> >

> > Are you familiar with the expression " follow the money " ? This

is

> one of

> > its best possible applications.

> >

> > >I like to think of milk. the do-gooders " saved " us from

> > >unpasteurized milk.

> >

> > Not at all. Industry was faced by a problem: raw milk required

> local

> > production and local distribution, but huge, concentrated

profits

> required

> > centralized production and centralized, wide-scale

distribution.

> Bogus and

> > incomplete science was marshalled to create a perception of a

need

> for

> > pasteurization, and the march towards factory farming of milk

was

> > underway. So-called " do-gooders " didn't start the transition,

> they were

> > mere tools of those who did.

> >

> > >Problem 2 - no one knows everything, not even do gooders

> > >They thought they were doing us a favor. " We know the right

diet,

> > >one high in carbs and low in fat. "

> >

> > Again, " do-gooders " were at most peripheral to the problem,

> recruited to

> > the cause -- they didn't create it themselves. And again,

follow

> the

> > money. A high-carb diet is much more amenable to industrial

> production and

> > distribution than a high-fat one, and a high-carb diet is also

> much more

> > amenable to massive centralized profits. Where, after all, do

you

> think

> > the money to promote and " prove " the virtues of a high-carb low-

> fat diet

> > came from?

> >

> > And the same is true of hydrogenated oils. Hydrogenation

allowed

> expensive

> > lower-profit animal fats and tropical oils to be replaced by

cheap

> domestic

> > vegetable oils and an inexpensive industrial process.

> >

> > Admittedly, these ideas were easy to foster and attracted

strident

> > proponents in part because of a puritanical sense that anything

> tasty or

> > enjoyable must be bad for you (IOW the ideas created many do-

> gooders, not

> > the other way around) but note that expensive, labor-intensive

and

> > low-profit foods like fat and milk fell under that gun while

> equally tasty

> > but highly profitable, low-overhead foods like sugar didn't.

> >

> > I strongly urge you to read _Trust Us, We're Experts_, which

> describes how

> > PR is used to deceive and to deform public attitudes on a

> massively wide

> > scale. Yes, corrupting our government is one technique the

> perpetrators

> > use, the illegality of raw milk in most areas being a good

example

> of the

> > fruits of that corruption, but it's far from their only

technique,

> and

> > government is the only macro-scale tool we as individual

citizens

> possess

> > to fight the macro-scale influence of industry. Rather than

> trying to rid

> > ourselves of our one tool -- a phenomenon which itself is an

> incredible

> > accomplishment of industry PR -- we should do our utmost to

purge

> it of

> > corruption and return its full function and power to our hands.

> >

> >

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

>

> >Good grief! We'll need some good civil disobedience when it comes

to this -

> >ban homemade food at church functions??? Yikes!

>

> They have already done so in the schools, at least in this state! To

avoid

> food poisoning. Ah well, I didn't bring a vial of my favorite

> kefir-bacteria either ...

>

Have people lost their minds? How much more over-regulated can our

world get?

Dawn