Re: W. A. Price, abridged

[Guest guest]

> I got most of *my* training from training animals, who really don't

work on a " right/wrong "

> framework.

>

Great insight!

Here's an article about Temple Grandin, known for her influence on

industry that handles cattle:

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/mcdonalds/grandin1.

html

Also, I notice that the really influential leaders in the Old

Testament got their start by handling large groups of animals (e.g.,

Adam, Moses, /Israel, ), so if you get to be good at

handling groups of animals well, you have learned a lot about how to

handle groups of people well.

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>

> >>4. Is Dr. Price REALLY concluding that much of society's criminals

> >>are merely nutritionally deficient? Does he truly ignore the

> >>possibility of moral choices?

>

> Actually there was a good study in the English prison system,

> where they fed the inmates vitamin pills daily. The violence

> rate went way down.

Do you know where I might find this study (as opposed to a second-hand

reference to it)? Perhaps, rather than assuming some grand conspiracy on the

part of prison administrators, it might be more productive to bring this to

their attention--and to that of legislators--to see if any are willing to

give it a try.

> Now, if in fact violence is related to nutrition, and society

> refuses to, say, fund programs to help people learn to eat

> right, and in fact markets foods that are nutrient deficient,

> then where does the moral choice lay?

Your implication, I assume, is that the moral choice lies with the

ill-defined entity to which you refer as " society. " But it's only a moral

choice if " society " understands whatever connection between nutrition and

violence may exist, and this knowledge is far from common. Even if it were

common, the moral choice would lie with those who chose to eat food that

they knew could compromise their mental health. You could blame " society "

only if most of us knew what was going on and were deliberately keeping this

information from the underclass in an elaborate scheme to get them to steal

our hubcaps. With Bush choking on pretzels and Dick Cheney working on

his fifth heart attack, I think we can rule that one out.

And you know very well that " society " *does* fund programs designed to help

people learn to eat right. Of course, in the grand tradition of government

programs everywhere, they've gotten it backwards and made things worse.

Surprise!

> The prison system is still built on the

> belief that folks should be " punished " for their misdeeds

That and the self-evident fact that they can't get us while imprisoned. The

death penalty and lifetime imprisonment are tremendously effective

deterrents to recidivism.

> though the evidence is that all the punishment in the world

> doesn't help.

What evidence?

For the record, the prospect of imprisonment serves as a very effective

deterrent to tax evasion in my case. And I guarantee you that I could design

punishments that would serve as effective deterrents to real crimes, too, so

" all the punishment in the world " is definitely too strong a claim.

[Guest guest]

>>>Do you know where I might find this study (as opposed to a second-hand

reference to it)?<<<

Try this:

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/1/22?maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & RESU\

LTFORMAT= & fulltext=prison+nutrition & searchid=1092543629910_2627 & stored_search= & F\

IRSTINDEX=0 & sortspec=relevance

(you might need to cut 'n' paste the link)

Cheers,

Tas'.

[Guest guest]

>Do you know where I might find this study (as opposed to a second-hand

>reference to it)? Perhaps, rather than assuming some grand conspiracy on the

>part of prison administrators, it might be more productive to bring this to

>their attention--and to that of legislators--to see if any are willing to

>give it a try.

http://ebmh.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/6/2/41

>

>Your implication, I assume, is that the moral choice lies with the

>ill-defined entity to which you refer as " society. " But it's only a moral

>choice if " society " understands whatever connection between nutrition and

>violence may exist, and this knowledge is far from common. Even if it were

>common, the moral choice would lie with those who chose to eat food that

>they knew could compromise their mental health. You could blame " society "

>only if most of us knew what was going on and were deliberately keeping this

>information from the underclass in an elaborate scheme to get them to steal

>our hubcaps. With Bush choking on pretzels and Dick Cheney working on

>his fifth heart attack, I think we can rule that one out.

Well, I REALLY don't want to get into one of these libertarian debates ... I'm

real sure where you stand and you know where I stand. I wasn't attempting

to blame anyone ... the whole issue of " morality " isn't in my scope except

as a question. My basic stance is pragmatic ... i.e. *what works*. Pinpointing

who to " blame " has been done for eons and it hasn't worked very well.

Now asking rhetorical questions to someone who asks me " where morality "

is when it comes to violence and nutrition is another animal all together.

Basically I was attempting to say that the question is really, really, mushy ..

society influences what people eat, people make choices what to eat,

corporations influence what is available on the shelves,

everyone is under-informed, etc. etc. etc. So you end up with the

" quantum universe " where everything influences everything ... and I'll do

my bit to influence what I can in what I think is a useful direction.

>> The prison system is still built on the

>> belief that folks should be " punished " for their misdeeds

>

>That and the self-evident fact that they can't get us while imprisoned. The

>death penalty and lifetime imprisonment are tremendously effective

>deterrents to recidivism.

The death penalty works even better ... gets 'em out of the gene pool

too.

>> though the evidence is that all the punishment in the world

>> doesn't help.

>

>What evidence?

Well, your basic criminal is male (the overwhelming majority of

violent offenders especially, and sex offenders). So crime seems to

be sex-linked, for starters, not " fear of punishment " linked. Second,

most sex/violence offenders, even the sociopaths, slow way down

or stop being offenders once they hit 40. Are they more afraid of

punishment then? Or is it something hormonal? Well, when hormones

are high people feel invulnerable.

>For the record, the prospect of imprisonment serves as a very effective

>deterrent to tax evasion in my case. And I guarantee you that I could design

>punishments that would serve as effective deterrents to real crimes, too, so

> " all the punishment in the world " is definitely too strong a claim.

OK, that is a point ... it depends on the crime. Most folks in jail

are there for sex/violence crimes, or drugs. People on drugs generally

are not thinking clearly, almost by definition. The majority of folks

in prison have ADD, ADHD, schizophrenia, or some other identifiable

mental illness that is not being treated, and from my experience (and

listening to those with more experience) folks with mental problems

are NOT thinking about consequences at all, and in fact do really

obviously self-destructive things like crash cars into things, put their

fists through glass windows, jump off buildings thinking they can

fly. Guys who have " rage " problems are really out of control during

those rages ... and said rages are often nutritional (and many people

have treated them successfully). Punishing those people doesn't

help unless, say, you hang them or ship them off to Australia or do

obvious corporal punishment quickly (like a cat 'o nine tails, as they

did with the sailors on the old ships, many of whom were basically

slaves).

(Lest I be considered sexist, yeah, women have rage problems

too, but they are statistically unlikely commit violence against

someone).

Now, for deterring white collar crime, threat of jail time might

actually work. It didn't seem to work for the Enron folks though, I

guess because, like most criminals, they never figured they'd get

caught. But white collar criminals rarely ARE caught, and tend to get

off more ... folks who can afford lawyers do better in our system.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

homzbst wrote:

> 2. How will changing the diet effect my 15ds, 11dd, and 9dd with

> regards to their dental health? Will their teeth gradually become

> resistant to dental carries? Are they young enough their arches

> might actually change over the next few years, or should we continue

> with our current plan of orthodontic intervention?

I've had a chance to interact with a couple who told me that their dental health

markedly improved after they started eating the NT way. I don't know how long it

took them, but it wasn't years, I am sure. The woman in the couple leads a local

WAPF chapter in Auburn (if I remember correctly), CA. You could look her up on

the WAPF site and ask her for more details.

Roman

[Guest guest]

katja,

I'm a little slow on the question, here, but why not take them to the

dentist for " regular cleanings " ? Is it just unnecessary? Give me more

info....

Nanette

Re: W. A. Price, abridged

>

>(((sigh))) The real test of my own emotional stability will be

>taking my kids in to visit the doctor and resisting the urge to slap

>him.

>

>Danelle in Kansas, the WHEAT state of course

one other thing, danelle -

just don't take them to the doctor/dentist/orthodontist. what does he need

your money for anyway? are your kids actually *sick*? and if they are, do

they *really* need anitbiotics, or will a few days in bed with some herbal

tea take care of it? dime to a donut you don't need that doctor - and he

can keep the donut, cause i don't want it!

-katja