OK, his studies beat my anecdotal bias.

...That being said, I will continue to eat breakfast cereal with milk pretty much every day (as I have since I was very very young), and be strongly tempted to attribute my own lack of having ever broken a bone to that.

The other anecdote I have in my favor is coming from a farm family that raised chickens. I grew up in a prairie grassland area (converted to irrigated farmland thanks to aquifer access), while my cousins lived a couple hours away in limestone hills ranchland. Both of our families raised free range chickens.

Our chickens produced very thin-shelled eggs, and displayed behavior to suggest they were calcium-deprived. For example, our chickens wouldn't cannibalize their own viable eggs, but if we threw empty shells to them they would fight to eat the shells. Same but to a lesser extent for leftover bones, etc. (I assume they fought less over these because bones are harder to near impossible to break down with a beak). On the other side of the table, we sometimes exchanged eggs with my cousins, and their chicken's eggs were always extremely thick-shelled and hard to crack open.

When I asked about that, my folks told me (and later my Biology teacher confirmed) that was because the sod/soil around my home and flora and fauna growing from it contained very little natural calcium. Chickens raised in our area would often be supplemented with commercial feed that contained extra calcium, but we let ours range for food and eat table scraps; almost never supplementing their food with any commercial stuff. But the limestone (aka calcium carbonate) around my cousin's house contained very high amounts of natural calcium, which was naturally infused into the plants / grains / insects that their chickens ate, giving them incredibly thick shells.

So, I guess that while calcium intake apparently doesn't have a very statistically significant impact on human bone growth, I think that it must have a much more significant role to play in egg thickness if you happen to be a chicken... At least if you compare extremes of low natural calcium diet versus extremely high natural calcium diet.

Needs more warnings at the end - May cause poisonous burns, itching, rashes, scars, insects / bites, decapitation, potent hallucinogenic plant experience ego death (this is a good thing), wild fire, sneezing, rashes, pulled muscles, sweating, potential flash flood, tornado, blunt force death (hail storm), suffocation (ie quicksand), dehydration, drowning (helicopter drops retardant on you or otherwise), hypothermia, freezing, lethal stings, booby traps, rednecks, cannibals, serial killers, getting lost and starving...

I think its the worst kind of irony that this shared currency, this symbol of a unified Europe, has really only served to bring cultural and economic disparity into the light. Already I hear people saying, "the Greeks had it coming". "They're lazy.". "They don't work." etc etc as if a whole country could be so completely full of moochers and layabouts that it is on the verge of collapse. So we'll go back to eating each other like cannibals. Wonderful.

In a video where they called Limp Bizkit metal, you're complaining about Cannibal Corpse?

Dude, most of those songs are NOT heavy metal. Calling Cannibal Corpse heavy metal is like calling 2Girls1Cup a late night movie.

Trivia Fun Fact: 'Where The Slime Lives' is actually a ringtone on my cell. Made me smile.

From Wikipedia: "Aside from instances of larger lionfish individuals engaging in cannibalism on smaller individuals, adult lionfish have few identified natural predators, likely due to the effectiveness of their venomous spines. Moray eels (family Muraenidae), bluespotted cornetfish (Fistularia commersonii), and large groupers, like the tiger grouper (Mycteroperca tigris) and Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus), have been observed preying on lionfish. It remains unknown, however, how commonly these predators prey on lionfish. Sharks are also believed to be capable of preying on lionfish with no ill effects from their spines. Park officials of the Roatan Marine Park in Honduras have attempted to train sharks to feed on lionfish as of 2011 in an attempt to control the invasive populations in the Caribbean. Predators of larvae and juvenile lionfish remain unknown, but may prove to be the primary limiting factor of lionfish populations in their native range."

You're a fine young cannibal.

Your video, Actual Cannibal Shia LeBeouf ~ Live... and Still Alive!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You may get a kick out of Shia LeBeouf Live
http://videosift.com/video/Actual-Cannibal-Shia-LeBeouf-Live-and-Still-Alive

"i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better."

If your position is the same as Chomsky's, I understand that position. I have heard Chomsky talk about it repeatedly. (Here's a take on Chomsky by David Gordon with which I tend to agree).

"i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism."

If you want to understand my position, why send me Chomsky to explain YOUR position? Why not read what I sent you? Or what I've recommended that you read? Or simply respond to my comments?? This is NOT how you "understand" another position: by stating your own (or, someone else's, in this case, Chomsky's).

"which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room."

If the 'elephant' is all the conjectures you've seen about corporations/business taking over in evil ways, then I've already explained that those scenarios cannot happen under anarchy. That's not how business works in a government-free market.

"it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790."

I don't even know what this means...

"even Blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships"

Let me restate it again then for you, since you seemed to have missed my position the first few times I've said it. Maybe I didn't say it enough times:

If you can do any of this, with no initiation of violence, zero, never initiating any physical violence against anyone's person or property, then I'm for it, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, whatever. But the requirement is zero initiation of violence. None. I don't know how you can have that with any form of syndicalism or socialism, unless everyone unanimously agrees on everything and that is quite rare. I doubt that it can happen except in the smallest groups, and even then, it's in specific and circumscribed ways. That is why a private property system is the only system that can ensure zero legal physical coercion/aggression against anyone's person and/or property. (Here's Rothbard's take on syndicalism. Worth reading.)

"like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?"

This cannot/will not happen in a free market. Only when aggression is introduced could this happen.

"that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything"

Unfettered voluntary exchanges will never lay waste to anything. Do you understand how absurd this sounds to me? You are proposing the replacement of voluntary exchanges with coercion. Yes, you are -- because I have been clear that capitalism, as I am defining it, means free, voluntary exchanges. I don't care what corporations do as long as they engage in voluntary transactions providing goods and services that consumers want. Only through government-granted privileges -- enforced through violence -- can corporations do otherwise. There are no "natural monopolies." There have never been. Ever.

Even after watching the video, there is nothing there which "proves" that there is such a thing a "natural monopoly" or that "proves" that aggression is better than non-aggression. Is there?
But like I said, if you can show how to do any of what you'd propose with zero aggression, then I'm for it.

"you are not the person i gave you credit for."

Bad thymology, then, apparently.

"i made certain assumptions about you based an very little."

Similar to making all sorts of assumptions about corporations and the free market based on very little evidence.

"i was never trying to say you were wrong"

Really? What were you saying then??

"i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe."

Then, instead of insulting me or trying to shame or coerce me (what's with this posting "for Trancey"?! What?!), you could simply ask me polite questions, instead of ones like, "do you even know this or that"? No dice.

And instead of just telling me what "thou believe" or not. Is this about understanding my view or about you telling me what you believe or dictating what I ought to believe?

"is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you"

No. How is Apple tyrannizing you?
They haven't tyrannized me. Not one iota. In fact, they have provided my friends with some useful goods, for which they have gladly given them several thousands of dollars.

If you have a specific grievance against a specific company, let me know, and I can point out to you what your remedy could be. Any grievance that does not involve a government.

I wouldn't particularly appreciate you (or anyone) trying to interfere, through violence or the threat thereof, in any voluntary non-aggressive exchanges I choose to engage in, whether I do so as an individual or as a group, even as a group where we choose to call ourselves a corporation. And if our group does or does not want to structure itself as a syndicate, what business is it of yours?

Call me 1790 or whatever, but I don't really consider someone who'd want to impose their will on me like that a bonafide 'anarchist' despite what they choose to call themselves. I know, that's just my choice. I am not preventing you from calling yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect me to agree.

@Trancecoach
interesting.
i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better.

and in doing so i offend you?
and you respond by offending my sensibilities?

do you REALLY think i cannot think for myself?
are we in some epic battle where there is some abstract "winner"?
i thought i was talking to someone who i am quite fond of and who i also just happen to disagree with on this particular subject.

i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism.
which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room.it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790.
even blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships,a privilege given by the people,to be dissolved when the project was concluded.
and blankfist is a die hard libertarian.

or is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you?
maybe reading too many heritage foundation essays?
have any of these articles outlined the flaws in capitalism?
like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?
that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything..eventually and eventually everything will become a commodity.
to be sold and traded.

its not like it is a huge secret.
the problems with capitalism are well know and well understood,but i guess you are not one of those people.

and i am not one of those people who are good at conveying things such as these..never have been.
but i have always been respectful with you,even when i disagree.
and yet you assume my intentions.
take offense when i meant none and snipe at me from some imagined superior balcony.

i was never trying to say you were wrong.i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe.

and now as i am writing this i am being forced to question.
will he take this sentence wrong?
how will he perceive this word in that context?
and i have to admit..its kinda irritating.

but ya know what?
thats on me.
i made certain assumptions about you based an very little.
he likes floyd..check.
dropped some acid back in the day...check.
is educated and in the psychology field...check.

so every correspondence i have had with you is with that person in my minds eye.
i have written every word to you as if you were sitting right next to me.

i wrote about this before and you ridiculed me then.i should have gotten the message.
you are not the person i gave you credit for.
you are you.
and thats ok.

watch the video if you wish.its pretty informative.
or dont.
it doesnt matter.

i apologize for offending you.
/end transmission

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Fine Young Cannibals - She Drives Me Crazy. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

"You little bitch, I'll (?) you!"
-Takes pygmy cannibal creature into woodshed, scene obscured.

@enoch I love when threads go off track like this! Who would have imagined that a cute video of a bird landing on a guy's head would lead to a hunting debate and even cannibalism (long-pig?? Really @chingalera? Haha) Anyway, I hope nobody is offended by the discussion. I really enjoyed reading all the comments and couldn't wait to log in to see who said what next! I wish every video would get people talking like this. It makes the site so much more interesting and it's nice to get to know people better by hearing the stories about how they live.

wow, you MUST be a vegitarian....fuck my spelling.....or a cannibal?

Your daughter, should she become a vet (please do I love my dogs) she would likely have to kill more animals than Shang ever has.

You should spend some time on a farm, any farm with animals even dairy, harsh reality.