Bob, I'll try to ignore your having just being an ignorant douchbag who rudely dismissed those with far more knowledge and personal experience than you possess, simply because they disagreed with your non- medically based, non-scientific based, thoughtless, inhumane political position and I'll try a different tact.....

How is it that, in 2018, you are advocating slavery more foul than the African slave trade....yes, slavery.

Forcing one person to fulfill all the bodily functions of another, brain dead potential "person" (and make no mistake, a blastocyst is not a person, but for sake of argument and your limited understanding capabilities I'll let you claim it is one this one time)....that's Mengele level inhumanity and slavery.

You claim to believe in individual liberties over vague social responsibility....except when you don't.

Forcing one person to physically support another is so far to the left of full socialism you seem to think it went all the way around to the right. It doesn't work that way.
To add the typical right wing slippery slope argument, if the government can force one person to be life support for another potential person, they can force healthy people to give up organs to the unhealthy, or be consigned to hospitals to be used as human dialysis and so forth.
Until those cells can and have survived on their own without support, and can and have functioned as a mammal (meaning breathed, circulated body fluids, and consumed and evacuated foodstuffs) they have not reached "living human" status, and even if you can't grasp that fact, at no point can there be a requirement that another person acts as their sentient intensive care unit without reinstating legal slavery.

Why do you advocate slavery?

When are you donating your kidney and partial liver, and your children's? If you aren't, by your logic you're at least a double murderer and so are they. Why should I or anyone take morality advice from a double murderer?

Design a procedure where the offending not yet human can be safely removed without any (or at least less than an abortion would cause) risk to the mother, but survive on it's own without an incubator-slave, then come back and we'll talk.... until then forced incubation and forced birth is monstrously draconian socialism of a kind even Mengele would turn away from in disgust.

Edit: I came up with an argument I think might change your mind....how many baby Newtboys would you force on the planet before you decided abortion should be mandatory in some cases?

While I can't say I like it personally, it's not that bad, and definitely only needs a very thin layer. It's more a spice, not a foodstuff. As a kinda related example I love soy sauce in my noodles or rice, but I bloody well wouldn't drink it out of the bottle.

Sorry, you're right. Your one anecdote outweighs the thousands of man hours of research put into this. Tell me, does this restaurant not use soy sauce?

Yes, MSG is harmful to a small number of people ... if taken in large doses on an empty stomach, i.e. like pretty much every foodstuff out there.

And I don't know where you got the idea that the video claims that "deluded MSG haters need to be set straight". It simply states that the prevailing myth about MSG has no basis in fact, much like the other current fad, the gluten free diet

*related=http://videosift.com/video/You-Probably-Dont-Need-to-Be-on-that-Gluten-free-Diet

And meh, you got a headache... so what? People actually die from peanut and shellfish allergies, but most people still eat them. I'm not really sure what your point is, other than to raise a meaningless anecdote about a restaurant that gives you headaches, but for some reason you still go back to.

Keep a-tweakin' them genes, poindexter...

Future foodstuffs of Earth:
a white, semi-translucent, gelatinous substance can be found in dispensers with spigots and eaten from suitable dishes. Its composition is given as a single-celled protein, vitamin, mineral, and amino acid colloid. Reviews are unfavorable due to its consistency. It's compared to "runny eggs" at best and "a bowl of snot" at worst."
-http://matrix.wikia.com/wiki/Food

Most edibles are rendered into poison in the "parlance of our times"-Food has become a double-edged sword-Necessary for life, more plentiful than it's ever been in recorded history now Hijacked by our current paradigm of personal gain through manipulation, greed, and the eugenics-inspired, population control mentality of the brokers of her bounty-

Cancer, obesity, diminished organ function, slow-death-through-processed foodstuffs. This is the legacy, the empire must be burned-alive if humanity is to have a fighting chance.

In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
I want the glassed fridge that keeps the foodstuff fresh for at least 6 months!
*promote


You and me both!! Thank you so much for the promote =o)

I want the glassed fridge that keeps the foodstuff fresh for at least 6 months!
*promote

I hope you're not as uncritical when looking for libertarian literature as you are when looking for health information. That page is written by a HuffPo grade misinformer. Unpasteurized milk has no nutritional benefits over pasteurized milk, no matter how much some California hippies bleat about "natural".

Of course, I'm not here to judge those who choose to drink raw milk for some reason. I come after all from a country where half-rotten fish is considered haute cuisine (Although properly made rakfisk has no infectuous risks. And is delicious! And is a great excuse to drink lots of aquavit! Errm, I digress.). If you absolutely want some dysentery with your milk, that's your problem. I just want to warn people that we pasteurize milk for a very good reason.

On a larger scale though, I find it alarming that Ron Paul has to pay lip service to the health and nutrition wackos to garner votes. What will be next? The same type of west coast hippies also campaign actively against childhood vaccination. Will he, if he is elected president, abandon childhood vaccination programs in the name of freedom, when we know for a fact that the disappearance of group immunity in some areas of California has resulted in deadly outbreaks of measles and whooping cough?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ornthoron:
Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.

It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Ornthoron:
Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.

It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?

It isn't in this case (see my point above about weighing individual things on their merits), but in general I'd prefer that someone is actually testing this stuff.


I would too. I'm not against having a service that grades or tests foods. I'm against blanket refusals of an individual's ability to make choices. And more importantly I want to understand why people don't think that's an encroachment of someone's freedom.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ornthoron:
Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.

It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?


It isn't in this case (see my point above about weighing individual things on their merits), but in general I'd prefer that someone is actually testing this stuff.

>> ^Ornthoron:

Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.


It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?

>> ^Ornthoron:

It seems to me that Ron Paul is so enamoured with the concept of freedom that he believes it should extend to selling unhealthy food. There is simply no good reason to sell unpasteurized milk. Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom. If Ron Paul cannot distinguish the two, I must call into question his judgment on what constitutes freedom for the layman and consumer, and what constitutes freedom for producers to sell dangerous products.


This to me seems to be the central failing of libertarianism. They believe in freedom for everyone and they seem to believe that companies have the same rights as individuals. Time and again, we have seen that corporations cannot be trusted when there is a profit motive. The industrial revolution was about as deregulated as it can get, and all it produced was some of the most appalling working conditions ever.

Nor do I share their ridiculous faith in the market to fix these kinda things. It simply doesn't work. Company x produces products in an unethical way, company y doesn't so it's products cost more, despite being essentially the same end result. People buy xs products because they simply can't afford ys. Regulation for these kinda things creates a level playing field.

Ironically, in this particular case, I'm actually in favour of allowing unpasteurised milk to be sold as long as it is clearly labelled as such. But again, that's kinda the point. You cannot simply apply some arbitrary principle to everything. Even in things we hold sacred, such as free speech, judgements must be made (yelling fire in a theatre and so on).

>> ^Ornthoron:

It seems to me that Ron Paul is so enamoured with the concept of freedom that he believes it should extend to selling unhealthy food. There is simply no good reason to sell unpasteurized milk. Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom. If Ron Paul cannot distinguish the two, I must call into question his judgment on what constitutes freedom for the layman and consumer, and what constitutes freedom for producers to sell dangerous products.


You mean healthy food like fast food which is FDA approved? You could say there is no good reason to sell carbonated beverage as well, as drinking carbon dioxide is basically poison. Not a very effective one, mind you, but isn't it my right to be stupid with what I eat. I would argue eating is one of those most fundamental rights that can't really be regulated anyway, much like the drug war. In this day and age of fear mongering on the news, it would be hard to get away with "the jungle" without massive public retaliation.

But back to the point at hand, what about cigars, surely those should be illegal by this logic, or not running once a week? If you sell a product you know to be harmful, advise people thusly, and they still choose to, then by all means shouldn't it be allowed. I'll even give you grounds to liability if companies knowingly sell harmful products, criminally liability, not just civil. Even with that, I still don't see the need for an FDA. That seems to favor people who can manipulate the laws better than a true consumer protection in many cases, because the meat industry today is about as gross as it ever was in spite, or arguably, because of the FDA.

I digress, though. I don't know how a man could craft a moral argument to make food products illegal that aren't explicitly harmful. Hell, even foods that ARE explicitly harmful are legal today, but only the ones that make tons of money for big business, not struggling farmers.

It seems to me that Ron Paul is so enamoured with the concept of freedom that he believes it should extend to selling unhealthy food. There is simply no good reason to sell unpasteurized milk. Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom. If Ron Paul cannot distinguish the two, I must call into question his judgment on what constitutes freedom for the layman and consumer, and what constitutes freedom for producers to sell dangerous products.

[redacted]