Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

FDA raids & raw milk

rated by 0 users
This post has 39 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875
Freedom4Me73986 Posted: Sat, Feb 11 2012 12:56 AM
[split from low content thread]

Monsanto-controlled FDA raids organic Amish

More reason to start living off the grid. Learn hunter-gatherer skills and homestead so youll get out of this.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Freedom4Me73986:
More reason to start living off the grid. Learn hunter-gatherer skills and homestead so youll get out of this.

No use if the soil is corrupted such that you'll need genetically modified seeds to actually grow anything.  You should probably just commit suicide now.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

Freedom4Me73986:
More reason to start living off the grid. Learn hunter-gatherer skills and homestead so youll get out of this.

No use if the soil is corrupted such that you'll need genetically modified seeds to actually grow anything.  You should probably just commit suicide now.

Have you ever been to NH? There is an abundance of wild food here. NH is one of the few places on earth where you know your safe from Monsanto and GMO. Raw milk is 100% legal. When NH secedes you know it will be the healthiest place on the planet for this reason.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 2:46 AM

Yeah dude, because we're all dying for some of that raw milk.

/suburbanite survival problems

 

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Freedom4Me73986:
Have you ever been to NH? There is an abundance of wild food here. NH is one of the few places on earth where you know your safe from Monsanto and GMO. Raw milk is 100% legal. When NH secedes you know it will be the healthiest place on the planet for this reason.

100% legal?  Not like, 96.57%?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

Yeah dude, because we're all dying for some of that raw milk.

Raw milk has HUGE benefits. This is unlike pasteurized milk which has no good stuff left AND has carcinogens. 

100% legal?  Not like, 96.57%?

100% legal. Go down to any farm and pick it up tax-free. You can find agorists selling it too.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 4:17 AM

Well I'm glad that it's 100% and not 96% legal :p

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Yeah that makes all the difference in the world.  I can totally see now why that's the selling point he never forgets to bring up.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 10:26 AM
Re: 100% legal

I think its a ham-fingered way of suggesting that one does not have to be a dairy farmer or enter into a herdshare or buying club type of arrangement in order to legally purchase and consume raw milk. Which, if true, is significant as in most states there are significant legal barriers to consumption of raw milk. Regulatory capture and all that stuff

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 12:02 PM

Raw milk has HUGE benefits. This is unlike pasteurized milk which has no good stuff left AND has carcinogens.

Oh really?!  Guess what?!  I do not consume milk.  I have soy, rice, and almond milk products to choose from if I want some "milk".  Thus, I'm already cutting out said carcinogens.  If this is your selling point for NH, well, you need to rethink it.

One day you're going to pull a Supertramp and we're going to find you in some national park OD'ing on some bad berries and tainted squirrel meat.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 4:49 PM
Its awesome that you love processed food products like "milk." some people would prefer to drink actual milk, untainted by bureaucratic mandates like louis pasteur's personal cancer recipe.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Malachi:
Its awesome that you love processed food products like "milk." some people would prefer to drink actual mlk, untainted by bureaucratic mandates like louis pasteur's personal cancer recipe.

And some people have a few things higher on their list of priorities as a determining factor in packing up their families and their entire lives and moving to a far corner of the United States just to be able to purchase raw milk and associate with people like Freedom4Me73986.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 5:01 PM
It would appear that Freedom4Me73986 has higher priorities as well. Like the LVMI forums.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Something I've been pointing out for at least the last 4 months.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 5:08 PM
Somehow I missed that, thanks for the link. Do you think you could link me to some information on booms and busts and all that? Perhaps from a heterodox economic school founded by Menger?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Malachi:
Somehow I missed that, thanks for the link.

Glad I could help.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

Its awesome that you love processed food products like "milk." some people would prefer to drink actual milk, untainted by bureaucratic mandates like louis pasteur's personal cancer recipe.

Exactly. you need to do research on pasteurization and cancer. Processing food is one of the worst thing humanity has done. It also makes you violent.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

Research = civ

What does that have to do w/ anything???

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 6:10 PM
Freedom4Me73986:

Its awesome that you love processed food products like "milk." some people would prefer to drink actual milk, untainted by bureaucratic mandates like louis pasteur's personal cancer recipe.

Exactly. you need to do research on pasteurization and cancer. Processing food is one of the worst thing humanity has done. It also makes you violent.

John is right. Primitivism is a priori, research is a posteriori. You dont need to do a lick of research to know that processed foods are bad for you because you know that cavemen did not have access to them.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 6:30 PM

F4M - Have you heard about the case of the farmer and Monsanto?

Enforcement of patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of gene flow. In 1998, 95–98 percent of about 10 km2 planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto Company's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto.[101]

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Malachi:
John is right. Primitivism is a priori, research is a posteriori. You dont need to do a lick of research to know that processed foods are bad for you because you know that cavemen did not have access to them.

Right.  And anything that cavemen did not have access to, is bad for you.  A priori.  

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

Freedom4Me73986:

 

Its awesome that you love processed food products like "milk." some people would prefer to drink actual milk, untainted by bureaucratic mandates like louis pasteur's personal cancer recipe.

Exactly. you need to do research on pasteurization and cancer. Processing food is one of the worst thing humanity has done. It also makes you violent.

 

John is right. Primitivism is a priori, research is a posteriori. You dont need to do a lick of research to know that processed foods are bad for you because you know that cavemen did not have access to them.

H/Gs didn't have all the health problems we have in civ. 90% of your health is diet. Show me an H/G society with cancer and/or autism and other mental illness and I'll retract my statements.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 6:47 PM
anything that cavemen did not have access to, is bad for you.  A priori.
as a rule of thumb regarding diet and exercise, yes. Thats why Bert needs statistics that show healthy people on vegan and vegetarian diets (I would say "healthy" but I am not trying to be an ass) and I do not need statistics on healthy people eating grass-fed beef and raw milk. If we are talking rhetoric/burden-of-proof-wise, it would be safer to say that we know things that cavemen had access to are healthful, whereas anything cavemen did not have access to has the potential to be unhealthful or poisonous. Compare coca leaves and cocaine, or air and o2.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 7:07 PM
You must have missed the a posteriori part. All I need to do, in order to meet your criteria, is define a set of h/g behaviors as "autistic" which shouodnt be hard considering the nebulous nature of autism diagnoses and the diversity of h/g cultures. Your willingness to allow argument in this field also opens yourself to claims like "h/g's didnt live long enough to have health problems"
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 7:12 PM
Ps- I thought you promised not to make any more threads?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

How much do you know about H/Gs?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

How much to you know about irony?

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

John, did he ever provide you those links you asked for several times? >_>

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 10:29 PM

Thats why Bert needs statistics that show healthy people on vegan and vegetarian diets (I would say "healthy" but I am not trying to be an ass) and I do not need statistics on healthy people eating grass-fed beef and raw milk. If we are talking rhetoric/burden-of-proof-wise, it would be safer to say that we know things that cavemen had access to are healthful, whereas anything cavemen did not have access to has the potential to be unhealthful or poisonous. Compare coca leaves and cocaine, or air and o2.

Way to go on showing your own fallacy.  I don't need statistics, I use statistics.  Why?  Because when I bring up my reasons and arguments those with knee-jerk reactions to vegetarianism/veganism (such as yourself I presume) go on and on about how I'm wrong, so I use evidence to prove my case.  Is there anything wrong with evidence and studies to back one's case?  No, it's actually rather convincing and admirable to show in one's position.  Now I'm facing charges that I use statistics (oh my, evidence!) to prove that people are healthy on vegan diets, but on the other hand (wait for the strawman) people who eat free range meat and drink raw milk don't need such scientific evidence to prove they are healthy!  Holy grass-fed cow!  You also go on and claim that "cavemen" had the ability to herd cows and harvest their milk (from what it sounds like).  If I bring up evidence to prove cavemen didn't drink milk, you'll blast me for citing sources.

Also, have you even had almond or rice milk?  It's essentially milk, just not the out of another animals breasts variety.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 10:49 PM
Relax, dude, you are flipping out over nothing. What is your a priori reasoning for veganism/vegetarianism?

and no, I dont need statistics to justify primal or paleo diets as I have prior knowledge of survival of the fittest and human existence in the EEA aka Garden of Eden.

You also go on and claim that "cavemen" had the ability to herd cows and harvest their milk (from what it sounds like).
Animal husbandry doesnt require much in the way of division of labor. Its entirely conceivable that animal husbandry could predate agriculture. The same cannot be said about things like roots and beans, potatoes and soybeans, let alone wheat, barley, flour, bread and pasta. I will admit that I support raw milk on empirical rather than a priori grounds.
If I bring up evidence to prove cavemen didn't drink milk, you'll blast me for citing sources
Prophecy, accusations, and bankrupt epistemology all rolled into one! How could you possibly prove that no aborigines drank milk? The real point is I think I am being unfairly labeled as anti-evidence. All evidence requires correct interpretation. I was merely observing the fundamental philosophical difference between primal theory and vegetarian/vegan theory. So whats the a priori reasoning for veg? Or am I right again?
Also, have you even had almond or rice milk?  It's essentially milk, just not the out of another animals breasts variety.
and from a scientific/nutritional standpoint they have nothing in common. It would be like me telling you that copper is essentially gold, just with a different arrangement of protons, neutrons, and electrons!
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

How much to you know about irony?

What irony? How is it ironic to research H/Gs, food and primitive survivalism before living as a modern-day one?
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 11:12 PM

Relax, dude, you are flipping out over nothing.

So now a rebuttal is "flipping out"?

What is your a priori reasoning for veganism/vegetarianism?

Vegans and vegetarians?

Its entirely conceivable that animal husbandry could predate agriculture. The same cannot be said about things like roots and beans, potatoes and soybeans, let alone wheat, barley, flour, bread and pasta. I will admit that I support raw milk on empirical rather than a priori grounds.

So...it could.  No hard evidence.  Though, you conclude the usage of plants in diet...cannot.

Prophecy, accusations, and bankrupt epistemology all rolled into one! How could you possibly prove that no aborigines drank milk? The real point is I think I am being unfairly labeled as anti-evidence. All evidence requires correct interpretation. I was merely observing the fundamental philosophical difference between primal theory and vegetarian/vegan theory. So whats the a priori reasoning for veg? Or am I right again?

No, but excuse my language, you may be fairly labeled on making an ass of yourself.  You are assuming your position by default is correct based on a priori, but what's a priori about your position that for all I know is incorrect?  Is your position absolute?  No.

-----------------------

Almond milk: Almond milk is a milky drink made from ground almonds. Unlike animal milk, almond milk contains no cholesterol or lactose. Regular, unsweetened almond milk can be used as a substitute for animal milk in many recipes, and as it does not contain any animal products, is suitable for vegetarians and vegans. Commercial almond milk products come in plain, vanilla, or chocolate flavors and are often enriched with vitamins. Almond milk can also be made at home by combining ground almonds with water in a blender. Vanilla flavoring and sweeteners are often added.

In the Middle Ages, almond milk was known in both the Islamic world and Christendom, where its vegetable composition—being a nut that is the seed of a fruit of a plant—made it suitable for consumption during Lent. Almond milk was also a staple of medieval kitchens because cow's milk would not keep for long without spoiling, and would usually be turned into butter or cheese immediately.

Historically, almond milk was also called amygdalate. It was consumed over a region stretching from the Iberian Peninsula to East Asia.

The Viandier, a 14th-century recipe collection, contains a recipe for almond milk and recommends its use as a substitute for animal milk during fast days

Rice milk: Rice milk is a kind of grain milk processed from rice. It is mostly made from brown rice and commonly unsweetened. The sweetness in most rice milk varieties is generated by a natural enzymatic process, cleaving the carbohydrates into sugars, especially glucose, similar to the Japanese amazake.  Some rice milk kinds may nevertheless be sweetened with sugarcane syrup or other sugars.

Rice milk is made by pressing the rice through a mill stream using diffusion to strain out the pressed grains. It is sometimes also made at home using rice flour and brown rice protein, or by boiling brown rice with a large volume of water, blending and straining the mixture. Recipes are available on the internet.

Soy milk: Soy milk (also called soya milk, soymilk, soybean milk, or soy bean juice) and sometimes referred to as soy drink/beverage is a beverage made from soybeans. A traditional staple of Chinese and Japanese cuisine, it is a stable emulsion of oil, water, and protein. It is produced by soaking dry soybeans and grinding them with water. Soy milk contains about the same proportion of protein as cow's milk: around 3.5%; also 2% fat, 2.9% carbohydrate, and 0.5% ash. Soy milk can be made at home with traditional kitchen tools or with a soy milk machine.

The coagulated protein from soy milk can be made into tofu, just as dairy milk can be made into cheese.

The oldest evidence of soy milk production is from China where a kitchen scene proving use of soy milk is incised on a stone slab dated around AD 25–220.  It also appeared in a chapter called Four Taboos (Szu-Hui) in the AD 82 book called Lunheng by Wang Chong, possibly the first written record of soy milk. Evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and widespread usage before then is unlikely.

-----------------------

What's so processed and unnatural about almond, rice, and soy milk?

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James replied on Sat, Feb 11 2012 11:53 PM

RothbardsDisciple:
John, did he ever provide you those links you asked for several times? >_>

What do you think?

 

Whattya say, Freedom4Me73986?  You're apparently into proof and actual support ("you need to do research") for claims people make.  So how about some support for some of your claims?  We can start with your claim that "A TON of polls before the primary had Dr. Paul and Obamney tied at 1st. Some had Dr. Paul ahead by a few points."

How about some links??

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 768
Points 12,035
Moderator
ladyattis replied on Sun, Feb 12 2012 1:06 AM

Um, I liek cheez. :3~

"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization.  Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism.  In a market process." -- liberty student

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Feb 12 2012 9:16 AM
So now a rebuttal is "flipping out"?
no, you failed to rebut anything. You flipped out. 
Vegans and vegetarians?
Could you put this a priori assumption from which your diet is logically derived in the form of a complete sentence?
So...it could.  No hard evidence.  Though, you conclude the usage of plants in diet...cannot.
equivocation/strawman. I never said that using plants in diet cannot predate ag. And, naturally I dont have much forensic evidence of events/behaviors that occurred tens of thousands of years ago. OH TEH NOES HE DODDNT HAS TEH EVIDENCE, BURN HIM

what I do conclude is that humans in aboriginal society did not subsist on diets that exclude animal fats, proteins, and micronutrients. I never said they excluded plants, I maintain that they include animal products and exclude processed foods. Because of my prior knowledge that they did not have the surplus labor necessary to turn these things into something edible. And, I havent seen any vegetarian or vegan diets that avoid processed and totalitarian-agriculture-produced foodstuffs. Since you do not have tens of thousands of years in the EEA verifying that your diet is suitable for human consumption, you have to provide that data yourself. Thats all I said, and you overreacted with all this defensive verbage. 

No, but excuse my language, you may be fairly labeled on making an ass of yourself.  You are assuming your position by default is correct based on a priori, but what's a priori about your position that for all I know is incorrect?  Is your position absolute?  No.
your language is excused. Calm down. My a priori assumption is that all extant human genetic stock is de facto healthiest when consuming a diet that most resembles the food they would have had access to in the EEA. Does that satisfy you?

And no, when I live in the city and I dont have access to grass-fed beef every day, and doughnuts are thrust upon me at work twice a week, my dietary philosophy is not absolute. And, aborigines would not have turned down easy calories like free doughnuts EITHER. this is simply because calories were much more scarce pre-totalitarian ag.

for the record, I am not infatuated with h/g like some others on this planet. I understand that hunting and gathering are just two ways of obtaining food among the many that aboriginal tribes employed. The important point to take away is that Cain's invention of totalitarian agriculture changed human society worldwide by giving humans access to more calories, therefore making it possible to have division of labor and capital goods. With this surplus of labor came processed foods.

What's so processed and unnatural about almond, rice, and soy milk?
well how do you get the soybeans, rice, and almonds? Especially in quantities that allow you to make milk? That requires totalitarian ag, which requires division of labor. This absolutely did not exist on this planet prior to 6000 BC and if you want to contest that statement, the burden of proof is on you.

so you have a complex society that is able to support the farmers during the planting and growing seasons, so when the harvest comes they can take their soybeans, rice, and almonds to the milkery where other workers process it into beverages. The cultivation (almond trees dont bear fruit until their third year), harvesting, and processing of almonds is too calorie intensive for aborigines, which means humans have been eating it for less than 10k years, which means that our period for evolutionary adaptation is the blink of an eye and consists of genetic drift not survival of the fittest. At this point the adversary polemicist might observe that survival of the fittest has occurred, because if almond milk was poison humans would have died before passing the recipe on. What we can logically conclude is that the vast majority of humans who had fatal or severe reactions to modern food products have been eliminated from the gene pool, which is why the visible, measureable effects of our modern diet are not short term fatal but long term detrimental. This is why I alluded to the dichotomy between "healthy" and healthy in the post that you interpreted as an attack (it wasnt).

rice and soy are definitively part of high-labor demand, complex society, division of labor/capital goods TOTALITARIAN AGRICULTURE and require further processing to make into milk, so I really dont see a need to repeat myself, but I can if you like.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Feb 12 2012 9:23 AM
@Freedom4Me73986 1) how much is it possible to KNOW about people who were not observed and left very little evidence? Maybe you should pay attention when people try to explain epistemology to you 2) apologize to John James and retract your claims so we can all get along 3) read more, post less in general
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

@Freedom4Me73986 1) how much is it possible to KNOW about people who were not observed and left very little evidence? Maybe you should pay attention when people try to explain epistemology to you 2) apologize to John James and retract your claims so we can all get along 3) read more, post less in general

It's obvious when you look at the evidence. H/Gs today don't have the same problems we do in civ, not just problems of statism and aggression but also health and mental health problems. Humans did not evolve to eat grains or pasteurized (cancerized) dairy. I'd also think that most humans didn't evolve to eat meat until after ag.

I already apologized to John James.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875
Page 1 of 1 (40 items) | RSS