FOX News is a right wing propaganda network and was established as such by its current owner. The managing director is long time Republican operative going back to Richard Nixon.
But you don't know these things -- or anything else of rational value -- because you are a victim. You are a patsy, a chump, a "mark" -- the kind of Know Nothing that all con artists hunger for.
The really depressing thing about your needlessly wretched existence is that you are being manipulated by people who don't give a damn about you, and who in fact made your existence wretched in the first place. Ironically, you don't even make enough money to qualify as a Republican (the minimum buy-in is a net income of $500,000, and even these people at the low end are laughed at by the people you claim to revere).
Mark Simon's (brief) response to you is right on the money, but there is nothing in your background, experience or world outlook to allow you to understand it.
You're out of your depth.
Okay, let’s say you’re correct “that CC's evidence for it is not logically convincing” (your words). What conclusion(s) do you draw? In other words, what affirmative assertion are you making? For example, are you asserting that the typical American diet of excess salt, fat and sugar is health neutral? You tell me. What case are you making as a function of disputing “CC's evidence for [casein linked to cancer]”?
“I would also recommend reconsidering your own point of view.” My point of view is that the typical American diet of excess salt, fat and sugar is unhealthy. My point of view is based on the overwhelming preponderance of clinical evidence that this view is correct. So, what about my point of view should I reconsider?
“My only intent was to come here and link to Denise's article...” For what purpose exactly? In other words, what overarching conclusions should I be reaching assuming that she is correct?
“...you failed to even remotely attempt to grasp what Denise's purpose is..” Her assertions are one thing. Her purpose in making those assertions is quite another. Her assertions can be (and have been) disputed. But her purpose? We can only speculate. I’m talking to you right now, and I have just asked you three times above: what is your purpose?
One little quibble: there is no such thing as the "Democrat" Party. Its actual name is the Democratic Party, originally named the "Democratic Republican Party" by Thomas Jefferson. But they dropped the "Republican" part after the Republican Party came about in the mid 1800's.
Come on, kids. Nikoley's comment was a put-on.
Just enjoy the comedy.
Posted by IGETIT, March 8, 2014 at 01:24 PM
Posted by IGETIT, March 8, 2014 at 09:08 AM
Posted by IGETIT, March 6, 2014 at 05:00 AM
Posted by IGETIT, March 4, 2014 at 11:25 AM
Mark, Spark's question is valid, in fact anybody's questions are valid, and he was quite reasonable. His question is interesting, and KEY to go from a somewhat informed omnivorous diet to an informed vegan/vegetarian diet, when Health is what is valued. I am vegetarian more because of my ethics than health, but some people are more interested in what diet would be optimal, not ethical. Plus defining well what an optimal diet REALLY is, its important regardless. A diet abundant with vegetables & leafy greens, herbs, Ancient grains (no wheat), some tubers & fruit, and supplemented with some quality animal protein and fat seems to be close to optimal, from what I've learned. Personally Im only interested in optimizing my vegetarian diet, but still itch to know what would be optimal, and what diets are best for treating & preventing illnesses like cancer. Steve Jobs didnt survive his cancer, and he was seemingly going with the Ornish approach (I am aware of the other problems that may have gotten in the way of sucessful diet/lifestyle intervention), now I would love to see someone that believes in a lower carb, meat, fat & plant rich diet, intervene with THAT diet and see if its more protective.
Would you take Ancel Keys seriously, simply because he was a Scientist? What about his flawed Lipid Hypothesis?
All people -- Scientists, Doctors, English Majors -- are fallible. The person of value and integrity is the one that can say "In light of this new data, I can see that my previous position was wrong."
People all over the world thrive on a variety of diets. Stop placing people on a pedestal and claiming their way is the "only" or the "right" way.
A fact is only a fact until it's proven wrong.
So many things over the last 50 years (especially) have been proven wrong. Yet, we keep the misinformation alive in the collective psyche by continuing to regurgitate it without actually doing our own research.
Example: "Everyone KNOWS that saturated fat causes heart disease!" Right? WRONG!
I'm not trying to convince anyone to eat meat, not eat meat, or debate anyone about the ethics of eating animals. That's none of my business.
What I AM suggesting, however, is to become TRULY informed, before rendering a life-altering decision about what you put into your body. Then, living with the consequences of your decision.
This means going beyond the headlines of CNN and Yahoo. It also means going into the opposition's camp with an inquisitive mind and a desire to find what's true for you -- not simply for the sake of being "right."
In closing, no matter what path people follow, I hope they do it with enough information from ALL sides. Then, they become responsible for their own health, rather than abdicating it to others. When we get so entrenched in a position, we become more concerned about being "right" than being "correct." I wish for everyone to thrive.
i know I'm coming to the discussion a bit late, but i appreciate tedoymisojos observation that Denise came at this (as does everyone) with a personal goal (bias) of solving her own health problem. i find it hard to argue with someone who doesn't feel good and works diligently to understand their own health issues. If we can compassionately look at the common ground between all these so called different diet approaches we can likely help each other on those topics we all agree on. Denise actually eats mostly vegan, and probably healthier than most vegans and vegetarians... despite a few bites of animal protein... no one really knows if she'll get cancer or heart disease, but if she feels better eating 10% meat, there's gotta be more to the holistic approach of health that Campbell has devoted his life to. I would love to see the two of them find common ground even if they disagree on 10-20%. i feel like they're 80% on the same page in terms of what they actually choose to eat.
Imagine if the Vegans, Vegetarians, Paleo's, Compassionate Omnivores, etc came together and worked for real change in the world - We all agree on getting rid of factory farms, big GMO/Pesticide Agriculture, getting rid of political corruption that promotes processed and harmful foods to kids (and adults) and lobbies for misleading marketing, big pharma's manipulation of the public into relying on drugs over holistic health and nutrition.
Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but i would drop my insistence on a 100% Whole Food Plant based diet to work together with Denise and others on the issues we DO agree on and make some real change!!!
One thing that you have to remember is that meat eaters are as addicted to meat as those who use heroin are to their drug.
Try to tell a heroin user, they should stop. They may find out once it is too late, but until then, they will stand firm in the idea that heroin is not damaging their health.
I have also learned to let people see the results by changes in me, then let them ask questions.
Copyright ©2014 VegSource Interactive, Inc. Reproduction of material from any VegSource pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.
VEGSOURCE ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Mostly Magic Productons, Inc.