Post Reply
Page 44 of 51  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 ... 51 Next
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 1:11PM #431
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Mar 26, 2012 -- 12:36PM, christine3 wrote:


Well, I've been at this for about a week.  I have to remind them that what is in current vogue is about 30 years behind in accepting what is the best of all possible choices.  We have a saying...since they are at the center (for the moment) they are the already behind.  What's happening outside of academia will always push academia forward. 




What complete and utter rubbish!  What outside group forced Edward Jenner to develop vaccination or Pasteur the germ theory of disease.  Both were publicly reviled for their absurd thoughts, yet they were right and they proved it using the scientific method.  You and those favoring "traditional" approaches have had thousands of years by your words and yet even now refuse to subject your ideas to any objective proof.  Perhaps deep down you know they will fail.  I am reminded of a comment by Einstein concerning getting a new theory accepted n physics, he said,"First you prove your theory then you wait for all the old physicists to die."  Everyone laughs about waiting for the old scientist to die but they ignore the first part, "First you prove your theory".

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 1:19PM #432
christine3
Posts: 7,354

Mar 26, 2012 -- 12:45PM, mountain_man wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 12:36PM, christine3 wrote:

Well, I've been at this for about a week.  I have to remind them that what is in current vogue is about 30 years behind in accepting what is the best of all possible choices.


You have done no such thing. You have done nothing but present junk science and repeated lies told to you.


We have a saying...since they are at the center (for the moment) they are the already behind.  What's happening outside of academia will always push academia forward.


That makes no sense. "Academia" goes by facts, not by what non educated complain about.




You may not be seeing a bigger picture...there are people outside of academia who can see the big picture because they are not myopic -nearsighted in academia-.  


Times change.  What is important to you today won't be important to you tomorrow.  The youth have the day, the old die off.  All of those types of ideas are here, and though you may rely on facts of your choice, there are other facts outside of yours also, and intelligent people also.


I'm very opposed to funneling more fat and grist to ground meat, which is what the poor people of the country eat, and more starches to bulk up their plate.  It is a shame that the poor in this country eat worse quality because that's what they can afford.  It all gets down to money.  If I were president things would be different around here.


You may be in a soup line within the next 10 years.  Here's hoping you won't be fed s-crap.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 1:26PM #433
mountain_man
Posts: 39,684

Mar 26, 2012 -- 1:19PM, christine3 wrote:

You may not be seeing a bigger picture...


I'm seeing the whole picture, the real picture, not a fantasy one based on junk science.


...there are people outside of academia who can see the big picture because they are not myopic -nearsighted in academia-.


It is myopic to claim that some nebulous "academia" is wrong or bad.


...here are other facts outside of yours also, and intelligent people also.


Yet you have not been able to present any of these "facts" or intelligent people. You've presented emotionally based opinions and junk science. Yes, times change and it's time for those behind the times to start learning about fact based medicine and dump the outdated, worthless, herbs.


I'm very opposed to funneling more fat and grist to ground meat....


Then don't eat it, but that doesn't give you the right to outright lie about it.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 2:10PM #434
christine3
Posts: 7,354

Mar 26, 2012 -- 1:11PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 12:36PM, christine3 wrote:


Well, I've been at this for about a week.  I have to remind them that what is in current vogue is about 30 years behind in accepting what is the best of all possible choices.  We have a saying...since they are at the center (for the moment) they are the already behind.  What's happening outside of academia will always push academia forward. 




What complete and utter rubbish!  What outside group forced Edward Jenner to develop vaccination or Pasteur the germ theory of disease.  Both were publicly reviled for their absurd thoughts, yet they were right and they proved it using the scientific method.  You and those favoring "traditional" approaches have had thousands of years by your words and yet even now refuse to subject your ideas to any objective proof.  Perhaps deep down you know they will fail.  I am reminded of a comment by Einstein concerning getting a new theory accepted n physics, he said,"First you prove your theory then you wait for all the old physicists to die."  Everyone laughs about waiting for the old scientist to die but they ignore the first part, "First you prove your theory".




The scientific method is not the point of my paragraph which you are commenting on.  It is the fact that the two men you mentioned were having to push over the establishment from the outside, that had been in place since the time these two men were babies.  It took Jenner 44 years, Pasteur 20 years if you count Holmes' and Semmelweis' struggles and tragedies, their research which Pasteur gathered from.  You average that out and it is a neat 30 years.


I'm totally immune to retorts such as "What complete and utter rubbish!"  For your enjoyment, I've included an article on Edward Jenner, whose first inoculation of a boy in 1796, culminated in 1840 when the vaccine was finally accepted.  Note 44 years.  Note how the society he was up against was "very cautious"-- a sterile way of putting it.  Wow, how writers need to gloss over what really happened.  Jenner WAS on the outside!


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner


As for Pasteur, we all know the years he spent trying to get the medical establishment of his time to adopt his sanitation methods.  But Holmes and Semmelweis did most of the germ theory work; they WERE on the outside.  Pasteur only proved it, although he struggled too.  There is roughly a 20 year span of ridicule and mocking from the establishment.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis


So, you prove my point.  


Now back to Pink Slime.  Pink Slime is not good for people, and is not needed.  It is just a way to make cheap junk food, to feed to the lowest on the totem pole of society:  children, animals and the poor.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 2:28PM #435
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:10PM, christine3 wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 1:11PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 12:36PM, christine3 wrote:


Well, I've been at this for about a week.  I have to remind them that what is in current vogue is about 30 years behind in accepting what is the best of all possible choices.  We have a saying...since they are at the center (for the moment) they are the already behind.  What's happening outside of academia will always push academia forward. 




What complete and utter rubbish!  What outside group forced Edward Jenner to develop vaccination or Pasteur the germ theory of disease.  Both were publicly reviled for their absurd thoughts, yet they were right and they proved it using the scientific method.  You and those favoring "traditional" approaches have had thousands of years by your words and yet even now refuse to subject your ideas to any objective proof.  Perhaps deep down you know they will fail.  I am reminded of a comment by Einstein concerning getting a new theory accepted n physics, he said,"First you prove your theory then you wait for all the old physicists to die."  Everyone laughs about waiting for the old scientist to die but they ignore the first part, "First you prove your theory".




The scientific method is not the point of my paragraph which you are commenting on.  It is the fact that the two men you mentioned were having to push over the establishment from the outside, that had been in place since the time these two men were babies.  It took Jenner 44 years, Pasteur 20 years if you count Holmes' and Semmelweis' struggles and tragedies, their research which Pasteur gathered from.  You average that out and it is a neat 30 years.


I'm totally immune to retorts such as "What complete and utter rubbish!"  For your enjoyment, I've included an article on Edward Jenner, whose first inoculation of a boy in 1796, culminated in 1840 when the vaccine was finally accepted.  Note 44 years.  Note how the society he was up against was "very cautious"-- a sterile way of putting it.  Wow, how writers need to gloss over what really happened.  Jenner WAS on the outside!


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner


As for Pasteur, we all know the years he spent trying to get the medical establishment of his time to adopt his sanitation methods.  But Holmes and Semmelweis did most of the germ theory work; they WERE on the outside.  Pasteur only proved it, although he struggled too.  There is roughly a 20 year span of ridicule and mocking from the establishment.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis


So, you prove my point.  


Now back to Pink Slime.  Pink Slime is not good for people, and is not needed.  It is just a way to make cheap junk food, to feed to the lowest on the totem pole of society:  children, animals and the poor.




Jenner, Holmes, Semmelweiss, Lister, Pasteur were all PART of academia.  Note that they all did the kind of work needed to prove their ideas.  Give me some proof, not editorial opinions or distortions and I will be interested but so far all you have offered is misinformation, pseudoscience, etc.  Still looking for those studies you mentioned I guess.


There remains NO evidence that the meat product in question is harmful though those who have tried it in ground beef say it is rather tasteless.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 2:53PM #436
mountain_man
Posts: 39,684

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:10PM, christine3 wrote:

...Now back to Pink Slime.  Pink Slime is not good for people, and is not needed.


You have made that claim but have failed to back it up with facts, data, or anything resembling scientific or accurate.


It is just a way to make cheap junk food, to feed to the lowest on the totem pole of society:  children, animals and the poor.


It is an efficient, safe, means of using lean beef trimmings. You've not shown otherwise.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 3:36PM #437
christine3
Posts: 7,354

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:53PM, mountain_man wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:10PM, christine3 wrote:

...Now back to Pink Slime.  Pink Slime is not good for people, and is not needed.


You have made that claim but have failed to back it up with facts, data, or anything resembling scientific or accurate.


It is just a way to make cheap junk food, to feed to the lowest on the totem pole of society:  children, animals and the poor.


It is an efficient, safe, means of using lean beef trimmings. You've not shown otherwise.




You just continue to baffle me.  "Lean beef trimmings" is a clever way of saying fat and gristle; so is "Select lean beef trimmings".  That right there shows the mentality (sneaky!) of the people who use those terms.


More junk = worse health.  But that's okay, who needs poor people anyway.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 3:43PM #438
christine3
Posts: 7,354

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:28PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Jenner, Holmes, Semmelweiss, Lister, Pasteur were all PART of academia.  Note that they all did the kind of work needed to prove their ideas.  Give me some proof, not editorial opinions or distortions and I will be interested but so far all you have offered is misinformation, pseudoscience, etc.  Still looking for those studies you mentioned I guess.


There remains NO evidence that the meat product in question is harmful though those who have tried it in ground beef say it is rather tasteless.




But their concepts were not accepted for years--that's being on the outside.  You seem to think having a degree puts you above others.  It doesn't.  It just proves you can jump through hoops.  There are brilliant people in this world who choose not to jump through hoops, knowing that their knowledge will change the world anyway.


I've read the taste tests.  The meat (because it is more full of scrap filler that holds water) makes the meat taste rather bland.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 4:29PM #439
jane2
Posts: 14,295

christine


You are barking up some strange trees. Believe as you wish for your own sake and live as you wish. Do respect those who live differently by choice and do not think as you do.


Don't denigrate those with degrees about which you know little. And don't assume others do not support programs for those with less.


The private Catholic education in high school and college that my husband and I received taught us to pursue excellence and to look to the "good". We also learned that from those to whom much has been given, much is expected. We lived by what we learned and I continue to do so. Both of us were raised in very intellectual families--books and mags everywhere and great conversation.


J.


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 4:45PM #440
christine3
Posts: 7,354

Mar 26, 2012 -- 4:29PM, jane2 wrote:


christine


You are barking up some strange trees. Believe as you wish for your own sake and live as you wish. Do respect those who live differently by choice and do not think as you do.


Don't denigrate those with degrees about which you know little. And don't assume others do not support programs for those with less.


The private Catholic education in high school and college that my husband and I received taught us to pursue excellence and to look to the "good". We also learned that from those to whom much has been given, much is expected. We lived by what we learned and I continue to do so. Both of us were raised in very intellectual families--books and mags everywhere and great conversation.


J. 




Oh, I'm not denigrating people with degrees at all.  I'm telling him that academia is not where the brains of this planet are located, in total, that's all. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 44 of 51  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 ... 51 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook