Raw milk consumption is a litmus test for ability to conduct research and the propensity for self-determination. Women who drink raw milk are more likely to breastfeed for the same reasons. Bird flu concentrates in the mammory glands of infected mice (and cows apparently).
This is looking more and more like a targeted attack on "troublemakers".
You will drink the boiled swill milk. You will feed your baby the corn syrup. YOU WILL SUBMIT.
what you said on the beginning of a show was great. big agri business leads to more diseases etc. but it also lets us feed more people cheaper. and a few people make a lot of profit.
I'm sure there's some dairy farms doing it the right way and that raw milk is safe. but that's not who they are talking to. they are talking to the general population.
everybody is doing their best to help others and make money for their family. no conspiracy. just the externalities of capitalism.
or you have an audience who wants to believe the establishment/left etc is evil.
otherwise, what's your reasoning for making this exception? where and when do the puppet strings take control? why are they only able to grab power over people with different ideological tendencies than yourself?
If the consolidated 19th century dairies of New York had been razed after the first few kids died from swill milk, would that not still constitute capitalism?
but how? the owners would do it themselves or others would violate their property rights?
I assume it would go down like this. some people would say that milk produced that way is unsafe but the owners would say those were lies and say just buy from somewhere else. don't regulate us. don't violate our property rights. and use their profits to push that message, buy politicians and smaller farms.
I assume pasteurization was not the goal, it was the compromise to breaking them up.
Then the masses are doomed to providing their masters the benefit of the doubt in any instance and will be nothing more than human cattle to be prodded and farmed.
If not the people, who will enforce the consequences of great power wielded foolishly?
that's what a critical thinking education, good journalism and representative govt are all about. it's not making exceptions to this cause "you" think some people are too dumb or you don't like their choices.
Yes... If a family member is killed by a faulty product, I should accept fate and assume that the faulty product was a result of stupidity and not malice for profit.
To fail to delegate my desire for justice to those obviously in league with the product-maker would be awfully anti-liberal and not very Christian of me, wouldn't it?
I think you should get your day in court where a jury will try to determine if the producer did what they should have or didn't. I think you do not have the right to do anything to the producer or his property based purely on your judgement. I think that we have a combination of court cases, govt regulation and journalism that tells us about this kind of thing happening that leads them to failing in the market. what'd I miss?
Our difference appears to be that you believe there is justice within the system as it exists today, and I do not. Selective justice is no justice at all, only a temporary relief from institutionalized extortion and coercion.
Without blind justice, there is no dignity. The victims of this are the people, and whether the perpetrators are stupid or malicious does not matter. The only material assessment to be made is whether the system is capable of justice. I say it is not.
I don't believe in justice. I don't know what that would mean. Seems inherently ideological to me.
What I'm trying to achieve is the best situation for everybody. @amerika claims to want the same thing but thinks he knows best how to achieve that. He has the answers, knows who has to suffer in the short term etc. I do not but I do think the tools I mentioned above are how we constantly work out how to achieve my goal together.
What system would be better capable of justice iyo?
fairness and values differ in families, yet you keep preaching they only differ by "culture" so you can draw your lines and ship off the brown people, kill commies and suppress the gays. fuck the brown commie dykes further along the bell curve than you, apparently. there's no way they'd have better ideas on how to run a society. you don't care about winning arguments. you just want to convince more folks who think they'd be better off in your monarchy, to do the nasty work.
Justice is just perceived fairness. Humans executed their own "justice" for an immeasurable period of time before we began appointing people to execute justice for us on a societal scale. I don't think the ideology of the system matters in regards to justice. Any system can strive for justice and any system can flout it.
Norman Sicily is a good example of a multiculty commercial society where it seems most everyone was satisfied with how justice was executed.
But it's always perceived thru the expectations of that society, and that's where the ideology resides. What is normal and good. When you let everyone have a voice, that changes to try to also encompass their views. It's really hard. It's why @amerika advocates what he does. I get his point but most people's empathy doesn't allow this. That's the liberal part of liberal democracy. You hear their perspectives and it actually changes what we consider acceptable. All the rights movements.
I think we have a really good system and you can't think of a better one. but you don't see how it will give you the world you'd see as just. it's actually going to get worse as the historically disadvantaged get more of the pie.
so you claim there must be a conspiracy at play. somehow this Constitutional thing got rigged. the game is now unfair.
I see a system that could be better but nothing fundamental needs changing, unlike the woke who want no system. just victim olympics.
Add comment