Sewdo

Yes, possibly. I only mentioned that statistic as a starting place, not as an end result. Currently, other work is being conducted along parallel lines with the same result. One such study which focused on that aspect of the Framingham Heart Study was the Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study by Schatz et al. Paradigm breaking takes a long time, especially with the factors Liriodendron mentioned being against it.

Thanks for the article in The Lancet. I am a subscriber and have read it (the summary, not the entire paper). I, like you, am a recent skeptic of the lipid hypothesis. This came about as I began researching this issue for the health problems my family has, including myself. My father has an undiagnosed cancerous mass currently being treated with radiation therapy. My father-in-law recently acquired a stent due to his reliance on a low-fat diet and prescription medication. (Lipitor, a statin, is the top selling pharmaceutical in the world) My sister has Crohn's disease. One brother-in-law is IDD (Insulin Dependent Diabetic) and the other pops nitro pills to stave off another heart attack. Moreover, I am a cancer survivor with a genetic predisposition to diabetes, which, if left unattended, can cause heart disease as well. As you say, this is a complicated issue. The history of the lipid hypothesis and the subsequent research against it is just as complicated. After a while I found myself awash in contradicting, and sometimes completely inaccurate, information. The latter research--the most current--is coming out, in drips and trickles, against the Lipid Hypothesis. Recently the Framingham Heart Study shows that increased cholesterol levels do not increase the risk of CHD or CHD events after the age of 47. In fact, after the age of 47 the lower the cholesterol, the greater the risk of CHD and CHD events--for each drop of 1% in cholesterol an increase of 11% in coronary heart disease. Now that's what I'd call a brutal statistic. Never mind the fact, as you also said, that most cholesterol is produced in the body, not consumed. There are many reasons for the creation and release of this information. I would point to two primary causes. (1) The extreme popularity of the Atkins diet, which forced medical researchers into questioning his diet and actually doing research to disprove it but instead validating it, and, (2) the slow paradigm shift in the epistemology in medical research brought about by that research. I call this the "Crack in the Cosmic Egg of Cholesterol," ala Joseph Chilton Pearce. In my opinion, Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions outlines the process whereby this kind of transformaton takes place. I also want to thank you for the other links. I am already familiar with Dr. Price and his institute, but I hadn't discovered that particular book yet. I will buy it. As I researched this topic many names seem to pop out: Atkins, Price, Enig, Ravnskov, Taubes, Kris-Etherton, Willett, and Mozaffarian to name a few. There are two salient points I would take away from this issue. First, the epistemology and how it interferes with investigation. The truth is sometimes easier to understand, but harder to find. Second, the Lipid Hypothesis, the stalwart vanguard of the grain and pharmaceutical/medical industries, will fall in time. [edited to add] My primary field of study? Mycology, of course.

Actually, a treaty was signed with the United States government giving title of the Black Hills to the Sioux in perpetuity. When the treaty was violated, laws were broken, and broken by the United States government. Later, the court, in its wisdom and through fairness according to the law attempted to right the injustice perpetrated on the Sioux. -------------------------- As I went about my day and considered our conversation, a thought occurred to me. This discussion will prove fruitless and that has little to do with my mind however open it may be. What has happened here is that many other previous discussions with left-leaning or far left-leaning members have already colored the issue in your mind and doubtlessly in the minds of others here. That being the case, as I said, this discussion will have no resolution. And that is very sad to me because I am certainly nothing like those people with their ideas. To date, I have read nothing by Ayn that I thought even needed tweaking. I am about as far to the right as one could hope to get. I just realize, in a non-jingoist fashion, that this country has made mistakes in the past and two are self-evident, i.e. slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. But... whatever. {shrugs} Good day.

Oh well done. Do you have a link? I did a quick Google search, but so far nothing. Interesting quote at the bottom of your post.

The OP asked, "Are any rights involved in primitive societies?" To search for the underlying philosophical principles to guide and aid us is in the discussion cannot be off-topic provided this is a philosophic message board. I hope you don't think I am arguing the premise that "civilised men are evil." Such a concept is absurd, unless one admits that all men, by their very nature, are evil. That would be a subset of this discussion, but it is not its primary aim. To discuss that at any length would, properly, be off-topic. Was the Spanish Inquistion an example of "civilised man"? (Rhetorical question.) Again, what one may call civilization may be only a cultural preference designed to give bias into what should be an objective discussion. If a primative thinks he has rights to a parcel of land, that will be preeminent in the way others act with him over it. Were wars started? Were negotiations held? Etc. I don't require that. What I require is that we recognize that primatives thought they had rights to parcels of land, e.g. the specific area where they hunt etc. Indeed. However, the fact that ranchers now "own" the land is precisely the point. Is their ownership derived from an objective moral standard recognized and entered into by all parties in the original agreement(s)? I think some instances would point to an affirmative answer while others would not. When the "objectivity" is weighed and biased it is precisely unobjective, thereby negating the points it hopes to make. No, I mean at the time. However, I challenge the notion that "anarchy prevailed" and the subsequent "civilization" are nothing but dissimilar cultural concepts within the groups themselves at the time of the original differences between them. The logic is straighforward. If the highest court in the land found that there were egregious offenses to the original owners of the land, it might well be that there were, in fact, offenses. The court evaluated and inspected the evidence and found that the rights, including property rights, of the Sioux were violated. It is the progenitor of the claim, or "divine right," that initiated the original offences. Those claims, with that precursor, were empty.

A good question. And btw, if you wish to take this in the direction of subjectivism or relativism feel free, provided it brings us closer to an answer. I have no qualms or investment in any outcome of the discussion. In other words, I have no axe to grind; I am merely trying to learn and understand. To answer that question directly, might does not make right. I own a car, but I wouldn't expect the bully next door to take it because we had a "throw down." Brilliant, well, at least to my way of thinking. Well put. They may be, however, they may also constitute a different class of moral standards where it is easier to apply objectivity. Specific instances should, perhaps, be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I do not see it that way. First, the search for a root cause, or underlying principle, has not merely, as you put it, "devolved"; it is an attempt to understand, philosophically, how we arrive(d) at a principle. Pejorative labels may be persuasive in a rhetorical sense, yet they add nothing to the substantive points of the argument. Secondly, relying "an objectively specified standard expressed in law" is question begging. So far, so good. Nevertheless, the "creation" of a tract of land looks more and more like a figment of someone's imagination. In those instances, you are not "creating" a tract of land, you are using it just as much as someone uses it for harvesting or specified paths or roads or turnpikes. When you erect a fence, you create a boundary. The boundary may be for containing game or whatnot. It may have nothing to do with the concept of ownership. Ranchers often thought they owned land without the erection of fence and allowed their livestock to "free range." Usage is...usage. What we are discussing is a demarcation conundrum. You draw the line at one place; I draw the line at another place. What I am trying to understand is why you are drawing the line where you do. To me, it seems arbitrary. I fail to see the objective standard you are erecting is anything other than an arbitrary demarcation that benefits those with different cultural concepts. I agree. I also note that other cultures certainly recognized the value of a hunting ground or a harvesting area. So much so they "claimed" title to it in their own way. The term 'tract', while weighted to skew the argument in favor of one culture, does nothing to resolve the issue. If this is true, then the court case adjudicated by SCOTUS, in favor of Native Americans with regard to the Black Hills amply proves my point(s). I'll ask you again. Is the concept of "manifest destiny" an empty claim?

Someone else is either a mind reader or making wags.

I did find something very interesting. According to a peer-reviewed article in the medical journal Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10, Number 5 published in the fall of 2005: Each factor was submitted with a footnote from another scientific, peer-reviewed, medical research journal. Here is the link to the paper: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf I found it more than interesting that fat, other than trans fat, was not included as a factor.

Indeed. Argumentum ad misericordiam. I am never moved by the argument to pity. The hachet job(s) on Walmart are from union thugs (socialists barely in disguise) and other corporations like their competitor, K-Mart. And the neverending class warfare between those who are hard-working, industrious benefactors of society and the slugs who want a handout from the State, viz, you and me. I applaud Sam and his family for the success that they are. I shop there as often as I can.

What would I do? I have lived over a year without electricity by choice (a Walden farm phase), yet I would conserve and also try to find a political solution to the problem. To use electricity when they inform you that to not conserve will cut your own power off as well as others seems like the proverbial face without a nose.

By what standard? I am following on this and it makes sense until claims are made about what actually constitutes "actual" ownership versus "imaginary" (for lack of a better term) ownership. A person, or group, uses an area to hunt or fish. It is, in their mind, their fishing hole, hunting ground, what-have-you. If another person or group tries to use it, they are met with swift and even violent opposition. I wouldn' t call that ownership in the normally accepted way, but on the other hand, why not? And that would be? Building a permanent structure? That seems a bit arbitrary to me. Walking through the woods or fields or sailing a ship certainly does not seem to convey ownership. But if that section is a peninsula or an isthmus or what-have-you, could it be construed as being owned? I submit that it can if it were the primary avenue by which a certain individual or group could relocate to their "winter lodging." Kinda like a "toll road." In reference to ownership, also seems to be an arbitrary distinction created by cultural bias. Either usage may, in the mind of the user, include certain rights, which could be their conception of "property rights." What if a group of people used that area for picking berries for 20,000 years? And fought with other groups who tried to pick there? Which, also, seems to be just another arbitrary distinction. Why is that an empty claim? Would an equally empty claim be "manifest destiny"? I do not think that third parties, in that way can make such statements without sounding absurd. Whose concept of property and ownership? Theirs or ours or both of ours? So then the moral thing to do is to kill them or deprive them of the use of certain lands because their definition disagrees with ours? (Rhetorical question)

Hi Kendall, nice to be had. I got that, clearly. As I said I have only just arrived here, but the dynamic was quite evident in his responses as well as yours. There are objectivists and "objectivists." I am sure what I witnessed was just the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, I felt he had the better argument-sans hyperbole. For the record, his statement "land grab" is an oft-tossed about catch-phrase in discussions of this sort. The Internet is replete with examples. The only reason I mentioned it, as I had already read the entire thread which included your substantive argumentation, was because it seemed out of place with the rest of your posts, which were appeals to reason and rational thinking. Pardon me for saying so, but, even when comingled to the slightest degree, they stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb. And I must add that I have never ran across the idea that ad homs were a complete replacement for logical argumentation, just that they could be, and most often are, comingled with other facets of argument. I have read plenty of peer-reviewed journals that written by snotty and ill-tempered professionals who acted like little children. For that record, that certainly wasn't you. I appreciate the fine distinction. While the State may confer legal deed or title to a piece of personal property, and in that way may be misunderstood to be granting a title, which isn't ownership, it is actually recognizing the right of the individual, or group of individuals, for ownership of that piece of property. I am specifically speaking of a thing as property, not just land.

While I agree with what you say, I still maintain that an exact working, and yes rational, definition of harm would be the first step. Where you see the usage of the 'harm' as rational within the quote, it isn't spelled out. Which means any reader could read into it anything they want to. Any well-written piece of legislation contains the definitions of the key term. I have yet to see any definition of harm defined in that way I considered to be rational

Thanks. Currently I am researching most of the journals that have something to say about this issue. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, etc. I also use Medline and a few other sources. The problem is that the information is so paradigm-shattering it either isn't researched or well-researched in the United States. I have come across a few studies from Australia, Canada and Britain that are quite informative.