Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Liriodendron Tulipifera

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Liriodendron Tulipifera

  1. Sewdo -- I copied this directly from a Medline search. If you have access to online journals or print journals you may be able to get a copy of the article: Title: Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and composition of human aortic plaques. Source: Lancet (Lancet) 1994 Oct 29; 344(8931): 1195-6 Additional Info: ENGLAND Standard No: ISSN: 0140-6736 (Print); 1474-547X (Electronic); NLM Unique Journal Identifier: 2985213R Language: English Abstract: How long-term dietary intake of essential fatty acids affects the fatty-acid content of aortic plaques is not clear. We compared the fatty-acid composition of aortic plaques with that of post-mortem serum and adipose tissue, in which essential fatty-acid content reflects dietary intake. Positive associations were found between serum and plaque omega 6 (r = 0.75) and omega 3 (r = 0.93) polyunsaturated fatty acids, and monounsaturates (r = 0.70), and also between adipose tissue and plaque omega 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (r = 0.89). No associations were found with saturated fatty acids. These findings imply a direct influence of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids on aortic plaque formation and suggest that current trends favouring increased intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids should be reconsidered. I have not followed this thread in its entirety, but I will say that I'm a recent skeptic of the lipid hypothesis of heart disease myself. I believe there is very little evidence for this hypothesis in the actual literature. It's based on a few old studies that were poorly conducted around 40 years ago and then everyone has jumped on the bandwagon of the cholesterol-phobia for the past four decades. The situation is complicated but I believe that a lot of this has to do with government funding of research. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute is firmly committed to the lipid hypothesis, as is the American Heart Association -- BUT there is one researcher of the AHA who is now showing that only one type of LDL might be correlated with coronary artery disease -- which would explain why these statins are lowering LDL but they aren't doing a freaking thing to stop heart attacks. Which LDL are they lowering?? And is LDL even causative (as opposed to correlated)? And it may even be harmful... your body needs cholesterol for cell membrane integrity. It makes the stuff, and that's why lowering dietary cholesterol often does little to lower blood cholesterol. So a lot of this saturated fat phobia has to do with government support (USDA, FDA, subsidies) for the grain industry -- which has a vested interest in "proving" that their products of flour, veggie oils, and corn syrup are "healthy". These products are the basis for the modern food industry. And so is soy. Soy is a nitrogen fixing plant and is used primarily to add N back into soils. It's not meant to be eaten in such great quantities, so the food industry has to find a way to market soy. Check the labels on your foods, soy is in everything and it is fed to every farm animal. This was not the case decades ago, and Asians do not eat a lot of soy that is not fermented. Please don't interpret this as anti-industry, but the grain industry has a huge profit margin, and they have a lot of money to invest in research "proving" that their products are healthy. Canola oil as a "heart healthy" food for instance. Meanwhile, the meat and dairy industries, while those products are expensive, are not high profit margin. On top of that, I don't believe they have the moral confidence to support their own products. I believe that they, too, have been hoodwinked by all this lowfat and low saturated fat nonsense. If you don't have the moral courage and confidence to stand up for your own product, no one else is going to do it for you. Try to get a government grant on the premise that it's not saturated fat and cholesterol that cause heart disease, but sugar or vegetable oils. And then see how successful you are. You won't be. What is going to have to happen is that all these researchers are going to have to die off, and we're going to have get government out of paying for food research, before we get some objectivity. And that's going to take time. However, it's starting to happen. I am not necessarily convinced, even, that ALL of heart disease is diet related. But at this point there are a number of competing hypotheses as to diet: that saturated fat and cholesterol cause it (doesn't seem to have much support at all but everyone believes it anyway), and that either refined sugars and starches cause it OR unsaturated fats cause it OR that it's some combination of those two. I haven't studied this issue enough to have a firm opinion on what dietary aspects might be responsible for heart disease. I just don't know. Many people have great success at becoming healthier on the Pritikin and Ornish type diets, too, and those are totally vegetarian. I think there are issues with that but I won't go into it here because it's off topic. I do not believe that this is a big conspiracy on the part of "Big Pharma" "Big Agra" and cardiologists, etc. to make us all fat and make money off our diet and illnesses. A conspiracy can never be that huge. I think it's bad epistemology. I think that most of the people involved (government agents, researchers, doctors) are well-meaning people who are firm believers in these hypotheses, the conventional wisdom, and status quo that they were taught in medical school, or wherever, and they simply don't question or think objectively. Do they even go to the primary sources to see where the evidence is for this hypothesis, or are they simply learning from textbooks and professors? There's also a lot at stake should they be proved wrong. (This is probably one reason the USDA's nutty food pyramid changes gradually and slowly. They already know some of this stuff is right but they can't make sudden abrupt changes in dietary advice or it will look bad and cause outrage among the general public.) Look how rabidly the entire weight loss industry attacked Atkins and his ilk. I concur with Kelly that Good Calories, Bad Calories would be a good place to start. I have heard good things about that book, though I have not read it myself. It has revolutionized many peoples' lives. The idea that fats are good for you, however, is not a new idea that science has somehow recently discovered and published. It has been known for at least 70 years now from the work of nutritional pioneer Weston A Price, and science is now again confirming his research. http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-D...2913&sr=8-1 After reading this book, I myself now eat a diet very high in fat from meat and dairy, with lots of fresh vegetables. I no longer buy skim milk. I enjoy lots of butter and cheese, and I don't pick my skin off the chicken anymore I limit grain products and sugar. I take cod liver oil daily as I believe the USDA recommended values for vitamins to be way too low. Guess what -- I have not gained a pound. I am even starting to lose a little weight on this eating scheme with more exercise. I don't have cravings and the amounts of food I am eating are much less than before because I am no longer hungry all the time. I don't believe this specific regime would work for everyone and there are individual differences. I am sure I will be tweaking my diet for a long time as I learn more. However, I do believe that nutrient dense, calorie dense foods are good for you. Just eat less. The Weston A Price Foundation has guided a lot of my dietary changes and my "library" research. I don't take anything they say as the rock solid truth, but have a huge resource of articles on fat. It's called Know Your Fats: http://westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html Most of these articles then cite primary sources that you could go to if you had the resources. From what I understand, some of this advice does differ from Gary Taubes' book, however, in that WAPF is not a big fan of many vegetable oils. In any case, I do not think there is strong evidence at all that saturated fats and cholesterol are causative. The people who do think so should show it -- and not using popular science articles that are a tool of our government -based, sensationalistic food propaganda campaign.
  2. Yup. And there is a Lancet study that showed a long time ago that of what fatty acids are in atherosclerotic plaque, they are 75% unsaturated. So much for "artery clogging saturated fats."
  3. I move that this thread be re-named: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: Does it Apply to People?
  4. As if dishonesty is the default? I'm not going to continue in playing these games with you, Betsy. What is said is absolutely clear and not framed in sentences with double negatives. Goodbye.
  5. It means that once you have consistent observations about a person you trust for a long enough period of time, you can count on honesty precisely because they have free will.
  6. Socialism is not incompatible with Christianity. Read the epistles and the exhortations of how Christians are to live and what they are to do with their money. it is true that the bible does not advocate handing over ones' money specifically for that purpose so that the state may do it - but rather, that once one is done handing over one's money to Caesar, he hands the rest to God by living in a commune, taking a vow of poverty (and abstinence if it will further God's goals), and spending his life caring for widows and orphans.
  7. Yeah it was a mistake - I could have sworn that was you, sorry.
  8. Maarten - While these disputes are indeed tiring, especially for those who do not wish to actively take part, they can often be more that simply "disagreeing about an issue." One person may have, perhaps, deeply insulted the values another holds dear. They may seriously disagree about what is fundamental to Objectivism. They may simply be evading reality and then denying it. Now, this sort of conflict certainly could happen between two academics in an intellectual dispute, and you are correct, it would not be published, or the insults would be vague or veiled. However internet forums necessarily do not and should not rise to the same standards in publication as academic peer review where a submission has to be approved by 3 reviewers and and editor or two - otherwise there would be little published. Academic publications are not necessarily about an objective exchange of ideas as such. "If their ideas are truly unsupported by reality then it should not be hard to point out where you disagree, but out of the respect each one of us has for the human mind that is all we should focus on." This is a very telling statement about your motives and values, Maarten, and that should be applauded. If everyone used these standards and had a commitment to accepting the facts of reality, this would not be a problem. Neither would we need law enforcement of any kind. Unfortunately, even among Objectivists, evasion, arrogance, or simply the desire to be right can often get in the way. (this happens much more easily on the internet than it does in person. It's much easier to be rude to someone online than it is in person). This is common in any intellectual movement (and common on forums in general, which is why I barely participate anymore). But I have to say - overall, in my 3 years experiencing Objectivism, I have been pretty pleased with the way Objectivists behave, but expecting perfection is unrealistic. "If ideas are unsupported by reality, it is not hard to point out where you disagree." No, it's not - the problem is in getting other people to see the facts, or to stay calm while trying to get them to see facts when you know they don't want to see them - OR the problem is quite complex because highly abstract concepts may be involved that may noot immediately be obvious to another. Such would the purpose of a persuasive book - such as Atlas Shrugged. "This whole affair has been going on for far too long, in my not so humble opinion. I do not think it can be easily resolved" There are two issues here. Either evasion has taken place, or full knowledge is not available to a person on a given issue. THis is true both for those involved in the argument and those standers-by evaluating it. I would argue that for most of those not involved in this imbroglio, standing by wishing these discussion threads were not taking place, it is the latter. While I am new to O'ism, I do have older O'ists friends who have been O'ists for decades - and they tell me that these things have been going on for as long as people can remember. When you hold ideas to be fundamentally important, it's understandable that conflicts inevitably arise and lead to a loss of respect for others on the part of certain parties. Furthermore, when a particular party (both, in this case) feel they have been wronged, it is natural for them to want others to know the full level of intellectual corruption on the part of the other party. And what that happens, and you truly don't respect someone, issues like this arise. Ultimately, it has tobe the moderators who decide what to do with recalcitrant parties.
  9. Why not? It would follow from this line of argument that I can never be certain of the future actions and character of the man I may marry, even 50 years after being married to him. To hold out the arbitrariness of dishonesty at that point would be just that - arbitrary. Certainty in judgment is possible with regards to honesty and depends on two things: how consistent are the observations, and how long have they been going on?
  10. Betsy said, "Right now socialism is the default because not even religion has been able to dislodge it from government or academia." Very true. And we will hasten down the socialist road even faster under Republicans. It's not socialism vs. religion. Religion is specifically adopting all kinds of political ideologies and movements that can be subsumed underneath it - such as socialism and environmentalism - both of which have explicit support from the Bible. If anything can give socialism a new lease on life, it's religion. The real problem is if we get Obama against a religious Republican. That will be a real indication of just how bad things have gotten. As Ayn Rand said, there are limits to voting against.
  11. As for the supposed ultimatum that was mentioned by one poster above, there has been none. Diana made a request - yes, it was harsh but IMO it was well-deserved - but there was no ultimatum. An ultimatum is when you tell someone, "If you do such and such, I will respond by doing so and so." Diana has not done that. Given her lack of participation with or communication with those on The Forum, her decision is easy to understand - this is simply a case of choosing personal integrity over lesser values. For those who participate in The Forum and gain value from it, their decision to value The Forum more highly than participation in NoodleFood is certainly understandable as well. No amount of argument or speculation will result in a consensus on whether it is moral for Diana or anyone else to boycott Betsy's forum, or whether such "boycotting" is moral in any other case apart from hypothetical situations with little application to reality except as thought exercises. One would probably have to know the full facts of the case and the full context of the situation, including personal interactions with those involved (some of whom have not specifically been named and whom some of you undoubtedly do not know) that have, in some cases, spanned years. If you don't personally know the people involved or have information of people involved from those you value highly, these types of discussions will only result in the situation of tit for tat and who believes who that has been going on for nearly a year now. The issue of who is personally honest will not be resolved here or on any other Objectivist internet venue - aside from speculation that only one party is moral, both are moral, or both are immoral. Beyond the issue of who is moral in this particular case - I would like to add there are much deeper differences behind this "boycott" than simply alleged personal attacks, alleged attacks or deliberate disrepect and misrepresentation of O'ist intellectuals on The Forum, and alleged unfair moderation. At the base of all of these three allegations are fairly striking differences in what each of the "two camps" views as fundamental to Objectivism. What role other capable individuals besides Ayn Rand have in more explicitly developing or clarifying certain aspects of the philosophy (e.g. epistemology, psychology, etc.)? Which is primary - rationality or independence? What role does philosophy have in determining culture? This cannot be resolved for any individual without a serious study of the Objectivist corpus. However, a careful reading of the Peikoff election thread, Response to Charges Against hte Forum as well as other and related posts at The Forum, in addition to Diana's post "Who is a (Non-Final) Authority in Philosophy?, and her "Why I'm Voting for Democrats" post, should illustrate to the perceptive observer, who has a firm grasp of Objectivist principles, why such serious disagreements are going on and have gone on that appear to be personal. This is NOT simply about misunderstandings due to the heated nature of how arguments can get over the internet or about personal honesty, although there may be aspects of those. DarkWaters said in one of the first posts here, "I believe it is an oversimplification of the issue to say that their "feud" was just about "a disagreement about ideas"." I don't believe this is an oversimplification at all. I would say it is, to a very large extent, the basic problem. (Mod's note: See split thread for a discussion whether this was an ultimatum, nature of an ultimatum, etc. - sN)
  12. An excellent book about a remarkable woman detailing how rational mind can slowly emerge from religion. The second book is an autobiography of sorts which Caged Virgin is more of a series of essays addressing treatment of women in Islam. Infidel is a much meatier book and is more introspective on the part of Ali. I enjoyed reading this book because it mirrors my experiences, although her circumstances were much more trying.
  13. I'm thinking it's Physics through Induction no longer available. My guess is that the DIM course is no longer available because you can buy the 6 DIM lectures from OCON instead, which are better. I believe the price is somewhere around $120-$150.
  14. My point was to bring attention to the "fleas" reference, which was not a reference by Diana to members of the The Forum at large.
  15. Anyone who cares about this issue can see which statements have been taken out of context by whom by following the relevant links. Such as viewing what is claimed to have been said by person X here in contrast to what was actually said by person X, here. Let the intellectual obfuscation continue!
  16. And I might add that the futility of the Democrats and their "me-too-ism" of religion is only evident that the religious principles as the basis for altruism have been shown to be the more consistent ones. The real issue here is not this party or that one, this religion or that one - but whether we have enough time to spread Objectivist ideas through the culture so that ordinary Joe has enough intellectual ammo to explicitly identify what's wrong with political ideas of today, not just implicitly sense that they are wrong. Only in this way can we actually stop the world being taken over by complete crazies in both parties at home, and complete crazies abroad. Someone here mentioned that the existence of the Constitution protects us from violations of individual rights that the religionists would want to force on us. The most egregious rights violations in US history have been property rights, having never been fundamentally properly identified in the first place. Since those are fundamental to all other rights, I don't see how other rights are safe. Furthermore, if people do not even understand what free speech is, they cannot defend it. The existence of a Constitution means nothing if people (including Supreme Court judges) don't understand it.
  17. The Democrats' ideas to institute socialism, environmentalism, etc. are not consistent. Gore endorses religion as a way to get his controls enacted, but he doesn't believe it. It's just a political tool. He's just a nihilist who wants to destroy for the sake of destruction. Imagine a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions. Can you even imagine this happening? Such controls would have to be slowly enacted, and even a 5% reduction would begin to halt civilization. Americans would never stand for it once it happened. There would be riots in the streets. Hillary Clinton endorses religion as a means of social control, advocacy for universal healthcare. But we can all see she is an atheist. Obama endorses religion and probably DOES firmly believe it, but again, he's using this as a tool to push social spending agendas. Sure, the Dems would cause some damage, but no more than Bush & Co. bankrupting us with a completely illogical war in which the wrong country was attacked. Furthermore, the only Democrat recently elected president was a whole lot more sensible about spending that Bush & Co. could ever imagine. As far as spending goes, Bush's record speaks for itself. He's Jimmy Carter on steroids, fiscally speaking. Yes, religion IS the base of social altruistic ideals that the Dems push, but the Republicans have come to believe in not only that but also believe in religion as the base of state control over everything else, too - such as censorship of obscene images, ideas, restrictions on abortion, etc. They are the ones with the more consistent philosophical ideas. Democrats - most of them - are not out and out communists. They are range of the moment pragmatists who are willing to change course with temporary fixes if something fails: cut taxes here, increase taxes there, institute controls here, decrease controls there. Who could have imagined 30 years ago the wishy-washiness of Democrats today on abortion? What is Bush's motto? "Stay the course." That will never be the motto of the Dems.
  18. There are only a few things in any science that are "obviously directly practical." Why did Aristotle study biology? Was doing so "non-productive work?" How about Linnaeus and Darwin? Were their basic discoveries non-practical? After all, their discoveries haven't resulted in any practical products, for the most part, except that a few plants Linnaeus described are not major workhorses for molecular biology a few hundred years later. Quite a long wait time for return on investment. Sometimes the benefits of knowledge are not immediate. It's much easier to discover new things in the world as opposed to inventing, IMO. I have 60 new species on my shelf, but finding uses for them might take hundreds of years. That doesn't mean the knowledge I've discovered is useless. For one thing, I've enjoyed doing it, and I'm good at what I do and I take pride in that. Secondly, it serves as basis of knowledge for other evolutionary biologists, etc. who might someday come along and synthesize a larger work with what I've done. Knowledge is hierarchical. Darwin couldn't have formulated his theory of evolution without first having some species he described as the basis with which to work. I am often asked why I do what I do (describe new species) and when I first became an Objectivist, I took on a lot of unearned guilt for thinking that I was somehow immoral for not doing something "productive." Yet these same people that couldn't understand my pursuits got all excited at a non-human robot picking through rocks on Mars that possibly contained water, and thus "might" have had held bacteria at some point. I reasoned from this observation that some folks get excited about traveling to some moon of Jupiter's not because the knowledge is actually immediately useful in any way (actually, it's a pure intellectual exercise at this point) but because they see it as adventurous, fun, heroic, etc. A new leap forward for mankind. They are excited about simply asking the question, "What if?" Curiosity is a basic human attribute. In order to survive by reason, you have to take the elements of the physical world and put them together or take them apart to make something new. There's currently plenty of information around for engineers of all types to work with, but their applications of knowledge presuppose that someone discovered that knowledge in the first place. You can't have effects without causes. What if there's no new info. coming in? Eventually you'll run out of info to work with. You don't really the advice of anyone on a forum to determine what you want to do with your life. Determine what your passion is, and simply make sure it's rational by introspection. Don't buy into unearned guilt for doing what you like. If you want to study pure science and discover something no one has seen before, do it. If you want to study engineering and make a product that is immediately useful, do that instead. Man survives by reason, and by adapting the natural world to himself. Part of that process is pure discovery; part of it is application of those discoveries. Where do you think your talents lie, and what would you enjoy and feel the most sense of accomplishment and pride doing?
  19. Oatmeal, yucky... You know, I have made beer before and it is fun. Homemade beer is quite tasty, too, often rivaling the so-called microbrews. Perhaps I need to start a brewery and get a liquor license so I can afford more money for food. No, I just need to get back to work and away from this damn forum...
  20. This is an interesting article in the New Scientist on why genetic modifications may have different physiological effects than those produced by plant breeding. If you take a gene from a petunia and put it into, say, a totally unrelated plant such as a tomato, you can't exactly assume that the transgene is going to be processed in the same way. So some caution is required when selling a transgenetic product - in a way that is not required when creating hybrids between closely related species with almost identical physiological mechanisms. I have no problem with GM foods, provided they've been proven safe and that the industries take care not to introduce genes known to cause allergies to people. And so far, this has been almost exclusively the case. I recall a case, years ago, of an immunocompromised? person dying of an allergic reaction to GM corn when it first arrived on the market, but I can't seem to find any documentation of that or what specific action was taken as a result.
  21. I try to eat on $100 a month or less - but that doesn't include alcohol! I recommend buying in bulk from places like Costco. Oatmeal ( not a personal favorite, I can barely stomach the stuff, but it is cheap), beans, rice, eggs, and other things that many above have already mentioned. Ari Armstrong has some incidental suggestions in a variety of posts here related to a food stamp challenge he is running, I've written about the topic myself here, and depending on what state you live in, the SHARE program may also be an option for you. The SHARE program also occurs in other states outside Colorado. Until reading some of the stuff on Ari's website, I wasn't aware at some of the very low prices you can find at some supermarkets.
  22. I have just been able to retrieve the full text of my deleted post in the Peikoff election thread on The Forum, and will be posting it on my blog shortly (see below). If you would like to see the text and the stated reason it was deleted, feel free to visit my website. Let any and all determine whether my reply, or the comment of the person I was replying to, was insulting. It should be read in the context of the rest of the content of the Peikoff thread on The Forum, which is linked above.More information can be found here as to others' experience on The Forum. This is taking up too much of my time, and this is all I will have to say on the matter here at OO.net.Thales - just so you know, I just attended Peikoff's DIM lectures at OCON. They are significantly different, IMO, from his online course. He has significantly refined his DIM hypothesis (he acknowledges it is a hypothesis, not a thesis, and that it might yet be proven wrong) and has acknowledged that it does not apply to non-intellectual individuals. Therefore, most citizens cannot be classified under the DIM categories.
  23. I don't enter into such discussions lightly when one of the parties is deceased and no longer around to defend himself. I never met Stephen Speicher, and although my interactions with him on The Forum were mixed, I have been silent on this issue for some time because I just want to be a generally polite individual and let bygones be bygones. Frankly, I don't care that much about this issue since anyone is free to visit the Forum, OO.net, NoodleFood, etc. to examine evidence for the claims of either party. Why should anyone be afraid of the truth, if they are honest? But, you are correct. Since Betsy is in fact inviting the discussion, I see no problem with giving her what she she is requesting in this venue and providing evidence for charges against The Forum in a neutral setting, since posts are commonly deleted on The Forum, which results in very one-sided views. (I am not sure whether this is still policy over there.) I have seen evidence from anothers' deleted post indicating that when the information was contrary to Stephen's own views, a cursory excuse was made to delete the post. I cannot post that evidence here as it would be a violation of that individual's privacy. That person does not wish to get publicly involved in this dispute. I do not think it is necessarily wrong to delete posts, or for a moderator involved in a discussion to delete posts, espeically when it is occurring on the private property of said individual. But it does require that the individual in question try their utmost to maintain objectivity. I recently deleted a comment on my blog, and it was done in haste. The software I have does not allow me to make changes in moderation to a comment that I have already decided on. There is no question that I had the right to do it, as it is my property. But sometimes, we make mistakes. There should be no problem in admitting that.
  24. Priceless, Mister Swig. Thanks for succinctly illustrating the evidence, from The Forum, of one of the charges against The Forum. Betsy says, "I welcome public exposure and discussion of my statements and actions from anyone because I have nothing to fear or hide or atone for." We are all entitled to our own opinions. But in the words of Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
  • Create New...