EPTCalifornia Raids Rawesome Food - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
| ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:56 Gamegene wrote: This argument has gone from food to government to Islamic terrorism to Fox News. Seriously? Fuck. spoilered. I'm just saying he's marginalizing dissent. On August 07 2011 02:59 Playguuu wrote: There was me that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie Boy and Dim. And we sat in the Rawsome Milk Bar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Rawsome Milk Bar sold milk plus - milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old Ultra-Violence. I wondered when that was gonna come up. =) | ||
|
TheSubtleArt
Canada2527 Posts
On August 06 2011 14:34 Disquiet wrote: I'm pretty sure you can eat whatever organic food you want, but if you want to sell it you have to comply with regulations/agree to have your product tested to ensure it meets standard. This guy didn't and got arrested, simple as that. and its nothing to do with the law against drugs, its about preventing selling of food that has not been tested and may not be safe. By the way organic food is a scam its +50% in price for absolutely no health benefit, and it usually tastes worse. This is pretty much it. It's not so much the government forbidding organic food as it is the government ensuring organic fold that is sold meets certain regulations | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:01 TheSubtleArt wrote: This is pretty much it. It's not so much the government forbidding organic food as it is the government ensuring organic fold that is sold meets certain regulations GM-canola wasn't tested for humans outside of monsanto's internal studies, and a plethora of animal studies show numerous health problems, yet it was fasttracked for FDA approval. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:00 caradoc wrote: spoilered. I'm just saying he's marginalizing dissent. SERIOUSLY?! And it seems to me that posts like these on TL are made by the same bunch of anti-government extremists. That prompted a tirade of nonsensical accusations? Jesus Christ get some thicker skin. JUST SAYIN'. | ||
|
taLbuk
Madagascar1879 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:04 caradoc wrote: GM-canola wasn't tested for humans outside of monsanto's internal studies, and a plethora of animal studies show numerous health problems, yet it was fasttracked for FDA approval. Just wanted to post in this thread after reading through it, every single one of your posts is so single minded and condescending it's ridiculous, are you even looking for discussion? or just fishing for debate. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:07 Gamegene wrote: SERIOUSLY?! That prompted a tirade of nonsensical accusations? Jesus Christ get some thicker skin. JUST SAYIN'. not attacking the person per se, though I guess I could have left the fox news comment out. To me I was more talking about the cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated. In that sense, it wasn't an accusation at all, it was merely pointing out the ability for him to make that comment without the comment itself being seen as absolutely ridiculous and unwarranted. The fact that his comment made some sense in the context that it is, points to deeper cultural/conceptual notions that people should think about. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:13 caradoc wrote: not attacking the person per se, though I suppose I could have left the fox news comment out. I suppose I was more talking about the cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated. I suppose I was more talking about your cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated. Don't you find this even slightly ironic? (probably using that word wrong) | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:16 Gamegene wrote: I suppose I was more talking about your cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated. Don't you find this even slightly ironic? (probably using that word wrong) I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post. I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all. He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo. | ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it. You can bet the reason this is getting raided is because of dairy/agra lobbies to state and federal representatives. It's just sickening how horrendous this country and the world at large is becoming. This has nothing to do with regulating individual consumer choice. It has to do with regulating a non-compliant business. If we had a totally free food market, sickness would run even more rampant. Look back at the 19th century: prior to the FDA regulation of food in the United States, cost-cutting, harmful adulterants ran rampant in food. And just because this is a co-op/small natural foods grocer doesn't make them inherently better or more ethical than a large corporation. The analogy to cigarettes and alcohol doesn't stand up. We don't consume those things for nourishment in the traditional sense. And they are accompanied with warning labels. The article states that this is not a random raid, but rather a project that has been in the works since 2005. TL;DR Pure individualism/unadulterated choice in the free market of food is not only a myth, but it would be undesirable and horrific and corporations (and small co-ops) would have no incentive to concern themselves with the public health. Regulation is not ideal, but it beats anarchy when it comes to food. | ||
|
S.O.L.I.D.
United States792 Posts
On August 06 2011 15:21 Nagano wrote: Guess what, if you wanted coke and meth, you could get it. If some mindless crackhead can score it daily, so can you. The point is less govt intervention, more freedom. Oh, you know, the principles upon which this country was founded. You honestly believe, that in the 21st century, if substances like marijuana were made legal, its usage would RISE? I want to live in a country where if I wanted raw humane milk, I could get it from farmer John down the block. Every year new laws are being put in place widely influenced by big agro. That's not the road I'd want to continue down. No fucking shit you can get drugs, where anywhere did I say someone couldn't? You're not even responding to what I said, marijuana's usage rising has absolutely nothing to do what I said. Honestly your post is making my brain hurt, every time I read it I start getting a fucking headache. | ||
|
bakesale
United States187 Posts
If people were allowed to sell unpasteurized milk, the consumers would get tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, etc. These are life-threatening illnesses. Some of them are contagious, so you are posing a risk to others as well. Pasteurization takes away some of the nutritional content of the milk, but removes the deadly diseases. This is literally a life-and-death issue, and the law is perfectly justified. Organic milk is a different issue entirely, whether it's regular or organic milk it's still pasteurized before being sold. | ||
|
Roeder
Denmark735 Posts
Science.. how does it work? Also; Who in the living hell sells organic food or products in general, before reading what's legal and what's not. Especially with everyday groceries. Shop-owner should've seen it coming. That being said, a raid is quiet unnecessary, and they should have told/warned the owners before taking it to such measures. They're overreacting. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Ooh how i wish i could roof my house with asbestos. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:18 caradoc wrote: I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post. I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all. He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo. You took the phrase "anti government extremists" and accused him of "marginalizing dissent" with a ludicrous explanation. You have no right to talk. | ||
|
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
| ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On August 07 2011 00:35 Whitewing wrote: Well, normally I'd be completely on board with you hating on the government for telling people what they can or cannot do, but in this case it is warranted. Raw milk like that can be a breeding ground for bacteria or any number of things, and can be exceptionally dangerous. This may come as a surprise to people, but 'organic' (What is that supposed to mean anyway? I'd like to see food that is inorganic) food isn't actually healthier or better for you, and is often more likely to get you sick do to a lack of protection from contaminants. All that nasty scientific modified food? Yeah, that stuff is way safer and healthier most of the time, as long as you aren't eating twinkies etc. The fact is, the chemicals that are used to make all that wonderful tasty food that most people eat are not dangerous an are in fact quite helpful. Yay science! That doesn't mean the government should ban you from eating the food, just informing you that it may be dangerous and shutting down any false advertizing. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:38 OsoVega wrote: That doesn't mean the government should ban you from eating the food, just informing you that it may be dangerous and shutting down any false advertizing. It's a health hazard to the public. One hippie stuffing his face with this raw milk and he's going to be infecting dozens of people with whatever he ends up with. If only the consumer of this stuff ended up fucked i wouldn't care but ill be damned if people get to turn themselves into walking epidemics because they aren't 100% in the head and think normal food is out to kill you. The idea of freedom isn't to get to a point where we can re-introduce diseases that we have otherwise pretty much killed off. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On August 07 2011 03:38 OsoVega wrote: That doesn't mean the government should ban you from eating the food, just informing you that it may be dangerous and shutting down any false advertizing. already been explained in the thread they don't ban you from eating and giving yourself weeks of non solid bowel movements, they ban you from selling that to other people. And the government prevents people from buying certain things like flame throwers or lead filled baby products on a regular basis | ||
|
zocktol
Germany1928 Posts
Also the term organic food is SO wrong, unless you can find a apple that is made in a factory without any kind of involvment of trees. As a lot of people said before, raw milk can be dangerous. Thus it must be tested. Even if nothing happened, the owner was risking seriously dangerous sicknesses of the people that are consuming the raw milk. Hence he must be punished. The comparison to cigarettes is something that is just so far fetched it is not even funny. You don't need cigarettes, if you want to smoke, go ahead and get cancer. No one doubts that not even the tobacco insdustry. In case of food the gouvernment should enforce laws that ensure that food that is sold does not have the possibility to kill you. And the studys showing that GM crops are showing serious health risks for animals, are sometimes not even accepted scientific studies and not published in a scientific journal. This is done, because these studies are not scientific. The best example i have heard was a scientist who researched the effects of GM potatoes on rats. He feed the control rats, their standardized food. The GM rats were fed GM potatoes and thats it. Strangely the GM rats had health issues. If you want to have a real discussion about a scientific issue, which the quality of food is, you need to use science not opinions. And not every study is scientific, even if it is done by scientists. | ||
| ||
