Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't understand why Parsifal's mom's thoughts are relevant.
Earlier in this thread you argued that the government had no business in our personal lives and various points against democracy. It was questioned and argued that the majority has no right to dictate to the minority, particularly in our personal relationships.
When queried about whether your mother had business telling you whether you could have sex with the dog, you responded with a status quo argument that you are over 18 and your mother had no right to tell you what to do. You further argued that the age of 18 was what was generally accepted in society and so on. Further status quo arguments were made in this thread that animals cannot consent.
I did not use the status quo as justification for anything, only as a means to simplify my argument. I already stated this, which you've conveniently ignored:I only brought it up as a simplification of my argument; if I were under 18, I would be making exactly the same argument, except I would have to argue for why the status quo should be changed. Since I am over 18, that matter is irrelevant.
I never once made the claim that, if I were under 18, my assertions would be untrue. If you had posed a more general question as to whether mothers in general should be able to control their children's lives, then you might have a point, but instead you inexplicably decided to focus on my mother. That makes mothers of under-18s irrelevant, and therefore a discussion of the restrictions imposed on under-18s by the government irrelevant.
If I have made one error in judgment, it was giving you fodder to pick on beside my main point. My main point is, and always has been, that my mother is irrelevant. Any further discussion should be in response to that point, please.
This is entirely antipodal to your original anti-democracy arguments that the government had no business in our personal lives. By framing your response under the justification that the age of 18 is the generally accepted status quo, for when your mother can and cannot tell you things, the subtext is that we should have democratic authorities telling us what to do.
Ignoring what I've said and repeating yourself isn't going to change my response. If you'd like to continue pretending that the status quo is the same thing as democracy, perhaps you'd care to answer this question I posed previously?Aside from being mistaken, you are also wrong, in that what is generally accepted by society at large does not necessarily align with the laws created by a democratic government, especially a representative democracy which is limited by a constitution. To suggest otherwise would be to accept that same-sex marriage is generally accepted by American society because it is now legal in the US. Which is it, Tom?
Yes, I imagine you would have a tough job explaining how it is relevant. That's most likely why you ignored my claims of irrelevance and focused on the unimportant parts of what I said to begin with.
I never said that your mom was the government. You are using government laws as justification for what you can or can't do with your dog, or what your mom does or does not have a right to tell you, and the point was made.
No, that's not what my argument is at all. In fact, my primary response to your question has consistently been that it is irrelevant.
I have made no argument against my mother having the right to tell me not to fuck dogs because it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. All I did was answer your question to humour you. My argument cannot have any justification if it does not exist.
Aside from being mistaken, you are also wrong, in that what is generally accepted by society at large does not necessarily align with the laws created by a democratic government, especially a representative democracy which is limited by a constitution. To suggest otherwise would be to accept that same-sex marriage is generally accepted by American society because it is now legal in the US. Which is it, Tom?
No the basis of the argument is that, as a consenting adult, which is a relative term that can have varying definitions, my mother has no authority, moral or otherwise over me.
Irrelevant. My mother is not the government.
However, as I am over the age of 18, the answer is also no.
I suppose if you are going to imagine that dogs are consenting to sex, then there is not much point to this parable since it won't compare to the world we actually live in.
I didn't say anything about laws or legalities. Having sex with animals is wrong because they can't agree to it, and so is abusive to them. I suspect that what you asked is supposed to be some kind of loaded "have you stopped beating your wife?" trick question, so I'll just say that anyone has the moral right to stop anyone else from trying to have sex with an animal.
Animals can't consent to sex. Neither can children.
Why should gay marriage be legal?
Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.
The government has no business telling gays they can't marry. It also has no business telling religious institutions they must recognise gay marriages.
Is garlic anti cancer in nature? There is indeed a clear link between garlic and cancer reduction, as demonstrated by traditional wisdom and numerous studies.
During ancient times, garlic was used for the treatment of uterine cancer. Hippocrates, who is widely regarded as and referred to as the Father of Modern Medicine, was said to have used garlic to treat cancerous tumors.
Researchers have found that allicin, a chemical found in garlic that gives it its flavor, could be used to fight cancer. A previous study also found that allicin can fight MRSA, or staph infection. Although allicin is toxic, it breaks down quickly and harmlessly when eaten. The chemical is not present in unbroken cloves of garlic, but is produced when the clove is broken.
It is through this natural chemical reaction that allicin may be able to fight cancer. Researchers recreated the toxic reaction between alliinase and alliin (the two components that covert to allicin) at tumor sites by using an antibody that had been programmed to recognize tumor cells. The antibody was bound to alliinase and injected into the bloodstream to find cancer cells.
For several decades, modern medicine has tried a lot of toxic compounds, hoping to 'out-toxic' the cancer. And sure enough, the compounds did out-toxic cancer. Unfortunately, it usually out-toxics the patient as well. The result has been that cancer treatments are usually an expensive, painful and scary proposition. But you already knew that.
I didn't go bald or get sick to my stomach!
Fortunately, my Stage 4 cancer was none of the above for me. My advanced cancer treatment cost less than two tickets and popcorn at the movies. My treatment wasn't painful. And I wasn't scared...I didn't lose a minute's sleep...because I knew what to do. If we've learned anything about treating cancer in the last 50 to 60 years it has to be this: half killing the patient isn't half way successful. As I emphatically told a woman in my store recently, "You gotta be healthy to get well! In my own case, I knew by the many lesions I had that I was already sick. I didn't need someone to help make me sicker. I needed to get healthy, so I could get well.
UCLA Researchers Confirm My Method!
Maybe the best place to start with this would be to let you know that researchers at UCLA garnered lots of headlines two years ago because they had done something pretty incredible. (1) What had the UCLA researchers done? They shrank tumors by 80% with the heat from habaneros peppers. That is quite extraordinary in terms of what is usually accomplished with toxic drugs.
It's also worth noting that in the US the State of New Mexico has the lowest cancer mortality rate of all 50 states. They probably eat more peppers in New Mexico per capita than all the other states, too. In other words, the researchers at UCLA made a great choice in examining the anti-cancer properties of hot peppers.
My own success in curing myself with habaneros peppers preceded the UCLA researchers by seven years. And I didn't shrink my many tumors by 80%...I shrank them 100%. UCLA's research results did confirm that my own method was an extremely powerful weapon against cancer. I'm eternally grateful for their confirmation. But then, I used habaneros peppers PLUS two more low tech ingredients...running rings around the findings made by the UCLA guys and gals.
Here's a real brief recipe list here.
(1) Grate one habanero pepper each day, putting it on bread. Yes, you use the seeds. (2) Grate two cloves of garlic each day, putting them on bread and covering with butter. (3) One tablespoon of Emulsified cod liver oil once or twice each day.* TwinLabs makes some wonderfully flavored cod liver oil.
The cod liver oil is not put on the sandwich. One serving of the oil may be taken before or after eating the sandwich with the same meal
I used the cod liver oil because I was not losing any weight or dealing with fluid retention. If I had either of those conditions, I would have used evening primrose oil or borage oil instead of the emulsified cod liver oil, taking 6,000 mgs a day in divided doses.*
(4) Smother the grated garlic and habaneros peppers with real butter and eat it. Organic or raw butter is best. No margarines of any type, including Smart Balance, etc.
If hot peppers didn't agree with me, then ginger is what I would use - and yes I trust the ginger just as much as the habanero to do the job.
That's it!
* The best way to determine which oil I would use can be determined easily if there is pain. In fact there are two ways. One way would be to drink a cup of black coffee with two boiled eggs. (boiled only.) If that made me feel worse, I'd take 1 or 2 tablespoons of emulsified cod liver oil. If the coffee and eggs made me feel better, I'd take 6,000 mgs of borage oil or evening primrose oil.
The potent active ingredients from the peppers and the garlic disperse quickly. So they must be grated each day, and eaten immediately.
1AA - Has your recipe cured my type of cancer?
I have some great news for you. Doctors and TV have miseducated us into thinking there are over 100 types of cancer. There is only one true cancer cell. That means all true cancer cells are identical. They look different only due to the involved tissue.
Doctors call true cancer cells "highly undifferentiated." IOW, they are looking at a real cancer cell but don't know it because in their mind they think it is supposed to look different!
So you can take heart when you read about any of the accounts here. A colon cancer is a breast cancer is a leukemia etc, etc, etc. There is no difference between any of those cancers other than the involved non cancerous tissue and the surrounding pH. Yes, the cancer cells will distort the way the particular tissue or organ looks like. But the cancer is the same.
The Stage numbers given to cancer (I, II, III, IV) are merely describing how much cancer there is and how far it has spread. Staging doesn't change the nature of the actual cancer cells on iota - there are just more of them.
In Dr. Earl Mindell’s Garlic: The Miracle Nutrient, a 1957 study in the journal Science reported that researchers incubated sarcoma tumor cells with the garlic compound Allinase and S-ethyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide, then injected the tumor cells into mice. Tumor growth was completely inhibited and the mice survived beyond the sixth month observation period according to researchers. Mice injected with the tumor cells only (without the garlic compound), survived only 2 months.
The good news is research into garlic against cancer has shown positive results. In laboratory tests with mice, garlic stabilized and actually shrunk tumors. In mice injected with garlic extracts, tumor growth decreased by 30-50%. In mice that were given dietary garlic, the growths decreased by 10-25%.
One study, at the Mercy Cancer Institute in Pittsburgh, shows that garlic can help slow the growth of tumors.
"We have shown that some of these compounds prevent cancer in animals, and we hope that's the case in humans," said Shivendra Singh of the institute.
"We know how these garlic compounds are inhibiting cancer, but whether or not they have some kind of specificity for certain types of tumors, that remains to be seen," he said.
Other studies, some of them at West Virginia University, have found that garlic can inhibit the growth of breast cancer.
Also, says Dr. Donald Lamm of West Virginia University, "garlic very significantly reduced the growth of bladder tumors in mice."
Researchers at the university think garlic may help boost the immune system in laboratory mice, thereby reducing the growth of cancerous cells.
Conclusions:
Administration of AGE (aged garlic extract ) resulted in improved immune responses against experimentally implanted fibrosarcoma tumors in BALB/c mice. AGE showed significant effects on inhibition of tumor growth and longevity of survival times.
The Anticancer Effects of Garlic Extracts on Bladder Cancer Compared to Cisplatin
Abstract
Although garlic induces apoptosis in cancer cells, it is unclear whether the effects are similar to those of cisplatin against bladder cancer (BC). Therefore, this study investigated whether garlic extracts and cisplatin show similar activity when used to treat BC. The effect of garlic on T24 BC cell line was examined in a BALB/C-nude mouse xenograft model and compared with that of cisplatin. Tissue microarray analysis and gene network analysis were performed to identify differences in gene expression by control tumors and tumors exposed to garlic extract or cisplatin. Investigation of gene expression based on tissues from 165 BC patients and normal controls was then performed to identify common targets of garlic and cisplatin. Tumor volume and tumor weight in cisplatin (0.05[Formula: see text]mg/kg)- and garlic-treated mice were significantly smaller than those in negative control mice. However, cisplatin-treated mice also showed a significant reduction in body weight. Microarray analysis of tumor tissue identified 515 common anticancer genes in the garlic and cisplatin groups ([Formula: see text]). Gene network analysis of 252 of these genes using the Cytoscape and ClueGo software packages mapped 17 genes and 9 gene ontologies to gene networks. BC (NMIBC and MIBC) patients with low expression of centromere protein M (CENPM) showed significantly better progression-free survival than those with high expression. Garlic extract shows anticancer activity in vivo similar to that of cisplatin, with no evidence of side effects. Both appear to act by targeting protein-DNA complex assembly; in particular, expression of CENPM.
2.1. Cell Lines and Cultivation
Cell lines: A549 (human alveolar basal epithelial adenocarcinoma cell, ATCC#CCL-185), NIH 3T3
(neonatal fibroblasts from Mouse, ATCC#CRL-1658) HUVEC (human umbilical vein endothelial cells),
HT29 (human colorectal epithelial carcinoma, ATCC#HTB-38) and MCF7 (human mammary carcinoma,
ATCC#HTB-22) were from the Department of Immunology, Cochin Hospital, Paris Descartes
University, Paris, France. Cells were cultivated in complete medium containing RPMI Medium
(Roswell Park Memorial Institute Medium, Invitrogen) containing 10% FCS (foetal calf serum) and
1% Penicillin/Streptomycin (10,000 U/mL) (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA). Cells were incubated at
37 C and 5% CO2.
...
These data show that allicin is an inhibitor of cell viability and cell proliferation in a concentration
dependent manner, but that different cell lines show different sensitivities.
Aged garlic extract has potential suppressive effect on colorectal adenomas in humans.
Tanaka S1, Haruma K, Yoshihara M, Kajiyama G, Kira K, Amagase H, Chayama K.
Abstract
Epidemiological and animal studies suggest AGE and its organosulfur constituents, such as S-allylcysteine and S-allylmercaptocysteine have anticarcinogenic effects. To confirm these effects in humans, a preliminary double-blind, randomized clinical trial using high-dose AGE (AGE 2.4 mL/d) as an active treatment and low-dose AGE (AGE 0.16 mL/d) as a control was performed on patients with colorectal adenomas-precancerous lesions of the large bowel. The study enrolled 51 patients who were diagnosed as carrying colorectal adenomas. The patients were randomly assigned to the two groups after adenomas larger than 5 mm in diameter were removed by polypectomy. The number and size of adenomas right before intake (0 mo) and at 6 and 12 mo after intake were measured using colonoscopy. Thirty-seven patients (19 in the active group, 18 in the control group) completed the study and were evaluated for the efficacy of AGE. The number of adenomas increased linearly in the control group from the beginning (the baseline), but AGE significantly suppressed both the size and number of colon adenomas in patients after 12 mo of high-dose treatment (P=0.04). The results suggest AGE suppresses progression of colorectal adenomas in humans. It appears that AGE has multiple pathways to reduce cancer incidence and suppress its growth and proliferation.
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a "fundamental right" overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds -- minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly -- could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their "reasoned judgement". These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres with what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgement of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
I took a look at the supreme court documents. Here is what Chief Justice Roberts has to say on the matter in his dissent:Yes, there was a vote, and those who disagreed expressed disagreement. Are you going to start responding to points anytime soon?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.htmlQuote from: Chief Justice John RobertsIf you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.
Judges are selected precisely for their skills as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east-and west-coast states. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner, or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single Evangelical Christian (a group that compromises one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.