It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You Are Too Dumb To Decide What To Eat

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to [url= by Unst0ppable0ne[/url]
 


I am no milk expert but I like milk. I earn the money to buy milk. I can buy raw or pasteurized. You know why?

I will tell you why......

It is my life, not your life, and not the government's life.




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 



Nothing to do with choosing what you can eat, or with Obama. They refuse to get a health permit and they got shut down, not that they apparently care about laws since they opened back up a few days later.


I notice a lot of these types of outcomes in threads like this...especially from this OP. OP makes claim that Obama wants to do this because "this" happened...but holy crap...look at the concrete evidence that doesn't support the OP.....:sigh:

OP: You need to learn to read what you're posting...and if you're fully aware of what you're posting, then you should be banned for willfully posting misleading articles.

If the government shuts down the illegally operated food place, you scream like ignorant children and make threads like this one.

If the government does nothing and doesn't shut them down, you make other threads that say the government either doesn't give a crap about us, thats why they didnt move in and shut down, or that it's owned by the government and is setup to poison us all with a mind-control serum that is meant to turn us into a zombie race of brain dead slaves to build a stone temple to the heavens.

You live in a very selective world...and it must be VERY nice to live there.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by Snarf]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by illusions
Surely you missed the following information poated by mnemeth1?


No I did not miss it... I asked for proof (like both of you did) and I still haven't seen any.

Even then your arguement is non-existent, and you don't even realize how hilariously dumb it is!


Use logic!

Not all raw milk is contaminated, and not all pastuerized milk is not contaminated. All pastuerized milk is originally raw milk......... so it is completely possible for pastuerized milk to be contaminated more than raw milk.... especially when they come from different sources! This doesn't prove anything except that pastuerization of raw milk is not a end all to contamination!

OMG the stupidity!

Think of it like this, ok? Replace "raw milk" with "ocean water". Your source is basically saying that straight ocean water was less contaminated than filtered ocean water between a certain length of time. It doesn't state what area the straight ocean water and filtered ocean water was taken from, it doesn't state how contaminated the ocean water was before they tried to filter it... and it still doesn't even prove that what it says is correct!

I can't even debate with this level of stupidity, there is nothing left, you lost the debate so bad that I can't even fathom how you continue.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

Originally posted by illusions
Surely you missed the following information poated by mnemeth1?

No I did not miss it... I asked for proof (like both of you did) and I still haven't seen any.
Even then your arguement is non-existent, and you don't even realize how hilariously dumb it is!

Use logic!
Not all raw milk is contaminated, and not all pastuerized milk is not contaminated. All pastuerized milk is originally raw milk......... so it is completely possible for pastuerized milk to be contaminated more than raw milk.... especially when they come from different sources! This doesn't prove anything except that pastuerization of raw milk is not a end all to contamination!
OMG the stupidity!
Think of it like this, ok? Replace "raw milk" with "ocean water". Your source is basically saying that straight ocean water was less contaminated than filtered ocean water between a certain length of time. It doesn't state what area the straight ocean water and filtered ocean water was taken from, it doesn't state how contaminated the ocean water was before they tried to filter it... and it still doesn't even prove that what it says is correct!
I can't even debate with this level of stupidity, there is nothing left, you lost the debate so bad that I can't even fathom how you continue.


This is the report posted by mnemeth1

Quote from mnemeth1...
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

I love this part of the article:

According to a Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) report, between 1980 and 2005, there were ten times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than there were from raw milk. And most of the reports that link illness outbreaks with raw milk provide little or no evidence that raw milk was even the culprit.
End Quote.

Are you stating that the information in this report is incorrect?

Respectfully,
Illusions



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
This is the 3rd thread today I could post a link to one of my threads.

Damn it people, YOU MAY NOT EAT WHAT YOU WANT!

You are TOO DUMB to make that decision.

Raw milk and other non pasteurized, non homogenized, non additive rich, non approved items YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to have.

For your information, RAW MILK IS A CLASS 1 controlled substance and you will not be allowed to drink it!


Got milk? Is the newest question to be asked by the police of the US.


[edit on 7/26/2010 by endisnighe]





posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by EinsteinLight
reply to [url= by Unst0ppable0ne[/url]
 


I am no milk expert but I like milk. I earn the money to buy milk. I can buy raw or pasteurized. You know why?

I will tell you why......

It is my life, not your life, and not the government's life.


You can buy whatever you want. It becomes a problem when you try to sell it though.

Let me ask you something... Do you think it is ok for people to fill water bottles with dirty contaminated gutter water, and sell it, and market it to people like it is safe to drink? Do you think it is ok for any homeless bum on the street to find empty used water bottles, fill them with dirty rain water, and sell them to people as if they were safe to drink (even when they didn't test it)??

If you want to drink dirty water, all the power to you. If you want to sell dirty water for human consumption, expect some issues from people who care about others.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by illusions
 


Wow, ok you are going on ignore. That is the third time you repeated that quote after someone already posted it. So that quote has been posted about 4 times, and I replied to it twice pointing out how stupid it is, and you totaly ignored it. So you are going on ignore.

One last time...

Pastuerized milk is originally raw milk! Pastuerization does NOT, I repeat, does NOT, does NOT, does NOT, remove all contamination.

If that pastuerized milk was not pastuerized it would be "raw" and still contaminated!


All you are doing is proving that milk in general is not safe to drink. That quote is basically USELESS in this argument about the risks of raw milk.

Raw milk has greater chances of being contaminated than does pastuerized milk. Just like unfiltered water has greater chances of being dirty than does filtered water.



This is getting beyond retarded!


[edit on 26-7-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 



Do you think it is ok for people to fill water bottles with dirty contaminated gutter water, and sell it, and market it to people like it is safe to drink?


As the evidence shows, raw milk is safe to drink. It's just as safe as pasteurized milk if its handled correctly. It's just as dangerous as pasteurized milk if its not.

As to your example, people would find out rather quickly that the vendor who is selling bad water is not to be trusted. Stores would cease to carry his product. People would stop buying his product. And if anyone got violently ill from his product they could sue him.

The market would put him out of business in a day.

No laws required.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 

As the evidence shows, raw milk is safe to drink.


It is safe to drink when it is not contaminated. I can agree with that..

However, how do you know when it is contaminated or not if you don't test it? You can't test every single drop of milk for contamination, that would be far too time consuming and expensive for any compnay or person.

The safest way to insure that every drop is not contaminated is to pastuerize all the milk (and even that is not 100% effective).


Originally posted by mnemeth1
It's just as safe as pasteurized milk if its handled correctly.


Not entirely true. Pasteurized milk has a greater chance of being less contaminated because it was run through a process that reduces contamination.



Originally posted by mnemeth1
It's just as dangerous as pasteurized milk if its not.


No, not correct. Raw milk is more dangerious than pasteurized milk because it wasn't run through the process which removes some contamination. So it will always have more contamination than pasteurized milk.

I think you need to get your facts and logic sorted out, you are all sorts of wrong.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
As to your example, people would find out rather quickly that the vendor who is selling bad water is not to be trusted. Stores would cease to carry his product. People would stop buying his product. And if anyone got violently ill from his product they could sue him.


People will "find out" the hard way, WHEN THEY ARE DEAD. It's hard to sue somone when you are DEAD. The best thing to do is PREVENT people from being able to sell bad water before people learn it is bad the hard way.

If the world worked the way you wanted, people could sell million of bottles of bad water until finally someone got sick and died. They settle in court, pay a large sum, then change their business name and do it again.



Originally posted by mnemeth1
No laws required.


Your fantasy world is not very well thought out.

Hey I got some water for sale, you want to buy some? You can't sue me when you are 6 feet under, and I get to run away with your money.


[edit on 27-7-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


I don't really give a crap if its as dangerous as arsenic, you have no right to tell me I can't buy it.

That's the bottom line.

Of course, its not as dangerous as arsenic. It's not even as dangerous as eating sushi.

I suppose you think we should ban sushi as well.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
reply to post by illusions
 

Wow, ok you are going on ignore.

Raw milk has greater chances of being contaminated than does pastuerized milk. Just like unfiltered water has greater chances of being dirty than does filtered water.



This is getting beyond retarded!


[edit on 26-7-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]


It is commendable to place those whom you take offense to on ignore.

Clearly the above statement is incorrect as the fore mentioned report
clearly showed that there were more incidences of sickness from
pasturized milk than from raw milk.

Filtered water may be less clean than unfiltered water,
depending on the original condition of the water
and the handling of the water in question.

Respectfully,
Illusions



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You can buy whatever you want.... you can buy your own death for all I care.

When you try to sell it is when you get the problems.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by illusions
Filtered water may be less clean than unfiltered water,
depending on the original condition of the water
and the handling of the water in question.


Now you are finally getting it!

Now replace "filtered water" with "pastuerized milk". Then replace "unfiltered water" with "raw milk". Then replace "water" with "milk".

Like so;

Pastuerized milk may be less clean than raw milk,
depending on the original condition of the milk
and the handling of the milk.

This explains the quote that you repeated over and over and over and over.

When your source claims that there is no links to milk causing illness, all I can say is
. There are thousands of cases of people dying from illness caused by bad milk.

Just because they didn't find links, doesn't mean there isn't any.


Once again, your source is bunk. It's propaganda for the raw milk movement, and not even good propaganda.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You can buy whatever you want.... you can buy your own death for all I care.

When you try to sell it is when you get the problems.



so tell me Mr. Orwell, how am I supposed to buy it if you ban selling it?



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
IT is not banned - for Christ's sake...I understand that your are angry that people are raided due to health code "violations". But, the premise of this thread is flawed


You assert that the product is banned in Kalifornia, it is not-

I called

www.followyourheart.com...

21825 Sherman Way, Canoga Park, California, 91303
Phone: (818) 348-3240
Fax: (818) 348-1509
E-Mail: fyhinfo@followyourheart.com

Eight pages based upon a fallacious argument - You just keep on going, regardless
of the information you are presented. Now if you pivoted and changed your argument
I would not care, how ever you keep making the same assertions - I CALLED - this place has carried Raw Milk for 40 years.

The feds have determined that interstate commerce related to raw milk is illegal,
however they have allowed each state to make the in state determination for themselves.

IS THIS NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL WAY TO DO THINGS SIR???

KKKKKAlifornia has not banned the product, federal law has not stepped on the states
with a superseding ban.

So really WTH or you on about? Your ignoring the information I have presented and continuing on like you did not read it -

You are being deceitful continuing on in the manner you are... You don't need a license here to sell raw dairy products, it is not banned as you say and you should have the nuts to stop walking that line.


COME TO KALIFORNIA AND GET YOUR RAW MILK FOLKS




In California, raw dairy products are available in grocery stores,


Read more:

www.time.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Quit telling lies.

Here's the freaking law:
info.sen.ca.gov...


Specifies that raw milk and half-and-half can not have more than
10 coliform bacteria per milliliter.


Such stringent requirements are IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET

YOU CAN NOT GET A LEGAL LICENSE TO SELL RAW MILK IN CA

THAT IS THE LAW

Here's what an organic dairy farm had to say about it:
www.organicpastures.com...


The statement says that OPDC and Claravale have operated successfully in 2008 with AB 1735 in place. This is untrue. We have been degraded more than once and face degrades at this time, even though we are pathogen-free with very low SPC counts.

Contrary to the “clear” conclusion, AB 1735 has not kept harmful products off the shelves. In fact, Campylobacter was found for the first time this year in CA raw cream with “less than 10 coliforms” – under the new AB 1735 standard. SB 201 standards would have provided better protection. Low coliforms do not mean low pathogens.

Pathogen free means no pathogens, and SB 201 would have required this standard.




[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
This is all ridiculous. Few deaths are ever conclusively attributed to raw milk. You keep speaking of contaminants. What exactly are you referring to? Chemical, raw milk is normally from antibiotic free and hormone free cows. So processed milk has much more chemical contaminants. If you mean biological, raw milk has to pass the same testing as other milk, so there is no greater risk there. Healthwise however, processed milk is horrible for you, contributing to asthma, allergies, arthritis, and many other immunological disorders, while raw milk is a healthy whole food that even lactose intolerant people can often drink.

Another thing to consider is scope. Raw milk, they are claiming, may kill what, 1 person a year, so they want to ban it. Meanwhile nsaids such as tylenol kill over 7 thousand annually, and they cant push it enough? Come on, tell me there's no agenda there.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Leave it to mnemeth1 to spin a story to push his agenda.

I want to debate in a rational, fact-based way...but it's like arguing with a big sign that reads 'government=bad'. No matter how calm, rational and compelling my argument may be, the sign will still be the same.

This place broke the law and were shut down. Yes mnemeth1 and endisnighe, some people are too stupid to do smart things...I know, in your warped world you promote the culling of the herd so your master race of freemen can rule 'themselves'. I don't see it that way and thank god my government doesn't either.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

Originally posted by illusions
Filtered water may be less clean than unfiltered water,
depending on the original condition of the water
and the handling of the water in question.


Now you are finally getting it!


I guess better late than never. LOL.


Now replace "filtered water" with "pastuerized milk". Then replace "unfiltered water" with "raw milk". Then replace "water" with "milk".
Like so;
Pastuerized milk may be less clean than raw milk,
depending on the original condition of the milk
and the handling of the milk."


OH..Now I see. You are saying that the cops should charge into

all the regular grocery stores with their guns blazing and confiscate

the pasturized milk too as it may be less clean than raw milk! Great idea!

I wonder why they have not done that???


This explains the quote that you repeated over and over and over and over.

How so?


When your source claims that there is no links to milk causing illness, all I can say is


I do not recall that the source claimed that there are no links to milk

causing illness. I do recall the source stating that there were far more

cases of illnesses caused by pasturized milk than raw milk.


There are thousands of cases of people dying from illness caused by bad milk.


What is your source for this information? What type of milk are you referring to?

What fact are you trying to relay with this statement?


Just because they didn't find links, doesn't mean there isn't any.


Likewise, Nor does it mean that there are, but...

I am going on a limb here and assuming you mean to say that in the

dreaded fore mentioned report, no links were found to raw milk causing illness?


If so, the report did state that there were some illnesses attributed to

the consumption of raw milk, but that there were many times more

illnesses found to be caused by consuming pasturized milk.


Once again, your source is bunk.


You did just use said source to (attempt) to prove your point did you not???


It's propaganda for the raw milk movement, and not even good propaganda.


Mirium Webster Dictionary www.merriam-webster.com...
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\
Function: noun
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause
or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Interesting. Well, the dreaded report is spreading the facts that the

pasturized milk was found to cause many times more illnesses than

the raw milk did. Whether good or bad is a matter of opinion.

I guess you were just teasing about the ignore thing.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


There is nothing calm or rational about armed men invading a retail store to steal raw milk.

Thus, there is nothing calm or rational about my post.

I am not your slave.

1. You advocate violence against people engaged in peaceful transactions of their own free will.

2. You advocate the theft of my property to pay for said violence.

3. You advocate the banning of something less harmful than sushi for reasons unknown to me, but that clearly violate my rights as a private citizen to freely purchase products I choose to buy.

You have no business being in my life, robbing me, using violence against me or the people that sell to me, or telling me what I may or may not consume.




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join