People wouldn't buy drugs if they didn't work better than eating leaves. Many drugs are based on natural products, and many are not. So, what's the point?
The point is never trust a man in a suit. He's trying to sell you something, or he wouldn't be wearing the suit. Marketers are not exactly the best people to decide we need new drugs.
The problem is that women with hyperemesis are hypersensitive to those things. It's avoidance triggers gone way, way, way overboard. It's not loud noises, it's the sound of rainfall, or birdsong, or cars driving down the next street over, or people walking in the apartment above you, or a dozen other things most of us don't even notice. Or the amount of movement required for going to the bathroom, or to roll over in bed to avoid bedsores. Or maybe the smell of food from the house next door makes you sick, if the smell of car exhaust from the cul de sac outside didn't do it first. And forget television, computers or even books. The eye movement involved... nausea again.
Yep, sounds like my migraines alright. Best treatment I know is three days in bed in a room with no windows, filtered air, and ice packs.
Sure, a lot of physical processes are designed to get us to stop what we're doing. But bodies being what they are, sometimes they get out of whack and those processes become dangerous. When that happens, people suffering from body-gone-wild deserve more than a pat on the head and an "it's for a purpose". They deserve real treatments that can get their bodies back to something at least approximating non-suck.
It's all I got for a large number of years. I now attempt to avoid all of my triggers- I don't go out on bright days, I wear sunglasses all the time, I stay away from sharp smells and tastes. And I'm relatively successfull- I'm down from one migraine every other day to one migraine every three weeks.
Now picture having a six month migraine. I think you'd probably be insisting on treatment too.
I've lived it- actually three years in there. But drugs didn't help- drugs was the wrong answer. Limiting input was the answer- staying away from my triggers.
That's the keyword right there. Asprin exists in nature- it's only a tea made out of willow bark. Grow a tree and you'll never need to pay for asprin again in your life; but most people don't know that. Same with most other useful drugs and foods. Ephedrine is wonderfull when you have a cold- in India it's just bread mold.
Why haven't you moved to China yet? They are living your "dream" right now. Why aren't you getting in on it?
China is maoist, not marxist- the difference is large. A marxist society is democratic- mob rule- with votes quite often on the direction to go. If there's a shortage in a marxist society, the next vote will rectify it. A maoist society fakes marxism, but concentrates all the decision making ability in a centralized power, ideally a single man but more often a committee. If there's a shortage in a maoist society, you either live with it or you get run over by a tank trying to protest.
Do you understand the difference between my dream (distributism) and the chinese dream (unified centralism) yet?
Oh, and by the way- college is 10 years in the past and I got A's in my macro and micro economics courses. Within a company, it's a zero sum game between consumers, cost of labor, and profit. Profit has to come from somewhere- it either comes from overcharging the customers or underpaying the labor.
3. Somewhat agreed. Might be why I hate the manifesto, but liked Capital. I'm currently now a distributist. But this was due to you answering the grandparent instead of the parent- I was trying to figure out why you thought being against people being poor was trying to keep them poor, or worse, trying to exploit them.
4.1- I see money as bad because it removes the humanity from the trade; and enables trading with people you don't know. This damages comunity; the extreme example is what we're doing right now, communication between people who can't see each other's faces, and in fact, will likely NEVER see each other's face. There's no way to judge a fair price for a good or service unless you *know* the person who you're dealing with, unless you understand their unique need. The ultimate failure of communism was that they tried to do it for entire nations; the ultimate failure of capitalism is the same. Yes it's tedious continuing to trade only with your neighbors; but deciding to trade elsewhere is extremely destructive.
4.2-In the end, it comes down for me to pure numbers. Trade locally, and you end up generating 8x the value of the trade for your direct neighbors, who repay you by *not* stealing from you (it's always better to have neighbors as rich as you are). Trade outside of the community, and that value goes down, until the worst case scenario of a retailer that keeps the majority of the retail profit elsewhere and uses foreign manufacturers, like Wal*Mart in the United States. 92% of the money spent at Wal*mart will never return to the community it came from; the majority goes to Bentonville, Alabama into the coffers of the Walton family, the rest goes to China. Only a mere 8% will stay as wages in the local community.
So if I have to use money, I have the choice between creating 8 cents of every dollar spent in local trade, or 8 dollars for every dollar spent in local trade. To me that's a no brainer- comparative advantage simply doesn't matter. You can either help your neighbors, or spread your money so thin that it help nobody. Trade outside of your local community is such an astoundingly bad idea that it's amazing any modern country bothers with it.
It's now been 29 years since free trade was profitable for the United States, since we exported more than we imported. That's 29 years of debt, now hitting a trillion dollars a year. How much deeper will we dig this hole before we get the hell out of it?
Sounds like they get sick at a number of things pregnant women should avoid- and thus yes, it has a purpose. It's certainly *not* worth endangering the child for a cure- and there are other options.
Funny- that website would suggest possibly the same symptoms for extreme morning sickness that I get at times with my migraines- and my migraines certainly DO have a purpose in getting me to slow down and relax.
Something that has worked for a large number of women for the past three centuries can hardly be described as "experimentation" any longer. And it's more the salt and starch than the gluten anyway- some women use salted rice crackers instead.
How are the differences in skin between two humans "usesful"?
Only if you accept the idea of individualism, in that the skin provides a barrier that prevents actual merging of cells directly. Beyond that- is there anything else that can be said about it?
And shouldn't you be saying "differences are not useful... in my opinion"?
See my journal entry, about three back- anything in a text-based medium should never be taken as fact, only as opinion. That too should be obvious.
I tried that for a number of years- all it ever got me was in debt up to my eyeballs when the rich decided to throw me out like yesterday's garbage and not allow me to work for two years.
Which completely explains why some people get a 4.0 in college and others fail after a semester or two due to excessive partying.
This does not prove a "natural" difference in ability- as both studying and partying are learned behavior, not innate.
Yes, because people just love to do things without getting compensated for it.
Actually, it's amazing the number of things people do without getting compensated for them; that's the whole point of the hierarchy of needs.
I take it you don't know anyone who sits on his ass all day.
Not without creating *something*, no. The impulse to create is far too strong.
Really? Just to let you know, most work out there isn't easy, sit-on-your-ass-and-get-paid-six-figures office work. It's more like busting your ass all day doing something hard and boring. You think a farmer does his job for the learning that it brings?
Yes, in fact I do- the pay certainly is no reason to be a farmer. Who would choose to be a farmer for the pay?
By nature, humans are lazy, selfish, greedy, and unwise. If it were another way around, we wouldn't need any economic system.
We don't need an economic system- we got along just fine without one for the first million years or so on this planet. The purpose of an economic system is to control a hierarchy- so that the king can collect his taxes, originally.
Please explain how the free market system causes laziness.
By providing goods for people to buy, it frees them up from having to create those goods themselves.
Or they could just go with the time-honored and well-proven "drug" known as saltine crackers, which probably works *better* than something cooked up in a lab.
You acknowledge that your scheme would require forcible redistribution of wealth
Not at all- I only acknowledge that it would require actually paying for what you get. The only reason rich people exist to begin with is because they've found a way to steal from either labor or consumers.
No, they really aren't. There's plenty of actual international law out there which has nothing to do with the UN. Plus, the UN doesn't make law. The UN is probably the furthest thing we have from an international law making body.
Are you saying there's another lawmaking body for international law out there? If so, our independance from them should probably be first priority if we ever hope to make our own destinies.
Not everyone in the US has article 24-27 rights, so when are you starting the "civil war"? Or are you just planning to leave?
I believe that the civil war will not be started by one man- but by many. And if you think I'm going to tell YOU in an unencrypted online communication what my personal plans are for my participation in it, then you've obviously never heard about echelon.
Please explain how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is anything like international law.
The United Nations is the closest thing we have to an international law making body- and they passed this statement of human rights in 1948.
Then please explain what the declaration has to do with your statement, "there would be no rich, no poor, no trade, no money, and no caste system." There's nothing in the declaration about eliminating the rich*, or social strata in general. Yes, elevating the poor, but not eliminating wealth.
It would cost so much to elevate the poor to that point, that money would be largely worthless, thus eliminating the difference between the rich and the poor.
Anyone who things this stuff is easy, or the decisions are simple, has never thought long and hard about drug testing. If you want to complain about drug costs and priorities of drug research, you can have a real arguement, but a blanket claim that texting on group X is absurdly bad shows you don't know the first thing about drug research.
Well, I find the whole industry to be something of a sham- better to let people die than have them preyed upon by the ever-increasing profit seekers making up new diseases to "treat". Did it ever occur to anybody that morning sickness might have a purpose?
Yes- I should think that would be obvious. They are human inventions, after all.
How about this division then- stupid vs. smart or lazy vs. hard-working. Do you think these are artificial as well?
Yes, and that's equally obvious to anybody who actually bothers to think.
Some people work harder than others and should reasonably expect to be compensated to a greater degree.
Yeah, I used to believe that too, then I realized that human beings don't actually vary in ability that much- and after a certain point, it's just criminal behavior.
No matter how you do it the compensation is going to create a division.
Correct- so the obvious answer is NO COMPENSATION.
This is not absurd- it is the primary motivation towards good performance.
The primary motivation towards good performance is learning, not compensation. Compensation and requiring money to live is just a way to force people to do something they don't want to do. And you'll never get good performance forcing people to do something they don't want to do.
I think in a perfect society everyone would work as hard as they were able and everyone would receive equally. In reality there are a lot of lazy and greedy people who would quickly spoil such a perfect society.
Well, if being lazy and greedy is natural as you insist, there's a perfectly reasonable solution to THAT problem- eliminate the genes that cause laziness and greed. But if they are not, as I say, then it's rather easy to eliminate the cause- the free market and free trade.
Yes, to some extent the United Nations is Hippie Fantasyland. Of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been international law for over 55 years now- and I've yet to see any country achieve it. Personally, I think it should be all or nothing- if you want to rule, you should provide your citizens with all human rights- or face execution yourself.
Would those same 'some' say that we should therefore preclude offering them the choice at all?
Either that- or those same some would insist upon all 32 Universal Declaration of Human Rights rules for every human being on the planet- at which point the caste system becomes entirely obsolete, as do the words "rich" and "poor" (or rather, those get redefined as "people who have their article 24-27 rights" and "people who are in a civil war trying to obtain article 24-27 rights"). No government or economic system that fails to provide article 24-27 rights should be allowed to exist; likewise nobody would be forced to take such work because work that insures human dignity would be widely available.
Good luck enforcing that without becoming a fascist.
It's a matter of keeping local control local- I don't expect to enforce it outside of the.25 acres I own. I just wish the other fascists would stop trying to affect my life.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because something is explainable or natural does not remove it from being a miracle.
People wouldn't buy drugs if they didn't work better than eating leaves. Many drugs are based on natural products, and many are not. So, what's the point?
The point is never trust a man in a suit. He's trying to sell you something, or he wouldn't be wearing the suit. Marketers are not exactly the best people to decide we need new drugs.
The problem is that women with hyperemesis are hypersensitive to those things. It's avoidance triggers gone way, way, way overboard. It's not loud noises, it's the sound of rainfall, or birdsong, or cars driving down the next street over, or people walking in the apartment above you, or a dozen other things most of us don't even notice. Or the amount of movement required for going to the bathroom, or to roll over in bed to avoid bedsores. Or maybe the smell of food from the house next door makes you sick, if the smell of car exhaust from the cul de sac outside didn't do it first. And forget television, computers or even books. The eye movement involved ... nausea again.
Yep, sounds like my migraines alright. Best treatment I know is three days in bed in a room with no windows, filtered air, and ice packs.
Sure, a lot of physical processes are designed to get us to stop what we're doing. But bodies being what they are, sometimes they get out of whack and those processes become dangerous. When that happens, people suffering from body-gone-wild deserve more than a pat on the head and an "it's for a purpose". They deserve real treatments that can get their bodies back to something at least approximating non-suck.
It's all I got for a large number of years. I now attempt to avoid all of my triggers- I don't go out on bright days, I wear sunglasses all the time, I stay away from sharp smells and tastes. And I'm relatively successfull- I'm down from one migraine every other day to one migraine every three weeks.
Now picture having a six month migraine. I think you'd probably be insisting on treatment too.
I've lived it- actually three years in there. But drugs didn't help- drugs was the wrong answer. Limiting input was the answer- staying away from my triggers.
the marketers
That's the keyword right there. Asprin exists in nature- it's only a tea made out of willow bark. Grow a tree and you'll never need to pay for asprin again in your life; but most people don't know that. Same with most other useful drugs and foods. Ephedrine is wonderfull when you have a cold- in India it's just bread mold.
Why haven't you moved to China yet? They are living your "dream" right now. Why aren't you getting in on it?
China is maoist, not marxist- the difference is large. A marxist society is democratic- mob rule- with votes quite often on the direction to go. If there's a shortage in a marxist society, the next vote will rectify it. A maoist society fakes marxism, but concentrates all the decision making ability in a centralized power, ideally a single man but more often a committee. If there's a shortage in a maoist society, you either live with it or you get run over by a tank trying to protest.
Do you understand the difference between my dream (distributism) and the chinese dream (unified centralism) yet?
Oh, and by the way- college is 10 years in the past and I got A's in my macro and micro economics courses. Within a company, it's a zero sum game between consumers, cost of labor, and profit. Profit has to come from somewhere- it either comes from overcharging the customers or underpaying the labor.
So who exactly mucks out the stables in your world?
Those who like actually having and taking care of horses? Do your own damned work if you want a horse.
3. Somewhat agreed. Might be why I hate the manifesto, but liked Capital. I'm currently now a distributist. But this was due to you answering the grandparent instead of the parent- I was trying to figure out why you thought being against people being poor was trying to keep them poor, or worse, trying to exploit them.
4.1- I see money as bad because it removes the humanity from the trade; and enables trading with people you don't know. This damages comunity; the extreme example is what we're doing right now, communication between people who can't see each other's faces, and in fact, will likely NEVER see each other's face. There's no way to judge a fair price for a good or service unless you *know* the person who you're dealing with, unless you understand their unique need. The ultimate failure of communism was that they tried to do it for entire nations; the ultimate failure of capitalism is the same. Yes it's tedious continuing to trade only with your neighbors; but deciding to trade elsewhere is extremely destructive.
4.2-In the end, it comes down for me to pure numbers. Trade locally, and you end up generating 8x the value of the trade for your direct neighbors, who repay you by *not* stealing from you (it's always better to have neighbors as rich as you are). Trade outside of the community, and that value goes down, until the worst case scenario of a retailer that keeps the majority of the retail profit elsewhere and uses foreign manufacturers, like Wal*Mart in the United States. 92% of the money spent at Wal*mart will never return to the community it came from; the majority goes to Bentonville, Alabama into the coffers of the Walton family, the rest goes to China. Only a mere 8% will stay as wages in the local community.
So if I have to use money, I have the choice between creating 8 cents of every dollar spent in local trade, or 8 dollars for every dollar spent in local trade. To me that's a no brainer- comparative advantage simply doesn't matter. You can either help your neighbors, or spread your money so thin that it help nobody. Trade outside of your local community is such an astoundingly bad idea that it's amazing any modern country bothers with it.
It's now been 29 years since free trade was profitable for the United States, since we exported more than we imported. That's 29 years of debt, now hitting a trillion dollars a year. How much deeper will we dig this hole before we get the hell out of it?
Sounds like they get sick at a number of things pregnant women should avoid- and thus yes, it has a purpose. It's certainly *not* worth endangering the child for a cure- and there are other options.
Funny- that website would suggest possibly the same symptoms for extreme morning sickness that I get at times with my migraines- and my migraines certainly DO have a purpose in getting me to slow down and relax.
That too- in fact work seems to pay in inverse porportion to level of physical effort put in.
Something that has worked for a large number of women for the past three centuries can hardly be described as "experimentation" any longer. And it's more the salt and starch than the gluten anyway- some women use salted rice crackers instead.
How are the differences in skin between two humans "usesful"?
Only if you accept the idea of individualism, in that the skin provides a barrier that prevents actual merging of cells directly. Beyond that- is there anything else that can be said about it?
And shouldn't you be saying "differences are not useful... in my opinion"?
See my journal entry, about three back- anything in a text-based medium should never be taken as fact, only as opinion. That too should be obvious.
I tried that for a number of years- all it ever got me was in debt up to my eyeballs when the rich decided to throw me out like yesterday's garbage and not allow me to work for two years.
Which completely explains why some people get a 4.0 in college and others fail after a semester or two due to excessive partying.
This does not prove a "natural" difference in ability- as both studying and partying are learned behavior, not innate.
Yes, because people just love to do things without getting compensated for it.
Actually, it's amazing the number of things people do without getting compensated for them; that's the whole point of the hierarchy of needs.
I take it you don't know anyone who sits on his ass all day.
Not without creating *something*, no. The impulse to create is far too strong.
Really? Just to let you know, most work out there isn't easy, sit-on-your-ass-and-get-paid-six-figures office work. It's more like busting your ass all day doing something hard and boring. You think a farmer does his job for the learning that it brings?
Yes, in fact I do- the pay certainly is no reason to be a farmer. Who would choose to be a farmer for the pay?
By nature, humans are lazy, selfish, greedy, and unwise. If it were another way around, we wouldn't need any economic system.
We don't need an economic system- we got along just fine without one for the first million years or so on this planet. The purpose of an economic system is to control a hierarchy- so that the king can collect his taxes, originally.
Please explain how the free market system causes laziness.
By providing goods for people to buy, it frees them up from having to create those goods themselves.
Or they could just go with the time-honored and well-proven "drug" known as saltine crackers, which probably works *better* than something cooked up in a lab.
You acknowledge that your scheme would require forcible redistribution of wealth
Not at all- I only acknowledge that it would require actually paying for what you get. The only reason rich people exist to begin with is because they've found a way to steal from either labor or consumers.
I've never known a fetus to be aborted by saltine crackers, the common cure for morning sickness- do you have some evidence for that statment?
No, they really aren't. There's plenty of actual international law out there which has nothing to do with the UN. Plus, the UN doesn't make law. The UN is probably the furthest thing we have from an international law making body.
Are you saying there's another lawmaking body for international law out there? If so, our independance from them should probably be first priority if we ever hope to make our own destinies.
Not everyone in the US has article 24-27 rights, so when are you starting the "civil war"? Or are you just planning to leave?
I believe that the civil war will not be started by one man- but by many. And if you think I'm going to tell YOU in an unencrypted online communication what my personal plans are for my participation in it, then you've obviously never heard about echelon.
Please explain how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is anything like international law.
The United Nations is the closest thing we have to an international law making body- and they passed this statement of human rights in 1948.
Then please explain what the declaration has to do with your statement, "there would be no rich, no poor, no trade, no money, and no caste system." There's nothing in the declaration about eliminating the rich*, or social strata in general. Yes, elevating the poor, but not eliminating wealth.
It would cost so much to elevate the poor to that point, that money would be largely worthless, thus eliminating the difference between the rich and the poor.
Anyone who things this stuff is easy, or the decisions are simple, has never thought long and hard about drug testing. If you want to complain about drug costs and priorities of drug research, you can have a real arguement, but a blanket claim that texting on group X is absurdly bad shows you don't know the first thing about drug research.
Well, I find the whole industry to be something of a sham- better to let people die than have them preyed upon by the ever-increasing profit seekers making up new diseases to "treat". Did it ever occur to anybody that morning sickness might have a purpose?
trade and money are artificial divisions?
Yes- I should think that would be obvious. They are human inventions, after all.
How about this division then- stupid vs. smart or lazy vs. hard-working. Do you think these are artificial as well?
Yes, and that's equally obvious to anybody who actually bothers to think.
Some people work harder than others and should reasonably expect to be compensated to a greater degree.
Yeah, I used to believe that too, then I realized that human beings don't actually vary in ability that much- and after a certain point, it's just criminal behavior.
No matter how you do it the compensation is going to create a division.
Correct- so the obvious answer is NO COMPENSATION.
This is not absurd- it is the primary motivation towards good performance.
The primary motivation towards good performance is learning, not compensation. Compensation and requiring money to live is just a way to force people to do something they don't want to do. And you'll never get good performance forcing people to do something they don't want to do.
I think in a perfect society everyone would work as hard as they were able and everyone would receive equally. In reality there are a lot of lazy and greedy people who would quickly spoil such a perfect society.
Well, if being lazy and greedy is natural as you insist, there's a perfectly reasonable solution to THAT problem- eliminate the genes that cause laziness and greed. But if they are not, as I say, then it's rather easy to eliminate the cause- the free market and free trade.
Yes, to some extent the United Nations is Hippie Fantasyland. Of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been international law for over 55 years now- and I've yet to see any country achieve it. Personally, I think it should be all or nothing- if you want to rule, you should provide your citizens with all human rights- or face execution yourself.
Would those same 'some' say that we should therefore preclude offering them the choice at all?
Either that- or those same some would insist upon all 32 Universal Declaration of Human Rights rules for every human being on the planet- at which point the caste system becomes entirely obsolete, as do the words "rich" and "poor" (or rather, those get redefined as "people who have their article 24-27 rights" and "people who are in a civil war trying to obtain article 24-27 rights"). No government or economic system that fails to provide article 24-27 rights should be allowed to exist; likewise nobody would be forced to take such work because work that insures human dignity would be widely available.
What about natural divisions between human beings?
The only one I see is the organ known as skin. There are no other useful natural divisions.
And how do you tell the difference?
Why should we care about difference? Differences are not useful.
Good luck enforcing that without becoming a fascist.
.25 acres I own. I just wish the other fascists would stop trying to affect my life.
It's a matter of keeping local control local- I don't expect to enforce it outside of the