Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: we are internet drama junkies, and kinda like vultures circling the struggling beast. we don't necessarily need a personal stake in this shit, well other than lulz being serious personal business

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.

Messages - BenTheBiased

1
Love Among the Chickens Sheep featuring Stanley Featherstonehaugh Ukridge Dave Hawkins

a novel by P. G. Wodehouse probably no one
2
Duh. He's obviously part of the deep-state swamp Trump wants to drain. The fact that he's hung around since Reagan proves it.
3
get out of my thread.
I love it when Dave plays thread dictator God.

ETA: For better parallelism with Voxrat's post.
4
By the way, those folks drawing a comparison between my goat pen and vaccinations are making a legitimate point.  In both cases, we are "pushing a small button which Nature didn't intend to be pushed."
Wait...really? You no longer view your goat pen as a "big button"? That is a pretty major reversal in your thinking here.

However ... with my goat pen, I freely admit that it's not optimum and that it's only a "means to an end", the "end" being a much larger rotationally grazed "flerd" which is shepherded by human shepherds and livestock dogs.
How would that be more of a "big button" than the cage?

As for vaccinations, I don't see any doctors admitting that vaccination as a means for achieving good health is a less-than-optimum interim system ... a means to an end.  It appears to me that they are quite happy with the vaccination system as an end in itself.
The optimum would obviously be for the diseases people need vaccination against to be eradicated. Vaccinations are actually a pretty good means to that end. There's a reason people in the U.S. aren't regularly given smallpox vaccines anymore. And doctors are quite happy with that situation as far as I'm aware.
5
Quote
He may well be fired, simply because he took an unnecessary risk that wasn't part of his job description, but don't you think it's likely that if it actually did make it work better, the design team would take note and revise their design based on it? Wouldn't it at that point become a "big button" by your definition?
Yes and yes.
So...if we make changes that improve ecosystems or our bodies in lasting ways...we are in effect creating our own big buttons.
6
To be more precise, a "big button" is not big in size of the button itself ... it's all about the size of the effect it has and about whether or not it has a legitimate function prescribed by the designer.
What if it only fulfills one of those two? What if it has a big effect but not one prescribed by the designer? What size button is that? What if it was prescribed by the designer but only has a small effect? What size button is that? Also, how do you tell whether or not it was prescribed by the designer?
In the airliner analogy, a "big button" would be a throttle lever because it controls a big effect - several hundred thousand lbs of thrust ... and because it is a designed button, designed by the proper design authority and duly tested for effectiveness, safety, etc.  Using the same analogy, a "small button" in my usage would be, for example, a very foolish pilot who doesn't value his job deciding he wants to "improve aileron feedback" and rigs up his own "auxiliary flap" system which attaches to the aileron and thus "making it work better."  Of course if management found out about this, he'd be fired immediately whether it made it work better or not.  Why?  Well because he is not part of the aircraft design team and there is a rigorous rigid design system already in place and this pilot would be bypassing that. 
He may well be fired, simply because he took an unnecessary risk that wasn't part of his job description, but don't you think it's likely that if it actually did make it work better, the design team would take note and revise their design based on it? Wouldn't it at that point become a "big button" by your definition?
THAT'S what doctors are doing when they administer vaccines.  Except they don't get fired.  They are praised and instead, parents who object to this dangerous reductionism are marginalized.
What, specifically, about vaccines are similar to that in your view? Just that scientists developed them rather than them being found in nature? You know that vaccines are generally weakened or dead versions of the virus itself, right? So getting vaccinated isn't much different from actually getting the disease, except you don't get sick. In effect, it simulates the effect on the immune system of getting the disease, except without the downside of the symptoms. How is that any different from your goat cage, which is supposed to simulate the effect on herbivores of predators except without the downside of actual predation?
7
I agree that the Alabama election didn't tell us much about what kind of candidates are electable. Virginia and even Oklahoma suggest that "not a fucking bigot" is a pretty good start, though.

I had heard an awful lot about how boring Jones is, but listening to his acceptance speech, he's not a total rhetorical slouch by any means.

In fact, I thought "pity he's probably a 1-term senator. From another state, he could go places."

I hope I'm wrong about 1-term, but I don't think the Alabama GOP will fuck up this badly picking a candidate next time.
There was a Slate article yesterday suggesting he run for president in 2020...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/maybe_doug_jones_should_run_for_president.html

He might actually have a better shot at that than getting re-elected to the Senate in Alabama.
8
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.
If you are going to make a post like that in response to the post you just quoted, then you have to explain what the fuck it has to do with anything I said.
If you can't figure out the connection, then you are more brain dead than I thought.
If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it.

ETA: Have you ever wondered why RAFH refers to you as "Bluffy"?
9
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.
If you are going to make a post like that in response to the post you just quoted, then you have to explain what the fuck it has to do with anything I said.
10
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
11
"You're dragging two goats around a pasture, Dave. You're not controlling anything but the goats."

 controlling much more than that which you would know if you weren't such an idiot.
I know perfectly well what you've claimed. Claiming something isn't the same as demonstrating it...
which you would know if you weren't such an idiot.
12
"He was wrong about that.  He missed the primary mechanism by which sugar and refined flour, which he correctly observed were associated with dental caries."

 if you would actually quote some researchers who tested this idea, then I might believe you. But your "evangelistic" approach is not working with me.

😉

It would help if you would actually read what's already been posted, but here's yet another...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14522753
Quote
A dynamic relation exists between sugars and oral health. Diet affects the integrity of the teeth; quantity, pH, and composition of the saliva; and plaque pH. Sugars and other fermentable carbohydrates, after being hydrolyzed by salivary amylase, provide substrate for the actions of oral bacteria, which in turn lower plaque and salivary pH. The resultant action is the beginning of tooth demineralization. Consumed sugars are naturally occurring or are added.

Note also, of course...
Quote
Many factors in addition to sugars affect the caries process, including the form of food or fluid, the duration of exposure, nutrient composition, sequence of eating, salivary flow, presence of buffers, and oral hygiene. Studies have confirmed the direct relation between intake of dietary sugars and dental caries across the life span. Since the introduction of fluoride, the incidence of caries worldwide has decreased, despite increases in sugars consumption.

You will be happy to see...
Quote
Other dietary factors (eg, the presence of buffers in dairy products;

But of course, it's one of many other factors, also including...
Quote
the use of sugarless chewing gum, particularly gum containing xylitol; and the consumption of sugars as part of meals rather than between meals) may reduce the risk of caries. The primary public health measures for reducing caries risk, from a nutrition perspective, are the consumption of a balanced diet and adherence to dietary guidelines and the dietary reference intakes; from a dental perspective, the primary public health measures are the use of topical fluorides and consumption of fluoridated water.

As usual, it's a complex system. There is no one "big button."
13
Ben you are at the same time both right and wrong in your statement that most phenomena - and we are talking about biological phenomena here - are more complex than I imagine.

While it is true that biological systems are mind numbingly complex, it is also true that they are controlled very simply  if you understand their true nature and understand where the "buttons" are and what the buttons do. So simply that many "primitive" indigenous groups all over the world were able to completely control dental caries via one simple thing... Their diet.

Ponder that.
The fundamental problem with you people is that you are Darwinists.  and Darwinists do not understand the fundamental nature of biological systems  because their paradigm is fundamentally flawed, so how can we expect them to understand how to control them at all, let alone simply.
Dave, both of these posts are content-free sloganeering. You have not demonstrated that any natural systems actually have any sort of "big button" that you can just press and expect no other factors to have an effect. You have not demonstrated that you even understand what "Darwinism" is, let alone how it affects anyone's understanding of anything. You have nothing but empty words.
I'm controlling nature right now on my dairy goat system  with big buttons .
You're dragging two goats around a pasture, Dave. You're not controlling anything but the goats.
Prices indigenous groups controlled dental caries with big buttons as well.
No, they ate a largely non-cariogenic diet, which was one of many factors that gave them a low incidence of dental caries.
14
Ben you are at the same time both right and wrong in your statement that most phenomena - and we are talking about biological phenomena here - are more complex than I imagine.

While it is true that biological systems are mind numbingly complex, it is also true that they are controlled very simply  if you understand their true nature and understand where the "buttons" are and what the buttons do. So simply that many "primitive" indigenous groups all over the world were able to completely control dental caries via one simple thing... Their diet.

Ponder that.
The fundamental problem with you people is that you are Darwinists.  and Darwinists do not understand the fundamental nature of biological systems  because their paradigm is fundamentally flawed, so how can we expect them to understand how to control them at all, let alone simply.
Dave, both of these posts are content-free sloganeering. You have not demonstrated that any natural systems actually have any sort of "big button" that you can just press and expect no other factors to have an effect. You have not demonstrated that you even understand what "Darwinism" is, let alone how it affects anyone's understanding of anything. You have nothing but empty words.
15
If I summarized Price on this topic, it would be as follows ..

1)  Caries free people have "protective" saliva, which means "saliva that contains certain minimum levels of calcium and phosphorus"
I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but everyone except you understands that it's not the only factor.
... it appears that the dental industry is now rediscovering this as well ... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210815713000127
That article shows that the dental industry continues to develop new treatments and preventions for caries, not that they were ever unaware of the role certain minerals play.

2)  The FOODS of caries free people also contains "certain minimum levels of calcium and phosphorus" ... does this "prove" that eating foods which have these "certain minimum levels" will definitely cause saliva to also have certain (albeit lower) levels? Will eating these foods definitely prevent caries in all circumstances?  I think it does not "prove" these things but it seems to be the most attractive hypothesis that I'm aware of.
Well, as the articles I posted show, it's wrong. Beyond a certain level (which is present in most normal diets), salival content of these minerals has more to do with genetics than diet, and salival flow rate is at least as important as salival mineral content. And the degree to which eating foods that contain those minerals helps has more to do with their immediate effect on the oral environment while eating them than it does on saliva through digestion.

The fact that you think this one explanation that eliminates any other factors as important, and the fact that you think "eating these foods [will] definitely prevent caries in all circumstances" is even a reasonable thing to consider, let alone consider as "the most attractive hypothesis," is yet more proof of your difficulty with none/some/all. Most phenomena are more complex that you seem willing or able to consider.
16
Yes, and? What do you disagree with there?
17
Pingu now seems to buy into the idea that ...

IT'S THE CALCIUM AND PHOSPHORUS IN THE SALIVA THAT MAKES THE SALIVA PROTECTIVE

Good.  Progress.  Baby steps.

What she DOESN'T yet buy into is that NUTRITION directly controls the calcium and phosphorus content of saliva, although she admits "there may also be a nutritional route."

And I freely admit ... I myself haven't demonstrated that.  And I'm not sure Price did either at least not conclusively.

What Price DID do was analyze the calcium and phosphorus of food and saliva of many different caries free people groups and he noted that in all cases, the calcium and phosphorus content was much higher than the minimum government numbers. 

So it's definitely an attractive hypothesis.
I'm not sure you realize this, but no one is actually disagreeing with you (and I'm pretty sure no one ever has) that nutrition has an effect on dental caries. The point everyone is trying to make is that, as has been demonstrated many times since Price, once you get beyond a minimum level of nutrition, the effect of nutrition on the saliva is a relatively less important factor compared to others (the primary one being the effect of food while it's in the mouth, another being genetics). Unfortunately, your all/some/none disease seems to keep you from even understanding what the argument is. Anyway...

One of many possible references: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003996965900026
Quote
For the phosphate feeding experiment, eighty-one rats were divided into three groups of which Group 1 received a cariogenic diet alone while Groups 2 and 3 received supplements of 2% Na2HPO4 and 2·2% commercial Na phytate, respectively. Groups 2 and 3 had a reduced incidence of caries. By elimination, a direct effect of phosphate on the teeth is postulated as serum and salivary calcium and inorganic phosphate analyses did not differ significantly among the three groups.

Another: http://www.jendodon.com/article/S0003-9969(13)00350-6/abstract
Quote
Dietary intakes of calcium, phosphate and fibre, and salivary flow rate increased with time in both groups (p < 0.001, GLM for repeated measures). Fibre intake and salivary flow rate were higher in the intervention than in the control group (p = 0.042 and p = 0.0394, respectively, GLM for repeated measures). There were no correlations between dietary intakes and salivary concentrations of calcium or phosphate. Children who did not have caries experience (d3mft/D3MFT = 0) during the entire follow-up had higher salivary calcium than those who had caries already at 3 years of age. The association between salivary calcium and caries onset was significant up to 12 years of age. Toothbrushing frequency was statistically significantly associated with caries-onset at ages 6 (gamma statistic 0.457, p = 0.046) and 12 years (gamma statistic 0.473, p = 0.019).
18
Actually, it seems to me the person who has given ground in this discussion is Dave...
Caries IS indeed partly caused by acid,
What happened to the idea that these foods merely "displaced" other foods?
19
And Price went on to realize (whereas you and even these 2013 researchers don't realize) that ...

NUTRITION AFFECTS THE CALCIUM AND PHOSPHORUS CONTENT OF SALIVA

(Although I think you are starting to realize your error so you are starting to make comments like "There may also be a nutritional route.")
At least I finally got Pingu to acknowledge this ...

Baby steps I guess.
Please point me to a post of Pingu's where she ever said anything different from that.
20
I like competition!
No, you like constantly announcing you've won rather than actually competing.
21
Why don't these researchers realize the revelation of divine Price?
My best guess
Is worth less than nothing.
would be because Price's ideas

DIDN'T MAKE ANY MONEY FOR THE DENTAL INDUSTRY

So his research got lost ... until someone with an ounce of genuine altruism dusted it off and published it.

And Voila!  Now you have the Weston Price Foundation and the Price Pottenger Foundation.
Who still have no evidence.
22
You can make saliva protective

BY EATING PROPER FOODS
Except you still have no evidence of this.
23
Why don't these researchers realize the revelation of divine Price?
24
Politics and Current Events / Re: Goddamnit Al
If Democrats can't win a statewide seat in Minnesota in 2018, we're beyond doomed, anyway.
Yeah, I skimmed some article earlier this morning that was trying to make the case that this could blow Democrats' chances at the senate next year, but really, it's hard to imagine a scenario where they would have won the senate except for Minnesota.

(Now watch that happen.)
25
Quote
Dental research has shown the importance of calcium and phosphate ions in the remineralization process. Longbottom C. et al., proposed in 2009 that an ideal caries preventive material should release calcium and phosphate in the oral environment. 5 Therefore, manufacturers of novel caries preventive dental materials are now incorporating CPP-ACP in the composition of their products for the prevention of caries.

In other words ... PRICE ... to a tee.  These guys are literally rediscovering what Price discovered way back in 1930.
Weird. I don't see anything about diet in there.

Fake ETA: Ninja'ed, and Dave had nothing in response. Shocker.