iamshack

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 06:21 AM) If you want me to agree that there are terrible man made foods, I already did that a long time ago. But it really means about as much as if I mention feeding a dog a raw diet of road kill that has been sitting in the sun for 24 hours. No, see, this is what you're not seeing! That roadkill IS a better meal for the dog than a bowl of food you might get at your local grocery store! The reason is because dogs have evolved to digest a meal such as roadkill over tens of thousands of years, most likely more. Regardless of how disgusting it is to you and I, a dog's stomach is equipped to break down that roadkill in its stomach and then its very short intestinal system. The bacteria that would put you and I in the hospital for weeks wouldn't so much as phase our dogs. The dog's gastrointestinal system would much more efficiently process that meat and bones of a dead squirrel roasting in the sun than a bag of Purina you got from Sam's Club. Again, for an analogy, it would be like saying I shouldn't eat leftover salmon from yesterday at the restaurant because it isn't super fresh, so I should eat a 2 pound bag of skittles instead.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 09:42 PM) So...anyway...looks like I missed a lot here today. Here's the little one: Is she getting any better?

Badger, I have seen your position before, so yes, I have read your posts on these boards and you know it. I honestly don't know what happened. If you read what I have posted in this thread you'd note I've said all along that Zimmerman is most likely guilty and most likely exponentially increased the chance of Martin ending up dead because of his actions. That being the case, if the police did want him to be charged, and the prosecutor did not, then that is a problem with the justice system, not the way the legislators are drafting the laws. If the prosecutor does not want to charge because of his conviction rate, than the manner in which promotions for State's Attorneys occur needs to be changed. Rewriting the law doesn't make the evidence more solid. Rewriting the law doesn't make the conviction rate of a Prosecutor a less important number. Rewriting the law doesn't address the fact that the police can't establish any solid evidence which shows that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense that evening, no more than they could if they had to win a common law self-defense action.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 10:05 PM) I am talking about fuels for a long, slow exertion compared to fuels for a short burst of energy or for no exertion of all. It's your position that the same food is correct in each of those cases, I'm not so certain. And from what I've read from trainers of greyhounds and sled dogs they each have special diets they place their dogs that they have found to work best. And again I will quickly and easily concede that there are some very poor dog foods out there that are not very good for dogs. Ok...but none of those diets includes grains and carbs heat pressed into pellets... It's like you suggesting it's alright to eat pop tarts instead of fresh fish because fresh fish may not be ideal for a high jumper... Yes, some protein sources are better than others. Some people think some vegetables have important nutrients or form combinations with nutrients in meat that deliver better results than without...but 99% of all dry kibble isn't even in the same stratosphere as even the worst raw protein sources.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 09:24 PM) Think about it for a minute. A husky pulling a sled in Alaska for 12 hours, a greyhound about to run flat out for 90 seconds, and a lab sitting in a jon boat waiting for a chance to swim through cold waters to retrieve a duck, and a pocket pooch living in a high rise all have the same nutritional needs? I'm not so certain. You're not talking about caloric needs, Tex. you're talking about feeding an animal something it is not biologically equipped to digest well. That would be like me feeding you old shoes or something because you're not participating in the decathalon. Dogs simply do not process grains well. They also do not process carbohydrates well. This is what a large portion of cheap kibble is comprised of. Then they eat more and more trying to reach the proper levels of nutrition, and get obese and develop allergies. What you're trying to argue is that their caloric needs might vary. I can buy that. But whether or not they will need proper nourishment will not vary.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 09:10 PM) No it absolutely cures it. The reason they dont want to arrest is because of the section I removed. I dont want to presume anything. I want it treated the same way any other shooting would be treated. If an unarmed person is shot and they are not in the act of committing a felony, its hard to argue that there isnt enough for any crime, ANY CRIME. Where am I saying murder? What about assault with a deadly weapon, what about a million other crimes that could be charged? People are arrested for nonsense every day, sometimes it isnt even the right person. No one is saying that the charges cant be dropped, but the simple fact is, there are 0 charges. Its just so absurdly unusual to have an unarmed dead man who wasnt committing a crime, and have 0 charges pending. Dont they even have something like unlawful discharge of a firearm? I mean really, no charges. You've said they aren't arresting because its not a slam-dunk case, meaning they don't have the evidence. If they don't have the evidence, they shouldn't be arresting him with some bogus bulls***. It's not unlawful discharge, because he discharged in the act of self-defense. There are a litany of crimes which go unnoticed every hour in this country, including people getting killed. Unfortunately, sometimes there are no witnesses. You may be in favor of throwing s*** against the wall and hoping something sticks, but I'm not. If they can't arrest because they have no solid evidence that says he acted in an unlawful manner, than there is no solid evidence to arrest him. It may be a police failure or it may just be s***ty reality, but you don't arrest him for s***s and giggles and hope you find something later. Your argument is really going to be "people are arrested for nonsense every day"?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 08:59 PM) Just because I hate this line of argument: (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. turns into (2) A law enforcement agency must use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1). (rest of section removed) And done. This doesn't cure anything...they still don't have the evidence, at least according to what we know, to arrest the guy. You just want to presume he's guilty (or at least presume he's guilty enough to be arrested until we can determine he's not guilty). That's not a reasonable solution to this problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 07:58 PM) It wasn't (for sure) until about three years ago, nor was it for sure incorporated against the states. Again, you'll get no argument from me in re c&c laws...but that's not the point...if you're going to fault the law (without simultaneously asking to fundamentally change it), then draft a better law for me. If your answer is we need to disallow c&c laws entirely, that's a completely different argument and there is absolutely no point in discussing the nuance of this particular Florida law or this particular type of law.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 07:51 PM) Doesn't need to be carrying everywhere Well you'll get no argument from me there, but I'm asking you to do it without significantly altering the current mix of rights...basically, draft a better law for me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 06:42 PM) Get rid of the gun. Unfortunately, that's in the Bill of Rights. Be realistic.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) I think I've been pretty consistent within this thread at saying you flat out can't believe the "Eyewitness" testimony of anyone involved in this case, except for the portion of it that was actively recorded. A kid is dead. The guy who shot him admitted to initiating things by stalking the kid and also admits to shooting him. This was also recorded. There ought to be a crime in there somewhere. If there isn't, then the law needs rewritten somewhere. You can keep saying this every day until you are blue in the face...but sometimes real life s*** happens that you just can't bend the law to address, as much as you'd like. How on earth would you write a law which would address what happened in this scenario, with what we reasonably can assume happened here, to convict him?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 05:01 PM) Dude, how can you deny that the government is in bed with a lot of business that produces the food stupid (I point out stupid because you seem to think Americans have no choice, when they do) Americans are feeding their children? Am I going to have to enforce my future child takes his/her own lunch to school? There's a good chance I will. I remember how I ate in school, and it was reprehensible. I, of course, burned it off playing hockey and baseball, but a lot of kids don't burn it off and also get themselves exempt from gym class for a variety of reasons. The government is in bed with the meat industry, and again, they defined pizza as a vegetable. How Pizza Became a Vegetable through the Magic of Influence-Peddling Because money. Because yeah, it's been happening for a very long time. Until the consumer on a large-scale cries foul (clearly not happening, look at fat America), then nothing will change. I didn't deny much of what you and Balta were arguing, only the reasons for why it occurred. I think I specifically stated that the government looked out for it's best interests when partnering with the food industry. But this didn't all happen overnight in one big colossal conspiracy theory and implementation. What you and Balta are doing is coming up with some ad hoc explanation for why things are how they are, when that is simply not true. It was the result of a hundred and fifty years of industrialization, poor decisions regarding fortification with various vitamins, poor decisions for the sake of longer shelf lives, misunderstanding the role of sugars in our diets, etc. One can go on and on and on if one only reads the actual history of the food industry as it relates to the government instead of attempting to sum it all up in one catchy and bold statement designed to win a debate on a message board about baseball. Additionally, if that is truly what you believe, the fact that you would stand by and accept that something so core and central to your well-being, your health, and especially that of our children, would be deliberately fed destructive diets simply for the reason that they were more profitable for some group of farmers and some movers and shakers in our government is really frightening to me. You truly believe we should have to sift through our government's purposeful lies in regards to recommendations on how to properly feed our children? Can you imagine if they lied about how to properly restrain your child in a car seat?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) The only parents I see poisoning their kids are lazy motherf***ers who didnt want the kids in the first place. That's because you shop at places like Whole Foods, where, because you live in a somewhat urban area, you have that choice. Go to the local Jewel or Aldi or to some Piggy Wiggly in Kentucky and see what is on the shelves.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 05:21 PM) I'm an intelligent being, so i have every right to attempt to control the things that a child of mine would take in. That would include controlling the levels of processed garbage in their diet...and also, perhaps more importantly, controlling the levels of high sugar, high fat food advertising that they are exposed to. I don't know if things have changed recently, but I can still remember being absolutely bombarded with ads for sugary cereals and snacks along with toy ads while watching cartoons as a youngin'. Other people obviously have the right to make similar choices...but then my question should be whether it's the governments job to be subsidizing choices that are clearly bad for people but good for certain businesses. I wouldn't think people need the help to make choices that are bad for them and bad for their families, but the government, big ag, and big advertising are certainly convinced they do, so they help at every step. Well that, is a tragedy. Back to dog foods.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:13 PM) Better than a government that shoots its own people, you gotta admit that. Is it? Better than the one that tells you to slowly poison your child?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) We agree then. Why on earth would you choose to live here if you believe your government is purposefully encouraging you to poison yourself? Take off your tinfoil hats...what your both doing is an incredibly gross and inaccurate exaggeration. It's easy to look back in hindsight and craft these conspiracy theories...don't get me wrong, the government certainly advanced their own interests as they relate to the food industry...but they did not in their wildest dreams understand the health ramifications of what they were doing.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:06 PM) They set out to make fat cash. Upon seeing that the disgusting s*** they were distributing to the sheep of America was giving everyone diabetes, skyrocketing obesity rates, and killing them, they also didn't give a crap, because money. Yes, this is exactly how it went...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 03:59 PM) They f***ing listed pizza as a God damned vegetable. Yes. A thousand times yes. They're in bed with these industries and incapable of giving unbiased information and recommendations. So what would be the benefits of the government purposefully poisoning its citizenry, since you are so certain? And secondly, if they are incapable, that seems to go towards my point that we are not even certain what the optimal diet is. Go read some science journals...tell me what that consensus optimal diet is, while you're at it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) Really, no it wasn't. It was done to support preferred, politically connected industries. If we were trying to feed the largest number of people possible we wouldn't be processing so much of our corn into corn syrup, plastic, and gasoline. We're trying to "produce the largest amount of a commodity we can possibly justify in order to support several well-connected industries". Fundamentally different from trying to feed people. The point remains that our current food industry did not deliberately set out to cause cancer and heart failure. They took one step at a time towards choosing cheap foods that could be produced in mass quantities easily without considering the long-term health-effects and without the knowledge of what a diet consisting of just these processed foods would result in from a health perspective. How that interplays with all sorts of other competing industries, I don't really care to discuss.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) Thanks J4L...I never said Jackson is significantly improved. Just saying that if he HAS improved (which is very possibly), then that lineup went from dangerous to potentially great. I picked him up in my fantasy league prior to the season because he certainly has the potential to have a huge year based on the strength of that lineup. I've watched a few of their games, and he has had some solid at bats, but it's too early to see whether he will consistently look at pitches or let his old habits get the best of him. One thing to be mindful of though, is he will see more good pitches as a result of being in that lineup, and sometimes that is enough to allow a guy to turn things around in a big way.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) Which brings up an interesting point. A dog's diet should be the same if they are roaming the woods trying to bring down game or sitting on a couch and going to a dog park? My answer will continue to be what is the most biologically appropriate. This isn't going to change based on whether or not he is hunting lions or sitting on the couch.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) But aren't we doing just that when we provide food instead of allowing them to hunt their own? You have a very large breed that I doubt evolved to sit on couches. It seems like you are running an experiment to see what food and excercise routine works best for them. You would make changes if you saw something wasn't agreeing with them. You wouldmake changes if your researched convinced you there was something better. I'm not suggesting you are doing a bad or wrong thing. I wish every pet owner cared for their dogs as much as you care for yours. I just also leave open the possibility that other caring owners have found their dogs thrive on other diets, other training, and other socializations. Fair point, I suppose I am running an experiment to try and produce the healthiest and happiest dog... which is made difficult because of the lack of understanding of a dog's needs over the past 3/4 century or so...as well as, as you articulately pointed out, I own a large breed that doesn't exactly fit in with modern urban society...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) They also then gave enormous subsidies, on the orders of hundreds of billions of dollars and approaching trillions of dollars in total at this point, in order to make sure that the unhealthy food was so cheap and so ingrained into society that it couldn't be ignored. They then partnered with the food producers to make sure that the "food" was consumed, whether it wound up in schools, whether it wound up in fast food restaurants, whether it was repackaged into something even less resembling food, etc. Did you know that taxpayer dollars foot the bill for a large part of those Domino's "we're now using real cheese!" ads last year? That was part of the Ag department's gift to the big dairy producers, finding another large consumer for its product and then financing the ad campaign to go with it. So yeah, the government has actively endorsed, paid for, and encouraged its citizens to eat crap diets. And this was done in order to accomplish feeding the largest number of people possible. Unfortunately they have no idea what they're doing from a financial standpoint or a nutritional standpoint.

PPD

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 03:59 PM) Abso-f***ing-lutely. No. They recommended diets which, as you mentioned, were cheap and could feed the masses most efficiently. Unfortunately, when you do nothing but sit on your ass and stare at a screen for the majority of your days, that diet produces heart attacks.