She couldn't live without Facebook

[Blackthornone]

I get along fine with my brothers, though one has passed recently.

I'm glad and sorry to hear that, respectively.

 

[Blackthornone]

No, we all blame you for setting up your pulpit and spitting your brimstone. Get a clue.

He did it first with his story from his office. He stood on his pulpit with his white robe and spit his brimstone on the women in his office and bragged about it to all.
To blame me would be unfair.

 

[Blackthornone]

Who the hell do you think you are saying that if someone chooses an alternative to breast feeding it's child neglect.

I was gonna stay out of this as I always look upon your posts as mostly a pompous and judgemental diatribe of glossing everyone into a category or tarring everyone with the same brush, that is those that don't agree with what YOU think is best.

Quite frankly a woman can breast feed if she wants to, she is in no way under any obligation as a mother to do just that and is certainly not neglecting her child if she chooses a bottle over breast.
At the end of the day, if the child is fed, happy, loved and looked after - that is all that should matter. That is being a good mother (imo)

This last statement of yours about calling non-breast feeding is tantamount to child neglect has to be one of the most judgemental, ludicrous and down right ignorant thing you have ever posted, that I've seen so far (tho I don't always read your essay posts as they tend to bore me like a preacher does).

Get off your high horse for once and accept that all people are different and will act as they seem fit. Just because you don't agree with it and can spout off facts from Wiki at the drop of a hat, doesn't mean you should disrespect anyone by forcing your opinions on anyone.

What was this thread about again?, oh yeah a tragedy - not lectures on the necessity of breastfeeding and judging those women who don't.
Please just give it a rest, you have an opinion, we get it - don't be forcing it on others.

My facts don't come from wiki.
I learned all this from books back in 1994, before the internet.

I only use internet references to make it easier for other people to look up what I know about it, since most people won't bother to read a book. Correct me if I am mistaken here.
As an aside, my quotes didn't come from wikipedia. They came from NOTMILK.COM, though again, I read about them in book many years ago.

There are many health problems caused by dairy consumption which are extremely easy to look up on their website. Just click on a subject and the references come up.
It's really easy to search, and is based on really great science, from usually more than one source, on any particular topic. .

https://notmilk.com/

There is no high horse. I just took time to learn something about this and I know what I am talking about. I know I know, so that makes me certain. There is nothing wrong with being certain when you actually take time to learn about something.

I suppose because most people DON'T take time to study anything, they are never really certain of anything, and everything is very vague and a matter of opinion to them, only because all they have IS opinion, because they lack any knowledge.

Since all they can relate to is being uninformed with only opinion and speculation, they in many cases perceive anyone who does have certainty because they have studied to be on a high horse.
I just know what I know and because I do, I know when someone else says something that is wrong about it, or spreads misinformation, like the idea that formula is just as good as breastmilk.


I know more than most people about nutrition, because most people don't study it. Most doctors don't study it either, because they are only trained to use drugs to manage whatever symptoms people have, because that is what the medical schools teach them.

The medical schools teach them this because allopathic medicine came about because Rockefeller spent a lot of money to make allopathic medicine the standard of medicine, because allopathic medicine allowed for the use of pharmaceutical drugs. Prescription drugs can yield $200 for a bottle of pills that costs 7 cents to make. I'm not sure crack cocaine even has that profit margin.

Rockefeller saw an opportunity for huge profits, which is why he invested so much time and money using his money and influence to persuade the government to make allopathic medicine the exclusive accepted medical profession. Allopaths are the ones who used to bleed people to cure them, by the way. Empirical doctors never did that.

Big money took over and lobbied the government to make allopathic medicine the standard of care, ALL for profit, NOT because it was better at helping people. The other form of medicine at the time was empirical medicine, which dealt with nutrition and such, but there isn't as much money in that.


It is important to keep in mind how modern medicine came to be, to understand it's agenda as a business, and helps you to understand why most doctors know little about nutrition.
There is no money in it, but there is money in antibiotics, prescribed to treat inner ear infections caused by dairy and dairy based infant formulas.

Because of this, there is little likelihood that an allopathic physician would know that formula causes diabetes. There is no money in it, and the AMA is about money, as demonstrated by the reasons for it's very inception.
However, there are doctors aware that formula causes diabetes, but unfortunately they are few and far between, because they lack the time or inclination to learn this.

What about the science that proves that formula causes type 1 diabetes? Is that not a form of child abuse?

To use something that can cause diabetes, forcing someone to have to inject themselves with needles for the rest of their life is what formula feeding can cause.
I first learned that in 1994. Where have you been?

Obviously there is nothing abusive or wrong about causing a child to have type 1 diabetes for the rest of their life to you. Oh wait, all you have to do is not know that so you can believe there is nothing wrong with formula and therefore deny it is abuse.
That's convenient.

I mentioned the fact that formula has been proven to cause diabetes before you wrote what you wrote, and yet you deny there is a problem with that, and are offended that I would call that abuse.
That's rather interesting.
Did you not read what I wrote before or did you not put two and two together?
You really should know the facts before you declare something safe. Perhaps safety isn't important to you. Perhaps personal choice and the consequences be damned is what is really important to you instead.

Your response to that is what?

 

[fosing]

My facts don't come from wiki.
I learned all this from books back in 1994, before the internet.

well, mr walking encyclopedia. you need an update badly.

i dont know which is worse. you. or the "i got the answers to everything, insert bible quote."

 

[Sachiel]

You strike me as a very pro establishment person, and anything outside the mainstream is something you shake your head about.
You also strike me as a jingoist.
Am I mistaken?

You think that 'A' on his avatar stands for France?!

 

[Blackthornone]

You think that 'A' on his avatar stands for France?!

lol, no.
That is Captain America, though.

 

[Blackthornone]

well, mr walking encyclopedia. you need an update badly.

i dont know which is worse. you. or the "i got the answers to everything, insert bible quote."

I just have the answers to everything I talk about, which is not the same thing. The key is I am adamant about things because I know about them.

I didn't know I quoted the Bible. If so, I can't recall it. Devilof76 is the one who accuses me of religious rhetoric, which is incorrect. He calls me reverend, however I find that amusing.

My attitude is based on naturalism and logic.

Apart from the fact that religion is banned on this forum, I don't use religion as a basis of argument because you can't prove it with logic or scientific evidence.
Only arguments you can prove have any real weight with me.
I have no regard for arguments based upon emotionalism, habit, or tradition, because they have no actual logical basis.
I also don't value popularity as a basis for a valid argument, unless it is taken to the extreme, where philosophical arguments are proven, which would be to universalize an argument. Popularity has no validity only up to a point. It must be truly universal.

 

[devilof76]

That's honesty at last . You don't care. Your view is wrong and you don't care.
You are unwilling to examine the facts and would prefer to be ignorant and defend ignorance as being correct as a form of freedom of choice, with no concern for the consequences of said ignorance.

There is nothing sanctimonious about caring about the well being of humanity and being sincere enough about it to actually find out the way to do that.
Candy coating everything people do that doesn't work and dismissing the ill effects as being ok, or acceptable doesn't make life any better.
It's called defending ignorance and enabling and endorsing the human suffering that results.

You don't care.
You don't care about the facts.
You ignore the science about how things really work to justify your beliefs and the Lassiez- faire capitalism even when it comes at the cost of human life and causes disease.

Being informed and being concerned about what works and advocating that while condemning that which causes human suffering is not sanctimonious, particularly when you have the references to prove your position.

No, *******. I don't care about your arguments because you're full of ****. You are incapable of processing facts. You just assimilate them into your rationalistic web of presumptions about the nature of man and the universe, and you interpret accordingly.

Reading your justifications is a waste of time. As Bad Moon said, there's no point. All we'd be reading is you convincing yourself why you're not crazy. We don't need to hear why you think you're sane. We've already arrived at our conclusion.

You don't care about humanity. You just want someone to damn.

 

[Adoptedscot]

So he reads my post on page 11, responds then edits it....then re-posts my quote 4 pages later and makes another argument twice as long, amusing person
I have a stalker , and it's not Janet Jackson , how disapointing

I think 5 pages of breast is best/ accusations of child abuse (thro formula) / preaching to others and general judgemental statements means this thread is done and way beyond saving , so bye bye.

RIP young lady who this thread was started about .
xx