Big Sugar Enlisted Harvard Scientists to Discredit Link to Cardiovascular Disease, Because… “Science”

I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…

2016-09-13-big-sugar-enlisted-harvard-scientists-to-discredit-link-to-cardiovascular-disease-because-science

How Big Sugar Enlisted Harvard Scientists to Influence How We Eat—in 1965:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-12/how-big-sugar-enlisted-harvard-scientists-to-influence-how-we-eat-in-1965

(Deena Shanker) The food industry has funded research in an effort to influence nutrition science and health policy for more than half a century, new research out Monday has found.

It’s no secret that industry funds such efforts today: An investigation in June, for example, showed how the National Confectioners Association worked with a nutrition professor at Louisiana State University to conclude that kids who eat sugar are thinner than those who don’t.

An article by University of California-San Francisco researchers, published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, shows how far back such efforts go: In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation, the precursor to today’s Sugar Association, paid Harvard scientists to discredit a link now widely accepted among scientists—that consuming sugar can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease. Instead, the industry and the Harvard scientists pinned the blame squarely, and only, on saturated fat.

(Read entire article here…)

My Commentary: Because, “science”…

Discussing One of the Many Fallacies of Cultural Marxism

The following correspondence originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Cultural Marxism: Because Equality in Slavery is More Desirable Than Equality in Freedom…“…

2016-09-08-discussing-one-of-the-many-fallacies-of-cultural-marxism-1

RaynAcademic Study: Having a Loving Family is Unfair:
https://stream.org/academic-study-having-a-loving-family-unfair/

Cultural Marxism: when equality in slavery is more desirable than equality in freedom…

From the article: “One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem,” they explain, “would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”

“‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’” they wrote.

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.”

Sickening, pseudo-intellectual drivel…

Stacie T.:

"Tell me it isn't possible for people to be this motherfuckin' stupid"

“Tell me it isn’t possible for people to be this motherfuckin’ stupid”

Cultural Marxism: Because Equality in Slavery is More Desirable Than Equality in Freedom…

I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…

2016-09-07-cultural-marxism-because-equality-in-slavery-is-more-desirable-than-equality-in-freedom

Academic Study: Having a Loving Family is Unfair:
https://stream.org/academic-study-having-a-loving-family-unfair/

(Amelia Hamilton) It seems obvious that parents should love their children, and that a loving family is something for which we should all strive. I’m not so naive as to suppose that this is always the case, but it should certainly be the goal of our society. Unfortunately, there are those who don’t feel that way. Recently, a piece in ABC Australia posed the question, “Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?” Seriously.

The piece sets out their basic argument: ”The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.”

(Read entire article here…)

My Commentary: Cultural Marxism: when equality in slavery is more desirable than equality in freedom…

From the article: “One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem,” they explain, “would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”

“‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’” they wrote.

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.”

Sickening, pseudo-intellectual drivel…

The “Logic” of the Average Statist Has All the Depth and Consistency of a Puddle

As I scrolled through my Facebook news feed, I discovered the following artwork here, being shared by the page, “Government Does Not Exist,” and originally posted it to my own wall, along with commentary…

"You don't like it? Then, move to another plantation."

“You don’t like it? Then, move to another plantation!”

My Commentary: The “logic” of the average Statist… has all of the depth and consistency of a puddle.

Doublethink is the Only Real Way to Accept “Authority” of the State as Legitimate

As I scrolled through my Facebook news feed, I discovered the following artwork here, being shared by the page, “The Art of Not Being Governed,” and originally posted it to my own wall, along with commentary…

"The Rise of the Warlords: The claim 'warlords would take over' is baseless speculation without an explanation of how they would manage such a feat.With no government to gain control of, and no ban on weapons, leaving people defenseless, how would one individual manage to subjugate a whole society?Any potential warlord is massively outnumbered and massively outgunned. The only way for a warlord to control a society is if the majority of people want to be subjugated. This is how states formed and why they exist today."

“The Rise of the Warlords: The claim ‘warlords would take over’ is baseless speculation without an explanation of how they would manage such a feat.
With no government to gain control of, and no ban on weapons, leaving people defenseless, how would one individual manage to subjugate a whole society?
Any potential warlord is massively outnumbered and massively outgunned. The only way for a warlord to control a society is if the majority of people want to be subjugated. This is how states formed and why they exist today.”

My Commentary: Doublethink: the only real way to accept State “authority”…