twist65
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,289
👍🏻 582
November 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by twist65 on Mar 10, 2017 16:40:28 GMT 1, thanks Met and unlucky fellow participants! I hadn't seen Food Inc. but having grown up next door to a pig farm in rural England its a subject I have a little knowledge of, although still an eyeopening documentary. I normally spend the evenings working, or filling my head with nonsense, so am enjoying this 'night school' as a departure from the norm.. Next vid looks a goodun too.. I grew up on a farm, my parents still own it and in my dad's lifetime he's gone from taking produce a few miles down the road to competing in an international market. The thing that surprises me is the amount of fertiliser/pesticides we're allowed to spread. We have never got close to using as much as we could but other farms just use everything they can. On a side note, we had one pig that used to get taken on walks down the lane and had a fairly chill life, but that was more to keep my grandad away from the rest of the farm!
I can relate to that re fertilisers etc, I used to muck out the pigs with my neighbour on a weekend, and he used to spend the whole time moaning about what other farms did, animal feeds, how their fertilisers affected his land etc (I don't think he had many people to talk to!). When the mad cow disease thing happened he had plenty of eye-opening stories for me.. Things were tough then, must be a nightmare being a farmer these days..
thanks Met and unlucky fellow participants! I hadn't seen Food Inc. but having grown up next door to a pig farm in rural England its a subject I have a little knowledge of, although still an eyeopening documentary. I normally spend the evenings working, or filling my head with nonsense, so am enjoying this 'night school' as a departure from the norm.. Next vid looks a goodun too.. I grew up on a farm, my parents still own it and in my dad's lifetime he's gone from taking produce a few miles down the road to competing in an international market. The thing that surprises me is the amount of fertiliser/pesticides we're allowed to spread. We have never got close to using as much as we could but other farms just use everything they can. On a side note, we had one pig that used to get taken on walks down the lane and had a fairly chill life, but that was more to keep my grandad away from the rest of the farm! Very friendly creatures pigs, a good choice of sidekick for your grandad! I can relate to that re fertilisers etc, I used to muck out the pigs with my neighbour on a weekend, and he used to spend the whole time moaning about what other farms did, animal feeds, how their fertilisers affected his land etc (I don't think he had many people to talk to!). When the mad cow disease thing happened he had plenty of eye-opening stories for me.. Things were tough then, must be a nightmare being a farmer these days.. |
|
ed
New Member
🗨️ 697
👍🏻 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 10, 2017 17:50:54 GMT 1, He just sits on this nowadays, we used to have 700 sheep but they mean you gotta work every day
The farms amazing tbf..And looking back was awesome to grow up on; gun at 12, car at 13, set almost anything on fire I wanted to....
This summer will involve going back to the farm, making a race track, driving my old car around until it dies, shoot it up a bit and then set it on fire 
He just sits on this nowadays, we used to have 700 sheep but they mean you gotta work every day The farms amazing tbf..And looking back was awesome to grow up on; gun at 12, car at 13, set almost anything on fire I wanted to.... This summer will involve going back to the farm, making a race track, driving my old car around until it dies, shoot it up a bit and then set it on fire |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 18:16:27 GMT 1, He just sits on this nowadays, we used to have 700 sheep but they mean you gotta work every day The farms amazing tbf..And looking back was awesome to grow up on; gun at 12, car at 13, set almost anything on fire I wanted to.... This summer will involve going back to the farm, making a race track, driving my old car around until it dies, shoot it up a bit and then set it on fire
I like all of this stuff, we should be friends LOL
He just sits on this nowadays, we used to have 700 sheep but they mean you gotta work every day The farms amazing tbf..And looking back was awesome to grow up on; gun at 12, car at 13, set almost anything on fire I wanted to.... This summer will involve going back to the farm, making a race track, driving my old car around until it dies, shoot it up a bit and then set it on fire I like all of this stuff, we should be friends LOL |
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 10, 2017 18:28:53 GMT 1, I'm just really enjoying the videos, and it's opened my eyes a bit on how people actually do not listen or cannot answer a question or go off on one and talk about themselves, fascinating.
I'm just really enjoying the videos, and it's opened my eyes a bit on how people actually do not listen or cannot answer a question or go off on one and talk about themselves, fascinating.
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 12, 2017 22:00:00 GMT 1, [...] _____________________________ COMPETITION 5 – Thursday, 9 March to Sunday, 12 March 2017Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Sunday, 12 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following three lottery numbers: 11, 12 and 13Fed Up (2014) [1:35:43] – directed by Stephanie Soechtig– uploaded by David Buckner
C5 QUESTIONS
Each time reference below is to the broad half-hour period in the video where the answer to the relevant question can be found.
Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following:
1. [00:00—30:00] Dr. David Allison, Ph.D (Director, Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham) is a researcher who's been funded by the soft drink industry. His position is a minority one among scientists, i.e. there's not enough "solid evidence" of sugary beverages being a significant contributor to America's obesity crisis. It is also mentioned that he has received over $2.5 million from Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and the American Beverage Association.
During Dr. Allison's interview, the filmmaker (Stephanie Soechtig) and the interviewer / narrator (Katie Couric) leave themselves vulnerable to accusations of unethical journalism and dirty tactics. Although the result is amusing to watch, what is it they do that undermines the integrity of the documentary?
2. [30:00—1:00:00] The United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) was initially created to help farmers thrive by promoting their products. It later also inherited the responsibility of issuing dietary guidelines. When obesity became a problem, the U.S.D.A. had a conflict of interest. Clearly explain this conflict of interest, and describe one example given by way of illustration.
3. [1:00:00—1:30:00] The documentary draws parallels between the behaviour, influence and might of the processed food / fast food / junk food industries of today, and the cigarette industry of yesteryear.
Public perception of the cigarette industry (including awareness of the health dangers of smoking) has changed dramatically over the last few decades — along with what is considered acceptable advertising directed at children.
To emphasise this shift in perception, the documentary shows a clip from a vintage, black-and-white television advertisement for a cigarette brand. The ad features famous characters from a well-known television programme. Although quite shocking today, such ads used to be aired at the end of episodes of that programme. Name either the television programme or one of its characters.
[Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).]
[...] _____________________________ COMPETITION 5 – Thursday, 9 March to Sunday, 12 March 2017Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Sunday, 12 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following three lottery numbers: 11, 12 and 13Fed Up (2014) [1:35:43] – directed by Stephanie Soechtig– uploaded by David BucknerEach time reference below is to the broad half-hour period in the video where the answer to the relevant question can be found. Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following: 1. [00:00—30:00] Dr. David Allison, Ph.D (Director, Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham) is a researcher who's been funded by the soft drink industry. His position is a minority one among scientists, i.e. there's not enough "solid evidence" of sugary beverages being a significant contributor to America's obesity crisis. It is also mentioned that he has received over $2.5 million from Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and the American Beverage Association. During Dr. Allison's interview, the filmmaker (Stephanie Soechtig) and the interviewer / narrator (Katie Couric) leave themselves vulnerable to accusations of unethical journalism and dirty tactics. Although the result is amusing to watch, what is it they do that undermines the integrity of the documentary? 2. [30:00—1:00:00] The United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) was initially created to help farmers thrive by promoting their products. It later also inherited the responsibility of issuing dietary guidelines. When obesity became a problem, the U.S.D.A. had a conflict of interest. Clearly explain this conflict of interest, and describe one example given by way of illustration. 3. [1:00:00—1:30:00] The documentary draws parallels between the behaviour, influence and might of the processed food / fast food / junk food industries of today, and the cigarette industry of yesteryear. Public perception of the cigarette industry (including awareness of the health dangers of smoking) has changed dramatically over the last few decades — along with what is considered acceptable advertising directed at children. To emphasise this shift in perception, the documentary shows a clip from a vintage, black-and-white television advertisement for a cigarette brand. The ad features famous characters from a well-known television programme. Although quite shocking today, such ads used to be aired at the end of episodes of that programme. Name either the television programme or one of its characters. [Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).] |
|
ed
New Member
🗨️ 697
👍🏻 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 12, 2017 22:10:16 GMT 1, 1. He asks for time to rethink, restart or restate his answer after starting an answer. By showing this and then leaving a long shot of him thinking in silence and then cutting and moving on they are trying to infer that he doesn't even believe the stuff he is saying. In fact it also could be true that he was just nervous about being on camera, or a multitude of other reasons. They also did not show his fully formed arguement and then critique this.
2. It has the dual role of promoting US agriculture AND advertising nutritional information/aiming for better nutrition in food.
As lobbiest money almost all comes from big food/high sugar companies and forms a larger (or louder in their message) part of the departments remit, this leads to approval of ‘pro sugar’ legislation whilst the nutritional side of the dept whispers about the dangers of those very same ingredients.
One such example given was consumer trends turning to skimmed milk, leading to a excess of fat skimmed from the milk. The Dept of Agriculture was complicit in reprocessing this fat into cheese, increases cheese production, promotion and consumption, whilst at the same time producing public health campaigns stating that consumption of cheese should be lowered.
3. The Flintstones. Fred Flintstone
1. He asks for time to rethink, restart or restate his answer after starting an answer. By showing this and then leaving a long shot of him thinking in silence and then cutting and moving on they are trying to infer that he doesn't even believe the stuff he is saying. In fact it also could be true that he was just nervous about being on camera, or a multitude of other reasons. They also did not show his fully formed arguement and then critique this.
2. It has the dual role of promoting US agriculture AND advertising nutritional information/aiming for better nutrition in food.
As lobbiest money almost all comes from big food/high sugar companies and forms a larger (or louder in their message) part of the departments remit, this leads to approval of ‘pro sugar’ legislation whilst the nutritional side of the dept whispers about the dangers of those very same ingredients.
One such example given was consumer trends turning to skimmed milk, leading to a excess of fat skimmed from the milk. The Dept of Agriculture was complicit in reprocessing this fat into cheese, increases cheese production, promotion and consumption, whilst at the same time producing public health campaigns stating that consumption of cheese should be lowered.
3. The Flintstones. Fred Flintstone
|
|
|
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 12, 2017 22:41:07 GMT 1, 1. David is not shown his answer to the question so it looks like he is not able to answer it and in doing so the viewer forms an opinion influenced by this, that he is wrong and or he doesn't know how to answer the question, therefore implying that his opinion and argument is wrong.
2. Conflict of interest is that the dept of agriculture are on one hand saying to eat less to reduce obesity, they are also saying to eat more in order to promote their agricultural products. An example is cheese industry: the trend for consuming skimmed milk rather than full fat milk in 1980's resulted in a surplus of the by product of cheese. So to get round this they decided to promote more cheese consumption as they had surplus to sell, which in turn lead to daily increased calorie intake.
3. Fred flintstone
1. David is not shown his answer to the question so it looks like he is not able to answer it and in doing so the viewer forms an opinion influenced by this, that he is wrong and or he doesn't know how to answer the question, therefore implying that his opinion and argument is wrong.
2. Conflict of interest is that the dept of agriculture are on one hand saying to eat less to reduce obesity, they are also saying to eat more in order to promote their agricultural products. An example is cheese industry: the trend for consuming skimmed milk rather than full fat milk in 1980's resulted in a surplus of the by product of cheese. So to get round this they decided to promote more cheese consumption as they had surplus to sell, which in turn lead to daily increased calorie intake.
3. Fred flintstone
|
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 12, 2017 22:42:16 GMT 1, Slow internet day for me today 😄
Slow internet day for me today 😄
|
|
ed
New Member
🗨️ 697
👍🏻 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 12, 2017 22:50:53 GMT 1, That film scared the s**t outta me. I eat a very junk food based diet and I think i've internet diagnosed myself with imminent liver failure. TOFI.
That film scared the s**t outta me. I eat a very junk food based diet and I think i've internet diagnosed myself with imminent liver failure. TOFI.
|
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 12, 2017 23:12:00 GMT 1, ed never too late 😀I've worked in fitness industry for 20 years so always interested in these topics. The food industry is becoming a lot more sophisticated in the way they sell their products to us these days. They love to sell us products as a deal/offer and we are tempted by the way they are pitched to us and where they are placed in the store...the smell of bread as you walk in....crazy. The amount of misinformation has increased so much.
ed never too late 😀I've worked in fitness industry for 20 years so always interested in these topics. The food industry is becoming a lot more sophisticated in the way they sell their products to us these days. They love to sell us products as a deal/offer and we are tempted by the way they are pitched to us and where they are placed in the store...the smell of bread as you walk in....crazy. The amount of misinformation has increased so much.
|
|
ed
New Member
🗨️ 697
👍🏻 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 12, 2017 23:30:50 GMT 1, ed never too late 😀I've worked in fitness industry for 20 years so always interested in these topics. The food industry is becoming a lot more sophisticated in the way they sell their products to us these days. They love to sell us products as a deal/offer and we are tempted by the way they are pitched to us and where they are placed in the store...the smell of bread as you walk in....crazy. The amount of misinformation has increased so much.
If I've learnt anything at all from that film, what i need to focus on is the balence of calories IN vs calories OUT.
ed never too late 😀I've worked in fitness industry for 20 years so always interested in these topics. The food industry is becoming a lot more sophisticated in the way they sell their products to us these days. They love to sell us products as a deal/offer and we are tempted by the way they are pitched to us and where they are placed in the store...the smell of bread as you walk in....crazy. The amount of misinformation has increased so much. If I've learnt anything at all from that film, what i need to focus on is the balence of calories IN vs calories OUT. |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 12, 2017 23:41:23 GMT 1, 1. He asks for time to rethink, restart or restate his answer after starting an answer. By showing this and then leaving a long shot of him thinking in silence and then cutting and moving on they are trying to infer that he doesn't even believe the stuff he is saying. In fact it also could be true that he was just nervous about being on camera, or a multitude of other reasons. They also did not show his fully formed arguement and then critique this. 2. It has the dual role of promoting US agriculture AND advertising nutritional information/aiming for better nutrition in food. As lobbiest money almost all comes from big food/high sugar companies and forms a larger (or louder in their message) part of the departments remit, this leads to approval of ‘pro sugar’ legislation whilst the nutritional side of the dept whispers about the dangers of those very same ingredients. One such example given was consumer trends turning to skimmed milk, leading to a excess of fat skimmed from the milk. The Dept of Agriculture was complicit in reprocessing this fat into cheese, increases cheese production, promotion and consumption, whilst at the same time producing public health campaigns stating that consumption of cheese should be lowered. 3. The Flintstones. Fred Flintstone
Lottery numbers 11, 12 and 13 allocated to ed. Congratulations.
Great to see doyle still in the trenches.
C5 REFERENCE ANSWERS
1. Dr. Allison is given a question and needs a moment to collect his thoughts. The camera remains on him for a number of seconds in silence — making him look foolish, as if he's incapable of answering. The edit then switches to another scene before Allison's response is actually heard. [16:39—18:05]
Here's what Allison later had to say about this incident and its background:
2. The U.S.D.A. was conflicted because its responsibilities included encouraging Americans both to eat less to prevent obesity, and to eat more to promote the consumption of American agricultural products.
One example provided is the case of cheese. While the U.S.D.A. promotes the consumption of cheese (produced with the fat removed to make low-fat milk), a separate unit within that same entity is encouraging people to eat less cheese. [49:46—50:03 and 52:39—52:57]
[Additional information:
Katie Couric: "And the food, especially the abundance of cheap, processed, sugar-laden products is a direct result of government policy. Mainly the United States Department of Agriculture. The U.S.D.A. was initially created to help farmers thrive by promoting their products. But in the aftermath of the McGovern Report, the U.S.D.A. inherited dietary guidelines as well."
Marion Nestle, Ph.D, Professor of Nutrition, New York University: "When obesity became a problem, the Department of Agriculture was put into conflict of interest. Because on the one hand, it was telling people to eat less in order to prevent obesity. And on the other hand, it was telling people to eat more to promote consumption of American agricultural products."
Mark Bittman, Opinion Columnist, New York Times: "They can't do a good job of both. And because of lobbying dollars and where the money really is, it's doing a much better job of promoting U.S. agriculture than it is in teaching us and helping us how to eat well."
Couric: "One clear example of this conflict is the curious case of cheese. Remember back in the 1980s when the food industry began taking out the fat from its products after the McGovern Report?"
Michael Moss, Author, Salt Sugar Fat: "Women, and girls especially, became a little bit more health-conscious and started drinking skim milk. Did you ever stop to think what happened to the fat in the milk when it became skim?"
Couric: "Well, one way to make use of milk fat is to turn it into cheese. As the demand for low fat milk increased over the years, the government found itself with a lot of cheese they didn't know what to do with."
Moss: "Instead of pushing the dairy industry to cut back on the production, Washington came up with this other idea: Why don't we help the industry sell more cheese by getting people to eat more cheese? [...] Dairy Management was created in 1995 to act as a marketing arm of the dairy industry."
Couric: "Financed by the farmers, with oversight by the U.S.D.A., Dairy Management helped flood the marketplace with good-looking cheese."
Moss: "Now walk into the dairy aisle, and the cheese section is bulging with packages of cheese — shredded, cubed, diced, grated... made as simple as possible for adding to other foods. Some of the things that Dairy Management did to encourage the consumption of cheese were so clever that the U.S.D.A. actually bragged on them in its annual reports to Congress. In 2007, for example, it noted how the industry was able to sell 30 million more pounds by designing things like Pizza Hut's Cheesy Bites Pizza, Wendy's Dual Double Melt sandwich concept and Burger King's Cheesy Angus Bacon Cheeseburger.
So, at the same time the Agriculture Department is promoting consumption of cheese, its small unit, charged with protecting consumers and fighting obesity, puts out these little brochures that encourage people to eat less cheese."
Couric: "The problem is, it's not just cheese. This conflict between public health and promoting agriculture plays out across the board. The U.S.D.A. says to limit your sugar intake, yet has provided over $8 billion in subsidies for corn-based sweeteners since 1995."
Michael Pollan: "It's fair to say that the government is subsidising the obesity epidemic inadvertently, through its subsidies of corn which gets turned into high-fructose corn syrup and all those weird ingredients that you see in processed food — the maltodextrin, the xanthan gum... — all those words you can't pronounce.
So you have the government in this crazy, schizophrenic situation, where, on the one hand they're subsidising precisely the foods that are making us sick, and then on the other are now on the hook to set the standards for school lunches for our kids."]
3. The Flintstones. Fred Flintstone. [1:18:25—1:19:00]
There follows one of at least three advertisements I'm aware of for Winston cigarettes on The Flintstones. According to Wikipedia, they were "the end-of-show sponsor bumper that aired at the end of every episode while Winston was the show's primary sponsor."
_____________________________
Additional information:
Although I'm a huge fan of Fed Up and believe it's overall message is critical, the documentary does have its shortcomings. This article by the International Food Information Council Foundation is very good:
www.foodinsight.org/FedUp-review
There follows the first half of the Conclusion in that article:
Conclusion
Fed Up laudably shines a light on obesity, and the stories of the children portrayed in the film are truly heart-rending—but the cause for praise essentially ends there.
Writing an entirely comprehensive critique of Fed Up would be virtually impossible, given the speed and frequency with which the audience is bombarded with misperceptions, pseudoscience, and selective quotation. But we have attempted to analyze the most egregious of them and intend to update this critique online when warranted.
Among virtually all of the central claims supporting the film’s through-line, some are shadings of the truth, some are sins of omission, and the rest are outright fabrication. How otherwise serious and thoughtful people are able to discern truth or credibility in this threadbare quilt of mendacity is a mystery.
The film’s reckless disregard for the truth undercuts its entire premise. Its misdiagnosis of the problem and obsessive focus on a single nutrient actually could cause more harm than good, in that overconsumption of any macronutrient can lead to overweight and obesity.
People are understandably looking for simple solutions to complex problems, but preying on those very human desires in service of box office grosses and Hollywood accolades is cynicism bordering on malevolence.
The film pursues its thesis with zealous conviction as being novel and "upending the conventional wisdom of why we gain weight and how to lose it." But putting aside the self-congratulatory hyperbole, conventional wisdom is often "conventional" for a reason; in the case of Fed Up, many of its most incendiary claims fly in the face of well-established scientific consensus, and on those grounds alone they cannot be accepted as valid.
That being said, science by its nature is a constantly evolving, inquisitive process. Because of that, while the most confident and assertive of statements (sugar is inherently "toxic," energy balance is "nonsense") make for great soundbites, they can obscure truth in their attempt to delegitimize divergent commentary and further research. Because all of us have a role to play in addressing obesity, "demonizing" food companies and decades of scientific research, a tactic gleefully embraced by Fed Up, indicates a desire to stifle healthy scientific discourse.
1. He asks for time to rethink, restart or restate his answer after starting an answer. By showing this and then leaving a long shot of him thinking in silence and then cutting and moving on they are trying to infer that he doesn't even believe the stuff he is saying. In fact it also could be true that he was just nervous about being on camera, or a multitude of other reasons. They also did not show his fully formed arguement and then critique this. 2. It has the dual role of promoting US agriculture AND advertising nutritional information/aiming for better nutrition in food. As lobbiest money almost all comes from big food/high sugar companies and forms a larger (or louder in their message) part of the departments remit, this leads to approval of ‘pro sugar’ legislation whilst the nutritional side of the dept whispers about the dangers of those very same ingredients. One such example given was consumer trends turning to skimmed milk, leading to a excess of fat skimmed from the milk. The Dept of Agriculture was complicit in reprocessing this fat into cheese, increases cheese production, promotion and consumption, whilst at the same time producing public health campaigns stating that consumption of cheese should be lowered. 3. The Flintstones. Fred Flintstone Lottery numbers 11, 12 and 13 allocated to ed. Congratulations. Great to see doyle still in the trenches. C5 REFERENCE ANSWERS1. Dr. Allison is given a question and needs a moment to collect his thoughts. The camera remains on him for a number of seconds in silence — making him look foolish, as if he's incapable of answering. The edit then switches to another scene before Allison's response is actually heard. [16:39—18:05] Here's what Allison later had to say about this incident and its background: 2. The U.S.D.A. was conflicted because its responsibilities included encouraging Americans both to eat less to prevent obesity, and to eat more to promote the consumption of American agricultural products. One example provided is the case of cheese. While the U.S.D.A. promotes the consumption of cheese (produced with the fat removed to make low-fat milk), a separate unit within that same entity is encouraging people to eat less cheese. [49:46—50:03 and 52:39—52:57] [Additional information:Katie Couric: "And the food, especially the abundance of cheap, processed, sugar-laden products is a direct result of government policy. Mainly the United States Department of Agriculture. The U.S.D.A. was initially created to help farmers thrive by promoting their products. But in the aftermath of the McGovern Report, the U.S.D.A. inherited dietary guidelines as well."Marion Nestle, Ph.D, Professor of Nutrition, New York University: "When obesity became a problem, the Department of Agriculture was put into conflict of interest. Because on the one hand, it was telling people to eat less in order to prevent obesity. And on the other hand, it was telling people to eat more to promote consumption of American agricultural products."Mark Bittman, Opinion Columnist, New York Times: "They can't do a good job of both. And because of lobbying dollars and where the money really is, it's doing a much better job of promoting U.S. agriculture than it is in teaching us and helping us how to eat well."Couric: "One clear example of this conflict is the curious case of cheese. Remember back in the 1980s when the food industry began taking out the fat from its products after the McGovern Report?"Michael Moss, Author, Salt Sugar Fat: "Women, and girls especially, became a little bit more health-conscious and started drinking skim milk. Did you ever stop to think what happened to the fat in the milk when it became skim?"Couric: "Well, one way to make use of milk fat is to turn it into cheese. As the demand for low fat milk increased over the years, the government found itself with a lot of cheese they didn't know what to do with."Moss: "Instead of pushing the dairy industry to cut back on the production, Washington came up with this other idea: Why don't we help the industry sell more cheese by getting people to eat more cheese? [...] Dairy Management was created in 1995 to act as a marketing arm of the dairy industry."Couric: "Financed by the farmers, with oversight by the U.S.D.A., Dairy Management helped flood the marketplace with good-looking cheese."Moss: "Now walk into the dairy aisle, and the cheese section is bulging with packages of cheese — shredded, cubed, diced, grated... made as simple as possible for adding to other foods. Some of the things that Dairy Management did to encourage the consumption of cheese were so clever that the U.S.D.A. actually bragged on them in its annual reports to Congress. In 2007, for example, it noted how the industry was able to sell 30 million more pounds by designing things like Pizza Hut's Cheesy Bites Pizza, Wendy's Dual Double Melt sandwich concept and Burger King's Cheesy Angus Bacon Cheeseburger.So, at the same time the Agriculture Department is promoting consumption of cheese, its small unit, charged with protecting consumers and fighting obesity, puts out these little brochures that encourage people to eat less cheese."Couric: "The problem is, it's not just cheese. This conflict between public health and promoting agriculture plays out across the board. The U.S.D.A. says to limit your sugar intake, yet has provided over $8 billion in subsidies for corn-based sweeteners since 1995."Michael Pollan: "It's fair to say that the government is subsidising the obesity epidemic inadvertently, through its subsidies of corn which gets turned into high-fructose corn syrup and all those weird ingredients that you see in processed food — the maltodextrin, the xanthan gum... — all those words you can't pronounce.So you have the government in this crazy, schizophrenic situation, where, on the one hand they're subsidising precisely the foods that are making us sick, and then on the other are now on the hook to set the standards for school lunches for our kids."]3. The Flintstones. Fred Flintstone. [1:18:25—1:19:00] There follows one of at least three advertisements I'm aware of for Winston cigarettes on The Flintstones. According to Wikipedia, they were "the end-of-show sponsor bumper that aired at the end of every episode while Winston was the show's primary sponsor."_____________________________ Additional information: Although I'm a huge fan of Fed Up and believe it's overall message is critical, the documentary does have its shortcomings. This article by the International Food Information Council Foundation is very good: www.foodinsight.org/FedUp-reviewThere follows the first half of the Conclusion in that article: Conclusion
Fed Up laudably shines a light on obesity, and the stories of the children portrayed in the film are truly heart-rending—but the cause for praise essentially ends there.
Writing an entirely comprehensive critique of Fed Up would be virtually impossible, given the speed and frequency with which the audience is bombarded with misperceptions, pseudoscience, and selective quotation. But we have attempted to analyze the most egregious of them and intend to update this critique online when warranted.
Among virtually all of the central claims supporting the film’s through-line, some are shadings of the truth, some are sins of omission, and the rest are outright fabrication. How otherwise serious and thoughtful people are able to discern truth or credibility in this threadbare quilt of mendacity is a mystery.
The film’s reckless disregard for the truth undercuts its entire premise. Its misdiagnosis of the problem and obsessive focus on a single nutrient actually could cause more harm than good, in that overconsumption of any macronutrient can lead to overweight and obesity.
People are understandably looking for simple solutions to complex problems, but preying on those very human desires in service of box office grosses and Hollywood accolades is cynicism bordering on malevolence.
The film pursues its thesis with zealous conviction as being novel and "upending the conventional wisdom of why we gain weight and how to lose it." But putting aside the self-congratulatory hyperbole, conventional wisdom is often "conventional" for a reason; in the case of Fed Up, many of its most incendiary claims fly in the face of well-established scientific consensus, and on those grounds alone they cannot be accepted as valid.
That being said, science by its nature is a constantly evolving, inquisitive process. Because of that, while the most confident and assertive of statements (sugar is inherently "toxic," energy balance is "nonsense") make for great soundbites, they can obscure truth in their attempt to delegitimize divergent commentary and further research. Because all of us have a role to play in addressing obesity, "demonizing" food companies and decades of scientific research, a tactic gleefully embraced by Fed Up, indicates a desire to stifle healthy scientific discourse.
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 12, 2017 23:50:54 GMT 1,
COMPETITION 6 – Sunday, 12 March to Monday, 13 March 2017
Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Monday, 13 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof).
The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following two lottery numbers: 14 and 15
Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech (University of Toronto's Hart House Debating Club, 15 November 2006) [20:58]
– uploaded by Jim Bob
The video was previously posted in this thread.
COMPETITION 6 – Sunday, 12 March to Monday, 13 March 2017Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Monday, 13 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following two lottery numbers: 14 and 15Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech (University of Toronto's Hart House Debating Club, 15 November 2006) [20:58] – uploaded by Jim BobThe video was previously posted in this thread.
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 13, 2017 22:00:00 GMT 1, COMPETITION 6 – Sunday, 12 March to Monday, 13 March 2017Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Monday, 13 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following two lottery numbers: 14 and 15Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech (University of Toronto's Hart House Debating Club, 15 November 2006) [20:58] – uploaded by Jim BobThe video was previously posted in this thread.
C6 QUESTIONS
Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following:
1. Christopher Hitchens attempts to summarise classic texts on freedom of speech, by John Milton, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill:
"It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. [...] If all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard. Because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view."
Application of theory to practice: Give an example of how some members of the Urban Art Association have occasionally attempted to limit the free speech of others here, in particular those holding unpopular opinions.
2. During his talk, Hitchens warns: "Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think you’re bound to be okay, because you’re in the safely moral majority."
After describing one of the proudest moments of his life, and what he states is a scandal, he adds: "And I can’t find a seconder usually when I propose this, but I don’t care. I don’t need a seconder. My own opinion is enough for me. And I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass."
In one or two sentences, what is the proud moment he's referring to, and what is the scandal?
3. Hitchens' talk was part of a larger debate for which the motion was, "Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate."
He illustrates at length a great problem faced by the side he's debating against, i.e. those who oppose the motion. In two or three sentences, describe that problem.
[Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).]
COMPETITION 6 – Sunday, 12 March to Monday, 13 March 2017Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Monday, 13 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following two lottery numbers: 14 and 15Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech (University of Toronto's Hart House Debating Club, 15 November 2006) [20:58] – uploaded by Jim BobThe video was previously posted in this thread. Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following: 1. Christopher Hitchens attempts to summarise classic texts on freedom of speech, by John Milton, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill: "It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. [...] If all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard. Because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view."Application of theory to practice: Give an example of how some members of the Urban Art Association have occasionally attempted to limit the free speech of others here, in particular those holding unpopular opinions. 2. During his talk, Hitchens warns: "Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think you’re bound to be okay, because you’re in the safely moral majority."After describing one of the proudest moments of his life, and what he states is a scandal, he adds: "And I can’t find a seconder usually when I propose this, but I don’t care. I don’t need a seconder. My own opinion is enough for me. And I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass."In one or two sentences, what is the proud moment he's referring to, and what is the scandal? 3. Hitchens' talk was part of a larger debate for which the motion was, "Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate."He illustrates at length a great problem faced by the side he's debating against, i.e. those who oppose the motion. In two or three sentences, describe that problem. [Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).] |
|
|
|
ed
New Member
🗨️ 697
👍🏻 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 13, 2017 22:30:58 GMT 1, This is frustrating, I'm out at a meal and it's just too rude to spend the time tapping away on my phone. He's gone to the loo and i just wanted to register this ha.
met, i loved that video again, I've watched it about 10 times ha and spent alot of time last night watching other videos by him. This whole project is the best learning I've done for yonks
This is frustrating, I'm out at a meal and it's just too rude to spend the time tapping away on my phone. He's gone to the loo and i just wanted to register this ha. met, i loved that video again, I've watched it about 10 times ha and spent alot of time last night watching other videos by him. This whole project is the best learning I've done for yonks |
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 13, 2017 22:37:59 GMT 1, 1. An example of how members of UAA attempt to limit free speech of others is to call a Mod and cut the thread/close the thread so that the person with a differing view cannot be allowed to continue to explain their view. Another example is a lot of members gang up on one person in a thread , it slowly builds up before you know it many members are attacking one person rather than letting them have their view.
2.his proud moment is defending his friend David Irving, in jail for saying an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil. He argues that his friend has not committed a crime for his thoughts and writings.
3. The great problem faced by the side he's debating against Is that those who speak against religion will use the hate speech law. So while it is ok to believe a book that will tell you that anyone who goes against a religion, is to be treated like cattle. In real life, anyone who verbally disagrees can wake up to placards calling for them to be beheaded and they will not get in trouble, but the one who voices their disagreements will get in trouble.
1. An example of how members of UAA attempt to limit free speech of others is to call a Mod and cut the thread/close the thread so that the person with a differing view cannot be allowed to continue to explain their view. Another example is a lot of members gang up on one person in a thread , it slowly builds up before you know it many members are attacking one person rather than letting them have their view.
2.his proud moment is defending his friend David Irving, in jail for saying an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil. He argues that his friend has not committed a crime for his thoughts and writings.
3. The great problem faced by the side he's debating against Is that those who speak against religion will use the hate speech law. So while it is ok to believe a book that will tell you that anyone who goes against a religion, is to be treated like cattle. In real life, anyone who verbally disagrees can wake up to placards calling for them to be beheaded and they will not get in trouble, but the one who voices their disagreements will get in trouble.
|
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 13, 2017 22:38:15 GMT 1, 1. An example of how members of UAA attempt to limit free speech of others is to call a Mod and cut the thread/close the thread so that the person with a differing view cannot be allowed to continue to explain their view. Another example is a lot of members gang up on one person in a thread , it slowly builds up before you know it many members are attacking one person rather than letting them have their view.
2.his proud moment is defending his friend David Irving, in jail for saying an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil. He argues that his friend has not committed a crime for his thoughts and writings.
3. The great problem faced by the side he's debating against Is that those who speak against religion will use the hate speech law. So while it is ok to believe a book that will tell you that anyone who goes against a religion, is to be treated like cattle. In real life, anyone who verbally disagrees can wake up to placards calling for them to be beheaded and they will not get in trouble, but the one who voices their disagreements will get in trouble.
1. An example of how members of UAA attempt to limit free speech of others is to call a Mod and cut the thread/close the thread so that the person with a differing view cannot be allowed to continue to explain their view. Another example is a lot of members gang up on one person in a thread , it slowly builds up before you know it many members are attacking one person rather than letting them have their view.
2.his proud moment is defending his friend David Irving, in jail for saying an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil. He argues that his friend has not committed a crime for his thoughts and writings.
3. The great problem faced by the side he's debating against Is that those who speak against religion will use the hate speech law. So while it is ok to believe a book that will tell you that anyone who goes against a religion, is to be treated like cattle. In real life, anyone who verbally disagrees can wake up to placards calling for them to be beheaded and they will not get in trouble, but the one who voices their disagreements will get in trouble.
|
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 13, 2017 22:39:40 GMT 1, Lol just to be sure 😂 My sentences are all over the place but hope you get the jist of what I was trying to write  )
Lol just to be sure 😂 My sentences are all over the place but hope you get the jist of what I was trying to write ) |
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 13, 2017 22:40:41 GMT 1, Really enjoyed Hitchens' talk, do you have any other links, he's a great speaker and enjoy listening to him.
Really enjoyed Hitchens' talk, do you have any other links, he's a great speaker and enjoy listening to him.
|
|
ed
New Member
🗨️ 697
👍🏻 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 13, 2017 22:54:22 GMT 1, Really enjoyed Hitchens' talk, do you have any other links, he's a great speaker and enjoy listening to him.
I watched a newsnight special with paxman that I thought was very interesting, can't link at the mo but easy to find on youtube
Really enjoyed Hitchens' talk, do you have any other links, he's a great speaker and enjoy listening to him. I watched a newsnight special with paxman that I thought was very interesting, can't link at the mo but easy to find on youtube |
|
|
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 13, 2017 23:03:48 GMT 1, Cheers ed and Coach I'll have a look at those at some point, thank you 
Cheers ed and Coach I'll have a look at those at some point, thank you |
|
|
|
|
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Coach on Mar 13, 2017 23:20:59 GMT 1, Cheers ed and Coach I'll have a look at those at some point, thank you
Sadly passed away too young.
His take on death and the possibility of finding faith at the end is interesting.
Cheers ed and Coach I'll have a look at those at some point, thank you Sadly passed away too young. His take on death and the possibility of finding faith at the end is interesting. |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 13, 2017 23:24:49 GMT 1, 1. An example of how members of UAA attempt to limit free speech of others is to call a Mod and cut the thread/close the thread so that the person with a differing view cannot be allowed to continue to explain their view. Another example is a lot of members gang up on one person in a thread , it slowly builds up before you know it many members are attacking one person rather than letting them have their view. 2.his proud moment is defending his friend David Irving, in jail for saying an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil. He argues that his friend has not committed a crime for his thoughts and writings. 3. The great problem faced by the side he's debating against Is that those who speak against religion will use the hate speech law. So while it is ok to believe a book that will tell you that anyone who goes against a religion, is to be treated like cattle. In real life, anyone who verbally disagrees can wake up to placards calling for them to be beheaded and they will not get in trouble, but the one who voices their disagreements will get in trouble.
Lottery numbers 14 and 15 allocated to doyle. Congratulations. There are few things I admire more than perseverance.
C6 REFERENCE ANSWERS
1. Example: Attempts by some members to shout down or otherwise silence those with minority opinions about certain artists whose work the former appreciate and/or have invested in.
2. Hitchens: "One of the proudest moments of my life [...] has been defending the British historian David Irving, who is now in prison in Austria for nothing more than the potential of uttering an unwelcome thought, on Austrian soil. He didn’t actually say anything in Austria. He wasn’t even accused of saying anything. He was accused of perhaps planning to say something that violated an Austrian law that says only one version of the history of the Second World War may be taught in our brave little Tyrolean Republic."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata
3. Hitchens states he's absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion and organised religion.
Regarding those who oppose the motion of the debate ("Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate."), he asks, "How are they going to ban religion? How are they going to stop the expression of religious loathing, hatred, and bigotry?"
[Additional quotes:
"[...] I also have to notice that the sort of people who ring me up and say they know where my children go to school — and they certainly know what my home number is and where I live — and what they’re going to do to them and to my wife and to me — and who I have to take seriously because they have done it to people I know — are just the people who are going to seek the protection of the hate speech law if I say what I think about their religion."
"[...] look anywhere you like for the warrant for slavery, for the subjection of women as chattel, for the burning and flogging of homosexuals, for ethnic cleansing, for antisemitism... For all of this, you can look no further than a famous book that’s on every pulpit in this city, and in every synagogue, and in every mosque. And then just see whether you can square the fact that the force that is the main source of hatred is also the main caller for censorship."]
_____________________________
Extra videos for those interested:
Christopher Hitchens - The Never Ending Party (2014) [01:25]
– directed and animated by Fraser Davidson
– uploaded by Cub Studio
Christopher Hitchens - The Axis of Evil revisited (2009) [1:00:51]
– uploaded by CaNANDian
If anyone is looking for hours of free entertainment, go to YouTube and search for "Hitchslap".
1. An example of how members of UAA attempt to limit free speech of others is to call a Mod and cut the thread/close the thread so that the person with a differing view cannot be allowed to continue to explain their view. Another example is a lot of members gang up on one person in a thread , it slowly builds up before you know it many members are attacking one person rather than letting them have their view. 2.his proud moment is defending his friend David Irving, in jail for saying an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil. He argues that his friend has not committed a crime for his thoughts and writings. 3. The great problem faced by the side he's debating against Is that those who speak against religion will use the hate speech law. So while it is ok to believe a book that will tell you that anyone who goes against a religion, is to be treated like cattle. In real life, anyone who verbally disagrees can wake up to placards calling for them to be beheaded and they will not get in trouble, but the one who voices their disagreements will get in trouble. Lottery numbers 14 and 15 allocated to doyle. Congratulations. There are few things I admire more than perseverance. C6 REFERENCE ANSWERS1. Example: Attempts by some members to shout down or otherwise silence those with minority opinions about certain artists whose work the former appreciate and/or have invested in. 2. Hitchens: "One of the proudest moments of my life [...] has been defending the British historian David Irving, who is now in prison in Austria for nothing more than the potential of uttering an unwelcome thought, on Austrian soil. He didn’t actually say anything in Austria. He wasn’t even accused of saying anything. He was accused of perhaps planning to say something that violated an Austrian law that says only one version of the history of the Second World War may be taught in our brave little Tyrolean Republic."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata3. Hitchens states he's absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion and organised religion. Regarding those who oppose the motion of the debate ( "Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate."), he asks, "How are they going to ban religion? How are they going to stop the expression of religious loathing, hatred, and bigotry?"[Additional quotes:
"[...] I also have to notice that the sort of people who ring me up and say they know where my children go to school — and they certainly know what my home number is and where I live — and what they’re going to do to them and to my wife and to me — and who I have to take seriously because they have done it to people I know — are just the people who are going to seek the protection of the hate speech law if I say what I think about their religion."
"[...] look anywhere you like for the warrant for slavery, for the subjection of women as chattel, for the burning and flogging of homosexuals, for ethnic cleansing, for antisemitism... For all of this, you can look no further than a famous book that’s on every pulpit in this city, and in every synagogue, and in every mosque. And then just see whether you can square the fact that the force that is the main source of hatred is also the main caller for censorship."]_____________________________ Extra videos for those interested: Christopher Hitchens - The Never Ending Party (2014) [01:25] – directed and animated by Fraser Davidson– uploaded by Cub StudioChristopher Hitchens - The Axis of Evil revisited (2009) [1:00:51] – uploaded by CaNANDianIf anyone is looking for hours of free entertainment, go to YouTube and search for " Hitchslap". |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 13, 2017 23:43:14 GMT 1,
COMPETITION 7 – Monday, 13 March to Thursday, 16 March 2017
Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Thursday, 16 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof).
The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 16, 17, 18 and 19
Steven Pinker: Three Reasons to Affirm Free Speech (18 February 2015) [1:20:53]
– uploaded by Thomas Cushman
stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/stevenpinkerfreedomprojectlecture.pdf
COMPETITION 7 – Monday, 13 March to Thursday, 16 March 2017Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Thursday, 16 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 16, 17, 18 and 19Steven Pinker: Three Reasons to Affirm Free Speech (18 February 2015) [1:20:53] – uploaded by Thomas Cushmanstevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/stevenpinkerfreedomprojectlecture.pdf
|
|
doyle
New Member
🗨️ 930
👍🏻 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 13, 2017 23:57:43 GMT 1, Woo hoo!! I have a lottery entry haha hey ed can you go out to dinner again on Thursday so I can win again 😂
Thanks met for these great videos, I'm enjoying the journey:)
Woo hoo!! I have a lottery entry haha hey ed can you go out to dinner again on Thursday so I can win again 😂 Thanks met for these great videos, I'm enjoying the journey:) |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 0:21:57 GMT 1, Excellant speech and video with Peter Hitchins.
I always wondered about the phrase "political correctness". To me it is nothing more than the government of the day defining what is correct to say and therefore controlling how we think. It's dangerous and it allows the government to get away with a lot of wrongdoings and cover up a lot of mistakes under the banner of political correctness.
It's true that one can hide behind religion to promote hate speech and get away with it as well. Plus the fact that the majority who hold a religious book up and quote from it are hypocrits anyway who use religion for effect and for gain, whether it's for gain as a religious group ina community or for personal gain and power over others.
The god squad religion sales people one sometimes meets in the street who approach someone with , do you know about jesus for example or some other foot in the door tactic is done for gain as in power and manipulation over the gullible and also for financial gain. It's a racket and regarding free speech. The government should be secular and religious indoctrination in public should be scrutinised and classed as harassment. I was approached by a couple of god squad types and for some reason they got very offended when I replied to them and I responded, you are the ones who approached me in a public street and if you don't like my reply, thats too bad. Religion is based on a lot of psychology and manipulation and the selling of the idea or belief that anyone who becomes part of whichever religious group is special and has something which others do not have and non belivers lack. Religion is a cult and whether it's a small cult or a global cult recognised by governments , it's still a cult. Anyone who does not accept what is preached or written or promoted is classed as hate speech.
One ironic thing about freedom of speech and freedom of expression is the gay couple who went to the Christian bakers in Ireland to have a cake made for their wedding and wanted it decorated to promote gay marriage. The bakers refused on the grounds it was against their religious belief and got taken to court for it under some discrimination against gays law. Saying that they could not use religion to discriminate against a gay couple etc etc or something similar. The irony considering that it's illegal for women in Ireland to have abortions because religion in Ireland is against it.
Basically anti hate speech laws are criminalising people who have comitted no criminal offence. Which is due to political correctness agenda by the government of the day and by the outsiders pulling the politicians strings.
The Christian couple could have baked the cake for the gay couple and could have said for the decoration on the cake that comes under an art commission and an artist has the right to refuse to accept a commission.
I'm sure many artists have refused an art commission because it is against their own religious or political or other views or beliefs.
Regarding religious beliefs and hate speech against religion. Why should people be forced to pander or give an inch to religious text and religious culture? There is no need for sharia courts in the UK and there is no need to give social security to polygamous men and their extra wives because their culture back from where they come from and their religion OK's it. If they live in the UK, they should live by the same law that the rest of the UK lives by.
All that these anti hate laws has done is create segregation and ghettoisation. It's that way in Germany with the Turkish community and it's happening in other european countries. Who benefits from it. The more the politicians pander to this situation the more problems there will be and the more things that the government will cover up, as well as the police and the more laws brought in to enable the government to cover up the problems they cause. It's interesting too that a politician can insult a race of people as in Sweden where a Swedish politician insulted the Swedes and in Germany where some German politician insulted the Germans openly with no repercussions. yet when it's the other way round, the police arrive quickly to arrest the person saying whatever.
I have no idea about Irving and his Holocaust research. Whether his "facts" are any more factual than the "facts" we are given today by others. Whether by challenging figures any hate crime has been committed. Of course it's always best to reserach anything with no bias.
Two people who have asked questions and have their own opinion are Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce who wrote "a letter to Spielberg" archive.org/details/ALetterFromJewishFrenchDr.RogerDommerguePolaccoDeMenasceToStevens
and Gerard Menuhin, the son of Yehudi Menuhin, who wrote a book called. "Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil" www.wvwnews.net/content/index.php?/news_story/book_tell_the_truth_and_shame_the_devil_by_gerard_menuhin.html
The complete book here. drive.google.com/file/d/0B-US2sVY7OfzVHZhRFBlMmZQeDQ/view
By making an opinion illegal and terming it hate speech because it does not comply with government rhetoric allows some groups a certain power over the majority.
There is also a form of reverse racism where the person behind it does it for our own good. Sadhiq Khan is an example of that for me when he decided it was his right to ban adverts for health food products on the London underground because it showed a fit women in a bikini. He said it was a bodyshaming ad and hence he banned it. For a start it wa snot a body shaming ad and for another start the advert complied to UK law so he should not have been allowed to ban it. or maybe cos the woman in a bikini was not wearing a head scarf Khan banned it?
Who is Khan anyway to say what is and is not realistic expectations for people health wise and physically. Most people cannot realistically afford to buy a Ferrari but I don't see Khan banning ads for Ferrari's on the tube. Khan mentions the ads can demean women. Well so can some religions demean women and so can some cultural practices.
" the advertising “can demean people, particularly women”
www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/13/sadiq-khan-moves-to-ban-body-shaming-ads-from-london-transport
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Who has the right to censor ?
Darcus Howe did a brilliant documentary on the situation in Birmingham and Trevor Phillips has recently made a very good video about freedom of speech.
Excellant speech and video with Peter Hitchins. I always wondered about the phrase "political correctness". To me it is nothing more than the government of the day defining what is correct to say and therefore controlling how we think. It's dangerous and it allows the government to get away with a lot of wrongdoings and cover up a lot of mistakes under the banner of political correctness. It's true that one can hide behind religion to promote hate speech and get away with it as well. Plus the fact that the majority who hold a religious book up and quote from it are hypocrits anyway who use religion for effect and for gain, whether it's for gain as a religious group ina community or for personal gain and power over others. The god squad religion sales people one sometimes meets in the street who approach someone with , do you know about jesus for example or some other foot in the door tactic is done for gain as in power and manipulation over the gullible and also for financial gain. It's a racket and regarding free speech. The government should be secular and religious indoctrination in public should be scrutinised and classed as harassment. I was approached by a couple of god squad types and for some reason they got very offended when I replied to them and I responded, you are the ones who approached me in a public street and if you don't like my reply, thats too bad. Religion is based on a lot of psychology and manipulation and the selling of the idea or belief that anyone who becomes part of whichever religious group is special and has something which others do not have and non belivers lack. Religion is a cult and whether it's a small cult or a global cult recognised by governments , it's still a cult. Anyone who does not accept what is preached or written or promoted is classed as hate speech. One ironic thing about freedom of speech and freedom of expression is the gay couple who went to the Christian bakers in Ireland to have a cake made for their wedding and wanted it decorated to promote gay marriage. The bakers refused on the grounds it was against their religious belief and got taken to court for it under some discrimination against gays law. Saying that they could not use religion to discriminate against a gay couple etc etc or something similar. The irony considering that it's illegal for women in Ireland to have abortions because religion in Ireland is against it. Basically anti hate speech laws are criminalising people who have comitted no criminal offence. Which is due to political correctness agenda by the government of the day and by the outsiders pulling the politicians strings. The Christian couple could have baked the cake for the gay couple and could have said for the decoration on the cake that comes under an art commission and an artist has the right to refuse to accept a commission. I'm sure many artists have refused an art commission because it is against their own religious or political or other views or beliefs. Regarding religious beliefs and hate speech against religion. Why should people be forced to pander or give an inch to religious text and religious culture? There is no need for sharia courts in the UK and there is no need to give social security to polygamous men and their extra wives because their culture back from where they come from and their religion OK's it. If they live in the UK, they should live by the same law that the rest of the UK lives by. All that these anti hate laws has done is create segregation and ghettoisation. It's that way in Germany with the Turkish community and it's happening in other european countries. Who benefits from it. The more the politicians pander to this situation the more problems there will be and the more things that the government will cover up, as well as the police and the more laws brought in to enable the government to cover up the problems they cause. It's interesting too that a politician can insult a race of people as in Sweden where a Swedish politician insulted the Swedes and in Germany where some German politician insulted the Germans openly with no repercussions. yet when it's the other way round, the police arrive quickly to arrest the person saying whatever. I have no idea about Irving and his Holocaust research. Whether his "facts" are any more factual than the "facts" we are given today by others. Whether by challenging figures any hate crime has been committed. Of course it's always best to reserach anything with no bias. Two people who have asked questions and have their own opinion are Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce who wrote "a letter to Spielberg" archive.org/details/ALetterFromJewishFrenchDr.RogerDommerguePolaccoDeMenasceToStevens and Gerard Menuhin, the son of Yehudi Menuhin, who wrote a book called. "Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil" www.wvwnews.net/content/index.php?/news_story/book_tell_the_truth_and_shame_the_devil_by_gerard_menuhin.htmlThe complete book here. drive.google.com/file/d/0B-US2sVY7OfzVHZhRFBlMmZQeDQ/view By making an opinion illegal and terming it hate speech because it does not comply with government rhetoric allows some groups a certain power over the majority. There is also a form of reverse racism where the person behind it does it for our own good. Sadhiq Khan is an example of that for me when he decided it was his right to ban adverts for health food products on the London underground because it showed a fit women in a bikini. He said it was a bodyshaming ad and hence he banned it. For a start it wa snot a body shaming ad and for another start the advert complied to UK law so he should not have been allowed to ban it. or maybe cos the woman in a bikini was not wearing a head scarf Khan banned it? Who is Khan anyway to say what is and is not realistic expectations for people health wise and physically. Most people cannot realistically afford to buy a Ferrari but I don't see Khan banning ads for Ferrari's on the tube. Khan mentions the ads can demean women. Well so can some religions demean women and so can some cultural practices. " the advertising “can demean people, particularly women” www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/13/sadiq-khan-moves-to-ban-body-shaming-ads-from-london-transport Freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Who has the right to censor ? Darcus Howe did a brilliant documentary on the situation in Birmingham and Trevor Phillips has recently made a very good video about freedom of speech. |
|
|
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Schrödinger's Chat on Mar 14, 2017 6:56:47 GMT 1, When I was particularly actively atheist I read and watched a lot of Hitchens (as well as Dawkins and Sam Harris etc.) - I remember enjoying a good debate between Hitchens and Tony Blair on religion, which I'm sure is easily tracked down on the Internet.
This video has inspired me to watch more of his talks.
I found it disgusting that when he was suffering from oesophagal cancer that some religious folk put it down to God's punishment and were willing him to die.
When I was particularly actively atheist I read and watched a lot of Hitchens (as well as Dawkins and Sam Harris etc.) - I remember enjoying a good debate between Hitchens and Tony Blair on religion, which I'm sure is easily tracked down on the Internet.
This video has inspired me to watch more of his talks.
I found it disgusting that when he was suffering from oesophagal cancer that some religious folk put it down to God's punishment and were willing him to die.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 10:02:45 GMT 1, I found it disgusting that when he was suffering from oesophagal cancer that some religious folk put it down to God's punishment and were willing him to die.
That is vile
I really wouldn't want to belong to the club that these people belong to
I found it disgusting that when he was suffering from oesophagal cancer that some religious folk put it down to God's punishment and were willing him to die. That is vile I really wouldn't want to belong to the club that these people belong to |
|
ed
New Member
🗨️ 697
👍🏻 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 14, 2017 11:43:51 GMT 1, Woo hoo!! I have a lottery entry haha hey ed can you go out to dinner again on Thursday so I can win again 😂 Thanks met for these great videos, I'm enjoying the journey:)
Maybe you've all ready won, quality of number Vs quantity! I wouldn't be able to do this on a mobile, it'd drive me crazy. Well done
Woo hoo!! I have a lottery entry haha hey ed can you go out to dinner again on Thursday so I can win again 😂 Thanks met for these great videos, I'm enjoying the journey:) Maybe you've all ready won, quality of number Vs quantity! I wouldn't be able to do this on a mobile, it'd drive me crazy. Well done |
|
)
