TaN: Because of lifestyle diseases and the mistaken and misplaced trust most people have in Big Pharma, natural (God-given) food is being shunned and wrongfully replaced by toxic man-made food. It can be safely assumed that majority of the global population today are theists and, of them, a large proportion are Christians (i.e., who believe in Jesus Christ, whether as the Son of God or as a prophet, who speaks the Truth of God).
It is accepted that God is benevolent and that He is all-good and all-powerful, among other things, therefore from Him would only come good. Given this, it becomes unimaginable that nature, coming from God, would be bad for man. In fact, why is it that it is only with man that nature “seems” to be so “antagonistic” — that people with arthritis should avoid food high in uric acid or uric acid-forming substances, with diabetes should avoid food high in sugar or high glycemic index, with hypertension should avoid food high in cholesterol and (saturated) fat, and so on? Why is it that it is no so for the rest of nature — the animals, plants, etc?
From this, it becomes inconceivable and nonsensical that Christians would readily agree to deprive themselves of God-given food and consider these natural food as bad. This would go against the very belief in Christ, that God would create and give things that are bad for man. This is just preposterous and Christians should therefore not claim to be followers and believers of God and Christ because they regard God’s gift as bad.
As I have posted in previous blogs, there is no reason to fear or avoid God-given food. The “detrimental” effects of God-given food does not come from the food — because they would be inherently good — but in how we partake of the food, how we prepare the food for consumption. This is supported by the seemingly uncanny and “miraculous” reversals of Big Pharma-dictated incurable lifestyle diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, osteoporosis, and even cancer (by faithfully following the Paleo “Caveman” Diet, among others).
TaN: Antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” bacteria exists but it is erroneous and misleading to say that (more and more) bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. Bacteria cannot just become resistant. There are two possible ways by which there is now a proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
One, there are already pre-existing bacteria that are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics, so the antibiotics only eliminated those not resistant and leaving the resistant ones to reproduce and proliferate unchallenged and unhindered.
Two, there are “dormant” or “de-activated” DNA (protein sequence) switches in the genetic code that are “awakened” or “activated” by antibiotics so, technically, the bacteria did not become resistant but merely had its ability to resist antibiotics triggered, ergo it had the resistant capability all along and not as a result or product of a chemical reaction upon exposure to antibiotics — which the phrase “become resistant to antibiotics” would apparently imply or suggest.
And three, there happened to be some “loose or unbound” DNA-like proteins within the immediate vicinity of a bacterium when it was exposed to antibiotics which caused the bacterium to “acquire or assimilate and integrate” — via transduction, conjugation, or transformation (depending on the source of the “foreign” DNA — into its genetic code, thus causing the acquisition of the ability to be resistant but in no way can it be claimed that the bacterium acquired the ability on its own (without any external assistance) which is what the phrase “become resistant” implies to me.
In many instances, it is the non-agreement or the lack of knowledge and understanding of the definition of certain terminology applied that is behind the misunderstanding or mis-interpretation that resulted in miscommunication.
TaN: Bailing out the “too-big-to-fail” banks and mega corporations are not only a mis-use or malversation of public funds but can even be considered treasonous acts. No government official, not even the President, has the authority or discretion to divert or use public funds to finance or come to the ((financial) assistance of any private entity, especially for the purpose of salvaging or extricating a private business enterprise out of a financial crisis through no fault of government but on their own and most of all if the bail out is not applied to all for-profit businesses equitably..
It is extremely unfair that my hard-earned tax is being used to bail out a for-profit business, especially if the business is known to engaged in unethical practices. It is just not right. It would not be as bad or revulsive — but still does not mitigate the injustice — if it were applied to any and all for-profit businesses in financial trouble, regardless of whether they are large mega corporations or the neighborhood mom and pop stores.
Finally, as long as I am on the subject of “too-big-to-fail”, businesses should no longer be permitted to become so massive that their failure would significantly impact society and the economy, like having lots of employees.
TaN: There are two main types of lying (as far as deliberateness is concerned): intentional and unintentional. Most know of the intentional lie but unintentional lies are lies by technicality. This means that when one does not tell the whole truth because one is not aware that it is not the whole truth, it is still a lie (by technicality). Even if it was unintentional, the fact remains that it is not the whole truth.
Moreover, even if there was no malice or intent, the gravity of the lying act is no less diminished — merely justified. Furthermore, once the deficiency in truth is known, steps must be taken to rectify or correct the deficiency. As I have constantly and consistently maintained and continue to maintain, There is no lesser of (two) evils — otherwise it could be used as an excuse to do evil just because there is an act that is less in gravity or severity.
It is just like killing someone in self-defense. The taking of a life is never good and killing another to preserve one’s own or someone else’s life does not make the act of killing any less evil or the victim any “less dead”. In either case, someone is dead.
The point of this is that one should never try to get out of feeling or being guilty of an evil act by resorting to “redefinition” or excuses to avoid responsibility or escape blame.
TaN: Laws, regulations, and policies that prohibit (or penalize) abuse are not only ridiculous but are even redundant. When as there been or where on this planet can anyone find laws, regulations, and policies that permit abuse? Instead of abuse, forms of abuse must be properly defined and described and it is these forms, rather than abuse itself, that should be specified in laws, regulations, and policies.
TaN: It is important for a man that is children’s mother is intelligent because the female of the species carry the intelligence gene while the male only contributes the gender gene; whereas, it is important for a woman that her husband is intelligent because it otherwise may be a boring marriage — URL: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/brainy-sons-owe-intelligence-to-their-mothers-1339099.html and http://drkeithwitt.com/males-inherit-more-intelligence-from-mothers-63/.
The intelligence that I am referring to are the natural curiosity and ability of the brain to acquire information from the external (i.e., outside of the body) environment and manipulate and fashion it to address whatever needs necessary. I contend that intelligence is as much inherited as it is acquired, especially from parents in the early and formative years. The only contribution of food (i.e., nutrition) is the support it provides for the brain to maximize its abilities and faculties. As I have maintained, no person can be more intelligent than another unless the other person has been malnourished, in which case the other becomes less intelligent. So, by comparison, the malnourished individual would be less intelligent, but not if proper nutrition has been provided and accompanied by an environment that stimulates thinking and creativity, especially during the formative years of growing up.
This is a major reason why positive people are “more intelligent”, because they tend to marshal all their mental faculties towards resolving challenges in life, whereas negative people simply “accept” what life throws at them without so much as trying to find solutions. As with the law of nature, Use it or lose it.
Using what we have is another major reason why some people appear to be “less” intelligent. As I have also mentioned before, Having it but not using it is as good as not having it. In other words, every person has common sense but some claim they do not have any. This is because they are not or do not know how to use it.
As role models and mentors, parents (i.e., parental behavior), during the early formative years of a child, determines to a great extent how the child will behave subsequently. (And contrary to the deceptive marketing ploys of milk companies, child “geniuses or prodigies” are not results of drinking their toxic slew they call milk. In fact, milk (i.e., commercial or branded milk) is not only the least reason but is even detrimental to the intelligence of a child. There appears to be no negative impact because the harmful effects will only come much later and may manifest in a variety of different medical conditions.)
Anyway, what it all boils down to is that (true) intelligence is as much a product of nature as it is of nurture, if not more of the latter.