Originally Posted by Steve61

Then I guess you believe that "...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

yes, that's pretty much what i believe. although it's not a matter of population reduction that i'm concerned with, but rather quality of life.


TK

Ah, a light topic: FOOD!! :-)

I love tomatoes. Fresher the better. I even like 'em cooked. And fresh asparagus, steamed with just a touch of butter. Summer squash, if cooked just right, is a real treat. And spinach with lemon juice is yummy!

But you can have creamed corn and you can have beets. :-P

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Ah, a light topic: FOOD!! :-)

I love tomatoes. Fresher the better. I even like 'em cooked. And fresh asparagus, steamed with just a touch of butter. Summer squash, if cooked just right, is a real treat. And spinach with lemon juice is yummy!

But you can have creamed corn and you can have beets. :-P

Hehe. You've got me gagging here, Kiff! :wink:

Say, I recall reading a report years ago which claimed that dietary tastes correlate with blood type. After reading it, I checked with friends and I'll be damned if it did not prove true with my small sample. I cannot remember what all the correlations were/are but enthusiastic vegetarians tend to be of one blood type while enthusiastic meat eaters tend to be of another type. I presume people who prefer a more balanced diet or simply could not care less are generally of another type or types. But if you are a meat eater and you seem constitutionally incapable of vegetarianism, or if you are a vegetarian who seems constitutionally incapable of an all meat diet, there is a good chance that it is your blood talking.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Say, I recall reading a report years ago which claimed that dietary tastes correlate with blood type. After reading it, I checked with friends and I'll be damned if it did not prove true with my small sample. I cannot remember what all the correlations were/are but enthusiastic vegetarians tend to be of one blood type while enthusiastic meat eaters tend to be of another type. I presume people who prefer a more balanced diet or simply could not care less are generally of another type or types. But if you are a meat eater and you seem constitutionally incapable of vegetarianism, or if you are a vegetarian who seems constitutionally incapable of an all meat diet, there is a good chance that it is your blood talking.

personally, i think that report is a crock. or at least, it doesn't apply to me very well.

according to that, being type O, i should like meat and lots of it. but i don't. i love fish, and birds are good on occasion, but mammals-- yech. and i freakin' love legumes and vegetables. and pasta.

mmmmm...... yummy pasta.


TK

[quote="Stonewall Patton"]

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Ah, a light topic: FOOD!! :-)


Say, I recall reading a report years ago which claimed that dietary tastes correlate with blood type. After reading it, I checked with friends and I'll be damned if it did not prove true with my small sample. I cannot remember what all the correlations were/are but enthusiastic vegetarians tend to be of one blood type while enthusiastic meat eaters tend to be of another type. I presume people who prefer a more balanced diet or simply could not care less are generally of another type or types. But if you are a meat eater and you seem constitutionally incapable of vegetarianism, or if you are a vegetarian who seems constitutionally incapable of an all meat diet, there is a good chance that it is your blood talking.

My daughter did a science fair project on this. In the first year she looked at preferences based on blood type. Her data (based on a sample of 50 persons per blood type (except AB--couldn't find enough) shows that there is some basis. In her second year she looked at the theory that eating the prefered food was best for a specific blood type. Here data on this was inconclusive.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Steve61

Then I guess you believe that "...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

yes, that's pretty much what i believe. although it's not a matter of population reduction that i'm concerned with, but rather quality of life.

TK

I cannot believe you fell for that one.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

I cannot believe you fell for that one.

not sure what you mean. is that quote from somewhere i'm unaware of? from someone sinister, perhaps?

or do you just that i "fell for" the sentiment of physician-assisted suicide?

explain yourself! for there are those here who know not of what you speak!


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Steve61

Then I guess you believe that "...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

yes, that's pretty much what i believe. although it's not a matter of population reduction that i'm concerned with, but rather quality of life.


TK

Be careful, TK. Your own words might be used against you. :wink:

Boy, those Silents just won't go away, huh?


Bush Taps Silent Snow

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 9, 2002; 11:24 AM

President Bush announced today that he has chosen CSX Corp. Chairman John W. Snow (Silent, 1939) to be the new treasury secretary.


Of course, the Democrats will strongly oppose this nominee. Why? Well not because he wouldn't make a good treasury secretary, but because he's a member of the - gasp! - Augusta National Country Club.

Ergo, he's a sexist. :wink:

Trollking:

It's from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Scrooge is asked to donate to charity. He inquires: Are there no prisons? And the workhouses, are they still in order? It is pointed out to him that many of the poor would rather die than make use of such institutions.

"Well if they had rather die," Scrooge replies, "then they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Of course, in these more humane days, we know that decreasing the surplus population doesn't require letting the poor die. We can, instead, kill unfertilized ova through contraception, or, at worst, kill embryos that have not yet developed human consciousness. All must die eventually; the key evil is not death but suffering.

Still, it was a pretty good "gotcha," however misleading and irrational.

[quote="elilevin"]

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Ah, a light topic: FOOD!! :-)


Say, I recall reading a report years ago which claimed that dietary tastes correlate with blood type. After reading it, I checked with friends and I'll be damned if it did not prove true with my small sample. I cannot remember what all the correlations were/are but enthusiastic vegetarians tend to be of one blood type while enthusiastic meat eaters tend to be of another type. I presume people who prefer a more balanced diet or simply could not care less are generally of another type or types. But if you are a meat eater and you seem constitutionally incapable of vegetarianism, or if you are a vegetarian who seems constitutionally incapable of an all meat diet, there is a good chance that it is your blood talking.

My daughter did a science fair project on this. In the first year she looked at preferences based on blood type. Her data (based on a sample of 50 persons per blood type (except AB--couldn't find enough) shows that there is some basis. In her second year she looked at the theory that eating the prefered food was best for a specific blood type. Here data on this was inconclusive.

Just for general info....There was a book out a few years ago on food and blood types. I looked up my blood type in it (AB-) and darned if they weren't describing my favorite foods, including chicken. AB-s are not supposed to do well on vegetarian diets, when I tried it I felt kind of crummy all the time until I gave in and ate some chicken and my body said "Oh yes!" . I haven't eaten beef in years, have no physical cravings for it but do like bird and fish, yummmm.

Number Two - Sophrosyne and I are strangers.

Abstemiously yours,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.

ah.... i've never actually read that. i've seen film versions, and even had a very minor role in the play in 7th grade, but never read it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Still, it was a pretty good "gotcha," however misleading and irrational.

true, i guess.


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Trollking:

It's from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.

I was wondering if I was the only one who got the verbal trick.

Of course, in these more humane days, we know that decreasing the surplus population doesn't require letting the poor die. We can, instead, kill unfertilized ova through contraception, or, at worst, kill embryos that have not yet developed human consciousness. All must die eventually; the key evil is not death but suffering.

Many people say things to the effect of "I'd rather die than live like whatever...", but the interesting thing is that when 'whatever' actually manifests, most of them change their minds.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

This is a very strange but interesting thread....

Stonewall, where do you find this stuff? If Type O is supposed to mean carnivore, then that study is full of shi**. I'm O pos and I can't even feed leftover steak to my dog without getting grossed out.


XoE

There was a book called "Eat Right For Your Type" written about 5 years ago -- I forget who wrote it -- that suggested just such a correlation between blood type and dietary tastes/needs. I tend to believe that it is true to at least some degree, certainly not absolute.

Myself, I am O-Pos and find that I absolutely must have a juicy, red steak every now and then, although I generally eat more poultry than anything other source of protein. I actually find myself at times feeling hungry even though I am quite full, and going to bed with a sour stomach, if I don't have that occasional carnivorous feast. Conversely, the great majority of vegetarians and former veggies that I have met have either Type A or B blood.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Conversely, the great majority of vegetarians and former veggies that I have met have either Type A or B blood.

I recall the book of which you speak; it struck me as far too simplistic a framework for explaining (and even correlating) such complex mechanisms. I am B+, and am far from vegetarian. Of course, it's reasonable to assume that a lot of one's tastes are a product of environment / experience. How can a person claim not to like meat until they've tried alligator steaks on a bed of brown rice, chives, and celery? or fish until they've tried river eel sashimi? (two of my personal favorites)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Many people say things to the effect of "I'd rather die than live like whatever...", but the interesting thing is that when 'whatever' actually manifests, most of them change their minds.

they do? i've never seen any evidence of that. tell me more....


TK

H.C.:

Many people say things to the effect of "I'd rather die than live like whatever...", but the interesting thing is that when 'whatever' actually manifests, most of them change their minds.

Yet another reason, along with mitigation of suffering, why the necessary deaths should take place as early in the development of a human being as possible.

Better to contracept than abort. Better to abort than expose an infant. Better to expose an infant than have a child starve, or be murdered in a food or water riot.

But somewhere along the line, the deaths must occur. Not all potential human beings can be brought to term. That's a fact of nature, completely inescapable.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

There was a book called "Eat Right For Your Type" written about 5 years ago -- I forget who wrote it -- that suggested just such a correlation between blood type and dietary tastes/needs. I tend to believe that it is true to at least some degree, certainly not absolute.

Myself, I am O-Pos and find that I absolutely must have a juicy, red steak every now and then, although I generally eat more poultry than anything other source of protein. I actually find myself at times feeling hungry even though I am quite full, and going to bed with a sour stomach, if I don't have that occasional carnivorous feast. Conversely, the great majority of vegetarians and former veggies that I have met have either Type A or B blood.

Eat Right 4 Your Type by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo. I may have to take a look at this one myself (I'm A positive and an omnivore.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

Better to contracept than abort. Better to abort than expose an infant. Better to expose an infant than have a child starve, or be murdered in a food or water riot.

But somewhere along the line, the deaths must occur. Not all potential human beings can be brought to term. That's a fact of nature, completely inescapable.

I am not sure that many people would agree that death of an infant is to be preferred over that of a child. Or death of a child over the death of an adult.

Consider an imaginary situation in which some fraction of the population must be culled and three choices of time frames for the culling exist: infancy, childhood and adulthood. Let's assume some critical resource limits ultimate population.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it might be best to do this culling at infancy, because resources have not yet been invested in a life that must be ended.

This is likely true for the case in which the individual productivity (defined as output per person per year per unit of resource employed) of the population is relatively uniform. For cases in which individual productivity is highly variable it may make more practical sense to cull those with the lowest productivity from the adult population.

But there is a moral dimension to be considered too. Is it right that a select group should die so that others may live? Who will make the selection, Kodos the executioner?

Suppose the necessary deaths were assigned not by external selection, but rather by individual choice. Suppose a certain risk of death were associated with a particular (desirable) lifestyle choice. Those who absolutely wished to live would eschew that lifestyle. Those who were willing to risk their lives to experience the lifestyle would bear the burden of culling for the whole population.

It seems to me that this sort of an approach is morally preferrable to any other culling method.

[quote="Mike Alexander '59"]

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

Better to contracept than abort. Better to abort than expose an infant. Better to expose an infant than have a child starve, or be murdered in a food or water riot.

I am not sure that many people would agree that death of an infant is to be preferred over that of a child. Or death of a child over the death of an adult.

Consider an imaginary situation in which some fraction of the population must be culled and three choices of time frames for the culling exist: infancy, childhood and adulthood. Let's assume some critical resource limits ultimate population.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it might be best to do this culling at infancy, because resources have not yet been invested in a life that must be ended.

This is likely true for the case in which the individual productivity (defined as output per person per year per unit of resource employed) of the population is relatively uniform. For cases in which individual productivity is highly variable it may make more practical sense to cull those with the lowest productivity from the adult population.

This has happened in human populations where parents made the decision based on ability to care for an infant. For example in hunter gatherer societies, where babies had to be carried on the extensive travels of a band, a weaker twin would be exposed. Wealthier societies do not (thankfully) need to make such choices! However, see below...

But there is a moral dimension to be considered too. Is it right that a select group should die so that others may live? Who will make the selection, Kodos the executioner?

This decision is often made by mother nature. For example, if a pregnant woman is getting too few calories to support the pregnancy, she will miscarry the fetus. This makes biological sense because she has invested much more energy into her own growth and survival than has been invested in the fetus. She also may have children who need her continued investment in order to pass on their genes and she has already invested more in them than in the fetus.

Again, see below...

Suppose the necessary deaths were assigned not by external selection, but rather by individual choice. Suppose a certain risk of death were associated with a particular (desirable) lifestyle choice. Those who absolutely wished to live would eschew that lifestyle. Those who were willing to risk their lives to experience the lifestyle would bear the burden of culling for the whole population.

It seems to me that this sort of an approach is morally preferrable to any other culling method.

Rather, it is our responsibility to continue to support a society in which we do not need to make such choices. That is what the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are about. This provides a social framework that protects the lives of citizens and allows for the flourishing of econmic systems that support flourishing and abundant life. I think it is also important to recognize that not all social systems are equivalent in this regard. Wherever we stand on the abortion issue, the fact that it is an issue of discussion in our society says a great deal about how abundant are our resources compared to those hunter-gatherers refered to earlier!

Eli,

You've got my vote.

Eli:

You were responding to Mike Alexander's response to me, not to my original post.

Just FYI.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

There was a book called "Eat Right For Your Type" written about 5 years ago -- I forget who wrote it -- that suggested just such a correlation between blood type and dietary tastes/needs. I tend to believe that it is true to at least some degree, certainly not absolute.

Myself, I am O-Pos and find that I absolutely must have a juicy, red steak every now and then, although I generally eat more poultry than anything other source of protein. I actually find myself at times feeling hungry even though I am quite full, and going to bed with a sour stomach, if I don't have that occasional carnivorous feast. Conversely, the great majority of vegetarians and former veggies that I have met have either Type A or B blood.

Eat Right 4 Your Type by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo. I may have to take a look at this one myself (I'm A positive and an omnivore.)

I think this is the author's website:

http://www.dadamo.com/

It has a number of essays and tests.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Steve61

Then I guess you believe that "...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

yes, that's pretty much what i believe. although it's not a matter of population reduction that i'm concerned with, but rather quality of life.


TK

Who get's to make the determination as to the quality of someone elses life? By your standards, the world would have been rid of Stephen Hawkins and Itzhak Perlman (et al) soon after they were diagnosed with their quality of life limiting diseases.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Trollking:

It's from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Scrooge is asked to donate to charity. He inquires: Are there no prisons? And the workhouses, are they still in order? It is pointed out to him that many of the poor would rather die than make use of such institutions.

"Well if they had rather die," Scrooge replies, "then they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Of course, in these more humane days, we know that decreasing the surplus population doesn't require letting the poor die. We can, instead, kill unfertilized ova through contraception, or, at worst, kill embryos that have not yet developed human consciousness. All must die eventually; the key evil is not death but suffering.

Still, it was a pretty good "gotcha," however misleading and irrational.

Again, with a statement like this All must die eventually; the key evil is not death but suffering, I must again ask, just who gets to define suffering? To you, having polio or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis would constitute suffering, but every time I listen to a violin concerto or look up to the stars I thank God men like Perlman and Hawkins didn't consider their suffering to be evil but merely an obstacle. Isn't it odd that society considers these men to be greater yet because they were able to, not just persevere, but excel despite their conditions. And what of Beethoven, Van Gogh, Browning, Poe and so many other artists who suffered for their art? Was that suffering evil? Doesn't life itself consist of peaks of joy and valleys of suffering?

It seems ironic to me that those of you who agree with the sentiment "...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" are in essence agreeing with Ebenezer Scrooge - the quintessential example of capitalistic, corporatist greed!

You have become what you claim to despise! :evil: