Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Rteacher]

Irrational, erratic behavior on the part of many vegans may be symptomatic of vitamin B 12 deficiency.

Vitamin B-12 deficiency can potentially cause severe and irreversible damage, especially to the brain and nervous system. At levels only slightly lower than normal, a range of symptoms such as fatigue, depression, and poor memory may be experienced.[18] However, these symptoms by themselves are too nonspecific to diagnose deficiency of the vitamin...

...During the course of disease, mental disorders can occur: irritablity, focus/concentration problems, depressive state with suicidal tendencies, paraphrenia complex. These symptoms may not reverse after correction of hematological abnormalities, and the chance of complete reversal decreases with the length of time the neurological symptoms have been present.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12

The vegan diet doesn't naturally supply this essential nutrient - which indicates that their propaganda about cows milk not being intended for human consumption is based on erroneous speculation.

[Bramble]

Start a new thread about vegan nutrition if you're so concerned about it. Oh, I forgot ... there were many threads about it establishing that you're wrong and that the dairy industry slaughters every animal it "owns," just as the meat and egg industries do. I guess you've just decided the facts don't matter.

[The Bobster]

By the way, Bramble, all the "alternative" definitions of terrorism found in the links you provided pretty much coincide with what I've been saying all along, and their definitions include groups like ALF and ELF.

From wikipedia, first paragraph.

[Rteacher]

I think "the Bobster's" post was very reasonable - until he said he was pretty sure that I was kidding about vegans' problematic B12 deficiency.

I was looking for a thread to post that info on (without using the search function) and - upon skimming this one - I noticed that the OP made reference to some radical environmentalist's vegan status.

My legalistic sense led me to conclude that my insight about potential mental impairments associated with a "pure" vegan diet was relevant to the general thread topic (albeit in a convoluted, corollary way ... )

[The Bobster]

[Bramble]

I'll respond to The Bobster later (regarding the articles, not the personal insults) when I have time to go over every point carefully.

I won't bother responding to the nutrition crap. I've posted solid links on the subject before, backed up by peer-reviewed articles, and they always got ignored. Plus it's very much off-topic, and I think Rteacher knows that.

[The Bobster]

I've made no personal insults toward you. I've defended you from them.

[The Bobster]

(At Least) 6 Ways Ted Rall Got It Wrong

1. �Terrorism--you can look it up--involves killing people.�

As we've seen, if you DO look it up you'll find what the dictionary has to say, as well as what the UN has to say: homicide is not a necessary feature, but fear and intimidation is.

2. �Destroying property--property that, for the most part, made the world a worse place--is not[terrorism].�

If the intent of the destruction of the property is to intimidate, cause fear or alter someone�s behavior due to a higher level of concern for one�s safety, it does in fact meet the criteria for being called by this label.

3. �ELF demands that its adherents 'take all necessary precautions against harming any animal--human and non-human.'�

As the writer points out four paragraphs prior to this one, ELF is a �loose-knit group� and as we�ve been told elsewhere they are organized in �cells� � basically, anyone can be a part of ELF by doing no more than participating in a �direct action� (criminal behavior for political purposes) � and regardless of any guidelines that might be out and about, it is impossible for ELF to �demand� anything of its adherents at all.

4. �Equating the burning of a Hummer to blowing up a child exposes our society's grotesque overemphasis on the "right" of property owners to do whatever they want.�

a. No one has made any such equation between SUXs and human children. The writer is fantasizing.

b. Property owners do not have the right to do anything they want. Depending on where one lives, there are numerous zoning, sanitation and other sorts of ordinances that must be followed. The developers who built the homes that ELF burnt down needed to accede to many such regulations in the process of construction, and legal venues exist that would have forced them to halt construction if the laws and the courts and public opinion had decided that was for the best, or if sufficient public awareness, scruitiny or organized opposition had been brought to bear.

5. �The word "eco-terrorism" is an insult to the human victims of real terrorism, including those of 9/11.�

As the writer himself stated only a scant few sentences before, the FBI designated this group as terrorists several months prior to 9/11, and it�s impossible to insult victims whom have not yet been victimized. Again, the writer is engaging in fantasy.

6. �The development where this latest arson took place, situated atop the area's water supply, has been challenged by other groups, using negotiation and the law. Challenged, yes. But not successfully."

What he got right is that there is a lawful way to get things done � lawful AND nonviolent - but what he got wrong is that when the social mechanism do not give you what you wish, you are not then entitled to burn things to the ground, or make people too afraid to carry on with their wishes. If you do that � if you use violence and coercive intimidation � you will be called a terrorist.

Because that�s what you are.

The above is how he ends his essay, and it's especially embarassing for those of us who have real concern and work for the environment as well as toward other forms of social justice. The subtext one is left with is one that should make all of us uncomfortable, at the very least: it says that we no longer have confidence in the goals of democracy or the ability of the rule of law to solve the problems facing us - and so we, the minority who understand things better than the rest, will ignore negotiation, scorn the law and spit in the faces of the fellow citizens who walk the streets we share and ride the buses next to us and who are co-owners of our common society. This is because we do not trust the people around us to make the right choices ... and because we are inept at the task of persuading them.

Truth is, though, the history of democracy shows clearly that a minority viewpoint can become accepted and become the norm as well as the legal standard. It was Margaret Mead who opined with more wisdom than Ted Rall that we should "Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world - indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

But ...with kerosene and a match?

[Kuros]

[The Bobster]

[The Bobster]

[Imbroglio]

[The Bobster]

[Bramble]

BTW, I haven't forgotten about this discussion; I just lost interest in arguing with a person whose idea of a �debate� involves lies, personal attacks and misrepresentation at every step, and who thinks he can provoke me into engaging with his idiocy by bumping up the thread every few months.

I can�t be bothered going through all the articles again�you obviously missed the point. While the use of �intimidation� to coerce someone to do something may be a necessary condition to classify a group as a �terrorist� organization, that doesn�t make it a sufficient condition. The articles I cited months ago clearly stated that it�s inappropriate to throw around the �terrorist� label casually just to slander (or, in this case, libel) anyone you don�t like. That�s exactly what you�ve done repeatedly on these forums, and it�s offensive.

People who are concerned with defining terrorism in a meaningful way are asking that the label apply only to actions that would be war crimes if they took place in the context of a war. Spray-painting �ALF� on a wall wouldn�t qualify. Neither would liberating animals, or destroying inanimate property with no intention of harming living beings.

Yes, of course governments are free to use different definitions of terrorism, and to twist definitions to advance their agendas. That goes without saying. On a related note, look at the scary turn of events unfolding in Austria:

http://www.indymedia.no/node/3387

In this case, the injustice at hand involves a warped concept of organized crime, not terrorism. Maybe you don�t care because you don�t share the prisoners� goals. Will you care when the same thing happens to someone whose goals you do approve of?

(Oh, and I missed the irony in your avatar. Why don�t you explain?)

[Bramble]

Regarding Ted Rall, I've been reading his comic strip for a while now. He seems to have a quirky sense of humour and apparently doesn't like the U.S. government very much. I�m sure he and I will inevitably have to disagree on some subjects, but the main points in his article remain valid. Terrorism by any meaningful definition involves serious crimes ... if not murder, then attempted murder, kidnapping, hostage taking, sexual assault, etc. Calling a spray-paint incident terrorism is an insult to the victims of real terrorism � and who the hell cares whether you insult them before or after the crime has occurred? Is that really the best argument you could come up with?