Thrasymachus wrote:My prospective employer refused my religious objection...
Not surprising given it is a lie. There's no beating karma!
Maybe it's his karma, however I wouldn't consider it a "lie". His conviction seems to be more honest and authentic than many people's religious contrivances, even if the 'law of karma' wasn't in his favor this time around.
Even if it was a "lie", in Buddhist terminology it was a justified "lie" (skillful means).
The problem is, is that some Buddhists use "skillful means" as an excuse. Whereas other's use skillful means in a legit way.
Some seem to think that the end never justifies the means (like some well-intentioned naive people), whereas others seem to think that the end always justifies the means (like the Jesuits). But I think that it depends on the situation (i.e. sometimes the end justifies the means, and sometimes it does not). Hence Upaya or Skillful Means. And Thrasymachus is in the right in this particular circumstance.
greentara wrote:Lhug pa, If those pictures you sent of Michael Taylor and Monsanto are for real then we are in deep trouble and are being taken for absolute 'mugs'.... what a mess this world is in!
I shall forward this to all my friends.
They're for real. Michael Taylor was appointed by Barack GMObama himself.
And:http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... _20437.cfm
Pema Rigdzin wrote:One hears a lot about how "chemicals" are to be avoided at all costs because they're not natural... You know, because natural things are not made of chemicals... <sarcasm>
Yea yea, I used to get that one all the time. So these days I always specifically say "synthetic
-chemicals" in order to (hopefully) not have to hear such sarcasm.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:OK, so I do agree with trying to stick with good quality, locally grown, organic foods that are nutritious, as well as avoiding taking medications unnecessarily--particularly antibiotics. I also know full well, as do many medical professionals, how rigged the big pharma scheme can be and how much the money game tends to interfere with what is beneficial for the people (including the big pharma players themselves, which is why I don't fully understand how those peoples' minds work).
It's said that Monsanto's (who are in bed with the FDA) own cafeteria is non-GMO or even organic. Wouldn't be surprised. Anyone who actually knows what's in Monsanto's frankenfood wouldn't eat it, including Monsanto themselves. Not everybody who works for greedy corporations is intentionally trying to screw others over. Some people are simply ignorant and don't really know who they're working for and don't ask questions.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:But, with that said, the extreme chemophobia is no good either. And having begun studying pharmacology a couple months ago, it has become apparent how little the average person knows about (1) how drugs actually work, (2) how much western meds are tested and how much empirical data there is for so many of them, and how much oversight there is so we can be sure there is a consistant level of the active ingredient(s), so we can know their mechanism of action (usually); so we can know how they're metabolized, what the signs of toxicity are, and what amounts tend to be toxic; so we can know what the safe therapeutic range for any given drug is, and on and on; and (3) how little of this knowledge we have for a great many naturopathic medicines, not to mention the lack of oversight for standardized levels of the active ingredients, reporting and data collection for adverse effects (which a significant amout of natural medicines DO have, some of which can be serious), and so on.
Hm, I'm not convinced. See for example Thrasymachus' posts about synthetic-chemical drugs and the placebo
Also, why do commercials for big-pharma's synthetic-chemical drugs usually give warnings like the ones I mentioned earlier in this thread, such as:
*side-effects may include vomiting, rashes, convulsions, mood swings, ulcers, blurred vision, loss of consciousness, suicidal thoughts, liver failure, or heart failure. Ask your doctor if big pharma is right you*
etc. etc, etc.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:We generally know much less about naturopathic remedies than most western meds.
And that's sad. Hippocrates and Paracelsus would be rolling in their graves. That is, because we know more about the quick-fix mechanical biochemical workings of plants than we do about the various properties (both physical and metaphysical) of plants themselves. (See also Malcolm's thread on plants as sentient beings)
It seems like that article is trying to say that since chemicals found in nature and synthetic-chemicals are both chemicals, that they are both equally potentially dangerous and both potentially beneficial. I completely disagree with that. Are there chemicals found in plants and in nature in general that can be poisonous or have side-effects? Sure. However the risk with synthetic-chemicals is much greater. If you were to compare the risks and side-effects of synthetic drugs and to the risks and side-effects of Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine, I guarantee that the risks and side-effects of synthetic drugs would be much much greater overall.
The article said:
"Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic."
That is indeed what synthetic
-chemicals are. We just don't need them at all, and they're an unnecessary risk.
Yeah I know that there are probably a lot of hokey types of homeopathic remedies out there that don't work; however Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine are time-tested systems. Not to say that I'm not open-minded about homeopathic remedies, it's just that I think there are many naive homeopaths and herbalists out there who give authentic natural-medicine systems a bad name; i.e. it seems that many people hear about Ayurveda or Tibetan Medicine, and lump it in with common homeopathy, and questionable naturalists/herbalists who haven't really perfected their method down to a science like Tibetan Medicine has.
Now I'm not saying that many Buddhists here disregard Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine altogether. Nonetheless, I still wonder why Buddhists would even bother with big pharma at all, when we already have complete systems such as Tibetan Medicine.
The only reason I can see for dealing with contemporary medicine, is that A) the contemporary medical field has made some progress in the area of surgery, and B) if one wanted to help to turn the current corrupt corporatist system around, one could get a degree or two, and once one gets that degree, one can start promoting natural and preventative methods instead of promoting what the system tried to program one to do. Plus, by knowing how contemporary western medicine works, and/or how the corporatocracy would like it to keep working, one would be able to better expose them for the racketeers that many of them they are.