Isn't this Child Abuse?

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:29:52 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Don Quijote writes:

Freedom from predators?

The most common predators of children are their own parents.

Not exactly.

http://www.fatherhood.org/articles/wh020601.htm

The second thing that caught my eye was the identity
of the perpetrators. Family friends and acquaintances
composed the largest group of perpetrators (28 percent),
followed by such relatives as uncles and cousins (18 percent),
stepfathers (12 percent), male siblings (10 percent),
biological fathers (10 percent), boyfriends (9 percent),
grandfathers and stepgrandfathers (7 percent), and
strangers (4 percent). Of these perpetrators, 51 percent
resided exclusively outside the household during the abuse,
whereas 39 percent resided exclusively within the household
during the abuse and 10 percent resided in the household for
a portion of the time the abuse was occurring.

What is interesting about these statistics is how they contrast
with the common view of who is the most likely person to
perpetuate child sexual abuse. As popularized by such
made-for-television movies as "Something About Amy,"
biological fathers are often thought to be the persons most
likely to perpetrate child sexual abuse. After that, strangers
are seen as presenting the greatest danger to children.

Yet, according to this study, only 10 percent of perpetrators
were biological fathers and only 4 percent were strangers.
Which means 86 percent of the perpetrators were known to
the family, but were someone other than the child's father.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
Herman Rubin writes:

snip
This is not what I was discussing. BTW, from 13 to 17,
all efforts to put weight on me failed. By 19, eating
no more and the same height, my problem was keeping my
weight down.
--

This is where I have a problem with that statement. Where your journaling
and counting calories on every single thing you ate? How do you know this?
--
SuzyQ
Weight 124
WW Lifetime Membership Feb 03

On 14 Sep 2003 13:53:38 -0500, (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

White flour was available about 4000 years ago. The
Talmud (around 2000 years ago) calls on those who can
tolerate unleavened bread made with white flour to use
it during Passover.

But it was neither sifted, nor bleached with chlorine or H2O2 or
whatever you americans use for bleaching it (here it is only
mechanically sifted, but still quite devoid of nutrients, unlike the
mineral rich "white" flour 2000 years behind(from the ginding mill
stones,the only backside of that flour was avery bad effect on teeth
which was damaged by all small sand (sand dust) particles)

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:55:53 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

No, it is not. They are referred to as "empty calories" because they
contain sources of energy in rapidly bioavailable form, but with a
minimum of micronutrients. That is, they are mostly protein, fat,

But unrefined cane sugar (fluid) contain almost enough trivalent
chromium to keep chromomoduline active, making insulin fully active.
(Making insulin effect curve sharply sigmoid with top plateu-effect
about 10 times higher than insulin effect without chromomoduline
available where the dose effect curve is the usual hyperbole, but Vm
very low compared to the other).

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 01:30:38 +0200, Goran Tomaš
wrote:

No, sugar is a food.

Would rather say spice :-)

Again, sugar is a food. It contains mostly simple carbs and not much
else. It's high in calories and low in nutrients (macro and micro) -
it's empty calorie.

If it contains anything else than fructose and glucose, it must be
because it has been contaminated, like floor dust etc. There is no
other nutrients there than sucrose. Period. You need a long range of
other compounds in your nutrition to sustain health. Of course you can
keep seemingly healthy for weeks on only sugar, but after some time
you will get ill and what is bad,most of the harm done to your body is
not reversible at all. Those harms you must live with for the rest of
your life, like damages done to your heart, bones (osteoporosis due to
complete lack of calcium in diet), broken teeth (due to calcium
lacking and bacteria living on the carbohydrates has done lot of harm)
plus plus plus. (The descriptions of damages done to your body may
fill a whole volume of books)

toto writes:

Not exactly.

Childred are abused _overwhelmingly_ by their own parents. Abuse and
sex are not the same thing, and there are many types of abuse besides
sexual abuse. Overall, parents are responsible for most of it, and
mothers are responsible for more of it than fathers (probably because
mothers spend more time in contact with children).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Alf Christophersen writes:

There is no other nutrients there than sucrose. Period.

Sucrose is an extraordinarily important and useful nutrient.

That's kind of like saying that drinking water is bad because all it
contains is water.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Mxsmanic wrote:
Roger Schlafly writes:

Try it. I assure you that rats and insects will eat refined flour
and white bread.

Don't they realize that it is poisonous and cannot sustain life?

there were some tiny, flying beetles that got into the house this summer.
When I opened up a bag of (white) flour that I hadn't used for a while, I
discovered a bunch of them inside - all dead. I assumed they had somehow
OD'ed on it.

writes:

there were some tiny, flying beetles that got into the house this summer.
When I opened up a bag of (white) flour that I hadn't used for a while, I
discovered a bunch of them inside - all dead. I assumed they had somehow
OD'ed on it.

They probably died happy, though.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Alf Christophersen wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:55:53 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

No, it is not. They are referred to as "empty calories" because they
contain sources of energy in rapidly bioavailable form, but with a
minimum of micronutrients. That is, they are mostly protein, fat,

But unrefined cane sugar (fluid) contain almost enough trivalent
chromium to keep chromomoduline active, making insulin fully active.
(Making insulin effect curve sharply sigmoid with top plateu-effect
about 10 times higher than insulin effect without chromomoduline
available where the dose effect curve is the usual hyperbole, but Vm
very low compared to the other).

I knew it was good, but not that good...

"If I can't dance, I don't want to join your revolution."
-Emma Goldman

*guarapo: cane juice, a Caribbean staple.

THE GUARAPO REVOLUTION?

What if instead of using something totally abstract for national
identity--the flag, the anthem--or something which makes you different
in a suspicious way--religion, politics--we used something real
that everybody liked? Suppose that the symbol of national identity was
'food' and suppose that we spiced it up--in its erotic
connotation--wouldn't the little people prefer it?

Guess what, people love it! My first writing over 11 years ago was the
'Guarapo Revolution,' and--after its huge success--I modeled the
Jalapeno (Mexico), Arepa (Venezuela, Colombia), Banana
'Revolutions'...

While most other activists struggle to convince an overwhelmingly
skeptical public, I just shout the 'Guarapo Revolution' and most
people--at least those who most count: women, young people--stop in
their tracks to get it. They get two leaflets: the Guarapo Revolution
itself and the little stories with the solution being proposed...

Best of all, they want the Party, the Guarapo Party! All we got to do
is *throw the party*. That's what the little people want. At least
that's my experience among the Latin American people...

But I would have many more arguments for it:

-Nationalistic symbols--flag, anthem--divide, food differentiates yet unites.

-The leaflets are passed on, not wasted.

-The names really stick.

-It would secure food (not risk the famines or scarcities some
revolutions--USSR, China, Cuba--are known for).

-It would challenge junk food, a favorite method of globalization.

-It would constitute a 'back to basics' movement.

-It would distance the lion, since he only seems to know how to roar.

-The little people would have something better to think other than the
afterlife.

-It would be something really worth living and fun, the
revolution Emma Goldman would have liked to dance indeed...

The surveys in English don't convey the full power of it, but if you
can visualize the Brazilian Carnival, you get the idea...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote9