O'Lielly discussing "the pot lobby" Vs Kellog's

[Turborama]

Run time: 04:44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2VLNxNGp9Y   Posted on YouTube: February 12, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 12, 2009 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 3935

 
I wonder how much he made from product placement in this one...

[grannie4peace]

1. i cannot force myself to watch this!

[Seldona]

2. Let me get this straight Bill.

Sexual harassment good. Pot bad.

Screw Kellogg's. They sell garbage anyway.

[ihavenobias]

14. That sums up O'Reilly in a nutshell. n/t

[ncteechur]

42. Billo would be all for pot if it would help him get his loofah on.

[ixion]

3. Ah, what fun for them... they sit around trashing "pot smokers"

without, you know, bothering to have at least ONE of them on to give their perspective.

Fair and balanced, indeed. :eyes:

[Royal Oak Rog]

4. The woman is an idiot

It's not an either or, children -vs- pot smokers, it was a benign offense that would of went away. Now it gives every fair minded person, not necessarily pot smokers, something to think about next time they buy cereal, Keeblers, or Morningstar Farms products. I know I'm through with Kellogs and I'm not the pot lobby.

[tomg]

5. "If you had to choose between

10,000 parents or 10,000 pot smokers e-mailing you" Well, if I sold food, that would be a no-brainer.

[Turborama]

6. LOL, true

[The Wizard]

7. That choice excludes

parent pot smokers.
I stared smoking pot in 1966 and my swimming never improved. After I stopped smoking pot my swimming didn't improve. There you have it, pot smoking has no effect on swimming. On the upside, I stopped watching TV news.

[montanto]

15. lol+snort+chortle.

[Wizard777]

8. Kellogg's the purveyors of Kiddie Cocaine AKA white sugar.

I have a friend that Runs a street vending company. He has Ice Cream trucks. He's very honest about his profession. He says he's a drug dealer. He sells Kiddie Cocaine AKA white sugar. It's highly addictive. The kids will lie, steal, and as Chester "candy lil girl" the molester knows even prostitute themselves for it. Watch them throw themselves on the ground to yell, kick, and scream for their Kiddie Cocaine fix. Then years later Mom and Dad wonders why their kid has moved on to the real thing. Ask Kellogg's why they insisted on selling your child Kiddie Cocaine. Ask them why they use cartoon characters to attract your child to Kiddie Cocaine and make it seem okay to do it by the box fulls. Like Phillip Morris Kellogg's has a dirty lil secret. They sell addictive substance to kids and they know it. They know they have your kid on the hook just like any other drug dealer.

Now I thought my friend was crazy. White sugar addictive? Come on. He says even on the molecular level the difference between sugarcane and cocaine are minute. They have just about the same effects to a lesser or greater degree. Increases heart rate and blood pressure and you crash when the short lived effects start to wear off. He said if you don't believe me. Then put it to the test to see if you're really addicted. Try to quit for a year. Just eliminate white sugar from your diet. So I did. One the thing that hides the addictiveness of white sugar is that Drugs are not a problem until you don't get your fix. Trying to quit White Sugar is when you find out it's in EVERYTHING. It's almost impossible to not get your fix. Unlike other drugs that you have to go out and hunt for. You actually have to hunt for products that don't have kiddie cocaine in it. You also go through a withdrawal. You get tired, cranky, and irritable without it. Bouts of high anxiety and depression follows. Well I didn't make my year of sobriety from Kiddie Cocaine. I relapsed and once again a full blown Kiddie cocaine addict.

The reason Kellogg's dropped Phelps over the Marijuana is they are afraid people will start to make the connection. That they'll figure out Kellogg's is a drug dealer too selling your child Kiddie Cocaine by the box full.

[DWilliamsamh]

11. "kiddie cocaine?"

IF you really believe that, you are an idiot and so is your friend. White sugar is no even CLOSE to cocaine on a molecular lever. If you are your friend really believe that...well maybe you'd be better of constantly smoking pot.

Table sugar=sucrose=C12H22O11

Cocaine=C17H21N04

Stop posting scientific ly false information as if it was fact.

As for consumption of sugar, it is no different than any other food: moderation in all things. If you eat too much of ANYTHING, including carrots, there are health consequences in store.

[montanto]

16. lol!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5037387

[DWilliamsamh]

17. So your point is that sugars (NOTE ALL sugars have the same effect)

are biologically active in the body? Really? Who would have thunk it! Do Tell! ALL FOOD IS BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE. The body makes all kinds of chemical and hormonal changes in reaction to nutritional intake. If you eliminate sugars, you will throw your body into ketosis, and the body will utilize fat and eventually protein for energy. Sugar+Oxygen is the basic unit of energy in ALL normal human biochemical energy.

But that hardly makes sugar addictive in the same or even a similar sense as cocaine. Yes we are addicted to sugar because we are addicted to the biochemical process of turning part of our food into energy.

And that wasn't the point of the above post: Sugar is chemically nothing like cocaine, nor does it have similar effects on the brain.

[montanto]

18. So, an addiction to one thing is totally unlike an addiction

to another thing. Got it. Sugar is not cocaine. Check. Potatoes are sugar. Okay. Highly processed sugar atop highly processed cereal can not possibly be harmful or addictive because our bio-process requires sugar and requirements can't be considered addictions. Yep. I'm goin back to my all vodka diet.

[DWilliamsamh]

21. God for you! Have another for me...

(BTW - Alcohol is largely metabolized to sugars as well). Again I was originally addressing the fallacious statement that in terms of chemistry, Cocaine and Sugar are kissing cousins. But since you brought it up - NO people don't get addicted to sugar. People throw there body chemistry off by taking in large amounts of sugar - the simplest carbohydrates - in short periods of time. Pasta is only slightly less biologically likely to cause the exact same release of insulin. So are pasta eaters addicted to it?

This country needs to STOP making the over use of every thing from shopping, to exercise an "addiction." The over use or over indulgence in ANYTHING you can name is detrimental. But it doesn't make it the equivalent of crack. The only reason I have such a strong reaction to the addiction model is that it minimizes the effect of real addiction, and has the secondary effect of teaching people that they aren't responsible for their own actions.

[Wizard777]

26. Drugs can throw off your body and brain chemistry.

But I agree that the term addiction is highly abused. I'm waiting for someone to come out with a way to break the viscious cycle of my breathing addiction. I'm quite sure it'll come on a DVD that costs 19.99. When I took the sugar addiction challenge. That was when I began to reevaluate the theory of addiction. Which is by no means a fact. But it got me looking at both sides of the argument more carefully. Currently I only suscribe to physical addiction. Every thing else is probably hocus pocus trash and junk science.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

19. so most people respond to carrots as they do to sugar?

You're sayin'?

How about the historic demand for sugar, which fueled trade (and the slave trade), exploration and economies worldwide? It used to be called "White Gold".

Or, about 100 lbs of sugar consumed annually per capita in the US...

Pepsi, Coke, and Kellog's and the rest of the food industry know the pull that sugar has.

Dentists know about it, and so does the weight loss industry.

The point is not rigorous chemical science here. The point is social science--the potent addictive effects may be empirically studied.

It may not resemble cocaine chemically, but the craving takes on a life of its own.

[Wizard777]

25. the same can be said about marijuana.

Your brain naturally produces canabinoids. The they are very similar to the canabinoids found in marijuana. This is what allows Marijuana's canabinoids to adhere to the canabinoid receptors in your brain and that causes you to get high. So when you smoke marijuana your not putting anything in your brain that isn't already there. You're merely supplementing your brains own natural Canabinoids with those found in marijuana. Just like any other supplement I don't see a problem with taking One-A-Day blunts.

But I really like the way you described that. I'll call that naturally addicted. The exemption to the theory of addiction. Like fire is an exemption to the theory of what constitutes life. Fire meets all the conditions of being a life form. Yet we do not regard it to be alive. This kinda blows my mind. Now I have to go reevaluate my entire position on the theory of addiction to incorporate a hypothesis of natural addiction. I like it. I like it.

[Wizard777]

20. I guess we have a difference of opinion. The only thing Cocaine has that sugar doesn't is Nitrogen.

I don't find 5 Carbon molecules, 1 Hydrogen molecule and 7 oxygen molecules to be that much different just because you throw in some nitrogen. They have their differences and they have their similarities. It may be apples and oranges to you in your discriminant mind set. But to me apples and oranges are both fruit that grow on a tree. So it's a valid analogy. But if you look at for what it is a recipe. They have a lot of the same ingredients. Frankly I think if someone came that close to a Kellogg's patented recipe. I think they would try to sue.

What I posted was my opinion. Opinion are made based on facts. But an opinion like a theory is by no means a fact. Why don't you stop posting like your the supreme high authority on what is and is not fact. Regardless of the differences or similarities between sugar and cocaine. Theirs uses produce a lot of the same behaviors. Except that most parents are unaware that the undesirable behaviors displayed by children in connection to sugar products or more specifically the lack of sugar products. This is a manifestation of the child's addiction to sugar. The government teaches parents how spot the signs of all kinds of addictions. Except white sugar addiction. This leads me to wonder what the real gateway drug (a ridiculous hypothesis I'll lend some credence to for the sake of perpetuating a ridiculous argument) is? Marijuana or Kiddie Cocaine

[DWilliamsamh]

22. If my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle, so they are practically the same.

Chemistry doesn't work that way. If you had simply stated that you think sugar is addictive you MIGHT be able to make the opinion argument. But as we say everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. The fact is that Sugar is not chemically related to cocaine. It certainly isn't basically the same thing.

Think of it this way, changing a couple sets of amino acid pairs can turn a benign bit of DNA into a cancer generating machine. Would you say there is basically no difference between the normal function of that gene and the aberrant one? Of course not, but the difference may only be going from AGTTACTG to AGTCCCTG.

I didn't mean to offend, but I can't stand the dissemination of inaccurate science, no matter how innocent the intent. So if I was harsh in my post I apologize.

[Wizard777]

24. Not a problem. Also it's my friends claim that I'm merely parroting.

You also have to keep in mind that he is a street vendor that holds a valid "Hucksters license." He might have also been using a play on words to over sell his point. There are differences and being on the molecular level of course they are going to be minute.

I'm aware of how chemistry works. But you have to admit that with molecular engineering. If you take a sugar molecule and add 5 carbon molecules take away 1 hydrogen molecule convert the oxygen to 4 Nitric Oxide molecules. You have just synthesized cocaine from sugar. I'm also kinda looking at this from more of a alchemical POV. Where there's not a whole lot of difference between Lead and Gold. We can now actually transmute lead to gold. But the cost of the energy used in the process would far outweigh the value of the gold produced. But it can be done.

[GaYellowDawg]

28. WTF?!?

You don't have a clue how chemistry works.

Glucose looks like this:

Cocaine looks like this:

Chemically, there is a HUGE difference. Chemistry isn't just about the constituents. It's about how the constituents are arranged!! You don't just "add" carbon molecules or just "take away" one hydrogen molecule willy-nilly. It takes this kind of biochemical pathway to convert CO2 into glucose in photosynthesis:

and converting CO2 to glucose would be such a complex pathway that nature doesn't even attempt it. You'd certainly have a whole raft of intermediates. The two molecules are nowhere near similar, structurally or chemically.

Oh, and by the way, alchemy? Alchemy is bullshit. It's been discredited for, oh, about 350 years. So if you're looking at something from an alchemical point of view, you are WAY out of date. It makes about as much sense as looking at a map from a flat earther's POV.

And lead and gold are very different elements. It doesn't take a chemist to change lead to gold - it takes a nuclear physicist. Honestly, it's completely worthless as an analogy.

[DWilliamsamh]

29. Yeah see... I just gave up when I read the word Alchemy up thread...:-)

But thanks for doing a MUCH better job of dead on killing the "chemical cousins" assertion than I did.








Edited for typo's

[Wizard777]

32. If you not an Adpetus. That is wise. You'll only find confussion.

[GaYellowDawg]

34. You are out of your effin mind. And what is an "Adpetus"?

Oh, you meant Adeptus - someone who has somehow magically found a way to turn base metals into gold. Sorry, but if you actually think there are alchemists out there who can do that, then you've got the IQ of a shoebox.

[Wizard777]

36. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

There are people out there that would think you're out of you effin mind for thinking man has been to the moon. Impossible! They would say. The astronaughts would not have lived long enough to get through the Van Allen Radiation Belt. But man has been to the moon and man can also turn lead to gold. That is physically possible. But it's not a fiscally responsible thing to do. It would require, if memory serves me correctly, the energy of the entire world for a year to convert a few ounces of lead to a few ounces of gold. So you would be spending billions if not trillions to produce a few hundred dollars worth of gold. So the old alchemists weren't as crazy as you might think. It is possible. It's not efficient. But it is possible.

[GaYellowDawg]

38. I guess it doesn't when you're in denial.

There are people out there that would think you're out of you effin mind for thinking man has been to the moon. Impossible! They would say. The astronaughts would not have lived long enough to get through the Van Allen Radiation Belt.

Those people actually share some things very much in common with you: a) denial in the face of FACTS; b) not knowing what the hell they're talking about.

Physicists can transmute lead to gold. This has nothing to do with alchemists. It has to do with understanding modern physics. Alchemists' attempts at transmutation involved pouring random chemicals over base metals and adding mystical bullshit to the mix. Neither western nor eastern alchemists knew what molecules, or atoms, or subatomic particles were. They didn't know the difference between elements and compounds. It was a discipline that only existed because of massive ignorance of the physical world as compared to today.

So the old alchemists weren't as crazy as you might think. It is possible. It's not efficient. But it is possible.

Sorry, dude, but this is just dumb. The old alchemists were ignorant. People who actually think alchemy is still relevant are the crazy ones. Drawing a direct line between alchemy and nuclear transmutation is like saying that since we now have probes orbiting the sun that don't dare get too close, that the story of Icarus is the basis for modern astronomy. It's just plain dumb, and anyone who's a research scientist would laugh you straight out of their lab for suggesting that alchemy has any relevance to modern science beyond an historical footnote.

[Wizard777]

39. Youngins like to think they invented everything. Bull shit!

The word Alchemy comes from the Arabic Al Kamia meaning the Art of Transformation or the Art of Change. So I would also call it a liberal art. LMAO. I would even add Obama to the list of great Alchemists. Because he seems to have mastered this Art of Change and does it quite well. But eastern Alchemists knew about molecules. Even modern scientists use the exact same tools in their labs that the Alchemist used. Where would modern chemists be without the alchemists Al Imbiq or Alembic? Hell they even had batteries back then and were doing electroplating. See the Baghdad battery. No no no Modern science did not invent it all. I'm sorry. That's just patently false. If you're a modern scientist that truly wants to divorce themselves from Alchemy. They take all those crazy hocus pocus tools of alchemy out of your lab. Scales, alembics, condensers, etc. But if you did that your lab could not function. Know it or not. Like it or not. You are modern day Alchemist. Furthering the Art of Transformation with each new discovery.

The one in denial here is you. The off spring of Alchemy are chemistry, metallurgy, medicine and many more. You simply cannot deny the heritage. Even if you think the parent is a crazy back woods hick. It's still the parent. To a certain degree your trying to engage in some shoddy Historical alchemy here. Your trying to pretend that you can remove Alchemy from modern science and still have modern science intact. That's simply not true because you will also have to remove all the things that came from alchemy. Like chemistry, metallurgy, medicine, etc. Now your modern science is just as fragmented and unworkable as your knowledge of ancient Alchemy. I understand you may be somewhat at a disadvantage on the subject. I have studied alchemy for over 50 years and at this point in my life. I'm probably the worlds leading authority on the subject. It is not uncommon for scientists to come to me in hopes that Alchemy can provide them with a clue that modern science has not provided. So to this very day Alchemy still exists and is still relevant.

[GaYellowDawg]

40. Well - I don't mind being called a young 'un

I do mind your pathetic arguments.

The word Alchemy comes from the Arabic Al Kamia meaning the Art of Transformation or the Art of Change. So I would also call it a liberal art. LMAO. I would even add Obama to the list of great Alchemists. Because he seems to have mastered this Art of Change and does it quite well.

Ah, I see. So you're going to take the root of the word and stretch the definition to include anyone whom you like. President Obama is an alchemist? ROTFLMAO. What bullshit.

But eastern Alchemists knew about molecules.

No, they didn't. That is a bald-faced lie. Dalton and Avogadro were responsible for the acceptance of the concept in the early 19th century. That would be EUROPEAN CHEMISTS. Not "eastern alchemists," who didn't know shit about molecules.

Even modern scientists use the exact same tools in their labs that the Alchemist used. Where would modern chemists be without the alchemists Al Imbiq or Alembic?

Just because alchemists had glassware doesn't mean that modern scientists "use the exact same tools." They don't. Sure, scientists use glassware - but saying that alchemists are responsible for all lab equipment is like saying that Cro-Magnons who used a Folsom point are responsible for all kitchenware. It's a claim that is stretched way beyond anything sensible. And modern chemists would be where they are today without Al Imbiq.

Hell they even had batteries back then and were doing electroplating. See the Baghdad battery.

No, they weren't doing electroplating. The purpose of the "Baghdad battery" is conjecture.
There are many difficulties with the interpretation of those artifacts as galvanic cells, and the experiments "demonstrating" electroplating have never been successfully repeated, nor are there ANY electroplated artifacts to support that use.

No no no Modern science did not invent it all. I'm sorry. That's just patently false. If you're a modern scientist that truly wants to divorce themselves from Alchemy. They take all those crazy hocus pocus tools of alchemy out of your lab. Scales, alembics, condensers, etc. But if you did that your lab could not function. Know it or not. Like it or not. You are modern day Alchemist. Furthering the Art of Transformation with each new discovery.

Actually, the "hocus pocus" tools - you know, the astrology, the spiritualism, the chants, the metaphysical shit - have been taken out of the lab. A few things have been left. Scales? Alchemy isn't responsible for inventing scales. That's a laugher. As for the glassware, sure, it's useful - but it would certainly have been invented by someone else if not for alchemists.

The one in denial here is you. The off spring of Alchemy are chemistry, metallurgy, medicine and many more.

Chemistry, yes. Metallurgy, no. Metallurgy existed long before alchemy. Alchemy was an offspring of metallurgy. Medicine existed long before alchemy. You really are overreaching, and it's kind of pathetic.

You simply cannot deny the heritage. Even if you think the parent is a crazy back woods hick. It's still the parent. To a certain degree your trying to engage in some shoddy Historical alchemy here. Your trying to pretend that you can remove Alchemy from modern science and still have modern science intact.

Alchemy has been removed from modern science. That's called PROGRESS. Or do you know any job openings for alchemists? Having an ancestor does not make one equivalent to the ancestor. At one point, I had an ancestor who was a fish. That doesn't mean I'm a fish. Science differs from alchemy enough to be something completely different; alchemy as a lens of viewing the world is irrelevant.

That's simply not true because you will also have to remove all the things that came from alchemy. Like chemistry, metallurgy, medicine, etc.

First, metallurgy and medicine don't come from alchemy. Second, modern science has changed enough to render alchemy irrelevant. It doesn't matter what glassware is used in the lab. Those tools would have been invented by someone else if not for alchemists, just as many tools have been invented after alchemy's demise.

Now your modern science is just as fragmented and unworkable as your knowledge of ancient Alchemy. I understand you may be somewhat at a disadvantage on the subject.

You know what the difference is between modern science and alchemy? Modern science works. As for knowledge of ancient alchemy, I have a better handle on the subject than you do, because I don't romanticize it.

I have studied alchemy for over 50 years and at this point in my life. I'm probably the worlds leading authority on the subject.

Over 50 years?!? That's a wasted life if I ever heard of one. 5 minutes should have been sufficient. I can distill the essence of alchemy into a 2-second word: bullshit. Being the world's leading authority on alchemy is about like being the world's leading Vienna sausage eater - it's irrelevant and no one who's not a complete crackpot really gives a shit.

It is not uncommon for scientists to come to me in hopes that Alchemy can provide them with a clue that modern science has not provided. So to this very day Alchemy still exists and is still relevant.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Which scientists? Name them! Which clues? Name them! Which problems of science have brought scientists to your doorstep for help, o sage? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: OMG, I can hardly type for laughing. Did you consult your astrological tables or some other such woo? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Tell them to drip aqua vitae from a hermit's skull onto lead during the conjunction of Mars and Saturn? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Seriously. Back your bullshit up. Tell me which scientist from what institution came to your door looking for help. Tell me the specific problem which the scientist brought to you for help. I can't wait to shoot the next lie down.

[Wizard777]

41. You were a fish and if you didn't win that swimming contest with millions of other fish.

You wouldn't be here to conduct this ridiculous argument. Or do you prefer tadpole since you too lost your tail for swimming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy"> This is a good piece for you to begin to learn of what you speak so arrogantly. Arrogance really isn't a good substitute for substance. Stay away from the Hermetism. You must first kill your ego before you even attempt to understand that. You're far too vain. That leads you to intellectual thefts. Chemistry is the intellectual property of Alchemy. Not modern science who is it's beneficiary. So in Hermetism you'll only find confusion and your once towering knowledge laying in rubble.

[GaYellowDawg]

43. I agree that it's a ridiculous argument

But you're the ridiculous one. And now, you've proven your ignorance about the evolutionary pathway resulting in humans: the loss of the tail didn't occur until primates arose, LONG after the emergence from the marine environment.

And look what I found in your link:

Up to the 16th century, alchemy was considered serious science in Europe

See that? Meaning after the 16th century, alchemy was not considered serious science in Europe, which is where modern science was founded. Ergo, alchemy is irrelevant today. Thank you for providing the link that backs my point up. See, this is what happens when you don't read things all the way through; you don't get all the information from the source.

I'm still waiting: which scientists from which institution have come to you for help with which scientific problem?

Give it up, man. No matter how you twist it, alchemy is irrelevant to modern science except as an historical footnote.

[Wizard777]

31. Your talking Chemistry. I'm talking molecular engineering.

Part of molecular engineering is creating molecules that will do things the natural model will not. Chemical engeneering can be a part of Molecular engeneering. But it's not the whole of the science. Molecular engineering also has it's roots in Alchemy. Just like chemistry and physics. Only about 20% of Sir Issac Newtons work was in Physics. The other 80% was in Alchemy. So are you ready to part the theory of gravity because Newton was a full time alchemist and a part time physicist? If it wasn't for Alchemy. Most of todays Science would not exist. It was in Alchemy that science eventually found it's freedom from religion. So I don't think you fully apreciate exactly how important alchemy is to science. Science without Alchemy is like a Christian church without Jesus.

[GaYellowDawg]

33. There are a LOT of things wrong with that statement

And I'll address them.

Molecular engineering also has it's roots in Alchemy.

No, it really doesn't. Saying that is like saying NASA has its roots in the Catholic Church. There are several paradigm changes between alchemy and molecular engineering - enough to render alchemy completely irrelevant with respect to molecular engineering. Alchemy is also completely irrelevant to modern physicists and chemists.

Isaac Newton may have done a lot of work in alchemy, but is he remembered for that? No. He's remembered for his work in physics and calculus because those are the only portions of his work relevant to modern science. Remembering Isaac Newton for alchemy makes as much sense as remembering John Kennedy for back trouble. And did I mention throwing out all of Newton's work? No. But that was a nice halfhearted attempt to set up a straw man.

If not for alchemy, most modern science wouldn't exist? WRONG! Modern science has its roots with Sir Francis Bacon. Alchemy had to be discarded for science to advance. In fact, here's what Bacon had to say about alchemy at the time:

For to say, that Nature hath an Intention to make all Metals Gold; and that, if she were delivered from Impedients, shee would performe her owne Worke; And that, if the Crudities, Impurities, and Leprosities of Metals were cured, they would become Gold ; And that a little Quantity of the medicine, in the Worke of Projection,will turne a Sea of the baser Metall into Gold, by Multiplying: All these are but dreams: And so are many other Grounds of Alchymy. And to help the Matter, the Alchymists call in likewise many Vanities, out of Astrology, Naturall Magicke; Superstitious Interpretations of Scriptures; Auricular Traditions ; Faigned Testimonies of Ancient Authors; And the like.

It was in Francis Bacon's treatises that science shook free of religion. Not in alchemy, which, as Bacon described, was chock-full of mysticism and other such bullshit. Alchemy became irrelevant centuries ago as a completely failed model of investigating the natural world. It is completely obsolete. It has NO importance beyond an historical footnote.

And I'll correct your analogy. Science without alchemy is like a Christian church without Leviticus 11. In case you don't get that, I'm talking about precursors that are entirely irrelevant.

[Wizard777]

35. Actually it does.

There are several schools of Alchemy. What your representing here is western or european Alchemy. That dealt with curing metals. Rust was considered a disease of metal. But In eastern Alchemy that was where they were contemplating taking away and adding to lead to convert it to gold. That Basically molecular engineering in a nut shell. To understand real Alchemy you have to stay away from the works of the Western alchemists. They greatly failed to understand this eastern art. Where would modern science be without stuff like Algebra. That was invent by Al Gibar who was also an alchemist in the eastern tradition. It can even be traced back to ancient chinese cultures and contributed to their science. The biggest mistake people make with Alchemy is in thinking it is the work. That was the mistake of the western alchemists. Alchemy is more like a microscope. It isn't the work. It doesn't do the work. It's something you view the great work through. Newton understood this. That is why Newton was so brilliant. He followed the eastern tradition and even sucessfully made The Net. But where ever you find one of these grande olde scientists. Including Bacon. Alchemy is never very far away. In acrediting ANYTHING that contributes or provides a clue should receive credit. Even if it's reverse barometer showing you exactly how not to do it.

[GaYellowDawg]

37. Oh, that's horseshit.

Alchemy was primarily concerned with turning base metals into precious metals via a little chemistry and a lot of superstition. Any resemblance to modern science, as with your lead to gold "example," is purely coincidental. It is not a theoretical or philosophical lens through which ANY major contributions to science have occurred. It is bullshit, and no matter how you attempt to justify it, it is still bullshit.

Alchemy is right down there with a flat earth, the whole air/fire/water/earth elemental idea, phlogiston, and humors. It's a completely outdated and discarded idea. You can't transform it into modern science, and you can't create a relevant direct link. Quit making yourself look stupid.

[navarth]

9. I just love it when people that have never smoked ganja

expostulate on it's relative effects. Fucking idiots.

And that woman looks like a bad nightmare Florence Henderson creature.

[sasquuatch55]

10. I am boycotting kelloggs products.

nt

[mac56]

12. Billo sez: "We all make mistakes throughout all of our lives..."

:rofl:

Oh, what he just said.

[liberal N proud]

13. Kellogg's is really missing the boat on this

They should have kept Phelps and they should support legalizing marijuana.

Think of the profits they would see form a nation with the munchies. People would be eating straight from the box of cereal after lighting up.

[newmac]

23. Secret Pic discovered of Bill Oreilly munching Frosted Sugar Flakes

Im offended by someone eating such junk; So I think Fox should drop him immediately....

[windoe]

27. Better question: Who is behind the anti-legalization lobby?

Big Pharma perhaps? The AMA? The prison-industrial complex? The CIA? Whooboy can't touch that with a 10 foot pole!!! The bastards.

[drexel dave]

30. "Middle America" Smokes Most of the Pot!

Why does this elude this self-important vile Stepford Wife?