The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central The real Truth - 10 minutes short video

With all respect, that is specially dedicate to member of KGB and his mother.

Talk about misplaced priorities.

"Knives and forks are weapons of mass destruction" line gave me a good chuckle though. Finally - animalists served up a justification for the Iraq war that would make Karl Rove proud - we certainly found plenty of knives and forks.

Interesting concept that animals arent just other species, they are other nations. Makes me wonder if he does not know the definition of the word nation, or if he has watched Disney's Lion King one to many times.

Also, meat does NOT cause the diseases mentioned. Meat additives and preservatives play a role in poor health, so does modern sedentary lifestyle. But not the meat itself.

- Derid, by the way I've been trying to figure out what makes people try to use Cartesianism and Descartes in the modern world.
"When you have time", and I know today, "Time" is a scarcy thing, please watch this documentary, after the middle I think, if I remember correctly it will nail this old and wrong line of thinking.
The Superior Human?

Second dont fool yourself about meat, while you said I agree putting additives worse the frame itself, this is an interesting article about prostate cancer.

Urological Institute Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

An Evolutionary Wrong Turn

Actually wouldnt having both be evidence that we are omnivores?

Also he is using the term sedentary differently than it is commonly used, he means we stopped migrating so much. Today when people talk about sedentary lifestyles, they are talking about people who sit at a desk all day.

It is true that many people eat *too much* meat... in large part because they *just plain eat too much*. Again, not the fault of meat itself.

If people want to advocate a generally sensible diet for the purpose of promoting health, I think that makes sense. If people want to avoid meat because of all the processing and additives that are difficult to avoid I think that also makes sense.

What does not make ANY sense to me, and I find downright frightening are the twisted moral arguments.

These people would have the human race abandon its humanity, and live as slaves to our environment as opposed to masters of our environment. They would have us abandon the whole "Will to Power" that has spurred us to improve our lot in the universe, an endeavor we have thus far proven ourselves to be adept at.

By the same logic these folks attempt to employ to argue against meat, we must also cease building houses and roads because it may harm animals, cease types of farming that might hurt an animal, cease most aspects of modern life that directly or inderectly may result in animal death... and go back to wandering around picking fruit.

The reason I find the line af argument made by these people so abhorrent, is because I consider the possibility that it might someday catch on with the general populace an existential threat to humanity itself. It is the intellectual seed of self destruction, and indeed many if not most of the radicals who hold these views do in fact wish to see humanity destroyed by their own admittence.

Many people view the animalists as moral, but unrealistic. I am not one of those.

I view them as one of the most immoral groups on the planet, with possibly the most immoral philosophy in mainstream Western thinking. Animal rights is not the biggest moral battle since the end of human slavery in the West, as they would put it. Animalism is however, possibly the greatest threat to human well-being since Communism.

He makes some pretty wildly unsubstantiated claims while quoting the Matrix. I'm sold...

So we should kill all the carnivores on the planet to save the precious lives of the animals that are mercilessly stalked and slaughtered?

I couldn't make it past "the axis of evil runs through our dining tables."

First this short 3 minutes video from Dr. Mcdougalll goes to any old age KGB(Vuldan,Jets,Prism) that are entering an old age :)






I think our definition of omnivore is a little twisted, try to eat crude meat. Are you sure that have we evolutionary time do adapt our digestive system, NOT to just no survive eating meat, but to “THRIVE” on this diet, It's not some scientists and doctors think, we do not had enough evolutionary(50.000 years) time adapt to this diet after the discover of fire, that made meat most edible to us, so we are affected by all those diseases of affluence. This cancer prostate article makes all sense, there is no carnivore that dies from prostate cancer, we have a similar digestive system to herbivores, vesicle seminal together with prostate are only found in herbivores. While you can eat and tolerate from time to time some “meat”, by eating it weekly or daily and if you have the genetics, what most of people in the world have, they will develop breast(woman) and prostate cancer when they get older and they cannot tolerate this daily damage to their health. This is not me saying, are the evidences.



Yeah, Philip Wollen the vice-president of Citybank(the speecher) and 600 million people around the world have this twisted moral arguments, and it's not a question of those wanting forcing their views or beliefs on the others, is a question of health, economy and environment.



Are you saying the we are going backward? It's the oposite, changing the diet to vegetarian diet, we can feed almost ten times more people, going fifty or hundred years ahead how do you think you can have sustainability to feed the double population that will come.



Again we are going forward sustainability. I do not know where do you get those ideas from, but human race thrived on rice,potatoes,wheat,barley and etc... Great civilizations were born because the bulk of the population were feed with “STARCH” and NOT MEAT, meat was something relegated to the elite, to the nobles and Kings, no way a common citizen could eat meat more than once a month.



As I already argument points on the quotes above I have three sentences for you my friend, and I think we still on the ridicularization step:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
—
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)


To Kaotic



As sense irony here, so I will answer with the same irony..
No we just wait for them to die of heart attack and cancer, and other diseases of affluence..
Because you have to be really stupid to not believe that the most diseases are caused by an abhorrent diet, and most doctors are now more concerned with selling the drugs and make expensive heart cirurgies that will not help the pacient at all that actually cure the patient.
But the bad part, it's take 50,60,70 years to that happen.. and eventually that will increase the cost of the society expend on health care, those limited resources would be better spent on other society affairs.

[edit]

,

[edit]

Yes, I would say you are going backwards Mithus.

As to your efficiency/sustainability claim, if it turns out to be true - in the future when it becomes a real issue, the price of meat will rise and the price of plants fall in relative terms and the market will work it out on its own with no twisted morals needed.

As for omnivore and your crude meat argument - I eat sushi and sashimi all the time thanks. So do over a billion people.


As to your health claim... sorry, no history of prostate or breast cancer in my family yet especially on my mom's side - who lived rural appalachian lives - lived off of meat. Because in many areas and conditions your claims about greater efficiency are actually bunk. Your sources highlight what suits their argument, and ignore anything that does not. I recommend doing independent research on the systems involved if you want to try and make a valid case. Also... live expectency overall has risen, and meat eating cultures have the highest life expecencies in the world. In other words, even if what you said was true- people still die around the same age, just maybe of something else.

Regarding cooking meat again... here is another example of one of those big holes in the research of the animalists. First, people also often cook veggies..... bread, corn, potatoes etc... guess what........ ALL TYPICALLY COOKED. Second, cooking in general helps cleanse pathogens whether it is meat or otherwise. Third, look up some of the studies Cornell has done regarding herbs and spices. Some interesting facts - even forgetting pathogens, the toxins inherent in eating cooked meat are actually nuetralized by cooking them with the proper herbs and spices. The reason we evolved a taste for herbs and spices, is in fact because people who eat them get material health benefits, especially when it comes to preparing meat. We evolved a taste for entire categories of flora... *mostly for the purpose of better eating meat*

Now.. as to your quote from Shoepenhauer - completely moot in this case. Communists and Nazis also used the same quote. Luckily, communism and nazism are not now accepted as self-evident.

I think it is worth noting, that trying to take up the rhetorical trappings of true moral crusades like civil rights does *not* make your cause a true moral crusade, or even moral, simply because you try to borrow the lingo.

A rose is still a rose no matter what you call it, and a turd is still a turd even if it is polished and perfumed.