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.

- The issue is right, how to feed growing populations that are now wanting to have the western diet, more and more deforesting is happening. The market always workout, but the damage and the people that are poor are the ones that will always suffer more. And they are suffering right now, because the demanding of meat prodcution puts too much pressure on the available agriculture lands for other crops that are more price accessible, but instead are being used to grow grains to feed cattle in the developed countries.

- The price of the food will rise because the resources are being targeted to raise cattle, and to produce biofuels instead of food. As Philip Wollen brilliant said in the video: The earth can produce enough for everyone’s need. But not enough for everyone’s greed.


Some areas are exception to the rules, you cannot expect skimos living out haversting greens on gelid north, so your argument on apalaches is a moot too, the are some exceptions to it.
- You fail to see that life expectancy is not a indicator of healthy, thanks to the medical advancement people can live more, but that doesn't mean necessary with quality. If you see any graphic on the those countries that eat most meat(USA,France,Denmark,Sweeden), you see they have the most dieases of affluency compared with countries that do not eat so many meat. So as you say they will live as the same age, but they will be not in bad shape and take so many medicines like we see now.


I do not know your point, but my argument is that we are omniveres like are the so called herbivores, you can feed to them that so edible fish, factory farms feed them with other dead animals, that doesnt mean that they will get the best health out of that. Survival is different of Thrive, and like you choose bypass the info, prostate cancer, this disease that you said your family is free, but that affect so many millions americans and people over the world, is linked by meat consumption by sciency...


Can you link a scientific article that “we evolved a taste for entire categories of flora mostly for the purpose of better eating meat” This seem to me a trash argument.
Do the chinese and oriental people that the majority of their diet is based on rice and other grains, and a little bit of fish(because otherwise as grains, at the time was impossible to “produce” in quantities to them to feed armies and the population inside the countryland) also evolved to what are you calling, because we still the same race as them..


That quote is exactly right for the moment.. we can fill so many examples with the quote from Arthur Schopenhauer, with what now people accepted as being self-evident.

Some people just do accept, and never will, but for your information, that video was a experiment with the audience that a the end of lecture would have to vote, to take out the meat from the menu... Philip Wollen was one of six participants, 3 advocating meat off the menu, and 3 advocating for meat on the menu. After the speech of all participants.. the audience went to conclusion that meat should be off the menu.. 73%. Which proves that people can be educate to do wise decisions..

I believe that for you an animal is a “machine” eh, because you believe in that nonsense which Descartes propose, what most of people today simple think as absurd as you can continue to say
that is retorical, those people “animalist” are just saying nonsense, and are they that have twisted morals and not you.
- You are right! That is beginning of the violent oposition taking place.. (but not physical violence, but the violence with words)..
- I can almost feel that you are trying to attack me with empty words, my arguments are always trying explaining my point of view, and never I do try to attack with terms like “twisted morals” or like comparing to you saying that you are like a nazi, to animals and etcs.. and so on Peace..

Twisted morals are twisted morals, its not an "attack" it just is what it is.

The fact that your idols here can be persuasive makes no case in terms of whether they are just and moral people with a just and moral cause. I can think of many leaders in human history who persuaded masses of humans of many things.... like "lets kill millions of jews and invade our neighbors" or " lets kill 11 million people , and all the bourgouise" .... being able to convince the masses of something does not make you right, but it may make you dangerous - as is the case with these animalists. Even if you personally are not looking to make people comply with your views by force - the same CANNOT be said for the vast majority of your compatriots.


Your recent rebuttal is just more cases of you making exceptions where it suits you. Especially in regards to health... and in any case, I consider the health argument completely seperate from the moral argument. Not that the animalists are right regarding the health argument.. they far overreach in their claims in an attempt to slander meat in general.

I mean seriously.. "affluent countries have more cases of diseases of affluency". Ok... and? Yes, people eat too much - we know this. If Veganism is so great, then Vegans will start outliving other people by substantial numbers of years and people will start to pay attention. It hasnt happened yet, despite Veganism being a staple of popular culture for decades... because the claims are false. Everyone I have ever known who has lived past 90 has *thrived* on meat.

Lots of the spices that people came to love originate in China and India. Trying to turn what I said about evolving love for spices into something racist just means that you are severely uneducated regarding the matter. You are also misguided regarding Chinese diet.

You can believe whatever you want regarding what you think I believe, but my stance against the animalists transcends Descartes view on animals and is not in the least dependent on it. My stance is based on maintaining the primacy and standing of humans in general, for the benefit of humans as a whole. If humans let a false guilt prod us into putting the welfare of non-humans above human welfare while calling it morality, we are doomed as a race.

This argument is nonsense, now most of the countries are switching to democracy, so now people can choose their leader, and demand changes to the system, I cannot see a choice from the majority as anything bad. Activists are trying to taking off the blind from people, from the industries that expend millions of dollars every year to brainwash people. For now the majority thinks it's moral act to kill other animals as for pleasure, but things are changing, it's not like are you trying to paint, this is not a revolution by arms, and people will decide by themselves. Your are trying to picture some evil comunism or nazism and that will not work with me nor with anyone, but only on your mind.


Not in this scenario, exceptions are not the rule, as Cornel and Harvard said, Meat is detrimental to health, how do know that are you not getting excess of protein instead. All the current research on need of human protein are made with rats and it has been perpetuating.. rats as another species have a different need for growing.. as protein is currently linked to cell growth and repair. But what we know is what FDA is an organ permed by meat industry and dairy industries.. The current society is eating meat as never before, and the result is all heart and cancer diseases on the americans and other countries, again as you said for excess of meat.

Again you seem to ignore, live to 90 or 100 is one thing, live with quality is another.. Go look for Dr. Atkins that one that died of heart attack with severe artereosclerosis, yes that one that advocate few and moderate lean cute meat as a health diet. Watch what your former president as to say in a two minute interview about diet, maybe you learn something:



With all respect I think is that you is uneducate about Chinese diet and theirs consequences, recently I have the The China Study book, that is book about diet and that relates the dietary choices of the china population.


You are totally wrong, we will trive, and prosper, because the meat production line only benefits a few producers, while a vegetarian diet will benefit the world population as it is growing.. ans I keep repeting but you seem do not get, is about human welfare.

Oh I get what you are saying, you are just incorrect - and parroting poor sources. You are also unable to distinguish *the practices of the meat industry* from *meat, as a discrete source of food*. Your compatriots are trying to take the poor practices of a mass-market industry, and assume that the meat they produce represents all meat in all places at all times. It doesnt. If you were arguing for agri-business and food industry reform then I would actually be *with* you on that.


As far as your comments regarding will of the "majority" , I honestly hope you pause for a second... reflect... and realise how insane what you just said is. Might does not make right, whether the might derives from popularity or not. Popularity does not equate to righteousness. Millions of people can in fact be wrong. Also, whether it is "popular" or not - if the end result of not following that "will of the popular crowd" results in armed men coming and throwing you in a cage - guess what? That is forced coercion.

So does this mean that you have renegged on your previous statements regarding you not wanting to force other people to your view? Because if you support armed men coming and throwing meat eaters in a cage, provided your view becomes sufficiently popular - then you have in fact renegged on your previous statements.

Also the people I know who lived to 90 and 100 also lived with quality.

In addition - making a point regarding the Atkins deit.. actually reinforces MY point, not yours. First - its another example of you trying to take an extreme case, and somehow assert its applicability to your point. All meat is just as extreme as no meat... I do not see how you would think you are making a valid argument there. Second - I have always said that people are eating too much in general, it does not matter if it is meat or not. Eating too much is eating too much. If you eat too much and do not move your body enough, you get sick. Your point again?

Are you saying that China is and has always been mostly Vegan? If not, I would drop that line of argument because it plays into my hands not yours (again, never said that many westerners do not eat MORE meat than is healthy, or that modern agribusiness is good) - if you are saying they are mostly Vegan, then make it clear so I can quickly debunk it and we can move on.

And finally... is your argument about human welfare, or animal welfare? The whole " knives and forks are weapons of mass destruction" and such videos seem to paint a picture of an argument that is certainly not pro-human in nature. But rather an argument that we should subsume human desire and need to the percieved desires of non-human creatures.

I get what you are saying regarding human welfare - again, you are just wrong and parroting poor sources. Sources that I might add, typically care nothing for humans. You also should look into the ties and overall agenda of some of the global elites that are propogating this type of thought.

I do not know where you get your sources; My sources are the most respected doctors and nutritionists in America and they are not trying to sell a product like many advocating meat are, doctors like Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn's and his book: Heart Disease Prevention & Reversal Diet, and Dean Ornish MD, the doctors whose diet former President Bill Clinton has used to successfully return to his high school weight -- and to reverse his serious heart disease. They all advocate a vegetarian Diet as the most healthy possible.

see this transciption belowm just show the tip of the iceberg:



You are absolutely right, millions of people right now are not exactly “right”, they are uninformed about because the meat and dairy industries invest millions of dollars each year to secure their status quo, but that will come end, as the same as tobacco industry was forced to view their pratices, so USA and world economy will not end, they will thrive, as Philip Wollen said, the only thing that will change will be the “production line” to a better and health production line. So right now as you said popularity does not equate to righteousness, because popularity now is meat, meat meat..


I do know where your argument comes from, because we are now under the democracy, and under the law, everything has to be made under domain of the law, under the regulations. Like you said terrorist acts don't mean anything to a industry that have billions to their side. Evertyhing as be made under the law and it will be, we want the change pratices and regulations, the people will ask for it when they are fair well informed by the two sides, and they will make choices.


I'm sure that you know, exercise and lifestyle has a impact on your health, even with you poisoning your body with meat, if you eat enough vegetables, fruits you can alkalize the acid from meat, our blood has almost a neutral PH, when you eat meat and other acid foods the blood becomes more acidic and that is detrimental to proper function of our body, so to that our blood becomes almost neutral again our body uses the calcium from the bones to neutralize the acid, and that is why we have such high rates of osteoporosis and bone fractions on all those countries that have a higher consumption of meat. So I'm sure that people that are health on 90 and 100 eats a also veggies and fruits to counter the detrimental effect. The question is, if there is no real reason to consume meat and it's detrimental effect on health, the environment, and of course the ethics of human using an animals to their gain, and the truth is everybody is losing, except for the elite of meat and dairy industry that is a powerhouse on USA.


Do not put the word vegan, because it's not the case. The diet of Chinese people varies from county to county, some eat more meat, as some have a more plant based diet. The most important thing is how much % of their diet is from animal protein and how much is from plants and starch(rice and grains). They are not even close to consumption of meat as USA, so they are.
The question is educate people and tell the truth about animal protein, but what is happening is meat consumption is not declining, it's raising, with the passage of time they will be so healthy as Americans.. what a joke. And again there is no way you can feed Americans and Chinese people with grazed cattle and poultry. If we do not shout out loud, those vile factory farms will never be regulated or ended, as it was the fight to regulate tobacco that was made in the sixties and seventies.
The first step must be made, and things will walk in the next few decades for a plant diet base for the world. Nobody with any real sense think this is a all or nothing matter, so people will continue to eat meat, but again will be a matter of time that meat is detrimental in several aspects.. and just one day in the future people will accept that as self-evident, eh.


When we have the masses eating so wrong and so badly, they are really like weapons of mass destruction, again and again and again.. those poor sources are the best educated doctors and scientists... meat is detrimental to health, is a wasting of water and resources.. You can have all the nutrients that you need to be health with rice, potatoes, beans, legumes, bread, carrots, broccoli, spinach as Bill Clinton now know. Again if you still didn't GET.. to produce 1 kilo of beef, we need almost the equivalent of 10kg of vegetables on factory farms. Thousand of lands that would be producing food, are now being harvested for cattle food, what a waste of resource.. It's too much ineficiency.. I think you got the message because seems that read a lot of financial articles on forbs and etcs...
The masses of people are really susceptible to all that advertise on the midia, those milk mustaches with hollywood stars, all the studies financed by meat and milk industry. “GOT MILK”

Quote:: "Back A High Ratio of Dietary Animal to Vegetable Protein Increases the Rate of Bone Loss and the Risk of Fracture in Postmenopausal Women
Sellmeyer DE, Stone KL, Sebastian A, et al.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:118-122

The hypothesis that a high dietary ratio of animal protein to vegetable protein increases bone loss and risk of fracture "

First it says "high ratio". Second, it admits it is a hypothesis. This piece does not help your argument at all. I am not arguing that some people do not eat too much meat, eat too much in general, or have poor dietary habits that in some cases can be corrected by increasing fruit/veg intake. You are the one arguing that no animal products should ever be used at any time.

You should know where my argument regarding coercion comes from. Previously, you said you were not for coercing people with force into giving up meat. Your recent comments seem to contradict that. Like most liberal leaning people, you seem to want to not want to admit even to yourself that getting the govt involved is pure coercion - getting people to conform to your own opinion of how things should be via the barrel of a gun. Dancing around the subject with talk of "regulations", "law", "the people" and etc will never change the basic fact that govt is naked force.


Regarding China - again, you are the one arguing for no usage of animals ever. Talking about ratio of meat to plant is all well and good, and actually does have plenty of factual basis. But it is not supportive of your moral position, so I am not sure why you bring it up. As I said, it helps my arguments not yours. Less meat is not no meat.

As for your last point, again you bring up "factory farms". I am not arguing in favor of the practices of factory farms. So why bring it up? Though I notice again you talk about regulation to end farms, and forcing others to comply with your opinion at the barrel of a gun.

You try to accuse me of being influenced by advertising, but you are not even using facts and arguments that support your position. Also, FYI, vegan diet does not work for me personally. I get light headed and do not feel well without eating at least some meat.. and fake meat/soy meat makes me sick. It just doesnt work for everyone.

Also, regarding ineffeciency... what does that have to do with you, me, or anyone? They arent *your* resources... if other people want to spend their resources inefficiently.. thats frankly none of your business.

I am finally a member of the elite? lol, hell yea, all bow before me and my pasture raised beef, and chickens, and wild hogs. I am the elite. lol, really, we are all going to die, no one is going to get out of this alive, it is a fore gone conclusion that we all will die. So instead of worring about what I eat, I chose to eat what taste good, if it is a burger with bacon, or a salade then I will.

If you want to live that way, cool, thats your chose. If you want to share what you do or your stance, then hell yea, go for it, I support it all the way. But when you tone starts to imply that every thing is the faught of meat, while ignoreing the massive sugar intake, or that caffine leaches calcuim from the bones, or the hundereds of other stuff we put in our bodies, you deal your stance a blow by making it one sided, while in fact it is influenced by many different things.


Also on tot he subject of the evil meat industry, there are fewer cattle today then there was a decade ago. The reason is not due to more land being turned over to the production of veggies, but in fact the expanded population takeing up more land that once had cattle roaming on it, or grains being planted.

Also as a side note I like to point out that cattle are plant eaters also. The size of a 1200lb cow got to that level from plants. Are you wanting to fatten us up so that when the zombies attack or the aliens land they will have a nice slice of human romp roast that has been raised as lean meat, with out marbeling? :)

If and when you begun to read more scientific articles and studies you will see the in science and further in diet and human health, everything is a hypothesis, even to tobacco people can smoke all life and do not get cancer, so that's doesnt mean that is good for you smoke tobacco. My tip to you is start reading scientific theses and studies and you will see that they are not going to talk about absolute certainty or absolute proof.


You can try to misrepresent my arguments together but I will debunk to you again.
First “REGULATION – meat and dairy industry need regulation about the production conditions, how the animal are treated, I see articles about consumers worried about trying to end the egg production of hens on cages, so the hens dont shit on the hens below and give them some space to that they can move a little bit.. try to research about bovine growth hormone(IGF-1) used on cows on USA, and the fact that it is BANNED on Canada and Europe.. but guess what it passed on USA, do some research yourself on the effect of bovine growth hormone.. and why it was banned on Europe and Canada and it was not on USA.
Second about “LAW” - you accused me of supporting things like terrorists acts, and I never said anyword about suporting any terrorists acts against farms and etcs.. So your argument is moot and I counter it saying that evertyhing need to be made under the law.


Moral fact is important to me and to other millions of people, but I cannot argue to you on that, in your viewpoint as you already said based on you support of Descart philosophy, animal are things, they can freely be used not matter if you can have a optimal health without resorting to killing animals. This is the moral point of millions. About less meat, I will address that answering RedKGB.


It's need to bring up, because the reality of meat production on the world is about factory farm, we should be really naive to believe on those ads trying to sell a picture that cows and pigs are raised on farms where they can grease, when the reality pigs for example do not have a space to turn around. And about you accusing me to use force.. please quote that so I can apologize.


You were no influenced by ads, you growed up believing the SAD(Standard American Diet) was the best diet to grow up lol.. and about vegan diet do not work for you.. Every specie on earth has a diet that it evolved to get the best results out.. Millions of millions of evolution.. our digestive system is not different from others apes and herbivores.. so unless that you are a mutation, you will be fine without meat. Can I link again the article about herbivores, carnivores and seminal vesicle and prostate. Here is the link again about the evolutionary wrong turn read it all when you have time and interest: An Evolutionary Wrong Turn


Lol, are you serious, is it your best answer about ineffeciency, you are disappointing me, you and Kaotic are those here that have the most cohesive arguments. I could you give several arguments about this, but I will give you just one, what you eat now is severely subsidized by your government.. so that is not wondering that a Big Mac or any meat on USA costs about half of it costs on other countries, it's not only about productiviy and low costs productions is about the government taking taxes from the people to subside all food chain, so I would care about when the government is giving money to ineffeciency.. but you guys seems always think you first, when in reality you guys are one single country and we live on a single planet earth, so you really should care if some business of “others” are causing disease or damaging the enviroment of all that shit and methane that comes out of cattle. As you should be worried of deforestation in any part of the world to feed cattle.


People are now more worried and seeking to buy meat from cattle that has been raised in pastures and etcs, so the demand from this will not end, the small farmers will have anything to fear.. And they will be fine. And if you do not raise your cattle with IGF-1, what producers are forbidden to advertise that because will treat the whole industry according to Monsanto, because consumers will begin to ask themselves, why Europe and Canada banned that.
About your choices, my thinking if you want to eat meat or whatever other detrimental food you are free to do that, and you will deal with that or not in the years that will come.
The conern of the mosts activists is that the amount of land that is converted and deforest to produce grains to feed cattle, and the pressure that does cause in the prices of food in the world. People in USA have a good money income, and buy food it's not a problem for them.


We have to look to sciency and what doctors are saying, if you want to smoke ok.. We are not prepared to deal with the amount of protein and fat thats come with meat, protein is responsible for cell growth and cell repair, that is it. When you eat that amount of protein that meat contains you are going against what we evolved to deal. Im going to give an simple example.
We most need of protein when we are young and neet to grow, especially when people are a baby and need to double their size quickly.. What's the most perfect food to growth a baby? Breast milk from their mother. Do you know how much protein has mother milk? 5% That's all that you need make a baby grow healthy..
So when we are adults, all that we need is do cell repair with protein.. and guess how much we need of protein in a diet to do cell repair.. 2%. Meat on other hand has more than 40% of protein.
Protein is to do cell growth and repair and when we consume a diet that we are not evolve to that we risk ourselves to all those cancer that people are getting.. protein and IGF-1 prevents cell death, and we do not want cancer cells do not die, when a cell has genetic damage and that's occur with time and aging.. if everything is fine the cell will die normally, and will not proliferate, but when we eat meat, and is not need too much meat to risk ourselves. Also when we are young we can eat any crap food that will be fine.. but as are we aging that is not true.


Rest assured, if we eat enough food with fiber we will never get fat, what makes us fat is to eat to much processed foods, pasta, bread and other rich foods.

Mithus, I have read volumes on nutritional research and human health over the years. Including countless assaults on meat. The problem here is you are taking opinions and studies that in certain conditions show that eating less meat is more healthy, and extrapolating it to mean that if people ate NO meat that they would be even healthier.




I did not accuse you of supporting terrorist acts as you understand them, not sure where you got that. You indicated that you supported govt coming in and ending meat eating, which means you favor ending it via barrel of a gun. As I noted previously, like most leftists... you seem to avoid admitting even to yourself that govt is not righteous, and that govt forcing people to live by your opinion is pure violence. When I point out that you are favoring ending meat by force and violence, I am talking about your support for govt intervention.

Also, I know plenty about BGH and all sorts of other side effects from practices of the big farms. I could also tell you all about the overuse of antibiotics and how it gets in the food chain, and unsafe practices regarding feeding animals other dead animals as protein leading to things like Mad Cow and all sorts of other things. You are missing the point.


I used Descartes in an argument previously in a different thread for fun, but as I pointed out in this thread my own actual view on animals is not dependent on, based on, or even really related to Descartes. My own view is much more similar to Nietzsche's view on the Will to Power. I think subsuming human will and desire in favor of non-humans via a false morality creates an untenable social dissonance that will be extremely harmful to humans as a whole. If you become curious enough to want more detail on this, feel free to start a new thread oriented entirely on the philosophical and social ramifications of your views, and leave all the psuedo-scientific health noise out of it.

You wrote"so unless that you are a mutation, you will be fine without meat." Maybe I am a mutation, but in any case you are just wrong wrong and wrong here. I could probably survive without it, but its not very pleasant. Not that I need a lot, but I do in fact need some animal protiens. Some people do just fine on vegan diets, I also have known others who just do not do well on it. People actually do metabolize and synthesize amino acid chains differently.. there is actually a lot of variation in humans regarding how efficiently some of out digestive and processing systems work for various types of foods and situations. A lot of it is based on genetics... people adapted to the types of food their local environs produced. Some quick examples are lactose intolerance, and Celiac disease. People who come from genetic stock that never adapted to milk or wheat are exponentially more likely to have these conditions than people whos ancestors for the past 10k years used them as staple foods.

I understand the argument regarding prostate etc.. it just is not compelling.

Now, about this quote: " Lol, are you serious, is it your best answer about ineffeciency, you are disappointing me, you and Kaotic are those here that have the most cohesive arguments. I could you give several arguments about this, but I will give you just one, what you eat now is severely subsidized by your government.. so that is not wondering that a Big Mac or any meat on USA costs about half of it costs on other countries, it's not only about productiviy and low costs productions is about the government taking taxes from the people to subside all food chain, so I would care about when the government is giving money to ineffeciency.. but you guys from South of USA seems always think you first, when in reality you guys are one single country and we live on a single planet earth, so you really should care if some business of “others” are causing disease or damaging the enviroment of all that shit and methane that comes out of cattle. As you should be worried of deforestation in any part of the world to feed cattle.
"

I have argued plenty against govt subsidies. That and this are different issues, stop confusing issues and chains of relevance. Also, what a Bic Mac costs in other countries is not my concern. Also.. I am not from the South of USA... I actually live pretty close to the *Northern Border*. Now, as far as the USA being first... yes the USA is first... because in the past we followed a morality and policies that allowed us to BE first. We are in the process of losing our position of course, just because we are getting politically dumber and becoming backwards-minded (putting animals before humans is part of that process, and I think a prime reason so many animalists are eager to spread their ethos in the USA that they hate). I think advancing spacefaring tech and expanding the frontier again is the only long-term solution, but thats a different topic.

If you read the respected nutritional studies you should know that those takes months or years, and some millions of dollars, that's is a reason why Dr. Cambell from Cornell wants a more open debate about the effect of animal protein. As you now know how many doctors are recomending greatly reduce the intake of animal protein, if not recommind not to eat any, 30 years ago you could never imagine that, that a real doctor could recommend that, I hope that it's just the begining of food revolution for betterm because the evidences are big.


So the government intervention on the consume of tobacoo is a violence? Are you kidding uh
The same goes to meat and dairy industries and the uses of cages and crates and hormones, and the case years ago that Oprah got sued about talking on her show about farmers feeding dead cows to cows, and so many diseases related to meat because some farming pratices. What a good picture eh?
I do not agree the goverment spending resources on marijuana, even I would not agree the government forcing people to not kill themselves consuming unhealthy foods. First what is need end first, is those vile pratices on raising cattle, and all subsidies to specific sectors that do not need them. Please quote any sentence that I made saying that I said that the government should end by force meat production. And when I mean government should get involved is about regulating and supervising. Another powerfull too is just not buying, but to do that people would well informed, and that is not the case as I said previously, producers cannot even put this on the packaging saying “Produced without IGF-1” so producers cannot compete trying to offer healthy or cruelty free products. And I'm not missing any point, you cannot just simplify the matter. Health and Economy Enviroment are all related because is relevant.

You know I'm studying law in college, so when you are defending a case, you will bring anything relevant to the table.. at the end the juror will have the decision based on all arguments, and those that I'm bringing are relevant sir! Do you think I will let the assassin go unpunished, of course not. Meat is a killer, is a poison as many doctors are now accepting and not recommending any, and people need to know about that and the government need to be “IN” because Meat industry is a powerhouse.


I will not argue with you about any moral issue, you as clearly has show you do not have any problems eating pig products, even knowing that pigs are not different from dogs that USA love so much, aside the ammount of meat that they can produce.
About psuedo-scientific health noise, if I understood this, even the most lean cuts of meat still have too much fat for consumption that clog arteries and that's why doctors do not recommend it. Autopsy performed on American soldiers in the Vietnam War showed that the veins start to get clogged already the twenty-odd years of life, and when people have a heart attack at 40 and 50 and 60 its just the result of so many years of eating moderate amounts of meat. Any argument that is relevant will be put in the table! We have to build the case with all the moral/health/enviromental/economy evidences.


Please link me any scientific articles about people that cannot synthesize (protein -> amino acids) from plants that cannot be replaced by other plants.. So people that cannot synthesize protein from milk can replace with (soy,rice,cocunut) milk.. the same goes to celiac disease, there are people that cannot synthesize protein from wheat, so they replace with corn,rice,potatoes products that have a different protein(amino acids). You are totally wrong, and again link any scientific article showing that are people that cannot synthesize any plant protein. Are you allergic to bananas, aples, rice, potatoes, wheat, barley, kale, and more a hundred vegetables all together, I do not think so. There are delicious bread and other foods that do not contain any wheat or milk or any animal product, so your argument does not make any sense, you just need know how to make them properly.


You just cannot argue or denny that a prestigious medical institution through their doctors are saying that we not evolved properly to eat meat.


Again lets debunk this by parts

First it's a connected matter, you will never get me to simplify it to you because it's global problem, it's not only about one matter, that is what you are failing to see.
And when said in the previous topic about that you didnt care about inefficiecy, as the same as you do not care about your Country.. because you do not live alone, and if you do not care you cannot put even your country first, because you are too selfish, what people eats just to give a simple example affects everything that you buy, do you know that a car produced in USA costs $3.000 just to pay health insurance of their employes, and if you have any health care plan, 75% of those costs are for paying dieases of affluence, if you are eating health why do you have to pay extra to cover the costs of other people eating so badly? Do you know that there are some car companies that are paying for those employes be taught to eat healthy, and those courses are given by those doctors that advocate no meat, so they are getting to reduce the health care costs almost by half, because it is reducing the medical procedures.
Rest assured, you do not have to worry about any haters outside USA, you have to worry about people inside USA, I mean if you are afraid of change, you should be afraid of you countryman you have the best activists, philosophers, teachers, bankers, so they will make the change and the world will follow it. By the way USA to me is the best example of country, I see it as an example because people can actually change the system and try to be better. The topic about losing your position is another matter and is enough for you and other KGBers living in USA to discuss not to me. I advocate the detrimental consuption of meat for health/economy and enviroment/moral issues.

Quote: "So the government intervention on the consume of tobacoo is a violence? Are you kidding uh "

What else would it be other than violence? Govt IS violence. You seem to be lacking some basic understandings if you do not recognize Govt for what it is.

Also, I think Oprah getting sued for talking about the meat industry is as bad as what you are proposing. Stop using false dichotomies, its not an either:or situation. You are trying to say that its "either: we stop eating meat altogether" "or: you support every practice of the current status quo" - which is one big reason why I find your arguments so ineffective.

Quote: "I will not argue with you about any moral issue, you as clearly has show you do not have any problems eating pig products, even knowing that pigs are not different from dogs that USA love so much, aside the ammount of meat that they can produce."

I am fine with people eating dog as well. People in some parts of the world love dog, and cat as well. Nothing wrong with that. I get the feeling that you do not understand the concepts my argument is based on, which is why you do not want to go there. Your mentors in this debate are so used to aiming at straw men (DesCartes) that they have given no positions for you to easily parrot when it comes to my argument.

Quote:"Please link me any scientific articles about people that cannot synthesize (protein -> amino acids) from plants that cannot be replaced by other plants.. "

This is you missing the point as seems per the usual when it comes to this subject. The point is that there is wide varience on how different humans metabolize, which is indisputable. Research on how various people and groups of people react to and metabolize and synthesize specific amino chains is nascent and conclusive data nonexistent. It will probably be another 30 years before this data becomes available.

In the meantime, I will stick to a diet that does not make me feel like shit. (aka vegan diet)

If vegans start living past 100, and retaining their mental faculties while doing so - it will be the wave of the future without having the govt stick a gun in everyones face. I am not anticipating that happening in the slightest, but it is what it is and time will tell. I do think people will start eating *less* meat, and insisting on higher quality meat however.

I know too many people who lived well past 90 in good health eating large quantities of pork daily to expect that meat itself is the culprit. However in most of these cases, the bulk of meat eaten was grown on small farms without extra hormones/chemical/additives or preservation chemicals.


Quote: " Again lets debunk this by parts

First it's a connected matter, you will never get me to simplify it to you because it's global problem, it's not only about one matter, that is what you are failing to see.
And when said in the previous topic about that you didnt care about inefficiecy, as the same as you do not care about your Country."

First, there are no "global problems" , there are only problems that occur in many places on the globe.

I absolutely see that it is not about one matter, the problem is your basing your linked logic on too many false premises and use too many false dichotomies as examples.

Also, of course I am selfish - as everyone should be. I do not exist for the benefit of my country, the country exists for my benefit - and the same goes for everyone. People who get that backwards are inevitably doomed to tyranny. Bad things happen when Govt becomes the master, and not the servant.

You do not make a good case for eating no meat in your last point, though you do make a good case against socialized medicine and big govt. As you say though, if certain types of diet are superior then ultimately the market will sort it out. Not sure why you even bother to evangelicize.

And yes, I am terrified by the level of insanity shown by many of my countrymen thank you very much. Its not about fear of change, its about fear of change for the worse.

About government regulation tobacco industry, I will not comment or anwer on this matter because would be an topic alone by itself. But I do not agree with you at all about what is government for.


My case is against meat and not about an specific issue caused by meat(health/enviroment/economy/moral), I will use all arguments that are relevant to the case, we there is no false dichotomym and again one of the reasons why IGF-1 one of the most cancer promotorers know to date did pass on regulation to be used is because the government did not act(different from Canada and Other Europe countries), so you are really falling to see.


So in sum in cannot me link any real link.


Again sir, you are missing the point, I think you think vegan is like some magic potion, and continue parroting as you say about government gun and things like etcs.. People will continue to live at 70/80/80/100 it doesnt matter, but what's matter is the population % that will be free from cancer and heart disease and severe osteoporis, and live the last of years of their lives very well, those ones that Dr. Esstlyn succefull cured more the 80% of his pacient switching to a plant based diet, because what we know NOW is how animal protein can promote cancer, and how limiting animal protein to a maximum 10% of daily calories consunmptiom can stop(turn off) or slow the development of cancer that is already ongoing and it's not in metastasis phase. And this is not a guessing, this is a scientific study done by Cornell Universty.


You are wrong, there are global problems, we live on the same atsmophere, so what we are putting out to the atmosphere, will impact on global economy, I think you are theat ones that believe that there is no greenhouse gas emission problems, and all invented by the actvists.


Again you put the government as everything or nothing, if it was not the goverment involved we would still had people dying at factories from exposition to asbestos, and people dying from lung cancer by millions because sometime ago even doctors were smoking, 40-50 years ago the consume of tobacco was alarming.


I agree in the years the will come, if there are any funding to further get more clear of the detrimental rule of animal protein in the diet things will clear out even more, but in the meanwhile the best thing that can happen is the goverment regulate all the critical issues that I already spoke before.. And unlike you, other people like to educated about the possiblity of meat causing cancer, unlike you they are concerned about the health of their country.


IF and when the majority of the population switch to a more plant based died, you do not need to fear that.. as Bill Clinton is not fearing anything, he changed to a plant diet because eating the way were for certain that he would missing seeing their grandchild grow. That was their worse fear.

Again you are missing the point that is acknoledge by most all doctors..
MAJOR MACRONUTRIENTS of MEAT - PROTEIN and FAT..
Even the most leancuts of meat are enough to clog up the artheries after decades of consumption... you can delay this by being very active and exercicing.. but that is not that case of major part of population.. as example Bill Clinton is very active on the exercice part but that is not enough when people get old.. and now all their medical tests show how his colesterol and how his overall health is better, and how hes healing himself with no meat consumption.

get attention to this 3 minutes teaser, this could save many lifes that you do not care.

So, if I understand correctly Mithus's argument is that meat, by in large, is bad because we've not evolved the proper digestive tools for taking care of meat that we ingest. Everything else springs from this, right? The animalist stuff is just the emotional track to getting people on this bandwagon.

If this is about evolution, and its been proven that animals evolve a taste for things that are good for them (we typically call this a craving, which is our body telling us we need something) and a repulsion to things that are bad for them, how come meat tastes so yummy?

Quote: "About government regulation tobacco industry, I will not comment or anwer on this matter because would be an topic alone by itself. But I do not agree with you at all about what is government for. "

Mithus, this is not about agree or disagree. This is an absolute.

When you do not follow the govt orders:

1. Armed men come and kill you/throw you in a cage
2. Nothing happens. In which case feel free to regulate against meat all you want, because I will ignore it.

You and I both know that 1. is what happens when you defy govt. You can NOT say that govt is not violence, and expect to be taken seriously. Govt is govt, taxes are called taxes and not donations, regulations are called regulations and not suggestions because the end result of not complying are penalties that are backed by MEN WITH GUNS WHO KILL OR CAGE YOU.

There is no agree/disagree on this.


Quote: "My case is against meat and not about an specific issue caused by meat(health/enviroment/economy/moral), I will use all arguments that are relevant to the case"

And apparently many arguments that are not relevant.

Quote: "Again sir, you are missing the point, I think you think vegan is like some magic potion, and continue parroting as you say about government gun and things like etcs.. People will continue to live at 70/80/80/100 it doesnt matter, but what's matter is the population % that will be free from cancer and heart disease and severe osteoporis, and live the last of years of their lives very well, those ones that Dr. Esstlyn succefull cured more the 80% of his pacient switching to a plant based diet, because what we know NOW is how animal protein can promote cancer, and how limiting animal protein to a maximum 10% of daily calories consunmptiom can stop(turn off) or slow the development of cancer that is already ongoing and it's not in metastasis phase. And this is not a guessing, this is a scientific study done by Cornell Universty"

This is just a question mark to me, you are saying 10% meat is OK? I thought you wanted no meat? I already said that eliminating excess meat from a diet can be helpful in some cases, not sure why you keep bringing it up. I think you are missing some things.

For one thing, you are arguing for no meat whether it is produced by a factory farm or not. Second, you are trying to tell others how to live using violence(govt) to enforce your opinion. I did not miss the point at all, my point is that if your way is better then people will naturally gravitate towards it. If something is truly superior, you do not need govt. That and forcing people to conform to your idea of what is best for *them* is evil. Worry about yourself, live your own life - its not your place to use violence (govt) to force other people to do things "for their own good".

Quote: "You are wrong, there are global problems, we live on the same atsmophere, so what we are putting out to the atmosphere, will impact on global economy, I think you are theat ones that believe that there is no greenhouse gas emission problems, and all invented by the actvists."

I will say that the whole global warming charade has made me much more skeptical of activist scientists, and cautious about accepting data from studies without reading the raws myself and putting it into context. When I was younger it was "global cooling" and the "coming ice age".

Our climate is whats known as an "emergent system" and not subject to simple one-liner explanations of its behaviour. Its far too complex, I suspect in about 30 years we will have a better idea of how the climate really works and what causes it to warm or cool. All of our science cannot yet even tell us with great accuracy if it will rain tomorrow, there is no working climate model. Anyone who says they know how it works, is just blowing smoke.

Quote: "I agree in the years the will come, if there are any funding to further get more clear of the detrimental rule of animal protein in the diet things will clear out even more, but in the meanwhile the best thing that can happen is the goverment regulate all the critical issues that I already spoke before.. And unlike you, other people like to educated about the possiblity of meat causing cancer, unlike you they are concerned about the health of their country. "

I am quite educated about the "possibility" of meat being detrimental in some cases, and at some doses. Also, it seems patently obvious to me that contaminents have something to do with detrimental effects. But the absolutely worst thing to happen, is to get the govt involved in enforcing your idea of a healthy lifestyle on people. Humans have the natural right to live as they see fit as long as they do not harm other people. Also, science changes its mind so incredibly often about these types of things as new data comes in... the case is farrr from closed on the effects of meat, especially when you take a more granular look and factor in things like types of meat, type of meat preperation, how the meat was raised and fed, what is eaten with the meat, other environmental factors and etc. There is soo much more at play than just "meat or no meat".


Quote: "Even the most leancuts of meat are enough to clog up the artheries after decades of consumption.."

My grandpappy lived to 100, and was in near perfect health until 98... and ate pork every day of his life. Just one example close to me personally. Good for Bill Clinton if his current regime helps... but different people are different.

Quote: "So in sum in cannot me link any real link."

Seriously? Seriously serious? I have to spell everything out for you?

Ok some quick true/false

1. Plenty of data has shown and there is ample examples of different people and population groups that metabolize foods differently. ( hint google Darwinian medicine if you really want to read links, I shouldnt be having to link everything for you - according to you , you have already read all the pertinent literature on the subject )

2. There is however, no body of data that identifies metabolization and synthesis efficienty regarding different amino acids correlating to different genetic markers. ( if you find one let me know )

(hint: the answer to both of these is true)

Ergo, you making a claim that it is proven that all people can live equally well without animal protein is you talking out of your bunghole.

If you can explain why some people do not do well under a Vegan diet ( including myself ) I am all ears.

You are guessing wrong, my argument against meat is for health/enviromental-economy/moral issues, there are other people that have just one single argument.
Autopsies done in real carnivores in various animal that live in zoos around the world and that are extremely sedentary, do not show a simple case of clogged veins or cancer worldwide. Their food do not stay enough in their intestines unlike us.
Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. © Stephen Kroninger
  As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore's short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore's intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).


The majority of population do not like meat without salt, I do not see any taste in poultry and we have to put oil and salt to be tasteful. Can you eat crude meat without salt without feeling disgusting, I do not think so. Man begun to use fire not to long ago if we count that our digestive system still the same as 100.000 thousand years ago, like Dr. Roberts said it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up. What is food that taste good naturally for us sweet fruits and fatty veggies like avocado, without need to put salt or toast them. What is the 99% diet of our close related species(apes).. fruits and vegetables.


My example to counter your argument. I do not see the government restricting the advertising of something bad to health and heavily taxing tobacco as something bad. So I think the government is need for that.


I do not need to explain to you because I think you already know, but in case that you do not know and for others, I'm going to explain what I learned with Dr. Campbell and The China Study.

As my example people can smoke during all life and do not get cancer. That's mean tobacco is good? Not at all.

I do not know his history, first your grand-pappy should be someone very active when he was young.

First factor - As you already said, exercising has a great rule to prevent diseases.

Second factor – you have to have the genes, that make you susceptible to a certain disease.

Third factor – to the case of cancers you need to be exposed to carcinogenic elements that you cause genetic damage to cells, something like pollution, chemical additives, and etc.

Fourth factor – Even if do not exercise, even if you have the genes, even if you are exposed to carcinogenic elements, the damaged cell can not proliferate and stay dormant. What is need to those cell get out of control? Animal Protein.. protein is a powerful element to make cell growth and multiply. So when you eat any food that has too much protein, you risk yourself to develop a cancer as you age.

Three possibilities to your grand-pappy, he has exercise vigorously when he was young or worked hard physically and his immunity system is really good, or he do not have the genes, or he didn't get exposed to any carcinogenic. So he could not develop any cancer.

So that's not means how people should be not cautious eating animal protein, as Dr. Campbell said, if they apply the same protocols that is required to an element be considered carcinogenic, that would put milk as the most carcinogenic product ever consumed, because milk has the same qualities of meat, same protein content, same fat content. It's just liquid meat.



I cannot explain that, I would ever doubt even if a psychiatrist could explain that because would be a case that you going to a mind doctor, and as we know nobody is allergic to all plants, and we can replace one over a hundred of veggies options.. Also people are so addicted to salt in their food that if they ever eat anything without salt after 30 year eating a standard American diet you could not expect to feel good just eating for a day or even a month different.. I can say by my own experience. that I didn't feel good taking out meat and dairy for around 3 months.. but I adapted very well, and I feel very good, it's just a matter of we wanting to change.

Quote: "My example to counter your argument. I do not see the government restricting the advertising of something bad to health and heavily taxing tobacco as something bad. So I think the government is need for that. "

That is not a counter, that is you saying that you believe that having armed men force tobacco companies to use warning labels is justified. Whether violence is justified or not is a completely different argument than whether or not violence is the tool being used.

quote: " First factor - As you already said, exercising has a great rule to prevent diseases.

Second factor – you have to have the genes, that make you susceptible to a certain disease.

Third factor – to the case of cancers you need to be exposed to carcinogenic elements that you cause genetic damage to cells, something like pollution, chemical additives, and etc.

Fourth factor – Even if do not exercise, even if you have the genes, even if you are exposed to carcinogenic elements, the damaged cell can not proliferate and stay dormant. What is need to those cell get out of control? Animal Protein.. protein is a powerful element to make cell growth and multiply. So when you eat any food that has too much protein, you risk yourself to develop a cancer as you age."

Thanks for making my point for me - different people are different. Also, it is not "food with too much protein" it is "too much total protein intake". Which is easier to achieve with meat, but by the same token it is also easier to get your required protein with meat.



Quote: "I cannot explain that, I would ever doubt even if a psychiatrist could explain that because would be a case that you going to a mind doctor, and as we know nobody is allergic to all plants, and we can replace one over a hundred of veggies options.. Also people are so addicted to salt in their food that if they ever eat anything without salt after 30 year eating a standard American diet you could not expect to feel good just eating for a day or even a month different.. I can say by my own experience. that I didn't feel good taking out meat and dairy for around 3 months.. but I adapted very well, and I feel very good, it's just a matter of we wanting to change."

You are missing the point... no meat = I feel like crap. The reference to things like Celiac and Lactose intolerance were just to point out that people have different digestion and enzyme levels and responses etc. The simple intolerances are just the most well known, because they are the easiest to identify. It is much more difficult to identify a lack of one synthesized amino acid, or under-synthesized, than it is to figure out that someone gets ill every time they drink milk.

Honestly, at your age... if it took you three whole months to adapt to your new diet, you should seriously check yourself for nutritional deficencies. Humans can adapt to and survive under extremely poor conditions.... but if it took you that long to adapt, being a young person, you are quite possibly starving yourself and harming your health.

Also, I do not like excessive salt personally... I prefer no salt on most everything.

Quote: "Autopsies done in real carnivores in various animal that live in zoos around the world and that are extremely sedentary, do not show a simple case of clogged veins or cancer worldwide."

Huh? First off... what carnivore lives to an age even approaching humans? Secondly, animals get cancer all the time.


Quote: "Can you eat crude meat without salt without feeling disgusting, I do not think so. Man begun to use fire not to long ago if we count that our digestive system still the same as 100.000 thousand years ago, like Dr. Roberts said it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up. What is food that taste good naturally for us sweet fruits and fatty veggies like avocado, without need to put salt or toast them"

Huh? I already pointed out to you that most staples of even a vegan diet are cooked. You keep talking like cooking is something unique to meat... also many people love their meat rare - the reason it is cooked is for hygeine (and the same with many veggies )not taste. Perhaps lack of protein is having a negative effect on your memory? =)

Also, humans digestion has evolved in places much more recently than 100k years. Ability to tolerate lactose for example is thought to have evolved around 10k years ago in northern Europe. Yes, around 10k years ago my ancestors evolved the ability to get health benefits from cow milk. Not that I particularly care for it, but I do rather enjoy cheese.

People whose ancestors hail from warmer climes tend to not have evolved lactose tolerance, because in a pre-refrigeration, pre-microbe aware society cow milk was dangerous to drink for a number of reasons if the cows came from warmer climates. So the lack of lactose processing among people from warmer climates was itself an evolutionary protection. (as an aside, increasing use of spices in prepared dishes has also been correlated to increasingly warmer climates - the warmer the climate the more spices and stronger spices per dish on average. Spices have good anti-microbial and preservation properties. )

You're welcome, so you have accepted that meat is a powerful carcinogenic and can lead to cancer and other diseases as the same tobacco and asbestos and that is why they should be regulated, I cannot you see the government subsiding tobacco or not regulating it.


Meat and specially dairy are addictions, Dr Bernard has explained in an article that cheese is addictive because it contains small amounts of morphine(do you know how much morphine is addictive) from cows' liver, so no wonder why people put cheese on everything. Did you wonder why babies calm down after they are breast feed or drink milk, one of the reasons is the morphine effect. Like you said before that didn't feel “well” this is just one of the reasons about not feeling well, but once you take out the addictive food(Cheese) your system begun to get to normal and not to craving from that addiction like it was tobacco. Rest assured I'm very fine and I take blood tests to check any deficiency, and is everything OK, everything from the vitamins to minerals they come from the ground and plants absorb that, there is no vitamin or mineral that you cannot find in plants. My health is better than 10 years ago.. I run 3 times a week and I feel very good.


I can eat several fruits and vegetables raw, as the most our of ancestors did, so read again that doctor article from Texas, to know what its is about. My memory is better than 15 years ago when I was 20.. I'm one of the best of my class in Law College, perhaps is because there is no any clog caused by animal fat in my brain veins =)


If they evolved please show me how the new digestive system of you and them are, because that doctor from Texas and so many others do not think so. Again and again and again.. tolerate something is different from = is health to you. You can feed dead fish to horse, that doesn't mean that the horse will thrive on it.. About cheese,is just a powerful version of milk without all water content.. is fat and casein(protein from milk) all concentrated.

Yep, and he refuses to look at other things also that are harmful, that other factors are just as important. He is on a crusade against all meat.

Quote: "You're welcome, so you have accepted that meat is a powerful carcinogenic and can lead to cancer and other diseases as the same tobacco and asbestos and that is why they should be regulated, I cannot you see the government subsiding tobacco or not regulating it."

Erm... not quite, I do say that eating too much of anything can be unhealthy though. Do you seriously think overeating anything is good? Its just more difficult with many plants because of the lower calorie/volume ratio.

And are you seriously comparing meat to asbestos? Cmon man, at least try to be at least a little realistic.


Quote: "Meat and specially dairy are addictions, Dr Bernard has explained in an article that cheese is addictive because it contains small amounts of morphine(do you know how much morphine is addictive) from cows' liver, so no wonder why people put cheese on everything. Did you wonder why babies calm down after they are breast feed or drink milk, one of the reasons is the morphine effect. Like you said before that didn't feel “well” this is just one of the reasons about not feeling well, but once you take out the addictive food(Cheese) your system begun to get to normal and not to craving from that addiction like it was tobacco. "

Omg... hah.... its true that some cheese has trace amounts of morphine, but the levels arent enough to "move the needle". I did a double check on this, and the only supporting evidence is provided by activists... no hard science. Its like the Christian groups that self publish all sorts of creationism stuff, there no real evidence.. but the activist industry sure spits out plenty of things to make the "true believers" feel good.

I dont think I have had cheese for several days now, not because of any conscious choice but just because... funny, no cravings or withdrawels.

Your activist "Dr" has now been officially laughed off as a quack. There are plenty of quack doctors out there who make a buck off this or that.

Seriously, using Soviet research from the 80's in the first place? Chances are the local Politburo reps were having a hard time supplying milk and decided to manufacture a reason why people shouldnt be using it anyway.

Anyhow, you are now *really* reaching.


Quote: "I can eat several fruits and vegetables raw, as the most our of ancestors did, so read again that doctor article from Texas, to know what its is about. My memory is better than 15 years ago when I was 20.. I'm one of the best of my class in Law College, perhaps is because there is no any clog caused by animal fat in my brain veins =)"

Well, congrats then. Also, you are older than me! Since you were in law school I figured you were in your early/mid 20's not 30's.

Quote: "If they evolved please show me how the new digestive system of you and them are, because that doctor from Texas and so many others do not think so. Again and again and again.. tolerate something is different from = is health to you. You can feed dead fish to horse, that doesn't mean that the horse will thrive on it.. About cheese,is just a powerful version of milk without all water content.. is fat and casein(protein from milk) all concentrated. "

Um... it is pretty widely known that people in Europe evolved the ability to process lactose. If you are really reading lots of dietary science you should already know this.

----

Ok, now for some breakdown on your quack doctors claims:

1. humans have forward facing eyes, like a carnivore

2. meat is far more efficient as a food source, having much more concentrated caloric content. Meaning you can eat less. The fact that modern relatively wealthy people overeat is moot. When it comes to hard physical labor and conditions, cold weather and etc - meat is far preferable to sustain strength and energy.

3. length of intestines is no indicator or herbivore/carnivore. Longer intestines are present because food is processed more efficiently.

4. Cows have how many stomachs again? Most if not all grazing animals have multiple stomachs

5. Early humans are referred to as "hunter-gatherers" for a reason, do you really think the low caloric content and incomplete nutrition available from gathering plants in many parts of the world could have supported human evolution, especially the large size of our brains ( which consume a significant amount of calories to grow, and power). No, of course not - however humans are the apex predator in any environment on the planet due to our intellect.

6. It requires much more care and effort to maintain nutrition under a vegan diet. You yourself are even apparently aware of such. Can you honestly say with a straight face that humans are designed for such a diet that even with modern knowledge requires much care and effort to pull off correctly? Seriously?

7. Before you start on how many poor populaces in history were largely deprived of meat, I will also remind you that those same populaces were typically very unhealthy. Especially in Europe, members of the relatively wealthy "fighting classes" has high access to meat and grew much larger and stronger than the weak and sickly peasants they were tasked with keeping in line.

You can believe on whatever you can believe, and it's not about moderate, you do know what is the right percentage, you guess that based on what FDA put to you, wha t a naïve thing.. Look at studies made on Cornell University..
Not I cannot compare the small amount of people affect by asbesto with the millions of people affected by animal protein.



You can try attack how much you can, anyone with a reasonable inteligence can see that one tatics of people attacking something is trying to disqualify the sources, I cited the best real doctors out there, they are very respected in their fields, all M.Ds and etcs..inclusive those one that treated Bill Clinton, they advocate no meat at all.. so your attack is innocuous


I have a bachelor degree in computer science, and still work as a programmer, if you want insinuate something it's innocuous.
Im studying law, because I will focus on public position to work on a government institution if Im clear on my english, like federal police.


As same chimps, and apes which their diet is 99% vegetarian and they are several times stronger then us. You do not have a point


Wrong wrong wrong.. meat has more fat.. fat is more caloric.. you can sustain large populations easily on starch.. potatoes,rice and grains and beans.. I have to remind you that slaves were not feed with meat, they were feed with grains and beans and were very strong and health, do not come again trying to imply that you have eat meat to be strong, because thats is not close to trutrh and again.. of course if you want to go to some place like skimos lived you cannot have a normal human diet.


Lol, again is not what my quack doctor says the chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. You also decided not to read that article about prostate and seminal vesicule, what seminal vesicle is not found on meat eater.. all evidence point to a 99% vegetarian diet, as chimps and apes.


See number 1 .. our close related specie...


I do not see a point here.. I remember see an article by scientist debunk this myth.. as soon I find I will quote it , this topic just get more interesting to me..


Are you serious, getting back to this again, the greatest civilization lived out of wheat, barley, rice and etcs.. did you know that gladiators and soldiers were feed with barley and wheat on Rome, not with meat. That their bones were scientific studied to show that.


Again another myth.. as the same of the number 5, meat is for the elites or for people living on north Europe.. all great civilizations grow up with grains, not with meat.. you have to do better lol. You just try to resort they will not functio.. feed people with enough calories from rice,potatoes,barley and wheat and will be fine, as it was on Rome, Egypt, China, Greece.. Civilization has evolved because humans have grow grains enough to feed large population.. The Pinacle of Greece and Rome was achivied with the grains comming from Egypt.

Quote: "You can believe on whatever you can believe, and it's not about moderate, you do know what is the right percentage, you guess that based on what FDA put to you, wha t a naïve thing.. Look at studies made on Cornell University.."

I do? You sir are quite presumptious =)

quote: "I have a bachelor degree in computer science, and still work as a programmer, if you want insinuate something it's innocuous.
Im studying law, because I will focus on public position to work on a government institution if Im clear on my english, like federal police."

I wasnt insinuating anything, merely remarking.I think its great that people go back to school and pursue new careers that interest them. Though I certainly find your choice of new occupation in poor taste.

Also, your english is better than my Portuguese so I give you an automatic pass on language issues.

Quote: "You can try attack how much you can, anyone with a reasonable inteligence can see that one tatics of people attacking something is trying to disqualify the sources, I cited the best real doctors out there, they are very respected in their fields, all M.Ds and etcs..inclusive those one that treated Bill Clinton, they advocate no meat at all.. so your attack is innocuous"

The only data I was able to find regarding addictive morphine/opiates in milk was by the "activist industry". Some well respected Drs also advocate meat. True some respected Drs do not advocate meat, but they arent running around saying everyone is an opiate addict. Quit trying to pretend that having a handful of experts sharing part of your views provides blanket validation.

Quote: "As same chimps, and apes which their diet is 99% vegetarian and they are several times stronger then us. You do not have a point"

The are Omnivores... and also considerably less intelligent than us. Unlike us, they are not apex predators. Point stands. Cows are also stronger than us. So are lions. Physical strength is not a determinate factor of herbi/carnivore, who is using invalid points here?


Quote: "You also decided not to read that article about prostate and seminal vesicule, what seminal vesicle is not found on meat eater.. all evidence point to a 99% vegetarian diet, as chimps and apes. "

Marsupials are mostly herbivores that do not have a seminal vesticule.. reading an article and finding it compelling are two different things. Also, plenty of "experts" venture outside their realm of expertise and make poor observations and attempt to parlay their expertise in one particular field or subfield into general credibility which they do not deserve.(notorious example -Paul Krugman)


Quote: "I do not see a point here.. I remember see an article by scientist debunk this myth.. as soon I find I will quote it , this topic just get more interesting to me.. "

You do not see a point, because you refuse to let anything challenge your personal convictions. It is obvious that you, as is fairly common, take an assult on your views as an assult on your worth and person. You really think early humans survived winter without eating meat?

Quote: "Are you serious, getting back to this again, the greatest civilization lived out of wheat, barley, rice and etcs.. did you know that gladiators and soldiers were feed with barley and wheat on Rome, not with meat. That their bones were scientific studied to show that. "

Uhh... Romans ate plenty of meat. Bread was indeed a staple food, but meat was quite commonplace.... same with China, where freshwater trout farming became commonplace as early as the Han dynasty. I know quite a bit about Chinese culture, especially the Han and Later Han - feel free to keep pursuing this losing line of argument if you like, but I suggest reading some history books before you do.

Now, some Roman gladiators indeed did focus on carbs - the reason they did that actually was to get FAT. Yes fat, because it let them be visibly cut and put on a good show without taking critical muscle/tendon damage. They also took calcium and other supplements. Gladiators were a specialized exception, and worked to give a show - not reflective of the general populace. Read more on the subject, and dont ignore the bits that do not favor your position next time.

Also the wood/bone ash brews they drank to keep up their calcium were pretty nasty.. and they also only ate less meat as a ratio, not "no meat".


Quote: Again another myth.. as the same of the number 5, meat is for the elites or for people living on north Europe.. all great civilizations grow up with grains, not with meat.. you have to do better lol. You just try to resort they will not functio.. feed people with enough calories from rice,potatoes,barley and wheat and will be fine, as it was on Rome, Egypt, China, Greece.. Civilization has evolved because humans have grow grains enough to feed large population.. The Pinacle of Greece and Rome was achivied with the grains comming from Egypt.
"

Yes having ample grains is great, and certainly a big boon. But not in the least supportive of your Vegan arguments. They also ate meat in considerable quantities.

As for my remarks regarding Europe, I am right on the money. European dark age and medieval culture and society have been of interest to me in the past, especially the social structures and methods of control. The "fighting" classes ( read: knights, nobles, and their non landholding fighting vassals ) were fed much better, including much larger quantities of meat - and typically grew much larger and stronger than the peasant classes. The bones of typical peasants put them as relatively small people, whereas the suits of armor for fighting classes were fitted to such a size often reflecting that of a modern human.

Go educate yourself before trying to talk down to me about history.

You have a perception of fantasy as the general population was fed with meat basead in which you lived as a child, when you true any old civilization had meat ocasionaly for the masses. It's you that have that has to go back to study.

You are trying reforging meat consumption with argument about man as hunter gatherers, it's true they eat meat, but their bulk of their diet was made by gathering vegetables and meat as occasional, their bone analysis proved that, as it was proved to any population apart from kings and elites and localized reduced populations, but they all exercised very well.

Any great civilization knew how much more efficient is to produce grains that to produce meat to feed the bulk of their population, and as a resource wise they did that. But of course King,nobles and their elite didn't feed that way.

You are trying to put those argument that all were debunk, you are not the first one trying to defend the meat consumption with those.

In sum lets go back to whats matter, meat was occasional, and their detrimental effect on people were greatly reduced by the natural exercise of old life style, not this modern world of feast every day. Again this is not about moderate consumption of meat as FDA suggest based on politics, Harvard public school of health and others already told to people avoid read meat, so those my quack sources are pretty liars eh.
Also people didn't live long enough to get the detrimental effects of meat consumption.

People are living longer but not better is that is show in this 2 minute video.

Americans Are Living Longer but Sicker Lives



So we can continue to do this cycle of posting going forth and back on the subjectives as long you want.

Quote: "You have a perception of fantasy as the general population was fed with meat basead in which you lived as a child, when you true any old civilization had meat ocasionaly for the masses. It's you that have that has to go back to study."

*scratches head* Just because you saw an opinion on the matter from some PETA member does not make it true.

Quote: "You are trying reforging meat consumption with argument about man as hunter gatherers, it's true they eat meat, but their bulk of their diet was made by gathering vegetables and meat as occasional"

Maybe certain tribes in certain tropical areas. To try and make that case, you really have to cherry-pick to find those who were more gatherers.


Quote: "Any great civilization knew how much more efficient is to produce grains that to produce meat to feed the bulk of their population, and as a resource wise they did that. But of course King,nobles and their elite didn't feed that way."

You are wayy over generalizing. I already pointed out the case where that was in fact true in European society at certain points, and as I said earlier - it was a means of control. Weak, starving peasants were no match for armored warrior classes who were raised on meat and a generally better diet, and grew larger and stronger. In the era prior to effective missile weapons that could penetrate armor, it was a big deal. One six foot 200 pound knight or armsman in armor was the match of a large number of starving 120 pound unarmored serfs. Things started changing with better yew longbows and more effective crossbows, because the common peasant obtained a degree of military power.

You are right that people ate less meat in many societies than modern people.. but that doesnt make your case regarding "no" meat in the slightest. In the cases where the lowest classes were chronically starved of meat, you typically will find that they also had some of the poorest health and least political rights. Of course you can find extreme micro examples in either direction, but as a general rule of thumb:

1. Early great societies were by water, and ate a lot of fish.

2. Inland societies farmed a lot of meat, the type determined by the geography. Hilly areas favored things like goats and sheep, less steep areas in cooler climes favored cows, where water was plentiful fish etc. Animals in pre-industrialized society were efficient means of food in large part because they would feed themselves, and many animals could eat byproducts of farmed staple food production.

3. Less oppressed people tended to have more meat. More oppressed people had less meat.

Quote: "In sum lets go back to whats matter, meat was occasional, and their detrimental effect on people were greatly reduced by the natural exercise of old life style, not this modern world of feast every day."

I think you have it backward, people plain need more exercise. With the lack of exercise it is easy to overeat. The same effects you talk about on cell behavior from protein work the same regardless of whether it is meat, plant, or synthesized protein. The source is irrelevent. Just with meat, since it is an efficient source it is easy to overeat if you spend most of your life sitting at a desk and not doing physical work.

In the end analysis it does not matter if you overeat plants or anything else. There are plenty of warnings from doctors to avoid overeating carbs as well for example because too many sugars are also bad for you. Carbs = staple foods you talk about so much. Since many people overeat carbs and get health problems and die from it, maybe the govt should ban them as well?

Try looking at the larger picture, and putting things in context instead of just reading activist literature.

Let's begin again, trying to disqualify my arguments linking me to PETA will not work, again my sources are the most respected scientists, and medical doctors, that actually work on their fields

Again, wrong. I still have to debunk to you again..
Fossil remains from our hunter-gatherer ancestors show that they were lean, had strong dense bones, and no tooth decay. Evidence from cave drawings and coprolites shows that they ate a diet consisting mainly of fruit, nuts, and wild vegetables, and some meat. This diet is about the same as that of today's hunter-gatherer tribes.


With the advent of agriculture, mankind's diet shifted to a grain-based diet. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors probably ate some grain, having discovered that wheat and rye plants which grew wild, could yield a grain, which, when cooked, could be eaten. The agricultural revolution made it possible for grains to be the staple of the diet. People began getting most of their calories and nutrients from grain about 10,000 years ago.

You shout aloud about activists and PETA. But just for other people here that MABYE is reading.. now you have to resort to desqualifying the sources as you do not have arguments to counter de evidence from scientits. So will continue to clarify to people here. Dr. Essestlyn, Dr. Dean Ornish(MD) Dr. Campbell from Cornell University.. and Dr. Mcdougall(MD) do not have any association with PETA or are activisties just for clarify again.

No, a small percentage of your arguments are the work of respected scientists who are working within their field of expertise. You have a smattering of true science work, amongst a much larger body of opinion by activists. Just because a cardiologist says that humans are herbivores because they lack a seminal vesticule does not mean he is right simply because he is a cardiologist. If he looked at a CAT scan/blood work and said something like "you have X heart problem" then he would have automatic credibility. But he doesnt know more about evolutionary science than anyone else.

Strong dense bones in a prehistoric society means lots of meat eating.

Funny... most of the cave drawings I have seen depicted the hunt. Also, there is still a living Native American tradition to draw some that supports large amounts of hunting for example.

Also, there are plenty of "doctors" who have strong opinions about various things.. and are wrong all the time. Again, you are really misusing the actual data from actual respected scientists working in their field.. and trying to pass off the opinions of other people , and the opinions of people working outside their field as fact.

Doctor says "eating too much meat is bad for you" I say "ok, yeah makes sense".

You say " since doctor said eating too much meat is bad, I say eating absolutely no meat is even better and its proven by science - just ask the doctor"

I say " I call bullshit".

Strong dense bones in a prehistoric society means lots of meat eating.
Another misconception taught by the meat industry were you grow up.

If you compare any, any population in the world abou their bones, and the sciency showed, that animal protein has a detrimental effect on bone.. again I have to give another lesson.. your PH is almost neutral.. after you eat acidic foods like meat, to neutralize the acidic effect caused on blood by eating them, you have to lose calcium from the bones and there is were you begin to get bone fractures on population that eat moderates amounts of meat and do not have exercice enough as we both know.. man is get boring to counter your arguments..

Its not opinions is about facts and medical research, and scientific study..

Sigh... I think the only "lesson" that you have taught anyone here , is that activist types ignore anything that doesnt fit their predjudices.

Pray tell, where did prehistoric people get calcium?

I will tell you, meat - especially fish and/or milk. Collard greens / kale / broccoli. Tofu. Various nuts can also have calcium. The problem with many of the vegetarian sources is that they do not produce during winter.

In warmer climates, it was certainly much more plausible to get proper nutrition year-round without meat. (though still common to eat meat, particularly fish if you were near water).

Again, you are cherry-picking certain examples and trying to say that it applied equally to all people in all places. Your point regarding protein and bone loss really only applies to geriatric women, not to everyone.

(incidentally, I grew up eating meat and drinking milk... never had a broken bone and it was not for lack of trying, despite being a skinny/small boned build)

I notice you ignored the rest of my points as well after getting utterly demolished by them.

Try again. Try harder.

I would you give another lesson about calcium and where we get them from and how the body adapts and why the World Health Organzation tells that is we need 300mg a day and why the FDA say that is we need 1500mg a day, but will not be the case or another lesson about calcium.

I could resort to your tatics, where your sources are from and how very weak they are, but Cornell University and Harvard University are beginung to debunk them all. It will take some years but you cannot expect that could be done fast.

As you were a gentleman at least trying to reply with fewer personal attacks were other members here could not do that on other topics. And this topic is just beggining to cycle around on the same subjectives again and again and that is not productive to you or to me.

As an aknowledge of your contribution that I will use this topic to easily catalogue and debunk all myths in my future debate with any one the defend meat consuption..

I will say you won!!!, and you can have your forum unbeaten ratio to your ego satisfied. And when you got older at least try to remember me if in the future you got any disease caused by meat, as that guy that you thought talking nonsense here, would be right.

Are you happy?
Im just kidding :)

When you say Cornell - you mean the guy who wrote
" The China Study" which is interesting material to be sure, I just think you take his work further than it should be taken and to mean more than it should mean.

Changing diet in response to certain criteria (lifestyle, presence of certain illness) certainly makes sense and as I have already said - there is a case for it. What I disagree with, are blanket assertions to its applicibility and necessitiy of no meat in all places in all times for all people. At the end of the day, he is still a guy selling a book, he still has plenty of opinion in with his facts, and activists always stretch things to help their rhetoric.

As for sources, mostly its general historical research. When arguing on forums I actively try to *avoid* doing the repeated link-drop, because my observation is that people who overuse links and copy/paste often do so because they do not understand the material well enough to form educated opinions on their own and instead rely on parroting the opinions of others (via copy/paste or link ) and usually end up linking/pasting non sequiturs or low-quality material. I try not to be like that. If I am writing the equivalent of a position paper, I will cite references, or if I am referencing something that can not be easily googled in 5 seconds. People who will not do their own research or challenge their own assumptions cannot be convinced anyhow.

I have done copious amounts of research on varying historical periods, they werent Vegans or even in most cases vegetarians. That being the case, you have to really stretch and extrapolate to try and use them to make a case for Veganism... especially when in many cases is was the poorest and most downtrodden people who most lacked meat.

I do generally try to attack the beliefs and not the person, though if needled I will occasionally needle back. To me its all in good fun, and I make a general (but sometimes incorrect) assumption that if someone else is arguing on internet forums they do it because it is also fun for them.(edit: this was especially true in your case, I always figured that if someone was a law student they must like to argue) Mostly I consider it entertainment, the world at large doesnt really care who says what on a forum debate.

You won!
...
...
...
But I can counter all those last arguments that you said!!!!
...
...
...
But I will not do that, because I already said all things that would be talked about it as you already said all that you have.
For now the majority thinks is fine as it now, but there are several people alerting about the reality, and as the years pass they will choose what path and destiny they will want to have.
That is the way the democracy should work.
If just by hipotheses I had a power to force people to not eat meat, I would not do that, people should have their free will to their choices, but they have to know the possible consequences.

One thing left out in the discussion is this and this is no research involved just personal observation from some personal friends that have chosen to live this lifestyle.

Vegetarians/vegans need to take pharmaceutical supplements or stack on specific fortified foods in order to maintain proper levels of protein, calcium, iron, vitamin D, B12, and zinc. Within the vegetarian community there are also subgroups such as the "flexetarian" (who consumes dairy and eggs) which the traditional name for is lactoovo vegetarians. You will and are right to do so bring up that certain foods in the vegetarian/vegan diet do offer these but I will use zinc as an example. Zinc is essential to the human body for both a healthy immune system and wound healing. Vegetarians may need up to 50% more zinc intake through the vegetarian diet because zinc is not easily absorbed through plant foods.

So when dealing with supplements we have this simple chain which shows which lifestyle needs more in the way of supplemental health.

vegan > vegetarian > all around diet


Vegans need more supplements than vegetarians and vegetarians in turn need more help and planning than someone that consumes an all around diet.

We can all agree I think that in some cases the meat you get from store bought lines in some cases are unhealthy due to additives and hormones put through the livestock feed in order to make for solid yields. We could have a whole other discussion on the difference between domesticated farm raised animals and their methods and game meats which are hunted from the wild.

Now armed with the knowledge of certain mineral and vitamin deficiencies in the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle I would think that it seems less an ethical or actual health debate than it is a "pick your poison" scenario. If some livestock raised meat is tampered with via hormones and what not are you 100% certain that these supplements that are used by a vast amount of those taking part in the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle are more healthy seeing as how it is just as easy for a person to be consuming additives placed in said supplements?

The rules of humanity are fairly simple. Survive. The number one rule of survival is this...

Food is eat!

Now with our options in this day and age as said earlier it is merely a "pick your poison" scenario. Nothing is 100% correct because every ones needs are different and only an individual can discern what it is that their body needs.

Quote: " But I will not do that, because I already said all things that would be talked about it as you already said all that you have. "

Yeah, I was just summarizing my opinion to give a final contrast on our positions. You are correct to say that niether of us will likely be changing our mind at this point.

It was a fun discussion. Feel free to start another.


Quote: "Now with our options in this day and age as said earlier it is merely a "pick your poison" scenario. Nothing is 100% correct because every ones needs are different and only an individual can discern what it is that their body needs. "

I think this is spot on.

I'm no expert but I have done some reading on this recently. Particularly pertaining to the Paleo Diet. Based on the 3 books I've read our ancestors did in fact eat meat, and a fair amount of it. There are two primary differences between what we eat and what they ate.
1. Much of our meat has been raised with a goal towards building fat content and with herbicides, pesticides, and hormones all in their environment.
2. Our ancestors ate nearly the entire animal, to include bones, intestine, blood, brains, eyes, really just about anything that we throw away today.
One of the books I read made a really big deal out of these "organs and other nasty bits." In particular Dr. Shanahan suggests sticking to what she calls the

I'm much more likely to take the advice of someone who is advocating sensible changes to diet and exercise based on studies done by medical doctors, archeology and paleontology experts and other experts, than I am to take advice from someone who is advocating severe and drastic change based on a small amount of data, confined to a couple of studies. If you want to know what kind of detrimental impact that can have you should do a little research on why we use margarine and vegetable oils, with all of their negative impacts on health, instead of butter and animal fats (look up Ancel Keys). Or, look into the pasteurization of milk, what the process does to molecular bonds of the proteins, and how a snake oil salesman named Charles North propagated a myth about deaths from natural milk.

We didn't start eating meat yesterday. We've been eating it for something like 100,000 years. If you want to find a food that contributes to cancer and other detrimental diseases, you should look at something we only recently (relatively speaking) started eating, like grain. Its also worth mentioning that the bread we eat today is nothing like the bread our ancestors first made from grains, where the grain had to be sprouted in order to get at the good stuff inside. Today we just grind the shit out of it and the casing (nature's little protective coating that keeps animals from eating the grain) and everything gets process together.

so you guys take a look at this teaser, and begin to eat more fiber.. nobody in this video is telling you to give up the all your cocaine..ops sorry the meat..

What are your thoughts on the Paleo diet?

Not one person has said "screw you, I don't eat plants. I only eat MEAT" Everyone of us has advocated for more and broader range of dietary intake. Although, watching that clip made me remember something else. Most of the "meat" that Americans eat, isn't. We eat so much processed crap (like that giant hotdog in the clip) that really is full of harmful chemicals, with ridiculously high caloric content and almost no real nutritional value. But that still doesn't mean that I would advocate the government regulating that stuff away, like Mr. Bloomberg is attempting to do in New York with 16oz sodas. If you want to make poor health decisions, that is your choice. If I have to pay a little for some of your medical treatment at the emergency room, then that is the price I'm willing to pay to enjoy my freedom and afford you the opportunity to enjoy yours. However brief it may be.

I would be ok with regulations...if I was the Emperor.

Did someone say Cocaine? Now all I need is a hookers ass to snort it off of!

I can certainly get behind this.