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

- 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.