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

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.