 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
fruitarians
"Rubystars" > wrote in message . com... > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > om... > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that you can't > get > > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that you can. > > you're > > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i know is > right > > > for > > > > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other people > > doesn't > > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > > > > > Rick goes about it the wrong way, IMO, > > ====================== > > You get what you give with me. Katie has been above board, where do you > see > > anything from me that is the 'wrong way?' > > You've called people "killer" for so long I think that when you say it now > it goes in one ear and out the other. ======================= Yes, i do. I call myself one too. that will usually come about when the loonier vegan tries to say that their diet causes no death and suffering, or no unnecessary death and suffering. Why should the term be bothersome to you anyway? Unless of course a quilty conscience doesn't like it. I don't think it has any impact > anymore, or any shock factor. It also takes the level of the dialogue down > into a name calling argument instead of a reasoned debate. I haven't ever > seen you use profanity and that's commendable, but saying "killer" 10,000 > times (even if it's true) doesn't seem to get much done. ==================== Nor does repeating 10,000 times that a vegan diet automatically causes no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die. It's the same claim, made over and over, and has never been backed up by anyone making that claim. > > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance and > hatred, > > and like to spew it. I won't roll over for them. > > I will, and have, discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone else > that > > does. > > Yes, I've seen you do good debates too, where you have had reasoned > discussion. I just wish that was true more of the time ==================== It would be if there were more reasonable vegans... take note of the ones currently trolling here... What have they added? Nothing. They can't. > > > but this is a good example of what I > > > was talking about when I used my "I am an alien from Zarbo." Example. > > > > > > You say "I can get all my nutrients from plants." Rick says "No you > > can't." > > > So to determine who is correct, it's time to see who can back up their > > > statements with evidence. > > > > > > That is, if you want to know who is correct here. > > ===================== > > Go to any number of above board vegan web pages, so that they don't think > > I'm producing biased info. They say you need to supplement, or fortify. > > They'll tell you that plant foods are not a reliable sourse of real b12s. > > many have analogs that look like b12, but will actually block the intake > of > > real b12. > > When I buy fortified cereals and soy milk the labels say that those foods > provide a certain percentage of the daily value of B12. Are those not true > sources? ==================== It's real b12, but in was not in the food originally. It's an additive. manufactured and mass produced by the petro-chemical industry. The point is that that production causes animal death and suffering. Unnecesasary animal death and suffering, since you could obtain many years of the necessary b12 with the death of one animal, and then consuming it. It's part of the overall vegan delusion that by not killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc. that their diet is somehow mystically superior. You could also get your b12 without animal death and suffering by never washing raw veggies, or by never washing your own hands. Kinda grosser sounding to me than just eating one animal. > > -Rubystars > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"katie" > wrote in message . cable.rogers.com... > i think that they tell people to take suppliments partly because a lot of > folks don't 'do it right,' (people do that whether or not they eat meat, > really), because you can still call yourself a vegan but eat nothing but > garbage, live without hardly any fruits or veggies, etc. especially since > it seems like a lot of vegans are students, and if they're stuck with dorm > food, they can wind up living on french fries. i think that most folks just > don't eat enough vegetables. meh. ======================== Probably not. But even the 'typical' american diet that vegans like to rant about as 'meat-centric' has more plant foods than meats in it. Part of my point is that vegans also like to claim it's healthier. like you just said, that isn't automatically true either. In places around the world that have the longest living people, they are not vegan. Meat is not a large portion of their diet, but it isn't absent either. > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > link.net... > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > e.rogers.com... > > > see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that you can't get > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that you can. > > ====================== > > If you know that for sure, why do all vegan site tell you to take > > supplements or eat fortified foods? > > > > > > you're > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i know is right > > for > > > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other people > doesn't > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > ============== > > It does when their claims are ignorant. As in being vegan automatically > > saves more animals than eating any meat. It's a false claim. One that no > > vegan has ever beeen able to back up. And, since they have never nbeen > > able to back up their claims you get the loonys like the one now full of > > hate and stupidity that knows that he cannot discuss the issue. That the > > kind of people that vegans become? > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > . cable.rogers.com... > > > > > plant foods do in fact provide all the nutrients that our bodies > need. > > > > the > > > > > only one not found in most plants (except mushrooms), B12, can be > > grown > > > on > > > > > molasses. most of the ways in which we get all of our food isn't > > > > 'natural,' > > > > > it's all heavily maniupulated. that's no different. you can get > > > > > everything you need from plants. > > > > ================= > > > > Nope. better check your sources again... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and i don't believe that the 'truth' has to be rude. we can > disagree > > > and > > > > > debate without being mean to each other and without resorting to > > > personal > > > > > attacks and name calling, which seem to be pretty popular around > here. > > > > ==================== > > > > That's the way many here take the 'truth'. It's an affront to their > > > > stupidity, and they don't like having that exposed to the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > > > > able.rogers.com... > > > > > > > for sure, i know that folks have been eating meat for a long, > > > > looooooong > > > > > > > time. that's why i found the article so interesting. i had > > always > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > that people were herbivores, > > > > > > ======================== > > > > > > No, people cannnot live on plant foods alone, despite the > delusions > > to > > > > the > > > > > > contrary. > > > > > > Plant foods do not provide all the nutrients your body needs. You > > may > > > > > > suppliment those nutrients, but then, supplements are not > 'natural'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i didn't ever separate the physical makeup of > > > > > > > our bodies from what we do to survive. just thought it was > > > > interesting. > > > > > > > and hey, i've gotta say, vegsource definitely is one-sided, but > > > that's > > > > > > what > > > > > > > it's there for, you know? veg folks just need a sanctuary, > where > > we > > > > can > > > > > > > form a virtual community and be less prone to attack there, > cause > > > > while > > > > > > > debate is healthy and interesting, on a topic like this it's so > > > often > > > > > rude > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > Only if you believe that the truth is 'rude'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and mean and no one respects anyone else (which is crap, on any > > > > subject, > > > > > > as > > > > > > > far as i'm concerned.), and you can find that here, but you > don't > > > want > > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > faced with it everywhere you go, you know? constantly defending > a > > > > > > lifestyle > > > > > > > to people you don't even know is no way to live. sometimes you > > just > > > > > want > > > > > > a > > > > > > > good soymilk review, know what i mean? so i find that site neat > > for > > > > > > pro-veg > > > > > > > info, and fantastic for recipes, and good for support. and when > i > > > > want > > > > > to > > > > > > > read the other side (and believe me, i find it equally > > fascinating), > > > > > > there's > > > > > > > an abundance of places to go. and for sure, just as not > everyone > > > > should > > > > > > be > > > > > > > eating meat, (although i don't think that anyone should be > eating > > > > nearly > > > > > > as > > > > > > > much of it as north american culture dictates, same for high-fat > > > dairy > > > > > and > > > > > > > processed food, though). i think that there are some > individuals > > > who > > > > > for > > > > > > > some reason or another would get sick on even a 'perfect' > vegitan > > > > diet. > > > > > > > everyone should just really get to know their own body, try out > > > > > different > > > > > > > things, and see what makes them feel the most alive. holy tofu, > > > that > > > > > was > > > > > > a > > > > > > > huge rant. i have to cut myself off here (: x) ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > > > > .. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > > > > > > meh...i didn't 'brand' it as unnatural to step away from it > > for > > > > > > ethical > > > > > > > > > reasons at all. my transition was a process, first after > > > learning > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > environmental implications, then learning about health, and > i > > > > didn't > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > > > > shits about the ethics for years. i had long since given up > > > meat > > > > > when > > > > > > i > > > > > > > > > started getting in touch with it. anyhow, i think that meat > > is > > > > > > > > 'unnatural' > > > > > > > > > for human consumption partly because of personal experience > of > > > the > > > > > > > > reaction > > > > > > > > > of my body (and others i know) to animal products, and > partly > > > > > because > > > > > > i > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > read some really fascinating theories that suggest that > humans > > > are > > > > > > > > > observational omnivores, but physiological herbivores: > > > > > > > > > http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm > > > > > > > > > anyhow, just some interesting 'food' for thought - *giggle* > > > > > > > > > sorry, i'm such a soycheese-ball : ) > > > > > > > > > ps, love your handle! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'd take that site with a grain of salt (no pun > > intended). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pre-human campfires and meat cutting tools have been found, > > > > suggesting > > > > > > > > that humans ate meat before they were even Homo sapiens. Also > > our > > > > > > nearest > > > > > > > > relative on the family tree, Neanderthals, ate a large > > percentage > > > of > > > > > > meat > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > their diet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our closest living relative, usually thought of as a > frugivore, > > > the > > > > > > > > chimpanzee, hunts and kills > > > > > > > > monkeys and small antelopes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Humans too have left behind artifacts from their earliest days > > of > > > > > > killing > > > > > > > > and processing tools, > > > > > > > > campfires, and cave paintings of prey animals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not everyone should eat meat. It can be bad for some people's > > > > health, > > > > > or > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > it is overconsumed, > > > > > > > > but most people around the world use it as part of a healthy > > diet > > > > and > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > people always have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Rubystars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
*
rick etter wrote: > * > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance and hatred, > and like to spew it.* I won't roll over for them. > I will, and have,* discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone else that > does. Mr Etter would like to pretend that he is somehow adult and polite here all the time. The only reason he is now holding back on gratuitous attacks is because he and Mr Ball have been aggressively challenged as of late by people like myself as relentlessly as they spew "hate and ignorance." This phrase "hate and ignorance" is what Mr Etter and Mr Ball have had thrown back at them over and over and now Mr Etter is trying to act like he is the one being attacked with it. This is a joke. A quick review of his earlier posts will reveal loads of insults and name calling. His claim that he only reciprocates is nothing more than excuse to be abusive. The reason he lives his whole life here is because of his perverse need to attack and ridicule. Now if Mr Etter is willing to be effected by posts like this one and act like an adult, than I whole heartedly welcome any positive contributions he has to offer. Especially because I have much the same views as he does but hesitate to share them while he and Mr Ball are tainting the whole atmosphere of those with omnivorous beliefs. * |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"Feed Lot" > wrote in message ... rick etter wrote: There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance and hatred, and like to spew it. I won't roll over for them. I will, and have, discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone else that does. Mr Etter would like to pretend that he is somehow adult and polite here all the time. ===================== Nope. I just stated that I don't, fool. Especially when the loons like you are trolling... The only reason he is now holding back on gratuitous attacks is because he and Mr Ball have been aggressively challenged as of late by people like myself as relentlessly as they spew "hate and ignorance." ==================== ROTFLMAO You're doing too good of job of PROVING your ignorance, hatred, and intolerence. Keep up the good work, killer. This phrase "hate and ignorance" is what Mr Etter and Mr Ball have had thrown back at them over and over and now Mr Etter is trying to act like he is the one being attacked with it. This is a joke. A quick review of his earlier posts will reveal loads of insults and name calling. His claim that he only reciprocates is nothing more than excuse to be abusive. The reason he lives his whole life here is because of his perverse need to attack and ridicule. ================ Perverse is obviously something you live with, right troll? Now if Mr Etter is willing to be effected by posts like this one and act like an adult, than I whole heartedly welcome any positive contributions he has to offer. Especially because I have much the same views as he does but hesitate to share them while he and Mr Ball are tainting the whole atmosphere of those with omnivorous beliefs. ===================== The problem is, YOU can't defend your ignorant vegan delusions. that's why you are so full of hate and ignorance, fool. Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
*
rick etter wrote: > "Feed Lot" > wrote in message > ... > > rick etter wrote: > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance and hatred, > and like to spew it.* I won't roll over for them. > I will, and have,* discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone else that > does. > Mr Etter would like to pretend that he is somehow adult and polite here all > the time. > ===================== > Nope.* I just stated that I don't, fool.* Especially when the loons like you > are trolling... > > The only reason he is now holding back on gratuitous attacks is because he > and Mr Ball have been aggressively challenged as of late by people like > myself as relentlessly as they spew "hate and ignorance." > ==================== > ROTFLMAO** You're doing too good of job of PROVING your ignorance, hatred, > and intolerence.* Keep up the good work, killer. > > This phrase "hate and ignorance" is what Mr Etter and Mr Ball have had > thrown back at them over and over and now Mr Etter is trying to act like he > is the one being attacked with it. This is a joke. A quick review of his > earlier posts will reveal loads of insults and name calling. His claim that > he only reciprocates is nothing more than excuse to be abusive. The reason > he lives his whole life here is because of his perverse need to attack and > ridicule. > ================ > Perverse is obviously something you live with, right troll? > > Now if Mr Etter is willing to be effected by posts like this one and act > like an adult, than I whole heartedly welcome any positive contributions he > has to offer. Especially because I have much the same views as he does but > hesitate to share them while he and Mr Ball are tainting the whole > atmosphere of those with omnivorous beliefs. > ===================== > The problem is, YOU can't defend your ignorant vegan delusions.* that's why > you are so full of hate and ignorance, fool. > > Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite... Note that I wrote above, "Especially because I have much the same views as he does" and yet Mr Etter's trolling with his blinders on is not able to comprehend this part of my point. That I am here with a perspective about veganism that has many similarities as his. I went on to write (as seen above) "...but hesitate to share them..." Mr Etter is embarrassed to acknowledge this part of my commentary simply because he recognizes that he not only is a huge turn off to vegans (and thus so few bother to involve themselves here), but also to those that don't share the vegan mind set. In plain english, he is ja erk that suffers from social retardation! * |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"Feed Lot" > wrote nothing of any imort... snippage of latest drivel... Note that I wrote above, "Especially because I have much the same views as he does" and yet Mr Etter's trolling with his blinders on is not able to comprehend this part of my point. That I am here with a perspective about veganism that has many similarities as his. I went on to write (as seen above) "...but hesitate to share them..." Mr Etter is embarrassed to acknowledge this part of my commentary simply because he recognizes that he not only is a huge turn off to vegans (and thus so few bother to involve themselves here), but also to those that don't share the vegan mind set. In plain english, he is ja erk that suffers from social retardation! ======================= because you are not discussing anything, ignorant fool. I don't believe a word you say, stupid, because you're too ignorant to even figure out how to post to usenet. Now, continue with your stupidity and ignorance all you want, killer. The only one trolling here is you, fool. Try to have a rational thought at least once in awhile, dolt. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"rick etter" > wrote in message hlink.net... > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > . com... > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > hlink.net... > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > om... > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > > see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that you can't > > get > > > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that you can. > > > you're > > > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i know is > > right > > > > for > > > > > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other people > > > doesn't > > > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > > > > > > > Rick goes about it the wrong way, IMO, > > > ====================== > > > You get what you give with me. Katie has been above board, where do you > > see > > > anything from me that is the 'wrong way?' > > > > You've called people "killer" for so long I think that when you say it now > > it goes in one ear and out the other. > ======================= > Yes, i do. I call myself one too. that will usually come about when the > loonier vegan tries to say that their diet causes no death and suffering, or > no unnecessary death and suffering. Why should the term be bothersome to > you anyway? Unless of course a quilty conscience doesn't like it. It doesn't really bother me but I think that it turns people off to you and that may be one reason that they don't feel like arguing at a higher level. > I don't think it has any impact > > anymore, or any shock factor. It also takes the level of the dialogue down > > into a name calling argument instead of a reasoned debate. I haven't ever > > seen you use profanity and that's commendable, but saying "killer" 10,000 > > times (even if it's true) doesn't seem to get much done. > ==================== > Nor does repeating 10,000 times that a vegan diet automatically causes > no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die. It's the same claim, made over > and over, and has never been backed up by anyone making that claim. Ok. > > > > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance and > > hatred, > > > and like to spew it. I won't roll over for them. > > > I will, and have, discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone else > > that > > > does. > > > > Yes, I've seen you do good debates too, where you have had reasoned > > discussion. I just wish that was true more of the time > ==================== > It would be if there were more reasonable vegans... take note of the ones > currently trolling here... What have they added? Nothing. They can't. I'd like to see more reasonable arguments from them too. <snip> > > When I buy fortified cereals and soy milk the labels say that those foods > > provide a certain percentage of the daily value of B12. Are those not true > > sources? > ==================== > It's real b12, but in was not in the food originally. It's an additive. > manufactured and mass produced by the petro-chemical industry. The point is > that that production causes animal death and suffering. Unnecesasary animal > death and suffering, since you could obtain many years of the necessary b12 > with the death of one animal, and then consuming it. It's part of the > overall vegan delusion that by not killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc. that > their diet is somehow mystically superior. > You could also get your b12 without animal death and suffering by never > washing raw veggies, or by never washing your own hands. Kinda grosser > sounding to me than just eating one animal. Ok thanks for the info. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
*
rick etter wrote: > because you are not discussing anything, ignorant fool.* I don't believe a > word you say, stupid, because you're too ignorant to even figure out how to > post to usenet.*** Now, continue with your stupidity and ignorance all you > want, killer.* The only one trolling here is you, fool.* Try to have a > rational thought at least once in awhile, dolt. Mr Etter says, " I don't believe a word you say, stupid, because you're too ignorant to even figure out how to post to usenet." Really? You have a fixation with people that care about animals. People that are sensitive to the feelings of other beings. People that are SENSITIVE! This is the gist of your beef (pardon the pun). Your father and or perhaps your older brothers teased you for being a cry baby. "Don't cry you baby!" They taught you to deny your feelings. So you grew up learning to deny that you needed to be sensitive to other beings - people or animals. Your mantra in this group is always the same - convincing others that they are no more sensitive to animals than you are. Or in other words - rick etter is not less sensitive than anyone else? Is this all about a walk down the yellow brick road to see the wizard? "Please Mr Wizard, please give me the ability to be sensitive to others so that they will be sensitive to me." Is it all a cry for love Mr Etter? What is that drives a grown man to waste away on a usenet topic of such trivial nature. It isn't about saving the corporate farms from bankruptcy, the Atkins diet has them making more money than ever before. No, you are here to argue that vegans are not more sensitive than you - or in other words - you are just as sensitive as them! If only you were man enough to know yourself as much as you demand others to know themselves! Now call me killer like it means that I am the bad one and you are the good - or in others words - rick etter is not the bad one, not the one lacking sensitivity to others. * * |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
how is b12 mass produced by the petrochemical industry? as far as i know,
it's just yeast organisms growing on molasses. "rick etter" > wrote in message hlink.net... > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > . com... > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > hlink.net... > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > om... > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > > see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that you can't > > get > > > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that you can. > > > you're > > > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i know is > > right > > > > for > > > > > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other people > > > doesn't > > > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > > > > > > > Rick goes about it the wrong way, IMO, > > > ====================== > > > You get what you give with me. Katie has been above board, where do you > > see > > > anything from me that is the 'wrong way?' > > > > You've called people "killer" for so long I think that when you say it now > > it goes in one ear and out the other. > ======================= > Yes, i do. I call myself one too. that will usually come about when the > loonier vegan tries to say that their diet causes no death and suffering, or > no unnecessary death and suffering. Why should the term be bothersome to > you anyway? Unless of course a quilty conscience doesn't like it. > > > I don't think it has any impact > > anymore, or any shock factor. It also takes the level of the dialogue down > > into a name calling argument instead of a reasoned debate. I haven't ever > > seen you use profanity and that's commendable, but saying "killer" 10,000 > > times (even if it's true) doesn't seem to get much done. > ==================== > Nor does repeating 10,000 times that a vegan diet automatically causes > no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die. It's the same claim, made over > and over, and has never been backed up by anyone making that claim. > > > > > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance and > > hatred, > > > and like to spew it. I won't roll over for them. > > > I will, and have, discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone else > > that > > > does. > > > > Yes, I've seen you do good debates too, where you have had reasoned > > discussion. I just wish that was true more of the time > ==================== > It would be if there were more reasonable vegans... take note of the ones > currently trolling here... What have they added? Nothing. They can't. > > > > > > but this is a good example of what I > > > > was talking about when I used my "I am an alien from Zarbo." Example. > > > > > > > > You say "I can get all my nutrients from plants." Rick says "No you > > > can't." > > > > So to determine who is correct, it's time to see who can back up their > > > > statements with evidence. > > > > > > > > That is, if you want to know who is correct here. > > > ===================== > > > Go to any number of above board vegan web pages, so that they don't > think > > > I'm producing biased info. They say you need to supplement, or fortify. > > > They'll tell you that plant foods are not a reliable sourse of real > b12s. > > > many have analogs that look like b12, but will actually block the intake > > of > > > real b12. > > > > When I buy fortified cereals and soy milk the labels say that those foods > > provide a certain percentage of the daily value of B12. Are those not true > > sources? > ==================== > It's real b12, but in was not in the food originally. It's an additive. > manufactured and mass produced by the petro-chemical industry. The point is > that that production causes animal death and suffering. Unnecesasary animal > death and suffering, since you could obtain many years of the necessary b12 > with the death of one animal, and then consuming it. It's part of the > overall vegan delusion that by not killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc. that > their diet is somehow mystically superior. > You could also get your b12 without animal death and suffering by never > washing raw veggies, or by never washing your own hands. Kinda grosser > sounding to me than just eating one animal. > > > > > -Rubystars > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"Dr brainspew" > wrote nothing as usual... rick etter wrote: because you are not discussing anything, ignorant fool. I don't believe a word you say, stupid, because you're too ignorant to even figure out how to post to usenet. Now, continue with your stupidity and ignorance all you want, killer. The only one trolling here is you, fool. Try to have a rational thought at least once in awhile, dolt. Mr Etter says, " I don't believe a word you say, stupid, because you're too ignorant to even figure out how to post to usenet." Really? You have a fixation with people that care about animals. ================== No, ignorant fool. the problem is with people who CLAIM to care, yet their ignorant posts to usenet prove otherwise. snippage of typical ignorant hate..... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"katie" > wrote in message ble.rogers.com... > how is b12 mass produced by the petrochemical industry? as far as i know, > it's just yeast organisms growing on molasses. ================== Any mass production technique is dependent on energy and technology. http://www.pcierd.dost.gov.ph/news/vb12.htm http://www.chipsbooks.com/fermbiot.htm > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > . com... > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > om... > > > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > > > see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that you > can't > > > get > > > > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that you can. > > > > you're > > > > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i know is > > > right > > > > > for > > > > > > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other people > > > > doesn't > > > > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > > > > > > > > > Rick goes about it the wrong way, IMO, > > > > ====================== > > > > You get what you give with me. Katie has been above board, where do > you > > > see > > > > anything from me that is the 'wrong way?' > > > > > > You've called people "killer" for so long I think that when you say it > now > > > it goes in one ear and out the other. > > ======================= > > Yes, i do. I call myself one too. that will usually come about when the > > loonier vegan tries to say that their diet causes no death and suffering, > or > > no unnecessary death and suffering. Why should the term be bothersome to > > you anyway? Unless of course a quilty conscience doesn't like it. > > > > > > I don't think it has any impact > > > anymore, or any shock factor. It also takes the level of the dialogue > down > > > into a name calling argument instead of a reasoned debate. I haven't > ever > > > seen you use profanity and that's commendable, but saying "killer" > 10,000 > > > times (even if it's true) doesn't seem to get much done. > > ==================== > > Nor does repeating 10,000 times that a vegan diet automatically causes > > no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die. It's the same claim, made over > > and over, and has never been backed up by anyone making that claim. > > > > > > > > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance and > > > hatred, > > > > and like to spew it. I won't roll over for them. > > > > I will, and have, discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone > else > > > that > > > > does. > > > > > > Yes, I've seen you do good debates too, where you have had reasoned > > > discussion. I just wish that was true more of the time > > ==================== > > It would be if there were more reasonable vegans... take note of the ones > > currently trolling here... What have they added? Nothing. They can't. > > > > > > > > > but this is a good example of what I > > > > > was talking about when I used my "I am an alien from Zarbo." > Example. > > > > > > > > > > You say "I can get all my nutrients from plants." Rick says "No you > > > > can't." > > > > > So to determine who is correct, it's time to see who can back up > their > > > > > statements with evidence. > > > > > > > > > > That is, if you want to know who is correct here. > > > > ===================== > > > > Go to any number of above board vegan web pages, so that they don't > > think > > > > I'm producing biased info. They say you need to supplement, or > fortify. > > > > They'll tell you that plant foods are not a reliable sourse of real > > b12s. > > > > many have analogs that look like b12, but will actually block the > intake > > > of > > > > real b12. > > > > > > When I buy fortified cereals and soy milk the labels say that those > foods > > > provide a certain percentage of the daily value of B12. Are those not > true > > > sources? > > ==================== > > It's real b12, but in was not in the food originally. It's an additive. > > manufactured and mass produced by the petro-chemical industry. The point > is > > that that production causes animal death and suffering. Unnecesasary > animal > > death and suffering, since you could obtain many years of the necessary > b12 > > with the death of one animal, and then consuming it. It's part of the > > overall vegan delusion that by not killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc. that > > their diet is somehow mystically superior. > > You could also get your b12 without animal death and suffering by never > > washing raw veggies, or by never washing your own hands. Kinda grosser > > sounding to me than just eating one animal. > > > > > > > > -Rubystars > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
*
rick etter wrote: > "katie" > wrote in message > ble.rogers.com... > > how is b12 mass produced by the petrochemical industry?* as far as i know, > > it's just yeast organisms growing on molasses. > ================== > Any mass production technique is dependent on energy and technology. Here we have it. Mr Etter has no limits to his far out argumentative ways. He makes the claim, (and wrongly so) that b12 is produced by the petrochem industry. Then when this bizzare claim is challenged he simply states that everything is depndent on energy! DA! This is a perfect example of his round about ways of engaging others in arguemnt for no other pupose than to be argumentative. His expertise is not in animal farming or veganistic ethics but in plain old trolling plain and simple. This guy suffers from "you're the bad one not me" complex. His family (or lack there of) must abussed him his whole life. Now he is limited to living here in this purgatory of "who's bad?" * * |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
wouldn't that then also apply for the mass production of meat? i mean,
sure, you CAN get grass-fed, romping as nature intended cows, but most of the meat out there (especially in fast food) wasn't produced in anything close to a 'natural' way. farms are really expensive to run. that's partly why they're being consolidated into fewer and bigger farms, and the focus on productivity leads to stuff like feedlots, which do take lots of crops and are very energy intensive (also supporting the petrochemical industry). even dairy farms (the big-ish but still family farms around here) take up a lot of energy. no one milks cows by hand anymore, unless they're amish. it takes loads of energy to produce practically everything that anyone consumes, whether they consume it as food, wear it, or live in it. and that does result in animal deaths. but i still don't think that there's any way to quantify any of it (which is why everyone here keeps arguing the same stuff!) who knows exactly which processes are more energy intensive or how many critters they kill on purpose or as 'collateral damage?' i don't know how much energy it takes to make a tablespoon of nutritional yeast, any more than i know how much energy it takes to make the about 9oz of lean beef that is equivalent in its b12 provision. maybe what we need is a big list of every energy-using process, including all of the different ways that meat and soybeans and the like are farmed. then we might have a chance in hell of actually resolving this stuff. "rick etter" > wrote in message .net... > > "katie" > wrote in message > ble.rogers.com... > > how is b12 mass produced by the petrochemical industry? as far as i know, > > it's just yeast organisms growing on molasses. > ================== > Any mass production technique is dependent on energy and technology. > http://www.pcierd.dost.gov.ph/news/vb12.htm > http://www.chipsbooks.com/fermbiot.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > hlink.net... > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > . com... > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > > om... > > > > > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > > > > see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that you > > can't > > > > get > > > > > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that you > can. > > > > > you're > > > > > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i know > is > > > > right > > > > > > for > > > > > > > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other > people > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick goes about it the wrong way, IMO, > > > > > ====================== > > > > > You get what you give with me. Katie has been above board, where do > > you > > > > see > > > > > anything from me that is the 'wrong way?' > > > > > > > > You've called people "killer" for so long I think that when you say it > > now > > > > it goes in one ear and out the other. > > > ======================= > > > Yes, i do. I call myself one too. that will usually come about when > the > > > loonier vegan tries to say that their diet causes no death and > suffering, > > or > > > no unnecessary death and suffering. Why should the term be bothersome > to > > > you anyway? Unless of course a quilty conscience doesn't like it. > > > > > > > > > I don't think it has any impact > > > > anymore, or any shock factor. It also takes the level of the dialogue > > down > > > > into a name calling argument instead of a reasoned debate. I haven't > > ever > > > > seen you use profanity and that's commendable, but saying "killer" > > 10,000 > > > > times (even if it's true) doesn't seem to get much done. > > > ==================== > > > Nor does repeating 10,000 times that a vegan diet automatically causes > > > no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die. It's the same claim, made > over > > > and over, and has never been backed up by anyone making that claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance and > > > > hatred, > > > > > and like to spew it. I won't roll over for them. > > > > > I will, and have, discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone > > else > > > > that > > > > > does. > > > > > > > > Yes, I've seen you do good debates too, where you have had reasoned > > > > discussion. I just wish that was true more of the time > > > ==================== > > > It would be if there were more reasonable vegans... take note of the > ones > > > currently trolling here... What have they added? Nothing. They can't. > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a good example of what I > > > > > > was talking about when I used my "I am an alien from Zarbo." > > Example. > > > > > > > > > > > > You say "I can get all my nutrients from plants." Rick says "No > you > > > > > can't." > > > > > > So to determine who is correct, it's time to see who can back up > > their > > > > > > statements with evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is, if you want to know who is correct here. > > > > > ===================== > > > > > Go to any number of above board vegan web pages, so that they don't > > > think > > > > > I'm producing biased info. They say you need to supplement, or > > fortify. > > > > > They'll tell you that plant foods are not a reliable sourse of real > > > b12s. > > > > > many have analogs that look like b12, but will actually block the > > intake > > > > of > > > > > real b12. > > > > > > > > When I buy fortified cereals and soy milk the labels say that those > > foods > > > > provide a certain percentage of the daily value of B12. Are those not > > true > > > > sources? > > > ==================== > > > It's real b12, but in was not in the food originally. It's an additive. > > > manufactured and mass produced by the petro-chemical industry. The > point > > is > > > that that production causes animal death and suffering. Unnecesasary > > animal > > > death and suffering, since you could obtain many years of the necessary > > b12 > > > with the death of one animal, and then consuming it. It's part of the > > > overall vegan delusion that by not killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc. > that > > > their diet is somehow mystically superior. > > > You could also get your b12 without animal death and suffering by never > > > washing raw veggies, or by never washing your own hands. Kinda grosser > > > sounding to me than just eating one animal. > > > > > > > > > > > -Rubystars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:47:40 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote: > >It sounds a little bit like a UFO convention, a skeptic free environment. >You know? Not to be rude or anything, but I think you should be able to >listen to what the evidence indicates far and above what you'd rather be >true. Humans are omnivores and always have been. The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly healthy. It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that early humans and even before, ate meat. by how |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"DrMindzout" > wrote in message ... > > > rick etter wrote: > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > ble.rogers.com... > > > how is b12 mass produced by the petrochemical industry? as far as i know, > > > it's just yeast organisms growing on molasses. > > ================== > > Any mass production technique is dependent on energy and technology. > > Here we have it. Mr Etter has no limits to his far out argumentative ways. He > makes the claim, (and wrongly so) that b12 is produced by the petrochem > industry. ---------------------------- I guess a loser like you missed the sites I posted, eh stupid? Then when this bizzare claim is challenged he simply states that > everything is depndent on energy! DA! This is a perfect example of his round > about ways of engaging others in arguemnt for no other pupose than to be > argumentative. His expertise is not in animal farming or veganistic ethics but > in plain old trolling plain and simple. This guy suffers from "you're the bad > one not me" complex. His family (or lack there of) must abussed him his whole > life. Now he is limited to living here in this purgatory of "who's bad?" > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"katie" > wrote in message . cable.rogers.com... > wouldn't that then also apply for the mass production of meat? i mean, > sure, you CAN get grass-fed, romping as nature intended cows, but most of > the meat out there (especially in fast food) wasn't produced in anything > close to a 'natural' way. ======================== All the beef here starts out as pasture fed. Only about 3/4 of beef animals are then sent to feed lots. Why is it so hard to understand how meat is produced? Quit reading the vegan propaganda sites and do a little research. farms are really expensive to run. that's partly > why they're being consolidated into fewer and bigger farms, and the focus on > productivity leads to stuff like feedlots, which do take lots of crops and > are very energy intensive (also supporting the petrochemical industry). ========================== Sure, but by not eating *any* meat, you do nothing to alleviate that production technique. Those of us that eat grass-fed meats, rasied with no hormaones, no antibiotics, and no feedlots are providing the farmers with an alternative production method. Not eating any meat doesn't provide that incentive to change. > even dairy farms (the big-ish but still family farms around here) take up a > lot of energy. no one milks cows by hand anymore, unless they're amish. it > takes loads of energy to produce practically everything that anyone > consumes, whether they consume it as food, wear it, or live in it. ======================== Yes, but the hypocritical vegan makes the claim that they do 'all they can' to reduce they impact. That's the whole point supposedly of veganism. and that > does result in animal deaths. but i still don't think that there's any way > to quantify any of it (which is why everyone here keeps arguing the same > stuff!) who knows exactly which processes are more energy intensive or how > many critters they kill on purpose or as 'collateral damage?' i don't know > how much energy it takes to make a tablespoon of nutritional yeast, any more > than i know how much energy it takes to make the about 9oz of lean beef that > is equivalent in its b12 provision. ==================== You really have a problem seeing the difference? That one cow, using your 9oz as a measure will provide about 1000 equivilent tablespoons of produced b12. That one death vs however many it takes for the production of the b12. I don't see any way a produced b12 can compare. maybe what we need is a big list of > every energy-using process, including all of the different ways that meat > and soybeans and the like are farmed. then we might have a chance in hell > of actually resolving this stuff. ====================== It's still quite easy. Grass fed beef and game take practically no energy inputs to raise. The equvilent in soy turned to tofu would require lots of energy, from the plowing, spraying, harvesting, and processing. making tofu is an intensive process. Again, the claim by vegans that their diet automatically causes less death and suffering is a delusion, if not an outright ly. > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > .net... > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > ble.rogers.com... > > > how is b12 mass produced by the petrochemical industry? as far as i > know, > > > it's just yeast organisms growing on molasses. > > ================== > > Any mass production technique is dependent on energy and technology. > > http://www.pcierd.dost.gov.ph/news/vb12.htm > > http://www.chipsbooks.com/fermbiot.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > . com... > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > > > om... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > > > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > > > > > see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that you > > > can't > > > > > get > > > > > > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that you > > can. > > > > > > you're > > > > > > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i > know > > is > > > > > right > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other > > people > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick goes about it the wrong way, IMO, > > > > > > ====================== > > > > > > You get what you give with me. Katie has been above board, where > do > > > you > > > > > see > > > > > > anything from me that is the 'wrong way?' > > > > > > > > > > You've called people "killer" for so long I think that when you say > it > > > now > > > > > it goes in one ear and out the other. > > > > ======================= > > > > Yes, i do. I call myself one too. that will usually come about when > > the > > > > loonier vegan tries to say that their diet causes no death and > > suffering, > > > or > > > > no unnecessary death and suffering. Why should the term be > bothersome > > to > > > > you anyway? Unless of course a quilty conscience doesn't like it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it has any impact > > > > > anymore, or any shock factor. It also takes the level of the > dialogue > > > down > > > > > into a name calling argument instead of a reasoned debate. I haven't > > > ever > > > > > seen you use profanity and that's commendable, but saying "killer" > > > 10,000 > > > > > times (even if it's true) doesn't seem to get much done. > > > > ==================== > > > > Nor does repeating 10,000 times that a vegan diet automatically causes > > > > no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die. It's the same claim, made > > over > > > > and over, and has never been backed up by anyone making that claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance > and > > > > > hatred, > > > > > > and like to spew it. I won't roll over for them. > > > > > > I will, and have, discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with anyone > > > else > > > > > that > > > > > > does. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I've seen you do good debates too, where you have had reasoned > > > > > discussion. I just wish that was true more of the time > > > > ==================== > > > > It would be if there were more reasonable vegans... take note of the > > ones > > > > currently trolling here... What have they added? Nothing. They > can't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a good example of what I > > > > > > > was talking about when I used my "I am an alien from Zarbo." > > > Example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You say "I can get all my nutrients from plants." Rick says "No > > you > > > > > > can't." > > > > > > > So to determine who is correct, it's time to see who can back up > > > their > > > > > > > statements with evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is, if you want to know who is correct here. > > > > > > ===================== > > > > > > Go to any number of above board vegan web pages, so that they > don't > > > > think > > > > > > I'm producing biased info. They say you need to supplement, or > > > fortify. > > > > > > They'll tell you that plant foods are not a reliable sourse of > real > > > > b12s. > > > > > > many have analogs that look like b12, but will actually block the > > > intake > > > > > of > > > > > > real b12. > > > > > > > > > > When I buy fortified cereals and soy milk the labels say that those > > > foods > > > > > provide a certain percentage of the daily value of B12. Are those > not > > > true > > > > > sources? > > > > ==================== > > > > It's real b12, but in was not in the food originally. It's an > additive. > > > > manufactured and mass produced by the petro-chemical industry. The > > point > > > is > > > > that that production causes animal death and suffering. Unnecesasary > > > animal > > > > death and suffering, since you could obtain many years of the > necessary > > > b12 > > > > with the death of one animal, and then consuming it. It's part of > the > > > > overall vegan delusion that by not killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc. > > that > > > > their diet is somehow mystically superior. > > > > You could also get your b12 without animal death and suffering by > never > > > > washing raw veggies, or by never washing your own hands. Kinda > grosser > > > > sounding to me than just eating one animal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Rubystars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
Some imporvement in the tone. You've done better here but many others with the
same beliefs as yours would be able to present the same arguement as you with less of an abrasive tone in your wording. rick etter wrote: > "katie" > wrote in message > . cable.rogers.com... > > wouldn't that then also apply for the mass production of meat?* i mean, > > sure, you CAN get grass-fed, romping as nature intended cows, but most of > > the meat out there (especially in fast food) wasn't produced in anything > > close to a 'natural' way. > ======================== > All the beef here starts out as pasture fed.* Only about 3/4 of beef animals > are then sent to feed lots.* Why is it so hard to understand how meat is > produced?* Quit reading the vegan propaganda sites and do a little research. > > * farms are really expensive to run.* that's partly > > why they're being consolidated into fewer and bigger farms, and the focus > on > > productivity leads to stuff like feedlots, which do take lots of crops and > > are very energy intensive (also supporting the petrochemical industry). > ========================== > Sure, but by not eating *any* meat, you do nothing to alleviate that > production technique.* Those of us that eat grass-fed meats, rasied with no > hormaones, no antibiotics, and no feedlots are providing the farmers with an > alternative production method.* Not eating any meat doesn't provide that > incentive to change. > > > even dairy farms (the big-ish but still family farms around here) take up > a > > lot of energy.* no one milks cows by hand anymore, unless they're amish. > it > > takes loads of energy to produce practically everything that anyone > > consumes, whether they consume it as food, wear it, or live in it. > ======================== > Yes, but the hypocritical vegan makes the claim that they do 'all they can' > to reduce they impact.* That's the whole point supposedly of veganism. > > *and that > > does result in animal deaths.* but i still don't think that there's any > way > > to quantify any of it (which is why everyone here keeps arguing the same > > stuff!)* who knows exactly which processes are more energy intensive or > how > > many critters they kill on purpose or as 'collateral damage?'* i don't > know > > how much energy it takes to make a tablespoon of nutritional yeast, any > more > > than i know how much energy it takes to make the about 9oz of lean beef > that > > is equivalent in its b12 provision. > ==================== > You really have a problem seeing the difference?* That one cow, using your > 9oz as a measure will provide about 1000 equivilent tablespoons of produced > b12.* That one death vs however many it takes for the production of the b12. > I don't see any way a produced b12 can compare. > > * maybe what we need is a big list of > > every energy-using process, including all of the different ways that meat > > and soybeans and the like are farmed.* then we might have a chance in hell > > of actually resolving this stuff. > ====================== > It's still quite easy.* Grass fed beef and game take practically no energy > inputs to raise.* The equvilent in soy turned to tofu would require lots of > energy, from the plowing, spraying, harvesting, and processing.* making tofu > is an intensive process. > > Again, the claim by vegans that their diet automatically causes less death > and suffering is a delusion, if not an outright ly. > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > .net... > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > ble.rogers.com... > > > > how is b12 mass produced by the petrochemical industry?* as far as i > > know, > > > > it's just yeast organisms growing on molasses. > > > ================== > > > Any mass production technique is dependent on energy and technology. > > > http://www.pcierd.dost.gov.ph/news/vb12.htm > > > http://www.chipsbooks.com/fermbiot.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > > . com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > > > > om... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > > > > > > see, we just disagree.* no biggie.* you know for sure that > you > > > > can't > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that > you > > > can. > > > > > > > you're > > > > > > > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i > > know > > > is > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > me.* thinking different things from what is 'true' to other > > > people > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick goes about it the wrong way, IMO, > > > > > > > ====================== > > > > > > > You get what you give with me.* Katie has been above board, > where > > do > > > > you > > > > > > see > > > > > > > anything from me that is the 'wrong way?' > > > > > > > > > > > > You've called people "killer" for so long I think that when you > say > > it > > > > now > > > > > > it goes in one ear and out the other. > > > > > ======================= > > > > > Yes, i do.* I call myself one too.* that will usually come about > when > > > the > > > > > loonier vegan tries to say that their diet causes no death and > > > suffering, > > > > or > > > > > no unnecessary death and suffering.** Why should the term be > > bothersome > > > to > > > > > you anyway?* Unless of course a quilty conscience doesn't like it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >* I don't think it has any impact > > > > > > anymore, or any shock factor. It also takes the level of the > > dialogue > > > > down > > > > > > into a name calling argument instead of a reasoned debate. I > haven't > > > > ever > > > > > > seen you use profanity and that's commendable, but saying "killer" > > > > 10,000 > > > > > > times (even if it's true) doesn't seem to get much done. > > > > > ==================== > > > > > Nor does repeating 10,000 times that a vegan diet automatically > causes > > > > > no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die.** It's the same claim, made > > > over > > > > > and over, and has never been backed up by anyone making that claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance > > and > > > > > > hatred, > > > > > > > and like to spew it.* I won't roll over for them. > > > > > > > I will, and have,* discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with > anyone > > > > else > > > > > > that > > > > > > > does. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I've seen you do good debates too, where you have had > reasoned > > > > > > discussion. I just wish that was true more of the time > > > > > ==================== > > > > > It would be if there were more reasonable vegans...* take note of > the > > > ones > > > > > currently trolling here...* What have they added?* Nothing.* They > > can't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a good example of what I > > > > > > > > was talking about when I used my "I am an alien from Zarbo." > > > > Example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You say "I can get all my nutrients from plants." Rick says > "No > > > you > > > > > > > can't." > > > > > > > > So to determine who is correct, it's time to see who can back > up > > > > their > > > > > > > > statements with evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is, if you want to know who is correct here. > > > > > > > ===================== > > > > > > > Go to any number of above board vegan web pages, so that they > > don't > > > > > think > > > > > > > I'm producing biased info.* They say you need to supplement, or > > > > fortify. > > > > > > > They'll tell you that plant foods are not a reliable sourse of > > real > > > > > b12s. > > > > > > > many have analogs that look like b12, but will actually block > the > > > > intake > > > > > > of > > > > > > > real b12. > > > > > > > > > > > > When I buy fortified cereals and soy milk the labels say that > those > > > > foods > > > > > > provide a certain percentage of the daily value of B12. Are those > > not > > > > true > > > > > > sources? > > > > > ==================== > > > > > It's real b12, but in was not in the food originally.* It's an > > additive. > > > > > manufactured and mass produced by the petro-chemical industry.* The > > > point > > > > is > > > > > that that production causes animal death and suffering. > Unnecesasary > > > > animal > > > > > death and suffering, since you could obtain many years of the > > necessary > > > > b12 > > > > > with the death of one animal, and then consuming it.** It's part of > > the > > > > > overall vegan delusion that by not killing cows, pigs, chickens, > etc. > > > that > > > > > their diet is somehow mystically superior. > > > > > You could also get your b12 without animal death and suffering by > > never > > > > > washing raw veggies, or by never washing your own hands.* Kinda > > grosser > > > > > sounding to me than just eating one animal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Rubystars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
*
> > rick etter wrote: > > Any mass production technique is dependent on energy and technology. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Here we have it. Mr Etter has no limits to his far out argumentative ways. > He makes the claim, (and wrongly so) that b12 is produced by the petrochem* > industry. > ---------------------------- > I guess a loser like you missed the sites I posted, eh stupid? > > Then when this bizzare claim is challenged he simply states that* everything > is depndent on energy! DA! This is a perfect example of his round about ways > of engaging others in arguemnt for no other pupose than to be argumentative. > His expertise is not in animal farming or veganistic ethics but* in plain old > trolling plain and simple. This guy suffers from "you're the bad* one not me" > complex. His family (or lack there of) must abussed him his whole life. Now he > is limited to living here in this purgatory of "who's bad?" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
ONLY about 3/4 of beef animals are then sent to feed lots? you think that's
a small amount? considering how much beef is produced, i'd say that's a whopping number of cows chowing down on energy intensive feed in feedlots. and even happy, grass-fed cows don't take 'practically no energy inputs to raise.' they sleep in barns. creating and running a barn takes a lot of energy. and from what i've seen, most farmers don't just let cows live as roaming lawn mowers. they supplement their grass with hay. growing & harvesting hay is energy intensive. like i said before, without some 'master list' of exactly how much energy every thing takes, we can't really argue this out. i understand how meat is produced. i grew up on a farm. and ps, we're talking about whether or not you can get b12 in a vegan diet, which just turned into energy intensity of cow farming. no where in the just replied-to post, about energy, did i say that a vegan diet automatically causes less death and suffering. that isn't something that i'm plugging. as much as you like to constantly point out, not every vegan on the planet is 'delusional' from being excessively pumped with 'vegan propaganda.' so for goodness sakes, can you stop harping about it in all of your posts that aren't on that topic! feel free to smack me with it if i make that claim, by all means. just try to give us vegans the benefit of the doubt until we make asses of ourselves. merci beaucoup (  )"rick etter" > wrote in message hlink.net... > > "katie" > wrote in message > . cable.rogers.com... > > wouldn't that then also apply for the mass production of meat? i mean, > > sure, you CAN get grass-fed, romping as nature intended cows, but most of > > the meat out there (especially in fast food) wasn't produced in anything > > close to a 'natural' way. > ======================== > All the beef here starts out as pasture fed. Only about 3/4 of beef animals > are then sent to feed lots. Why is it so hard to understand how meat is > produced? Quit reading the vegan propaganda sites and do a little research. > > > farms are really expensive to run. that's partly > > why they're being consolidated into fewer and bigger farms, and the focus > on > > productivity leads to stuff like feedlots, which do take lots of crops and > > are very energy intensive (also supporting the petrochemical industry). > ========================== > Sure, but by not eating *any* meat, you do nothing to alleviate that > production technique. Those of us that eat grass-fed meats, rasied with no > hormaones, no antibiotics, and no feedlots are providing the farmers with an > alternative production method. Not eating any meat doesn't provide that > incentive to change. > > > > even dairy farms (the big-ish but still family farms around here) take up > a > > lot of energy. no one milks cows by hand anymore, unless they're amish. > it > > takes loads of energy to produce practically everything that anyone > > consumes, whether they consume it as food, wear it, or live in it. > ======================== > Yes, but the hypocritical vegan makes the claim that they do 'all they can' > to reduce they impact. That's the whole point supposedly of veganism. > > > and that > > does result in animal deaths. but i still don't think that there's any > way > > to quantify any of it (which is why everyone here keeps arguing the same > > stuff!) who knows exactly which processes are more energy intensive or > how > > many critters they kill on purpose or as 'collateral damage?' i don't > know > > how much energy it takes to make a tablespoon of nutritional yeast, any > more > > than i know how much energy it takes to make the about 9oz of lean beef > that > > is equivalent in its b12 provision. > ==================== > You really have a problem seeing the difference? That one cow, using your > 9oz as a measure will provide about 1000 equivilent tablespoons of produced > b12. That one death vs however many it takes for the production of the b12. > I don't see any way a produced b12 can compare. > > > > maybe what we need is a big list of > > every energy-using process, including all of the different ways that meat > > and soybeans and the like are farmed. then we might have a chance in hell > > of actually resolving this stuff. > ====================== > It's still quite easy. Grass fed beef and game take practically no energy > inputs to raise. The equvilent in soy turned to tofu would require lots of > energy, from the plowing, spraying, harvesting, and processing. making tofu > is an intensive process. > > Again, the claim by vegans that their diet automatically causes less death > and suffering is a delusion, if not an outright ly. > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > .net... > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > ble.rogers.com... > > > > how is b12 mass produced by the petrochemical industry? as far as i > > know, > > > > it's just yeast organisms growing on molasses. > > > ================== > > > Any mass production technique is dependent on energy and technology. > > > http://www.pcierd.dost.gov.ph/news/vb12.htm > > > http://www.chipsbooks.com/fermbiot.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > > . com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > > > > > > > om... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "katie" > wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > e.rogers.com... > > > > > > > > > see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that > you > > > > can't > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that > you > > > can. > > > > > > > you're > > > > > > > > > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i > > know > > > is > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other > > > people > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > make anyone 'stupid.' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick goes about it the wrong way, IMO, > > > > > > > ====================== > > > > > > > You get what you give with me. Katie has been above board, > where > > do > > > > you > > > > > > see > > > > > > > anything from me that is the 'wrong way?' > > > > > > > > > > > > You've called people "killer" for so long I think that when you > say > > it > > > > now > > > > > > it goes in one ear and out the other. > > > > > ======================= > > > > > Yes, i do. I call myself one too. that will usually come about > when > > > the > > > > > loonier vegan tries to say that their diet causes no death and > > > suffering, > > > > or > > > > > no unnecessary death and suffering. Why should the term be > > bothersome > > > to > > > > > you anyway? Unless of course a quilty conscience doesn't like it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it has any impact > > > > > > anymore, or any shock factor. It also takes the level of the > > dialogue > > > > down > > > > > > into a name calling argument instead of a reasoned debate. I > haven't > > > > ever > > > > > > seen you use profanity and that's commendable, but saying "killer" > > > > 10,000 > > > > > > times (even if it's true) doesn't seem to get much done. > > > > > ==================== > > > > > Nor does repeating 10,000 times that a vegan diet automatically > causes > > > > > no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die. It's the same claim, made > > > over > > > > > and over, and has never been backed up by anyone making that claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are however, other trolls that know nothing but ignorance > > and > > > > > > hatred, > > > > > > > and like to spew it. I won't roll over for them. > > > > > > > I will, and have, discuss(ed) the issue appropriately with > anyone > > > > else > > > > > > that > > > > > > > does. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I've seen you do good debates too, where you have had > reasoned > > > > > > discussion. I just wish that was true more of the time > > > > > ==================== > > > > > It would be if there were more reasonable vegans... take note of > the > > > ones > > > > > currently trolling here... What have they added? Nothing. They > > can't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a good example of what I > > > > > > > > was talking about when I used my "I am an alien from Zarbo." > > > > Example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You say "I can get all my nutrients from plants." Rick says > "No > > > you > > > > > > > can't." > > > > > > > > So to determine who is correct, it's time to see who can back > up > > > > their > > > > > > > > statements with evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is, if you want to know who is correct here. > > > > > > > ===================== > > > > > > > Go to any number of above board vegan web pages, so that they > > don't > > > > > think > > > > > > > I'm producing biased info. They say you need to supplement, or > > > > fortify. > > > > > > > They'll tell you that plant foods are not a reliable sourse of > > real > > > > > b12s. > > > > > > > many have analogs that look like b12, but will actually block > the > > > > intake > > > > > > of > > > > > > > real b12. > > > > > > > > > > > > When I buy fortified cereals and soy milk the labels say that > those > > > > foods > > > > > > provide a certain percentage of the daily value of B12. Are those > > not > > > > true > > > > > > sources? > > > > > ==================== > > > > > It's real b12, but in was not in the food originally. It's an > > additive. > > > > > manufactured and mass produced by the petro-chemical industry. The > > > point > > > > is > > > > > that that production causes animal death and suffering. > Unnecesasary > > > > animal > > > > > death and suffering, since you could obtain many years of the > > necessary > > > > b12 > > > > > with the death of one animal, and then consuming it. It's part of > > the > > > > > overall vegan delusion that by not killing cows, pigs, chickens, > etc. > > > that > > > > > their diet is somehow mystically superior. > > > > > You could also get your b12 without animal death and suffering by > > never > > > > > washing raw veggies, or by never washing your own hands. Kinda > > grosser > > > > > sounding to me than just eating one animal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Rubystars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans are not herbivores or carnivores
Humans are frugivores. We'd naturally get our calories from fruit--like
gorillas and orangutans. Our bodies are ideal for eating fruit and soft green foods, not for grass like herbivores or for meat like omnivores and carnivores... though can be somewhat digestible, just not ideal. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans are not herbivores or carnivores
RawsomeRick wrote:
> Humans are frugivores. No, we are not. Humans are omnivores. > We'd naturally get our calories from fruit--like > gorillas and orangutans. We "naturally" get our calories from all kinds of foods: fruit, nuts, grains, dairy and meat. > > Our bodies are ideal for eating fruit and soft green foods, not for grass like > herbivores No, certainly not grass. We can't digest it properly. > or for meat like omnivores and carnivores... Yes, for meat, JUST like omnivores...because we ARE omnivores. > though can be somewhat > digestible, just not ideal. You can't define "ideal" with any usefulness at all. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans are not herbivores or carnivores
*
RawsomeRick wrote: > Humans are frugivores.* We'd naturally get our calories from fruit--like > gorillas and orangutans. > > Our bodies are ideal for eating fruit and soft green foods, not for grass like > herbivores or for meat like omnivores and carnivores... though can be somewhat > digestible, just not ideal. Jane Goodal has documented that chimpanzee's will hunt and eat red rhesus monkeys. The entire white race (cold climate humans) evolved on a largely meat diet. The real problem* with diet in developed nations today is that we all eat too much and then sit around and argue about why we have health problems. It is not so much what you eat as it is how much you eat. If you eat the right mix and properly exercise, not only your body but also your mind, (new-age crap will clog your neural pathways faster than cold bacon grease in your colon) you will have no reason for vitamin supplements or fad diets. Fad diet? Yes "fad diet" When people form a social identity by means of what they eat is it then a health issue or a social issue? There are a few postsers here that feel threatened by the social disconect they see when* people bond socially over an issue that is really one of health and less of social. I see nothing wrong with it but it may help to keep in mind that the promotion of person and planet is best done without the disconnect. * * * |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"Rubystars" > wrote in message news:<Fes2c.26893> > > > >
> > Humans are predators, just as other omnivores are predators. Bears and > raccoons also kill for meat even though > they eat plant foods. It's true that you can choose not to kill, but that's > a personal moral choice. > Is predatory behavior equivalent to murder? > -Rubystars -------for my reply see "human diet:nature or justice" message on same level as fruitarians message |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"katie" > wrote in message .cable.rogers.com... > ONLY about 3/4 of beef animals are then sent to feed lots? you think that's > a small amount? considering how much beef is produced, i'd say that's a > whopping number of cows chowing down on energy intensive feed in feedlots. ================= Sure, but being vegan doesn't support reducing that number. eating alternative meats does. > and even happy, grass-fed cows don't take 'practically no energy inputs to > raise.' they sleep in barns. creating and running a barn takes a lot of > energy. ===================== No, most do not. Around here, at the most a 3 sided shed or lean-to serves just fine. . and from what i've seen, most farmers don't just let cows live as > roaming lawn mowers. they supplement their grass with hay. growing & > harvesting hay is energy intensive. ===================== Not like rice or soy... like i said before, without some > 'master list' of exactly how much energy every thing takes, we can't really > argue this out. ======================= You just want to ignore it is the problem. You can't seriously think that 100lbs of grass fed beef and 100lbs of tofu meat substitute come out equal in energy requirments, or CDs. > i understand how meat is produced. i grew up on a farm. > and ps, we're talking about whether or not you can get b12 in a vegan diet, > which just turned into energy intensity of cow farming. ===================== Well, because the vegan way is a process intensive mass-produced product. no where in the > just replied-to post, about energy, did i say that a vegan diet > automatically causes less death and suffering. ======================== That's the vegan claim. If it's not a belief, then why are you vegan? that isn't something that > i'm plugging. as much as you like to constantly point out, not every vegan > on the planet is 'delusional' from being excessively pumped with 'vegan > propaganda.' so for goodness sakes, can you stop harping about it in all of > your posts that aren't on that topic! feel free to smack me with it if i > make that claim, by all means. just try to give us vegans the benefit of > the doubt until we make asses of ourselves. merci beaucoup ( )===================== Sure, but once you say you're vegan, you're tarred by their brush... :-) > snip prior postings.. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
blunderer wrote:
>>The reason that meat helps people to survive is that we're designed by >>nature to be able to eat it and use it for nutrition. Most of what people >>eat does come from plants, but there are some nutrients that are challenging >>to get without animal products. > > ----Actually, the phisiological evidence points to other direction. No, it does not. > Human body has a very long digestive tract, No, it's more in the middle between pure carnivore and pure frugivore. > designed more for eating fruits than meat. No, it isn't. > In carnivores the digestive tract is short, to avoid food poisoning, > given that meat get rotten very quickly, and with this come mortal > bacteria. I can think of other biological explanations with more plausibility for short digestive tracts, particularly since other foods also spoil at 98.6 degrees F and higher. Among those reasons is the dense caloric nature of meat: a longer digestive tract would cause predators to swell up so big that they couldn't catch more prey. > Humans actually need to cook the meat because their bodies > are not designed for meat eating. Steak tartar. Carpaccio. Sashimi. I've eaten those at various times in my life and digested them with no problem at all. > If people eat raw meat there are > many chances the die from a bacterial infection such as e. coli. Bullshit. Many Asians, especially the Japanese, eat raw fish. Many Europeans eat carpaccio and/or steak tartar without ever suffering e Coli infection. e Coli infections don't occur from eating raw meat. E coli isn't found in the presence of fresh, properly slaughtered animals; it comes from improper handling. > Have > you read news articles about people getting sick just because their > food is not well cooked? I've read plenty of articles about food-borne illnesses. Remember the hepatitis outbreak in Pennsylvania? That was caused from green onions. Remember the outbreak of e Coli in the Odwalla Juice scare about ten years ago? That was raw juice. Most cases of food-borne coliform infections reported in the US are from raw or undercooked PRODUCE, not meat. http://www.nfpa-food.org/science/wp_ecoli.html http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa.../7000199a.html > Now, if they eat it raw... It's safe as long as the meat has been properly handled from slaughter to plate. > Lions and hyennas eat raw meat every day and they dont get sick for > that. Lions and hyenas don't get sick for plenty other reasons, including because they don't get tainted produce from Mexico. > Some nutrients as vitamin B12 can be gotten very well from milk. One would have to drink 2.5 cups of milk per day to get the USRDA of B12. >>It sounds a little bit like a UFO convention, a skeptic free environment. >>You know? Not to be rude or anything, but I think you should be able to >>listen to what the evidence indicates far and above what you'd rather be >>true. Humans are omnivores and always have been. > > -------Humans are vegetarians for excellence. Omnivores can be other > animals as goats, who say can eat aluminum cans and other things that > humans couldnt swallow at all. Humans cant in most cases even eat raw > meat without getting poisoned. Bullshit. Do some searching for information on tartar, carpaccio, and sashimi. Raw meat is perfectly healthy so long as it's properly slaughtered and handled. >>don't have to defend vegetarianism any more than a meat eater should defend >>the fact they choose to eat meat. These are personal life choices and as a >>free citizen you have a right to eat what you want and not eat what you >>want. > > ----------The issue is much more broader and important than being a > 'free citizen'. It is actually a matter of Justice and evolution. It's neither. You certainly haven't proven either, anyway. > If > people continue eating meat and for doing that there is need to > slaughter other animals, people would be just predators, We are part of nature, and predation is part of our nature and role within nature. > no better than a hyenna. Non sequitur, we're not like hummingbirds or lemurs on the basis of diet, either. > People even have many choices of food, it is not that > they face death if dont eat meat. We face death if we don't eat, period. > They eat meat because they like it. What's wrong with that? > So they kill because they like it. So humans become a mass predator. So? > Basically a murderous being. Not murderous. Ruminants are just nature's way of converting grass into protein for other creatures, including humans. > Being faced by starvation I rather die than killing another animal for > my survival. You're a moron. > And believe me, Ive known hunger. I am not surprised by your lack of resourcefulness. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
katie wrote:
> see, we just disagree. no biggie. you know for sure that you can't get > everything you need from plants, and i know for sure that you can. you're > doing what you know is right for you, and i'm doing what i know is right for > me. thinking different things from what is 'true' to other people doesn't > make anyone 'stupid.' Science, including medical science and health science (e.g., nutrition), is not so arbitrary. Some forms of "thinking" *can* be stupid, particularly when dealing with scientific issues and ignorance of the same. Would you claim that Rick's laws of gravity are different than yours just because you have different "feelings" from his? That would be stupid to disagree about, yet you're doing that with an issue relating to health. There are many vitamins minerals our bodies need for good health and proper function. Heme (animal-based) iron is much superior to non-heme (plant-based) iron for assimilation by the human body. The same is true with respect to sources of zinc. Both minerals bind with phytates in the plant-based food and pass straight through unusable. B12 is not sufficient in plant-based foods unless they're consumed raw and unwashed; in that case, you're most likely getting B12 from a bird's (or other animal's -- including human's) fecal matter. That fecal matter may contain sufficient B12, but it can also contain pathogens. Rick is correct. In order to obtain sufficient nutrition from a veg-n diet, one must rely on a lot more planning (and luck), particularly with iron, zinc, B12, and essential amino acids. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
wrote:
>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? >> >>Who says it does? I can name one plant food that causes far more health problems >>from head to toe than "meat," which you say generically. That plant food is >>sugar (and by sugar I mean any simple carbohydrate: glucose, sucrose, fructose, >>etc.). >> >>Sugar causes tooth decay. Consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes. Diabetes >>can lead to cardiovascular problems even in a veg-n diet; it can also cause >>problems with vision, with mobility (circulation to feet), etc. > > You are merely trying to derail the point. No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for health, and that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who consume too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. >>Many cuts of meat are low-fat and cause no health problems. Some meat -- such as >>fatty fish (salmon, etc.), game, grass-fed beef -- is even advisable for people >>with hypercholesterolemia because those meats help elevate HDL, which in turn >>lowers LDL. BTW, LDL elevates with consumption of saturated fats -- not merely >>cholesterol. That includes tropical oils (coconut and palm), transfats >>(hydrogenated vegetable oils), etc. >> >>>One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly >>>healthy. >> >>Sugar isn't healthy, yet many fruits are very high in sugars. > > I won't even bother with that one. Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is merely sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. >>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that >>>early humans and even before, ate meat. >> >>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of a >>varied diet. > > I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy > axes in the dirt. http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. Let me know if you need more evidence. > Form the british medical journal: > > http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, show that vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43) Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm Well? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
usual suspect wrote:
> wrote: > >>> Your system clock/calendar is off by a day. FIX IT. >> >> >> thank you, I'm not looking for advice in that area right now. > > > If you're using Windows, right click over your clock in the tool bar or > go to Control Panel and find the clock icon. The ****ing cocksucker means that he is too arrogant to set his calendar to the correct day, not that he doesn't know how to do it (although he probably doesn't.) His arrogance is expected. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
usual suspect wrote:
> wrote: > <...> > >>>>>> The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who says it does? >>>> >>>> >>>> Prove that it doesn't. >>> >>> >>> That's nonsense. You are making an implied claim: meat in any >>> quantity gives people "health problems". Prove it. The burden of >>> proof is on you to support your claim. Get busy. >> >> >> I'm putting it right back on you. > > > Because you cannot support your own claim. > >> Prove that meat doesn't. > > > Why are you so busy asking others to prove negatives -- which is folly > -- rather than supporting your own claim? The usual "vegan" arrogance, that's why. Oh, and his inability to support his claim, too. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>> Your system clock/calendar is off by a day. FIX IT. >>> >>> thank you, I'm not looking for advice in that area right now. >> >> If you're using Windows, right click over your clock in the tool bar >> or go to Control Panel and find the clock icon. > > The ****ing cocksucker means that he is too arrogant to set his calendar > to the correct day, not that he doesn't know how to do it (although he > probably doesn't.) His arrogance is expected. I was just taking away his excuse for not knowing how to change it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
usual suspect wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>>>> Your system clock/calendar is off by a day. FIX IT. >>>> >>>> >>>> thank you, I'm not looking for advice in that area right now. >>> >>> >>> If you're using Windows, right click over your clock in the tool bar >>> or go to Control Panel and find the clock icon. >> >> >> The ****ing cocksucker means that he is too arrogant to set his >> calendar to the correct day, not that he doesn't know how to do it >> (although he probably doesn't.) His arrogance is expected. > > > I was just taking away his excuse for not knowing how to change it. I figured about as much. I was just letting him know he's already exposed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
i think the thing here is that pulling out longevity info about different
population groups by either side isn't going to answer this question. just as plant-based diets aren't necessarily healthier than omnivorous ones, there are a multitude of factors contributing to the longevity (or lack thereof) of each population group: socioeconomic factors, geography, population & disease, conflict, colonialism etc. "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > wrote: > >>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > >> > >>Who says it does? I can name one plant food that causes far more health problems > >>from head to toe than "meat," which you say generically. That plant food is > >>sugar (and by sugar I mean any simple carbohydrate: glucose, sucrose, fructose, > >>etc.). > >> > >>Sugar causes tooth decay. Consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes. Diabetes > >>can lead to cardiovascular problems even in a veg-n diet; it can also cause > >>problems with vision, with mobility (circulation to feet), etc. > > > > You are merely trying to derail the point. > > No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for health, and > that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar > consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who consume > too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. > > >>Many cuts of meat are low-fat and cause no health problems. Some meat -- such as > >>fatty fish (salmon, etc.), game, grass-fed beef -- is even advisable for people > >>with hypercholesterolemia because those meats help elevate HDL, which in turn > >>lowers LDL. BTW, LDL elevates with consumption of saturated fats -- not merely > >>cholesterol. That includes tropical oils (coconut and palm), transfats > >>(hydrogenated vegetable oils), etc. > >> > >>>One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly > >>>healthy. > >> > >>Sugar isn't healthy, yet many fruits are very high in sugars. > > > > I won't even bother with that one. > > Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is merely > sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. > > >>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that > >>>early humans and even before, ate meat. > >> > >>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of a > >>varied diet. > > > > I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy > > axes in the dirt. > > http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html > http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html > http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ > http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm > http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 > http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html > http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm > > I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. Let me > know if you need more evidence. > > > Form the british medical journal: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 > > Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, show that > vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that > vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. > > It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating > peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who > traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their > longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal > society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no > old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book > Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs > of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as > Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, > before colonisation). (43) > > Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on > a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for > their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's > milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In > contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the > shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled > around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. > Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in > animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for > Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In > Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty > fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in > athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples > whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). > http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm > > Well? > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
