Vegetarian/Vegan Questions?

[bitcoin]

You comment on the DDT ban is entirely false. I hear Stefan bring that up, and it is lack of knowledge on a holistic and sustainble approach to agriculture. When plants are healthy, they do not let off the electromagnetic signals, that are sent off when unhealthy. When plants are unhealthy, they let off these signals which attracts insects. When plants are healthy, in any case, they have the ability to fight off disease and predation. Pests and weeds are all symptoms of an unhealthy soil and plant. In permaculture, namely, the soil is not only healthier, but bugs cannot even find their way. Anyways, I do not expect you to believe this. Simply do your own research please. But please, stop addressing a DDT ban, without knowledge of organic and sustainble agriculture. Pesticides cause cancer and other health problems, as well as a drop in biodiversity. When chemicals and poisons are sprayed, it kills the beneficial bacteria as well as "bad" bacteria and microbes (just as antibiotics). I won't go into any further detail of this. 

 

Rights is a concept. I agree. And in any case, why should we look down upon imprisoning, torturing and killing humans in jails, and not do the same for animals. I would argue animals endure worse pain, violence and torture than "man". 

 

I do agree with survival, but yet, there is no argument because we do not need meat in order to survive. (correct me if i am wrong) Animals kill other animals in order to eat and survive. We do not. Let alone that 100 acres of land which is used for a dairy farm, beef, etc. could grow over 1000 tons of fresh produce in place of a few hundred pounds of meat , etc. The use of land is much more efficient in providing food if we grew plants. Out use of these animals comes from their waste which is great for our plants health, soil and food. 

 

If people only try to kill all insects because it gets in the way of your enjoyment of life (I will assume you mean ability to live because that would be even more ridiculous), please go educate yourself on soil biosiversity, permaculture, organic agriculture and sustainbility. Why in the wild, do plants thrive without the of pesticides? *hint*: Biodiversity & health

I am happy to have a debate once you are educated about these important things. 

 

In any case, my short rant, I can't stand when Stef goes on about DDT, vaccines, etc. while not knowing half a thing about plant ecology, plant health, toxic chemicals & heavy metals in vaccines, etc. Its a shame, someone so highly respected can spread such valuable information on one hand, and on the other spread dreadful misinformation that costs many their ability to function as nature intended (autism, cancer, etc). 

By the way, there is a larger yield in crops which are grown organically, than conventionally. Especially in GMOs, "superweeds" are taking over and GMOs have the lowest output at this point. 

Last thing about the DDT ban. To say that people died because of the DDT ban is entirely false and does not take into account other factors. What is correct is people have died, are dying and continue to die because instead of approaching agriculture holistically and sustainable we attack the symptom, which is unsustainable and out attack on the symptom (pesticides) are toxic to all lifeforms which causes further problems such as cancer, digestive problems, etc. If you really were searching for the true problem, one would not focus on an irrelevant ban on a toxic pesticide; the problem is much larger and more problematic than that. If we do not begin to wake up to these issues and realize our entire agriculture system (GMOs, pesticides, etc.) is unsustainable, no other issue will matter. We will lack the ability to nurture and feed ourselves through food and be healthy. When there is no more biodiversity, we cannot thrive. Humans cannot survive without the bacteria and microbes inside of us; if we do not nurture and breed them, we are nothing. We need biodiversity; biodiversity does not need us...

 

Again, search for the root. A pesticide ban is 100% a symptom. Please be aware of that.

[Soren]

You comment on the DDT ban is entirely false. I hear Stefan bring that up, and it is lack of knowledge on a holistic and sustainble approach to agriculture. When plants are healthy, they do not let off the electromagnetic signals, that are sent off when unhealthy. When plants are unhealthy, they let off these signals which attracts insects. When plants are healthy, in any case, they have the ability to fight off disease and predation. Pests and weeds are all symptoms of an unhealthy soil and plant. In permaculture, namely, the soil is not only healthier, but bugs cannot even find their way. Anyways, I do not expect you to believe this. Simply do your own research please. But please, stop addressing a DDT ban, without knowledge of organic and sustainble agriculture. Pesticides cause cancer and other health problems, as well as a drop in biodiversity. When chemicals and poisons are sprayed, it kills the beneficial bacteria as well as "bad" bacteria and microbes (just as antibiotics). I won't go into any further detail of this. Rights is a concept. I agree. And in any case, why should we look down upon imprisoning, torturing and killing humans in jails, and not do the same for animals. I would argue animals endure worse pain, violence and torture than "man". I do agree with survival, but yet, there is no argument because we do not need meat in order to survive. (correct me if i am wrong) Animals kill other animals in order to eat and survive. We do not. Let alone that 100 acres of land which is used for a dairy farm, beef, etc. could grow over 1000 tons of fresh produce in place of a few hundred pounds of meat , etc. The use of land is much more efficient in providing food if we grew plants. Out use of these animals comes from their waste which is great for our plants health, soil and food. If people only try to kill all insects because it gets in the way of your enjoyment of life (I will assume you mean ability to live because that would be even more ridiculous), please go educate yourself on soil biosiversity, permaculture, organic agriculture and sustainbility. Why in the wild, do plants thrive without the of pesticides? *hint*: Biodiversity & healthI am happy to have a debate once you are educated about these important things. In any case, my short rant, I can't stand when Stef goes on about DDT, vaccines, etc. while not knowing half a thing about plant ecology, plant health, toxic chemicals & heavy metals in vaccines, etc. Its a shame, someone so highly respected can spread such valuable information on one hand, and on the other spread dreadful misinformation that costs many their ability to function as nature intended (autism, cancer, etc). By the way, there is a larger yield in crops which are grown organically, than conventionally. Especially in GMOs, "superweeds" are taking over and GMOs have the lowest output at this point. Last thing about the DDT ban. To say that people died because of the DDT ban is entirely false and does not take into account other factors. What is correct is people have died, are dying and continue to die because instead of approaching agriculture holistically and sustainable we attack the symptom, which is unsustainable and out attack on the symptom (pesticides) are toxic to all lifeforms which causes further problems such as cancer, digestive problems, etc. If you really were searching for the true problem, one would not focus on an irrelevant ban on a toxic pesticide; the problem is much larger and more problematic than that. If we do not begin to wake up to these issues and realize our entire agriculture system (GMOs, pesticides, etc.) is unsustainable, no other issue will matter. We will lack the ability to nurture and feed ourselves through food and be healthy. When there is no more biodiversity, we cannot thrive. Humans cannot survive without the bacteria and microbes inside of us; if we do not nurture and breed them, we are nothing. We need biodiversity; biodiversity does not need us...Again, search for the root. A pesticide ban is 100% a symptom. Please be aware of that.

Why do you assume I have no understanding of farming?A captain of a passenger ship is incompetent and hits some rock formation tipping the ship casting the passengers into the sea. You are the captain of another ship sailing past with plenty of flotation rings. The crew ask you permission to throw them in but you denies them the opportunity. Later others find the dead bodies and your sailing log and ask you why didn't you throw in the safety device's. "That I didn't throw them in is not the cause of their death it was their incompetent captain fault. I would not risk littering the water to save them."This is assuming your holistic argument is true. Now since you know so much about farming you also know that the plants used in farming have been bred so as to provide max nutrition and the plants natural defenses hav been bred out to make them less difficult to eat and to use their energy to grow larger. This has effectively left many of them undefended which is why you have to provide that defense for them. Don't strawman me man. I didn't say ALL insects. And I said enjoyment because bugs are really unpleasent but as long as they are not near me I could care less and I am not gonna spend money on a bug genocide.And you kinda have to decide whether you want farms or biodiversity and far from all land is effective farm land but can be used to farm animals.Biodiversity does not need us? Then why does it need mosquitoes?The only reason that we might be able to live with out eating animals is industrial farming.If organic holistic farming gives a better product then we don't have to worry. Cause all farms are gonna switch from less effective means. Though right now anything organic I can buy is small and puny and cost extra too boot.

[bitcoin]

You didn't do research, have no idea what you are talking about, and lack reason and logic. 

 

And you kinda have to decide whether you want farms or biodiversity and far from all land is effective farm land but can be used to farm animals. 

 

You didn't read what I wrote, have no idea about permaculture and holistic agriculture practices and simply don't know what you are talking about. Its sad to see how much time and energy I can waste talking to some people.

[J. D. Stembal]

I really tried to be nice to you, but I give up.

 

You're not curious at all. You gave me a video about Gary Taubes and I gave you a review that clearly shows that Gary Taubes has lied and misrepresented information in at least one of his books. The guy is a fraud, I know that calling him slick is not an argument that's why I provided the link.

 

If the only way you can respond to that is by throwing more youtube videos my way and using words like "myth", "science-fantasy", "dream up", "irresponsibly", "aesthetic arguments", "pseudo-science" and "cook up" to describe my point of view, even though I gave you several actual scientific publications, then you're just a lost cause.

 

I'm not responding to any more of your posts and I don't expect you to understand.

 

What evidence do you have of the charge of fraud on the part of Taubes? I've seen none. What exactly is he misrepresenting? You can't even articulate where your problem with his position is. As far as I can tell, you are revolving your position around ad hominem against Gary Taubes specifically, which is why I linked video from other intellectuals reinforcing the same information Taubes is giving. It's not one guy committing fraud, it's you that is unwilling to see that vegetarian and vegan lifestyles are not healthy. The reason why they are unhealthy is that they rely too much on grain and carbohydrates in general, and the human body is just not adapted to live an agrarian existence without the consequences of metabolic syndrome - heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and auto-immune maladies. Today's health care crisis is a direct function of the USDA guidelines for "eating healthy" and trendy diets like vegetarianism which push way more carbohydrate than the human body was ever meant to metabolize.

 

It's amusing that you are giving up so easily in responding to me, Tyler. I read the blog you linked. It was a shotgun blast of government research studies which led the blogger to conclude that:

 

"Below are a few studies showing that high carbohydrate, moderate carbohydrate, and low carbohydrate diets are more-or-less the same when it comes to weight loss."

 

 

"That should take care of the ridiculous claim that excess calories do not make you fat."

 

 

Here, the blogger even admits that the studies are short-sighted because they do not consider anything but weight loss:

 

 

"The above studies are focused on weight loss. Of course diets may be different when looking at other markers of health such as triglycerides, cholesterol, inflammation, C-reactive protein, insulin, glycosylated hemoglobin, blood pressure, etc. We can have a spirited debate about what diets might be best for overall health (and I’m sure we will in the comments section), but at least in terms of weight loss or weight gain calories matter far more than the macronutrient composition."

 

Weight loss is not the motivational goal of nutrition; it's the motivational goal of vanity. If you are attempting to manage your health by looking at the fluctuations of a scale, I feel sorry for you. Weight loss is just a pleasant side effect when you finally put down the bran flakes and oatmeal and eat healthily. Weight loss does not ensure that you have no cancer, arterial plaque or balanced hormones. You can look skinny and actually be fat due to the body growing adipose tissue in your viscera, or the areas between your organs. You can't know exactly how fat you are without applying Archimedes' Principle to determine your body's density.

 

You haven't said anything about what you think about the hormone hypothesis Taubes discusses, which states that eating fat does not make you fat. That's what the carbohydrate does since it is always and forever turned into glucose that the liver has to manage through the helper hormone insulin, otherwise you go into a coma. Have you ever met a type-1 diabetic? They have to monitor their blood sugar almost constantly or risk diabetic coma. All the facts are supported, not just by scientific and clinical research, but the basic knowledge of the human body that you learn in biology class. Keto-adaption is the other metabolic pathway the body has for generating fuel for cells by turning fatty acids into ketone bodies. This is the process through which humans shed body fat, not working out extra hard on the Stairmaster after eating one too many cupcakes.

 

Furthermore, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was terribly flawed (he cherry picked data and did not include sugar consumption) and don't even think about citing Colin Campbell's China Study. In the first post in the thread, you made three assertions of why you feel the vegetarian lifestyle is superior:

 

1. Killing animals is not preferable behavior.

 

This is merely an aesthetic argument as no one is violating the non-aggression principle by eating meat. Read UPB to understand why it does not apply to animals.

 

2. Eating meat is deleterious to the environment.

 

I don't have the time to address this all now, but I would recommend reading Lierre Keith's Vegetarian Myth or Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma to learn that the only scourge to our environment is industrialized agriculture (and the state, through subsidies), and corn is the biggest culprit (4000 gallons of water used per bushel). If you eat grass-fed beef instead of corn-fed, there is no need for all this environmental damage to occur. I have similar reasoning for buying wild Salmon instead of farmed despite the wide disparity in pricing.

 

3. Eating meat has negative health consequences.

 

This is the current claim that I've been trying to fervently dispel here. I do hope that you stay for a while longer and respond.

[Soren]

You didn't do research, have no idea what you are talking about, and lack reason and logic. 

 

And you kinda have to decide whether you want farms or biodiversity and far from all land is effective farm land but can be used to farm animals. 

 

You didn't read what I wrote, have no idea about permaculture and holistic agriculture practices and simply don't know what you are talking about. Its sad to see how much time and energy I can waste talking to some people.

Retracted my emotional response.

 

DDT does help with fighting malaria:

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/3/3/97-0305_article

[bitcoin]

I am coming from a holistic approach of agriculture, you have not taken a step back and looked at this from a holistic perspective. This is why I said you wasted my time, you have not researched and claim to, and don't know what your talking about. I am not trying to be aggressive or passive aggressive at this point, this is just simply the overwhelming evidence I have.

 

Even this last post on DDT, did you even read the article ? you wrote "DDT does help with fighting malaria".

First of all, not only did i never claim anything in regards to DDT & malaria, but this article has not factually proven that DDT helps with fighting malaria. In fact, mosquitos have grown resistant to the insecticide. Again, from a holistic approach, their solution to this was different insecticides, which have simply caused superbugs, immune to the insecticides. This is simply like demanding more govt coercion, for the problem, caused by govt coercion. This not only shows the lack of a holistic approach, but not searching for the root cause. Also, CDC, WHO, etc. all these govt health organizations are not fighting to eradicate malaria; they are fighting to sell chemicals and other false health solutions to world problems.

There was also a solution proposed by Dr. Charles A.R. Campbell back in 1925, but was forcibly suppressed by those in power & powerful interests (haven't seen this pattern before have we?).

 

Please do some research and don't be so quick to believe what the government tells you. I won't even get into the fact though, that this was originally about agriculture, which you never responded to, and seemingly brought up malaria as a last resort, searching for any counter-argument and/or support of DDT.

[Soren]

I am coming from a holistic approach of agriculture, you have not taken a step back and looked at this from a holistic perspective. This is why I said you wasted my time, you have not researched and claim to, and don't know what your talking about. I am not trying to be aggressive or passive aggressive at this point, this is just simply the overwhelming evidence I have.

So you come from a holistic approach what makes you think I am going to waste my time researching further about the topic when you are acting like a jerk, providing no evidence, just statements, which are highly controversial. How do you know what I have researched and what I have not researched? I grew up on a farm and I have read about various methods, I will readily admit that I am no expert. 

Even this last post on DDT, did you even read the article ? you wrote "DDT does help with fighting malaria".First of all, not only did i never claim anything in regards to DDT & malaria, but this article has not factually proven that DDT helps with fighting malaria.

You never claimed anything in regards to DDT and malaria? yes you did:

You comment on the DDT ban is entirely false.....Last thing about the DDT ban. To say that people died because of the DDT ban is entirely false and does not take into account other factors....

What I said was "Insects facilitate mass murder of humans too what is it 60 mio during DDT ban." those people died from malaria so right there you have already said something about malaria and DDT. And given it was not holistic farming which was performed back then in those locations, even if your holistic method is correct, using DDT could have saved a lot of humans because they did not have the protection you claim holistic farming methods can provide.Yes I did actually read the paper, I guess you didn't which is why you had to fall back on a BS scientific sounding line. The paper shows a pretty strong correlation between usage of DDT and cases of malaria. They stop using it and the incidences grow quit a bit, then they start using it again in Ecuador and what do you know incidences fall again.

In fact, mosquitos have grown resistant to the insecticide. Again, from a holistic approach, their solution to this was different insecticides, which have simply caused superbugs, immune to the insecticides. This is simply like demanding more govt coercion, for the problem, caused by govt coercion. This not only shows the lack of a holistic approach, but not searching for the root cause. Also, CDC, WHO, etc. all these govt health organizations are not fighting to eradicate malaria; they are fighting to sell chemicals and other false health solutions to world problems.

From the paper we can clearly see that they have not gotten immune to DDT otherwise how could it have been effective in Ecuador in the 1990'es. they even address the resistance in mosquitoes "Although DDT resistance is often posed as a reason for malaria control failure, resistance of vector populations to DDT is not widespread in South America (10)." page 298I will recommend the book "The true story of DDT, PCB and Dioxin" by Przemyslaw Mastalerz a former chemistry professor. For some perspective on the toxicity of DDT. 

There was also a solution proposed by Dr. Charles A.R. Campbell back in 1925, but was forcibly suppressed by those in power & powerful interests (haven't seen this pattern before have we?).

Interesting story about bat houses, but I don't see how he was forcibly suppressed? Failing to get funding from a private institution is not forcibly suppressing somebody. And obviously he was unable to sell his idea to that many others. Isn't all those bats going to skew the biodiversity if it was implemented? 

Please do some research and don't be so quick to believe what the government tells you. I won't even get into the fact though, that this was originally about agriculture, which you never responded to, and seemingly brought up malaria as a last resort, searching for any counter-argument and/or support of DDT.

I do not, I am an anarchist, but not everything the government says is a lie. Actually this was about vegan/vegetarianism not agriculture so much I am not sure which question I have not responded too please post it again. Brought it up as a last resort, I was talking about malaria the whole time? I just pointed out that bugs can infect humans with deadly decease and has done so quit a lot, even while there was options to avoid those deaths.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

He linked to a blog post discussing a peer-reviewed paper.

 

Is that youtube series peer-reviewed? Is the Hans Dehmelt article peer-reviewed? Is your e-book peer-reviewed?

 

No? Then, after your own example, we should dismiss them.

 

 

The plant positive youtube series IS peer review.

 

Dehmelts paper is a peer reviewed article from a journal.The paleo diet is either pseudo science or at least controversial, so the standard of evidence required is very high. My ebook makes no controversial claims (Darwin claimed that humans are frugivores), but it is not peer reviewed and that should be taken into consideration. Of course if you want to discredit any of my claims then please do so.

[Raquel]

FROM AN ETHICAL STANDPOINT, CRUELTY IN "MODERATION" IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE!!

 

moderate amounts of animal products are detrimental to the human body because moderate amounts of cholesterol, animal fat, trans fatty acids, casein and animal proteins, are just as harmful as moderate amounts of white refined sugar, tobacco, and heroin. if you want to avoid lung cancer and emphysema, moderately smoking five cigarettes per day would not be too bright. if you want to avoid heart disease, most cancers, diabetes, osteoporosis, and other diseases, not even moderate amounts of meat, dairy and eggs can be on the menu!!

 

just because you are not overweight doesn't mean you are healthy (but people are getting bigger and bigger and each year and the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs is rising. also diseases are rising each year, what a coincidence!)

 

and yes fad diets however are capable of bringing weight loss, but if loosing weight and not being healthy is the goal people should try other weight-loss methods like smoking crack!! (obviously I am not recommending that insane technique)

 

skinniness doesn't equal healthiness. good looking meat, dairy, and egg eaters have heart attacks and cancer too...

 

not to mention the massive destruction of the environment that results of eating animal products!!

 

people who enjoy eating animal products should at least tell the truth!! instead of saying non logical arguments about why we need to eat meat and why it is ok to kill animals at least admit that you enjoy the taste and that you don't want to stop that cruel habit because your personal pleasures are more important than the well being of animals and the well being of the world in general. 

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Based on my research over the last few years, I can say with confidence that a paleo type "Nutritional Ketosis" diet is the generally (there are special circumstances where this isn't the case) the optimal human diet.   See Nora Gedgaudas for starters  - http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/

 

Also, here's a website that debunks all the vegetarian / vegan propaganda.

 

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/frank-talk/index.shtml

 

I found this one pretty interesting.... Investigating Raw Vegan and Other Diet Gurus: Can You Trust Them? A detailed investigative report on negative and/or questionable behavior by well-known raw vegan gurus. Documented by numerous offsite links to public record/public access information. Check to see if your raw guru is mentioned! -

[Raquel]

Also most people who defend eating animal products are just not educated on the subject  because they have been brainwashed by these big industries (who just want to profit at expense of others) and this does not always make them bad people.

 

Just like the people who defend government.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

FROM AN ETHICAL STANDPOINT, CRUELTY IN "MODERATION" IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE!!

 

moderate amounts of animal products are detrimental to the human body because moderate amounts of cholesterol, animal fat,

Transfats are bad, yes, and found in UNNATURAL sources of fat, like industrial cooking oils for example.   On the other hand, cholesterol and animal fats (and other natural fats) are not only NOT bad for humans, but they are ESSENTIAL nutrients!  We can eat them in abundance and our bodies will thank us.

Please do research before spreading misinformation, there is enough of that around already.    Here are some helpfull links if you're actually interested in the truth....

 

http://robbwolf.com/

http://www.westonaprice.org/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/

http://www.beyondveg.com/

Also most people who defend eating animal products are just not educated on the subject  because they have been brainwashed by these big industries (who just want to profit at expense of others) and this does not always make them bad people.

 

Just like the people who defend government.

Then why is paleo smeared in the media and vegetarianism is not? Why is vegetarianism made to be "cool" and trendy?  Because our rulers like us sick and malnurished, and therefore unthinking.  That's why they recommend we eat lots of grains. To benefit big agriculture and to make us sick.

[J. D. Stembal]

Based on my research over the last few years, I can say with confidence that a paleo type "Nutritional Ketosis" diet is the generally (there are special circumstances where this isn't the case) the optimal human diet.   See Nora Gedgaudas for starters  - http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/

 

Also, here's a website that debunks all the vegetarian / vegan propaganda.

 

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/frank-talk/index.shtml

 

I found this one pretty interesting.... Investigating Raw Vegan and Other Diet Gurus: Can You Trust Them? A detailed investigative report on negative and/or questionable behavior by well-known raw vegan gurus. Documented by numerous offsite links to public record/public access information. Check to see if your raw guru is mentioned! -

 

Thank you for this information, Nathan. I will enjoy reading more on my favorite pseudo-science that is based on science so simple it is taught in every biology textbook.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Also most people who defend eating animal products are just not educated on the subject  because they have been brainwashed by these big industries (who just want to profit at expense of others) and this does not always make them bad people.

 

Just like the people who defend government.

FYI, the paleo movement is generally libertarian and against the big food industries (which are of course the result of Statism).  They promote local, healthy, and ethically raised animals and produce. They are against big agriculture and the government's dietary recommentions.

Also most people who defend eating animal products are just not educated on the subject  because they have been brainwashed by these big industries (who just want to profit at expense of others) and this does not always make them bad people.

 

Just like the people who defend government.

Yolo... Did you know that Vegans kill more animials than meat eaters? I've heard that. I wonder if it's true. They may be smaller animals (in the fields of giant agricultural farms for example), but the numbers are greater. Might be worth a thought.  Plus, it kills the vitality of humans.  I mean, why are vegans so sickly looking and paleo folks the opposite?   Generally speaking of course...  I mean, just browse some pics of crossfitters, whom promote a paleo based diet due to the health benefits (muscle growth, recovery (lowers inflammation), fat loss, energy levels, etc.).  It is interesting to look at some of the actual evidence.  

[Raquel]

for REAL information please check out

http://nutritionfacts.org/

http://www.adaptt.org/

http://www.pcrm.org/

http://www.drmcdougall.com/

http://www.drfuhrman.com/

http://nutritionstudies.org/

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

for REAL information please check out

http://nutritionfacts.org/

http://www.adaptt.org/

http://www.pcrm.org/

http://www.drmcdougall.com/

http://www.drfuhrman.com/

http://nutritionstudies.org/

No thanks.  I've been into this stuff since 2011.  I've seen all of the arguments and counter-arguments (just like the collectivist arguments).  I know the truth.  I'm walking proof, as my health has dramatically improved since I started eating real food back in 2011 (low carb / paleo / organic / grass fed / pastured). Here is some evidence for you if you're into that sort of stuff, which, as a "philosopher" I assume you are.   http://www.marksdailyapple.com/category/success-story-summaries/#axzz38ECwM5P9

for REAL information please check out

http://nutritionfacts.org/

http://www.adaptt.org/

http://www.pcrm.org/

http://www.drmcdougall.com/

http://www.drfuhrman.com/

http://nutritionstudies.org/

I have a question or two. What evidence would you need to see in order to "believe" that eating real food (including some animals products) is essential (especially animial FAT) for optimal health?   Is there any possible evidence where this would be the case?   If not, why not?  Are you into self-knowledge?

[abcqwerty123]

I can't believe this argument is still going... And yet, I STILL see the same thing over and over again. The people in support of not eating meat are either giving "moral" reasons and/or showing links to every vegan/vegetarian that says it is healthier. Every person in support of eating meat is giving links showing that it is healthier to eat meat and/or that it is possibly to eat meat.

 

The simple answer is, it is possible to live off of both ways, eating animals is not immoral BUT it doesn't make it right, and that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Just because you have the power to murder your children in a trillion different ways doesn't mean you should try a few ways out. We CAN live only off of food from the ground and be just as healthy as we would while eating meat since all the nutrients we need from meat can be consumed through other sources so we do NOT need to be cruel to animals in the process. So please explain why this argument is continuing? Neither side is going to change their minds and all onlookers like myself have already received the answer back from the first page and most probably haven't even read past the first page.

[Soren]

Nevermind - missread

[abcqwerty123]

No thanks.  I've been into this stuff since 2011.  I've seen all of the arguments and counter-arguments (just like the collectivist arguments).  I know the truth.  I'm walking proof, as my health has dramatically improved since I started eating real food back in 2011 (low carb / paleo / organic / grass fed / pastured). Here is some evidence for you if you're into that sort of stuff, which, as a "philosopher" I assume you are.   http://www.marksdailyapple.com/category/success-story-summaries/#axzz38ECwM5P9

I have a question or two. What evidence would you need to see in order to "believe" that eating real food (including some animals products) is essential (especially animial FAT) for optimal health?   Is there any possible evidence where this would be the case?   If not, why not?  Are you into self-knowledge?

 

So, you are now attacking someone about not looking at the evidence as you admit to not looking at their evidence? Hmmm...

 

Sorry man, but saying you are healthier now from eating "real food" isn't much of a debate. Sure, I am healthier now as well then I was a few weeks ago. I went from 4,000+ calories a day of every unhealthy food known to man to a 1,500 calorie plan that consists of mostly veggies, some fish, and some soy products. Does that make me right in eating fish and soy? Absolutely not! But they are definitely healthier then what I have been eating for most of my life.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

I can't believe this argument is still going... And yet, I STILL see the same thing over and over again. The people in support of not eating meat are either giving "moral" reasons and/or showing links to every vegan/vegetarian that says it is healthier. Every person in support of eating meat is giving links showing that it is healthier to eat meat and/or that it is possibly to eat meat.

 

The simple answer is, it is possible to live off of both ways, eating animals is not immoral BUT it doesn't make it right, and that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Just because you have the power to murder your children in a trillion different ways doesn't mean you should try a few ways out. We CAN live only off of food from the ground and be just as healthy as we would while eating meat since all the nutrients we need from meat can be consumed through other sources so we do NOT need to be cruel to animals in the process. So please explain why this argument is continuing? Neither side is going to change their minds and all onlookers like myself have already received the answer back from the first page and most probably haven't even read past the first page.

Well, logic and the evidenc is on the side of eating animals. One only has to look at evolution the human brain.  To be more specific, eating animal meat (flesh) is not necessary, but eating at least some animal / sea food products absolutetly is, especially fat.  Also, animals organs are actually much more nutritious than the meant, as our primitive ancestors knew. We should only eat enough animals products to meet our nutritional needs, and we should eat ethically raised animals (pay the higher cost up front, be rewarded in the future).  If one wants to be truly healthy and free of any nutritional deficiencies and modern day diseases, one must eat at least some animals /fish.  And whatever you do, avoid grains at all costs!

So, you are now attacking someone about not looking at the evidence as you admit to not looking at their evidence? Hmmm...

 

Sorry man, but saying you are healthier now from eating "real food" isn't much of a debate. Sure, I am healthier now as well then I was a few weeks ago. I went from 4,000+ calories a day of every unhealthy food known to man to a 1,500 calorie plan that consists of mostly veggies, some fish, and some soy products. Does that make me right in eating fish and soy? Absolutely not! But they are definitely healthier then what I have been eating for most of my li

Soy is very bad for you. Why do you think they promote that stuff?

Well, logic and the evidenc is on the side of eating animals. One only has to look at evolution the human brain.  To be more specific, eating animal meat (flesh) is not necessary, but eating at least some animal / sea food products absolutetly is, especially fat.  Also, animals organs are actually much more nutritious than the meant, as our primitive ancestors knew. We should only eat enough animals products to meet our nutritional needs, and we should eat ethically raised animals (pay the higher cost up front, be rewarded in the future).  If one wants to be truly healthy and free of any nutritional deficiencies and modern day diseases, one must eat at least some animals /fish.  And whatever you do, avoid grains at all costs!

Soy is very bad for you. Why do you think they promote that stuff?

 

So, you are now attacking someone about not looking at the evidence as you admit to not looking at their evidence? Hmmm...

 

Sorry man, but saying you are healthier now from eating "real food" isn't much of a debate. Sure, I am healthier now as well then I was a few weeks ago. I went from 4,000+ calories a day of every unhealthy food known to man to a 1,500 calorie plan that consists of mostly veggies, some fish, and some soy products. Does that make me right in eating fish and soy? Absolutely not! But they are definitely healthier then what I have been eating for most of my life.

First, I didn't attack anyone.  Secondly, I said I've seen both sides of the arguments. Did you not read what I wrote?

The reason I continue this argument because I feel that a person's physical health is critical to their mental health and to a healthy society. It's important to spread the truth about the types of foods that cause disease in humans, the same way as it's important to spread the truth about ideas that cause evil in humans.  The "paleo diet" is NOT about eating meat.  It's about avoiding the foods that cause disease and eating foods that promote health and vitality.

[Raquel]

because I have tried a lot of different diets including paleo low carb diets before I knew the truth... before I became vegan when I used to think that I was eating a "balanced healthy" diet and exercise weekly and was very "fit" but I had a problems with my digestion, I had problems with allergies, I was chronically fatigued, and I developed  cysts in my ovaries and I was very sick... I was taking a lot of different medications and I lost a lot of weight, and I tried different diets until I read about veganism, and the propaganda that the meat, dairy and egg industry says so I have also been there... and I started to open my eyes and see the truth... that we are not carnivores, not even omnivores, and that we are not born to consume animal products. I always considered myself to be an animal lover so it made me think of that contradiction too. so I began to question myself that if we are not biologically designed to eat meat then eating meat and killing innocent animals is evil and unnecessary. so it became an ethical and also a health reason for me to become a vegan. I since I became a vegan my health problems go away without the need of medication and I know that veganism is the right thing to do in every way.

[abcqwerty123]

Well, logic and the evidenc is on the side of eating animals. One only has to look at evolution the human brain.  To be more specific, eating animal meat (flesh) is not necessary, but eating at least some animal / sea food products absolutetly is, especially fat.  Also, animals organs are actually much more nutritious than the meant, as our primitive ancestors knew. We should only eat enough animals products to meet our nutritional needs, and we should eat ethically raised animals (pay the higher cost up front, be rewarded in the future).  If one wants to be truly healthy and free of any nutritional deficiencies and modern day diseases, one must eat at least some animals /fish.  And whatever you do, avoid grains at all costs!

Soy is very bad for you. Why do you think they promote that stuff?

 

First, I didn't attack anyone.  Secondly, I said I've seen both sides of the arguments. Did you not read what I wrote?

 

I know soy is very bad for you... I even said it... "Does that make me right in eating fish and soy? Absolutely not!"

 

There you go again, with yet another contradiction. "I said I've seen both sides of the arguments. Did you not read what I wrote?" as you didn't read what I wrote.

 

And lastly, please tell me how well my argument stands up:

-I have also seen all sides of the argument and I myself have only seen that being a vegan is 100% healthy and eating meat will kill you in the matter of a few days. It is poison. YOU WILL DIE! And so, since I am the master of all and cannot learn another thing, I absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything you say and link to and will continue to tell you that my answer is the logical one with all of the evidence, but I refuse to show any proof of the most basic question!

 

So, please tell me, do you believe I am right, that I am telling the truth?

Oh, and that question I referred to is something I have asked twice and have yet to receive an answer to counteract it, just a bunch of run around similar to what Peter Joseph loves to do to Stefan.

 

How can eating meat be healthier or needed compared to eating food from the ground when every single nutrient needed from meat can be consumed by a not meat source?

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

because I have tried a lot of different diets including paleo low carb diets before I knew the truth... before I became vegan when I used to think that I was eating a "balanced healthy" diet and exercise weekly and was very "fit" but I had a problems with my digestion, I had problems with allergies, I was chronically fatigued, and I developed  cysts in my ovaries and I was very sick... I was taking a lot of different medications and I lost a lot of weight, and I tried different diets until I read about veganism, and the propaganda that the meat, dairy and egg industry says so I have also been there... and I started to open my eyes and see the truth... that we are not carnivores, not even omnivores, and that we are not born to consume animal products. I always considered myself to be an animal lover so it made me think of that contradiction too. so I began to question myself that if we are not biologically designed to eat meat then eating meat and killing innocent animals is evil and unnecessary. so it became an ethical and also a health reason for me to become a vegan. I since I became a vegan my health problems go away without the need of medication and I know that veganism is the right thing to do in every way.

Do what you think is best for you. I've seen countless examples of the opposite, not only on the internet but in my personal life... where folks suffered being vegan and found health with a paleo type diet. One friend even started a paleo food business after she discovered paleo (after researching food / health issues due to her niece having cancer). She now works trying to help people become healthy. She used to be a vegan.  My best friend was also once a vegetarian and is now paleo. He lost 50 pounds of excess body fat, added muscle, and gained tons of energy and feels better than ever. So he says.  I believe him because the same happened to me (except I only lost 30 pounds)  Also, you can read through some of these just for examples. Even if you don't, maybe someone else will.   http://www.marksdailyapple.com/category/success-story-summaries/#axzz38ECwM5P9

[Raquel]

like I said before just because you loose weight on a paleo diet or any other fad diet and look pretty "fit" it doesn't  mean it is healthy.... I know people who are bodybuilders and take steroids and look incredibly good and "fit" and it doesn't mean that they are healthy... 

 

there are lots of healthy vegan athletes and vegan body builders that are truly fit and healthy.

 

http://www.veganmuscleandfitness.com/

http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

How can eating meat be healthier or needed compared to eating food from the ground when every single nutrient needed from meat can be consumed by a not meat source?

Off the top of my head, because animals do wonderful things in their bodies with the food they eat from the earth (like convert ALA into DHA - an essential fatty acid - omega 3), then we eat those animals for dense sources of essential nutrients, like FAT. The nutrient density of foods is important to consider.   We can eat less and get more nutrients.  For example, animals organs (offal) are some of the most dense sources nutrition.  I remember looking at a comparison of the nutrient profiles of offal compared to veggies and it was off the charts.  You'd have to eat a ton of veggies to get any where near the nutrient content of the offal, and that's just the nutrients that the plants actually had.  Also, nutrient ratios are important. Like Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio, which is properly balanced in grass fed / pastured animals and in wild sea food, etc..  Vitamin D to Vitamin A ratio is also critical .   Where do you get true vitamin A in plants?  Or vitamin D for that matter?   So, having said that, here's an article on "5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs (NOT Plants)"

 

 

http://authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/

like I said before just because you loose weight on a paleo diet or any other fad diet and look pretty "fit" it doesn't  mean it is healthy.... I know people who are bodybuilders and take steroids and look incredibly good and "fit" and it doesn't mean that they are healthy... 

 

there are lots of healthy vegan athletes and vegan body builders that are truly fit and healthy.

 

http://www.veganmuscleandfitness.com/

http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/

How is paleo type diet a "fad" when it is based on a couple million years of evolution?   How long does a fad last before it's not considered a fad anymore?   Paleo isn't a "diet".  It's just the way we designed to eat by evolution and the science is starting to really come to light on this now that the truth movement is gaining steam.

This is making me anxious so I'll just get back to work.  Good day to you all!

 

like I said before just because you loose weight on a paleo diet or any other fad diet and look pretty "fit" it doesn't  mean it is healthy.... I know people who are bodybuilders and take steroids and look incredibly good and "fit" and it doesn't mean that they are healthy... 

 

there are lots of healthy vegan athletes and vegan body builders that are truly fit and healthy.

 

http://www.veganmuscleandfitness.com/

http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/

What's happening on the INSIDE of vegan bodybuilders? Bodybuilding is already unnatural and harmful to the body in many ways....

[Soren]

I can't believe this argument is still going... And yet, I STILL see the same thing over and over again. The people in support of not eating meat are either giving "moral" reasons and/or showing links to every vegan/vegetarian that says it is healthier. Every person in support of eating meat is giving links showing that it is healthier to eat meat and/or that it is possibly to eat meat. The simple answer is, it is possible to live off of both ways, eating animals is not immoral BUT it doesn't make it right, and that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Just because you have the power to murder your children in a trillion different ways doesn't mean you should try a few ways out. We CAN live only off of food from the ground and be just as healthy as we would while eating meat since all the nutrients we need from meat can be consumed through other sources so we do NOT need to be cruel to animals in the process. So please explain why this argument is continuing? Neither side is going to change their minds and all onlookers like myself have already received the answer back from the first page and most probably haven't even read past the first page.

Well because people are afraid of saying I don't know, and our perpetual need to justify our actions and opinions.What is missing here is a discussion of what health means to the individual. When I was highly diet focused I was constantly troubled by the fact that I actually could not know what was going on inside my body. I only had external makers like skin, eyes and nails, complexion. And internal feeling like pain, discomfort, temperature, happiness, need to move about, mental acuity. So instead I used mental images of my condition and compared how I used to feel to how I felt afterwards. Unfortunately at the time I disregarded the social relations and my negative emotions. which skewed my perception a lot.Also Animals are not humans they are not human children, they are not benevolent. And we can not have any sustainable food plant growth of appreciable size without using animals. So we have to trap animals anyway, we have to breed them and we have to make sure they are healthy to fulfill the role so we have to kill some of them off.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

I just wanted to add that I absolutely love animals and I loathe the industrial food practices.  I think its' evil what they do to animals!   I abhor the whole Statist system, as do we all, which is the cause. When I see animals being released from a life of captivity, and I see their reaction to seeing "outside" for the first time in their lives, it literally makes me cry.    I want nothing more than a free society that treats animials with kindness and respect, which will happen one day.  The people in that free society will however eat some of those animals.  It's just a fact of life.

 

Release of chimpanzees, 30 years after undergoing experiments - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PAMgNEtSY

 

100 Retired Lab Chimps See Sky for First Time (government owned chimps)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUMXQjnm0Ho

 

Happy Cows -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUZ1YLhIAg8

[Raquel]

you are contradicting yourself. the only way of treating animals with respect and kindness is by not killing them and taking care of them.

 

WE ARE NOT DESIGNED TO EAT MEAT!

 

killing them and eating them is cruel, unnecessary and is bad for your health and terrible for the environment. 

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

you are contradicting yourself. the only way of treating animals with respect and kindness is by not killing them and taking care of them.

 

WE ARE NOT DESIGNED TO EAT MEAT!

 

killing them and eating them is cruel, unnecessary and is bad for your health and terrible for the environment. 

We are designed to eat and digest animals.  Sorry.   You can't wish away evolution. Also, I'm not contradicting myself. We can have an ethical, humane way of raising and consuming certain animals. I assume in a free / rational world it would be as minimal as possible to meet nutritional needs. And the animals would be treated with compassion.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

Diet influences evolution

 

Scientists use the term "omnivore" and find that humans and other primates have been such for a very long time.

 

Eating meat allowed humans to reduce gut size, increase brain size, and reproduce faster. 

 

 

 

Wild boars eating a really big earthworm. You're right: you shouldn't base your diet on what a wild boar eats.

 

You could base it on what genetically equivalent, healthy, and flourishing, ancestral H. sapiens ate, though. 

 

There is no doubt that diet influences evolution, but that doesn't mean that meat eating is healthy for humans.I'm well aware that scientists use the words omnivore and omnivorism. I've addressed the humans are "omnivores" topic with a 16 page book. Quite a few paragraphs are spent on examining the use and meaning of the word. Again you present no evidence to support the humans should/need to/safely can consume meat claims. 

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

you are contradicting yourself. the only way of treating animals with respect and kindness is by not killing them and taking care of them.

 

WE ARE NOT DESIGNED TO EAT MEAT!

 

killing them and eating them is cruel, unnecessary and is bad for your health and terrible for the environment. 

I think you have an emotional block that is preventing you from seeing just how bad things are now (which I agree with) to how things should be, which would unfortunately include eating at least some animals, but would look nothing like it does in today's world.   I wish we didn't need eat animals for proper nutrition too. But, our wishes don't matter.

There is no doubt that diet influences evolution, but that doesn't mean that meat eating is healthy for humans.I'm well aware that scientists use the words omnivore and omnivorism. I've addressed the humans are "omnivores" topic with a 16 page book. Quite a few paragraphs are spent on examining the use and meaning of the word. Again you present no evidence to support the humans should/need to/safely can consume meat claims. 

The meat isn't as important as the fat, and the organs. These nutrients are critical and were critical to developing our human brains.  What was critical for developing our brains and bodies to what they are today is STILL critical.  Nothing has changed fundamentally.

[Raquel]

like Paul Joseph Goebbels the Nazi minister of propaganda said: "the essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it".

 

saying that meat is necessary and healthy is just PROPAGANDA, it is a lie that is destroying peoples health, killing animals and destroying our environment !

 

Just like the propaganda that government is good and necessary.....

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

There is no doubt that diet influences evolution, but that doesn't mean that meat eating is healthy for humans.I'm well aware that scientists use the words omnivore and omnivorism. I've addressed the humans are "omnivores" topic with a 16 page book. Quite a few paragraphs are spent on examining the use and meaning of the word. Again you present no evidence to support the humans should/need to/safely can consume meat claims. 

I've posted tons of links.  

 

like Paul Joseph Goebbels the Nazi minister of propaganda said: "the essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it".

 

saying that meat is necessary and healthy is just PROPAGANDA, it is a lie that is destroying peoples health, killing animals and destroying our environment !

 

Just like the propaganda that government is good and necessary.....

You can't wish away evolution and science.

like Paul Joseph Goebbels the Nazi minister of propaganda said: "the essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it".

 

saying that meat is necessary and healthy is just PROPAGANDA, it is a lie that is destroying peoples health, killing animals and destroying our environment !

 

Just like the propaganda that government is good and necessary.....

So, I agree with you that the current meat industry is evil, and so is the agricultural industry.  Do you eat grains? If so, then you're helping to destroy the world and you're killing lots of animals, literally.

[Raquel]

veganism is supported by science 100%

[Soren]

veganism is supported by science 100%

What does that even mean?