Adding plants to a diet is merely supplementing a meat based diet with plants, therefore plants could be considered a "supplement"
See how stupid that is?
We need both meat and plant.

(February 5, 2014 at 2:11 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(February 5, 2014 at 11:10 am)enrico Wrote: 4) The land needed to cultivate soia and other feed for animals also come at the expenses of less forests..

Soys and other feed for the animals undertake the same processes to give clean air as trees in forests.

(February 5, 2014 at 11:10 am)enrico Wrote: 6) The smell of meat cooking make veg. people sick..

Good, perhaps you would die.

What a load of nonsense. Soys and other feed do undergo photosynthesis and capture CO2, but unlike trees they are harvested/ transported etc. and that creates a lot of CO2 emissions. Additionally CO2 captured by trees is then stored as wood, whereas with grains it is released back into the environment when digested by an animal both as CO2, and more importantly as methane, which is 20 times more potent green house gas than CO2. All farming therefore puts CO2 into the air and according to the FAO agriculture contributes 18% globally to our CO2 emissions, and potentially considerably more in developed countries. The emissions from eating grains directly are therefore considerably less than feeding them to animals and eating meat.

Additionally, what is wrong with you? Wishing another person to die just because they disagree with you in debate on the internet?

---

(February 6, 2014 at 8:04 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Adding plants to a diet is merely supplementing a meat based diet with plants, therefore plants could be considered a "supplement"

EXACTLY. Its moronic to think supplementation is wrong, or to single them out as somehow apart from the rest of ones diet. Plants indeed could be considered a supplement to a meat diet, if you consider meat to be the starting point of a "natural" diet. My point is that for humans there is no such thing as a natural diet. Vitamins supplements are for vegans just another part of our diets that are required for obtaining certain vitamins. For omnivores that don't take supplements, eating meat is just a part of the diet that contains certain vitamins. Your argument that a diet that requires vitamin supplements is not healthy makes as much sense as me arguing that a meat diet that requires plants is not healthy. You are not arguing for a meat diet that excludes plants, and I am not arguing for a plant based diet that excludes vitamin supplements. All these foods just have different ethical, environmental and health impacts. For the latter this is determined by EVIDENCE, not just because certain parts of a diet are labelled as a supplement. And all the evidence shows that vegans are healthier.

(February 5, 2014 at 11:26 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 5, 2014 at 11:10 am)enrico Wrote: Bullshit.
If you were correct the remains of people who live ages ago would show a totally different structure similar to omnivorous.

What.....What does that even mean?

It means that having similar structure as various homos living ages ago we are not omnivorous.
As i show you yesterday omnivorous have different jaws and teeth.



homo ergaster



homo erectus and homo sapiens.

Quote:It isn't the meat that makes people sick, its the saturated fats, bad cholesterol and toxins.

How stupid can you be?
Meat is loaded with saturated fats, bad cholesterol and toxin.

Quote:You really are a fucking idiot. How do you function in the world? So you think that meat causes so much illness? What is this? Do you think there is some grand world wide conspiracy where the governments are covering up deaths caused by eating meat? And that nutritionists and scientists are lying to us? Fucking idiot.
The sun kills people too.

You must be the king of idiots boy.
Politicians are not scientist.
All they do is to generate hot stinking air and engage in short terms solutions but even if they knew how the system works they would
never tell the people not to eat meat as this would be a political suicide.
When however the hospitals are full of sick people and they realize that the cost of looking after all these idiots who do the wrong thing then they
will privatize all public hospitals.
Most nutritionists haven't got a clue as science in this sector is still unaware but slowly slowly they are getting there and the truth is also emerging day after day.

Quote:Air pollution yes, water pollution no

You must be living in wonderland little boy.
Where do you think the dirty water end up after the stables, piggeries and chickens cages and stays are cleaned?
Stop dreaming for God sake.

Quote:Is this a fucking joke? Have you ever heard of the water cycle?

The water cycle works as long as a balance is kept in nature.
This at the moment is not working as we can see because of climate changes in part due to the meat policy.

(February 5, 2014 at 10:35 am)enrico Wrote: 7) The anger discharged when animals are killed is in the air and cause bad feeling everywhere.

Quote:No idea what this fucking means.

When animals are smelling the blood before they are killed their bodies build up toxins and when you eat meat you also get these toxins in your body but beside the material side this fear and desperation is generate in the astral body which is all around the place where animals are killed.
You may not feel this as you are used to live in this astral situation but someone who has nothing to do with this horrendous things feel it very much.
It is like the cigarettes smoking.
If you smoke you become use to it but if you don't you realize the filth associate with it.

Quote:Its just the sheer arrogance and ignorance combined that distinguishes you from any other person on this forum

If you are used to the filth it is obvious that for you it become something quite normal but normal is not and filth remain even if your little brain can not understand.
Comprende?

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: It means that having similar structure as various homos living ages ago we are not omnivorous.
As i show you yesterday omnivorous have different jaws and teeth.



homo ergaster



homo erectus and homo sapiens.

This is getting ridiculous. They are different species, you fucking idiot. In the past, our ancestors from hundreds of millions of years ago may not have been omnivores. This whole thing started because you said humans are not omnivores. We are omnivores, end of story. Even if you proved that homo ergaster and homo erectus were not omnivores (which you have not) it does not mean that we are not.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: You must be the king of idiots boy.
Politicians are not scientist.
All they do is to generate hot stinking air and engage in short terms solutions but even if they knew how the system works they would
never tell the people not to eat meat as this would be a political suicide.
When however the hospitals are full of sick people and they realize that the cost of looking after all these idiots who do the wrong thing then they
will privatize all public hospitals.
Most nutritionists haven't got a clue as science in this sector is still unaware but slowly slowly they are getting there and the truth is also emerging day after day.

Right, so yes, you are a conspiracy theorist nutcase.
A conspiracy theorist nutcase that knows better than all the scientists in the world.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: You must be living in wonderland little boy.
Where do you think the dirty water end up after the stables, piggeries and chickens cages and stays are cleaned?
Stop dreaming for God sake.

The water, ends up evaporating, leaving the dirt behind. It then returns to the sea, rivers and lakes.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: The water cycle works as long as a balance is kept in nature.
This at the moment is not working as we can see because of climate changes in part due to the meat policy.

Balance has nothing to do with the water cycle. It doesn't matter what happens to the earth, the water cycle will continue. As long as we have: 1) The sun 2) Water 3) The atmosphere. Again, you really don't know what you are talking about.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: When animals are smelling the blood before they are killed their bodies build up toxins and when you eat meat you also get these toxins in your body but beside the material side this fear and desperation is generate in the astral body which is all around the place where animals are killed.

Please link to the peer-reviewed, scientific article that provides evidence for this.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: If you are used to the filth it is obvious that for you it become something quite normal but normal is not and filth remain even if your little brain can not understand.
Comprende?

How convenient that you have completely ignored all my requests for evidence to support your wild claims. And just skipped over half of my rebuttals.
In fact, i'm going to report you for spamming again. I was tolerant when you just confined your madness to your own threads but now you are spreading and contaminating other peoples.
I can handle your stupidity but what I cant handle is the fact that you are so sure that you are right when you have no evidence for your position and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Happy omnivore here, carry on.

Ummm these people DO realise that chimpanzees gain alot of satisfaction from slaughtering each other or any other mammal they can get to with their crude weapons to "bring home the meat"

---

(February 6, 2014 at 8:04 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: We need both meat and plant.

Ummm Look I may be stupid but as Bad Wolf has stated above is the definition of omnivorous diet

---

(February 6, 2014 at 7:55 am)jg2014 Wrote:

(February 6, 2014 at 7:40 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I don't think so. And again a diet that requires "supplementation" can not be good. Daughter seems to fare better on a low meat high vegie diet than strict vegetarian which just makes her ill.

As I have said before, Vegetarianism isn't for everyone vegan even less so. Don't care about your supposed statistics, am watching closely how imediate family are dealing with various "Fad Diets" the outcomes so far are not in favour of "Fad Diets"

---

Also you haven't addressed the land use of areas that are not suitable to "cropping"

This argument against supplementation really does not make sense. Adding meat to a diet is merely supplementing a plant based diet with meat, therefore meat could be considered a "supplement". The only reason why you are against vitamin supplements and not meat supplements is because of an appeal to natural which says that because vitamin supplements are made by humans they are additional to the "natural" diet. Its just nonsense.

You might not like statistics, but they are always going to be more reliable than anecdotes. If your daughter is having problems with her diet I would suggest talking to a nutritionist.

You see, that is where you fail with your "natural vegetarian/ vegan diet" you HAVE to take dietary supplements derived form animals in-part, and fungi to live on you food to be healthy where omnivores do not have to support this pseudo-health industry just to live.

Sure supplements in the form of B12 and group iron and minerals are needed when illness strikes but it appears that you need these medications continually just to make it through the day which is why your "lifestyle" is unattractive to omnivores.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: fear and desperation is generate in the astral body which is all around the place where animals are killed.

What are you some kind of voodoo doctor or something? This is the most stupid thing I have read on the forum.
Prove what you claim.

(February 5, 2014 at 2:11 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(February 5, 2014 at 11:10 am)enrico Wrote: 2) The quantity of water use for animals reduce the quantity of water for humans..

And what do you plan to use the water for?

Some idiots think that water come as an endless source but intelligent people know that most of the water is saltwater and very little is suite water so for this reason it is important not to waste it or make it become dirty in the meat business or other form of pollution.

Quote:Your residence also comes at the expense of forests which could give clean air. Perhaps you should live in a hollow in a tree.

In life there are things that you can not avoid like building a house to live and things that you can avoid like wasting our limited resources in the meat dirty business that is why we should use our intellect for the best result.

Quote:Soys and other feed for the animals undertake the same processes to give clean air as trees in forests.

Sure but you forgot to say that while trees stay in the soil all the time soya come and go.
Not only that but while soya give little as far as clean air trees give a lot being bigger.
Not only that but while trees give refuge to animals and birds useful in keeping insects under control soya does not play this role.
Not only that but while trees hold water in their root system which allow the water cycle soya play this role only in small scale.
I am sure there is a lot more so your idea is bankrupt.

(February 5, 2014 at 11:10 am)enrico Wrote: 5) The remains of animals after they take away the meat cause pollution..

Quote:Yeah, and that pollution causes more life, real life, not vegetarians masquarding as life, to sprout.

Everything generate more life even your poopoo.
I rather prefer something that does not stink.

(February 5, 2014 at 11:10 am)enrico Wrote: 7) The anger discharged when animals are killed is in the air and cause bad feeling everywhere.

Quote:I never felt so good as when I feel the vibe of an animal headed towards my dinner plate taking the irrevokable step in its journey.

You wouldn't be so sure if you knew that in the next life you may be reborn as a cow.
But of course enrico is wrong.

---

(February 6, 2014 at 9:39 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: This whole thing started because you said humans are not omnivores. We are omnivores, end of story.

You little prick.
I intervene only after many of you said that man is omnivore without back this statement up with solid evidence.
On the contrary i gave solid evidence that man is not omnivore by show you that omnivorous have different jaws, teeth, digestive system and so on so get lost little boy.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: You must be living in wonderland little boy.
Where do you think the dirty water end up after the stables, piggeries and chickens cages and stays are cleaned?
Stop dreaming for God sake.

Quote:The water, ends up evaporating, leaving the dirt behind. It then returns to the sea, rivers and lakes.

You got less brain then a chicken.
Go in any place where there are animals in cages or restricted in places and then let me know where the water used to wash these places end up.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: The water cycle works as long as a balance is kept in nature.
This at the moment is not working as we can see because of climate changes in part due to the meat policy.

Quote:Balance has nothing to do with the water cycle. It doesn't matter what happens to the earth, the water cycle will continue. As long as we have: 1) The sun 2) Water 3) The atmosphere. Again, you really don't know what you are talking about.

The water cycle will continue of course but instead of raining in the land may rain in the sea or rain in the land but flooding the land.
If you live in England and you try to explain your fantasies to people who are under flood like now they will spit in your stupid face and tell you to piss off from their site.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: When animals are smelling the blood before they are killed their bodies build up toxins and when you eat meat you also get these toxins in your body but beside the material side this fear and desperation is generate in the astral body which is all around the place where animals are killed.

Please link to the peer-reviewed, scientific article that provides evidence for this.

There are countless web sites that you can explore just click bad vibrations and you can see so many of them.
http://www.exploremeditation.com/energy-vibration/

Quote:How convenient that you have completely ignored all my requests for evidence to support your wild claims. And just skipped over half of my rebuttals.
In fact, i'm going to report you for spamming again. I was tolerant when you just confined your madness to your own threads but now you are spreading and contaminating other peoples.
I can handle your stupidity but what I cant handle is the fact that you are so sure that you are right when you have no evidence for your position and you have no idea what you are talking about.

You ignorant little prick.
I am the one who show evidence that man is not omnivore.
So is you that should be reported for not backing up your fantasies with evidence.

(February 5, 2014 at 12:52 pm)jg2014

Re B12 from cereals, it depends on what cereals you buy. For example Tesco's Bran flakes contain [url=http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=254852466' Wrote: 100% of our daily requirements of B12 [/url]per 100g portion, and you get the benefits of whole grains too. According to this study the B12 in cereals are absorbed well.

No more Tesco Choco Hoops for me. Time for some bran flakes!

Quote:With Tibet although the high altitudes make farming crops difficult, they also have poor infrastructure that really reduces yields. Regardless, I don't see anything wrong with being a net importer of food, and it makes sense economically to be more specialised in one industry to gain a competitive advantage when trading with another country, rather than trying to do a bit of everything poorly.

I can think of at least two problems with this:
1) Tibet is dirt poor. What industry do they have that they can barter fairly for grain/plant-foods?
2) Transportation from anywhere outside Tibet TO Tibet is going to be OMG expensive. It is also going to create such an ungodly amount of pollution in burnt fuel, that any environment-minded vegetarian would probably cringe.

To be fair while a lot of what Enrico writes is pretty silly (Astral Body?!), water is an important resource. While it does inevitably recycle, it is finite and so is limited per unit time, with excessive local use of water depleting local sources and rivers can have negative affects on the environment. For example, lets say a major river provided a certain amount of water to marsh land downstream, and this was required to maintain the biodiversity of that environment. If I was then to remove most of the water from that river to use in agriculture etc, that water could be piped hundreds of miles away and so the marshland would dry up. The total amount of water in the world would not change, but rather than supporting biodiversity it is supporting agriculture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_stres...nvironment