(February 6, 2014 at 10:03 am)enrico Wrote: 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.

Enrico, I'm vegetarian, but even I think this line of argument is full of shit. Go back to caveman fire pits, and you can dig up bone shards, split open so cavemen could get at the marrow, etc. Humans have strong, well-rooted canine teeth, which are very clearly well-suited to biting into meat.

Another hint that people are omnivorous is that there are 7 billion people, and maybe 1 billion are vegetarian. 6/7 is not a freak accident-- that's obviously the norm. My argument is that the norm is not better. My argument is that despite an evolved liking for meat, we have the capacity to care enough about other animals not to kill them when we have other means of food-production at our disposal.

But making shit up doesn't help anybody. It just serves to discredit vegetarians who DON'T spew shit.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:42 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: 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.

There are no animal products in vegan vitamin supplements (including B12, D3, iron, and even omega 3). Since you don't take vitamin supplements you "have" to eat meat just to make it through the day, does this make eating meat wrong too? All this is irrelevant, supplements are just part of vegans diet, just as meat is part of an omnivores diet. What matters for health is evidence, and the evidence show vegans are healthier

---

(February 6, 2014 at 10:35 am)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

Manufacturing, tourism, services would all have to be well developed. They are also up high with long hours of daylight, so you would have increased efficiency of solar energy collection. Yes they are very poor, but we have an obligation to support development. As for transportation, this would require investment in infrastructure, but using efficient sources of transportation like rail would reduce the environmental impacts.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:03 am)enrico Wrote: You little prick.
I intervene only after many of you said that man is omnivore without back this statement up with solid evidence.

You really are a fucking idiot. I have told you where to look. I have told you what science says on the matter. I'm a fucking biologist. I know this stuff, you don't.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:03 am)enrico Wrote: 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.

No you fucking didn't, you pathetic piece of lying scum. All you have done is post two pictures. That is not evidence. Just you saying something, does not count as evidence.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:03 am)enrico Wrote: 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.

I live in England you stupid little man. The flooding in England has nothing to do with people eating meat.


There

(February 6, 2014 at 10:03 am)enrico Wrote: 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/

Fuck me you are stupid. I said, Peer-reviewed, scientific article. Do you have any idea what that is? Do you have any idea what Peer-review is? Your stupid fucking nutcase website is not evidence at all. The only thing this website supports is the fact that nutcases like you exist.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:03 am)enrico Wrote: 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.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. The fact that someone as stupid as you can exist today is just......
Its not fair that stupid, ignorant, arrogant people like you are currently alive and well while much cleverer, honest and humble people are dying in the third world. Why is that you are alive but the next Einstein could be dying in the slums in India? Its not fair. The world isn't fair.

I have already shown that your 'evidence' is not evidence at all. But of course, you won't listen. Your ego is so overinflated that you cant stand the possibility (even for a second) that you are wrong. So you do these impossible mental gymnastics to stop yourself from feeling shame and embarrassment.
I don't need to produce evidence that we are omnivores in the same way that I don't need to provide evidence of gravity. Science agrees with me. If you don't believe it, go and do some fucking research yourself without the self affirming bias.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:40 am)bennyboy Wrote: But making shit up doesn't help anybody. It just serves to discredit vegetarians who DON'T spew shit.

Benny, believe me, the only person enrico is discrediting when he talks is himself. Anyone who's spent more than a minute reading his bilge understands that the only position he represents is that of the bizarre, two dimensional fantasy world that he presides over as the arbiter of reality.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned but one of our closest relatives the Chimp which we share 99% of our DNA with is an omnivore. Jane Goodall observed this behavior and documented it in 1960.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:51 am)jg2014 Wrote: Manufacturing, tourism, services would all have to be well developed. They are also up high with long hours of daylight, so you would have increased efficiency of solar energy collection. Yes they are very poor, but we have an obligation to support development. As for transportation, this would require investment in infrastructure, but using efficient sources of transportation like rail would reduce the environmental impacts.

I've often wondered why Tibet, a hard-core Buddhist nation (at least up until recent historical events), would be a meat-eating nation. What happened to "every animal is a reborn soul which was once your mother"? What happened, presumably, is that mother is more nutritious than dirt.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure that by ANY transportation means, much more environmental harm would be done in transporting grain to Tibet than would be done by killing a mountain yak. Does that mean it's okay to kill mountain yaks? In my opinion, no, not really. It just means that there are some cases where the efficiency argument for vegetarianism doesn't apply.

But in the LONG run, I agree with you about this: the current inability to viably deliver grain and plant foods, or to provide adequate B12 to some vegetarians, is not a great reason to eat meat-- it's a much better reason to put more resources into developing better food-production and delivery systems. If you look at other systemic realities that were once considered necessary, you'll see that some of them are now considered immoral: making poor children work, slavery, chastity belts: all these once were accepted due to "necessity." But new a new moral climate and new technologies allowed all those necessities to fall into the moral trash-heap where they rightly belong. You and I hope that meat-eating will go that route, too. Whether that actually happens, in my opinions, depends on whether the world continues developing, or falls into decline in a state of post-war or disease epidemic. It's clear that without a sustainable advanced technology, people are going to turn to meat as an easy dietary supplement (or even prime food source).

(February 6, 2014 at 6:54 am)jg2014 Wrote: Firstly, while it may be true that methane is second to CO2 in driving global warming, as it breaks down in the atmosphere relatively quickly, pound for pound it is 20 times more potent than CO2! Even NASA agree that it has an important role in climate change

I'm well aware of the science and you could have posted a much more recent link.

Granted, I do not agree that that the EGHE accounts for 100% of the climate trend, but let's play devil's advocate and go by NASA's numbers which put the contribution of Methane at or around 17-21%.

Global Warming trend 20th century: 0.6 degrees. Let's take the upper estimate of 21% which is 1/5th: 0.12 degrees (this number is meaningless since it's immeasurable so we'll round to 0.1 degrees).

So cutting methane to 19th century levels would theoretically reduce the global mean surface temperature of the Earth by up to 0.1 degrees, and there's no guarantees of it either.

Good luck with that agenda.

Quote:Now, as for farming on land unsuitable for crops, as I said before the emissions from grass fed beef are just as high as feedlot beef. So as long as some arable land is available then it will always be better to use the arable land for growing crops.

As for water and Australia, in the severe droughts that have happened recently the production of many grains reduced significantly, so yes it does have a problem.

It's a much bigger problem for crops then for livestock - do you understand this? Livestock can always be moved if absolutely necessary, whereas crops cannot.

---

Quote:People with thalassemia have a mutation which means their haemoglobin doesn't form properly, however that doesn't mean people can just eat some meat and use the haemoglobin from the animal. Haemoglobin, like virtually all proteins we consume, is broken down into its constituent amino acids in the gut which are only then absorbed.

Thankyou for once again showing you don't understand basic biology. Why you're trying to school us on it is beyond me.

Do you know what phenylalanine is? It's an essential amino acid and you can readily buy tablets of it as supplements wherever you like, it isn't regulated like say medications like pseudoephedrine. But did you know, and this is what it shares in common with pseudoephedrine, that you can use phenylalanine as a precursor for making Methamphetamine? See in theory you're right about amino acids, so long as we have enough of them we can just make whatever we like, but the problem you aren't recognizing is that even plants high in protein do not contain all the right amino acids!! Meat proteins contain the right amino acids, and even though they get broken down, they are put back together again. This isn't so with plant-based diets, they're broken down, and require a diverse pallet to put everything back together how our bodies need it.

Quote:One of the big problems people with thalassemia get is actually too much iron, which sounds rather counterintuitive. Essentially because they have less haemoglobin to bind iron in their blood and the patient then receives blood transfusions, they can then have too much free iron which can be toxic. Many patients are told to eat less meat, and vegetables containing lots of iron for exactly this reason. Of course because they have less haemoglobin they can also become iron deficient very easily if they are pregnant for example, which is why careful supplementation is required under the supervision of a doctor. A diet containing meat however is not required.

You should stop giving out medical advice to patients that you are not qualified to give it to, esp. as you refuse the acknowledge individual dietary requirements for different people.

It is ceratinly NOT for health reasons that I am a vegetarian. I have seen a number of fat vegetarians in my life and some very fit meat eaters (though they tend to be fish/white meat eaters)

I have two reasons to be veggy

1) Compassion for animals

2) Using land resources efficiently. Our use of feedstocks for meat rather than eaten directly massively inflates the price of those foodstocks. If teh corn in the USA used to feed pigs and Poultry was let directly onto the market, the poorest people of South and Central America would make massive savings on their corn based food bills.

(February 7, 2014 at 12:35 am)Aractus Wrote: but the problem you aren't recognizing is that even plants high in protein do not contain all the right amino acids!! Meat proteins contain the right amino acids, and even though they get broken down, they are put back together again. This isn't so with plant-based diets, they're broken down, and require a diverse pallet to put everything back together how our bodies need it

What essential amino acid is missing from soya beans? Here is a link to the amino acid profile of soya beans, they contain all essential amino acids. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legu...cts/4378/2

If you have any evidence that a well balanced vegan diet is unhealthy, or not suitable for specific groups of people, then show it.

You give out all this medical advice saying veganism is unhealthy supported by mere assertion, then you criticise me when I put forward the counter argument supported with actual evidence. Its quite hypocritical.

JG, soy is toxic to humans and other animals. It's not a natural product at all and I don't know why you're appealing to it.

Furthermore, those with allergies against soy products as I've mentioned earlier cannot eat (almost) any processed foods - 1. because soy is added to most processed foods and 2. because it doesn't have to be labelled and they have to make the assumption that unless otherwise stated it contains soy.

So no, you cannot use soy as an example because you only find it in processed foods and if you ate it raw you'd be sick.

Can you give me a guarantee that soy is safe or healthy? No you can't. No one can. We might well find in the years to come that soy is looked down upon as a filthy carcinogen, the fact of the matter is that at the moment ignorance is bliss and just like the tobacco industry, the food industry isn't exactly wanting to find out that soy is a bad product.

If you have an ethical responsibility when it comes to food it is to: eat healthy. All other considerations, environmental, animal welfare, etc, are secondary concerns nothing should come before your own health when it comes to food.