(February 15, 2014 at 4:08 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: OK

Let us go through this. You want clarity? The only way I know how to do this is to go through each point (ad nauseum)

So, shall we start with your geographical location? Canada, wasn't it? So how long is your growing season in Canada?

I'm not in Canada, but that's probably simpler for the sake of argument. I have no idea how long the growing season is in Canada. As far as I know, wheat, which I'm assuming is the biggest calorie provider among plant crops, is a single-season crop.

---

(February 14, 2014 at 11:29 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I just love the way you jump to assumptions about me, and attempt to lay blame where it is not warranted.

Stop trying to reinvent the toothbrush. The world is a wonderful place....and THEN you add people. Like you.

The world may be wonderful. But the majority of people I know who have stated an opinion think it is getting quickly worse, rather than staying the same or improving.

As for assumptions-- I don't think I'm making any assumptions, except those intrinsic to your position. Feel free to specifiy if I've said something off-base.

---

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 11:20 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Wrong. Atheism doesn't say that, science says that. Yet again, you show that you don't understand the theory of evolution.

Ok. so it means that all atheists guys that said that don't know what they are talking about.
Now let us hear the official version from you.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:03 am)enrico Wrote: This dogma is as bad as the religious dogmas in which people get the manna from the sky.

Quote:This shows that you don't understand the scientific process at all. You see, with scientific theories, they are often changed to account for new evidence. With religious dogmas, nothing is ever changed despite new evidence.

That is funny.
One minute ago you make a clear distinction between atheism and science, now you kneel in front of the altar of science.

Dude, sometimes I think you are trolling, because the level of fail in your posts could only be achieved by deliberate attempt.

Do you really not understand the relationship between atheism and science? Science is about observable reality, and atheism, for the most part, is about a disbelief in entities that cannot be observed by anyone. The more science shows how things DO work, the less people turn to mythology to explain how things work.

Intrinsic to my position? Just for clarity, just what do you think my position is bennyboy?

Now, for what you have implied you are in North America/ Canada? Is this correct? And your country grows wheat? What else does it grow?

As far as I understand, here in Oz we have something like two growing seasons and yes wheat is a yearly crop here, along with many other grain crops (large scale). We are also only 22-23 million in population so most of our produce gets exported.

(February 15, 2014 at 9:17 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Intrinsic to my position? Just for clarity, just what do you think my position is bennyboy?

Your position is that meat production and consumption is okay or necessary. Intrinsic to this position are attitudes about the justification of suffering in others. All meat-eaters must necessarily accept that in order to sustain themselves, they must cause suffering and death in others. I assume, since you are a willing participant in the meat production/consumption cycle, that you accept whatever evils that process involves-- environmentally and health-wise as well as in terms of suffering-- even if you have not specifically stated so. Since in Australia, meat-production is also a big business, I'd also hazard a guess that you are willing to accept environmental corruption and animal suffering as part of the exchange of goods-- money for housing, electronic goods, etc. At this point, the word "necessity" starts to lose the ring of truth.

Quote:Now, for what you have implied you are in North America/ Canada? Is this correct? And your country grows wheat? What else does it grow?

As far as I understand, here in Oz we have something like two growing seasons and yes wheat is a yearly crop here, along with many other grain crops (large scale). We are also only 22-23 million in population so most of our produce gets exported.

I live in Korea, but I am Canadian. Canada is similarly situated to Australia, I believe: large countries with low populations and good farmlands, but quite a lot of non-arable land: tundra in Canada, and dry regions in Australia.

(February 15, 2014 at 1:14 pm)StoryBook Wrote: It was not copy and paste,I wrote it because I went to school for animal science and took animal nutrition classes. I'm also studying to be a vet tech and we have to learn about the digestive systems of animals.

Does it means that what they teach is 100% true?
If science would be 100% true then the teachers and the doctors wouldn't tell the people that meat is necessary to us humans and therefore the hospitals wouldn't be full of people with cardiovascular diseases so my suggestion to you is not to take what they teach you for granted except if you need to pass the tests.

Quote:We have hydrochloric acid, it isn't as much as carnivores but we do have a lot. You know why, because we are omnivores. Open a biology book you idiot.

Idiot.
Your personal opinion is 100% bankrupt.
If we would have enough hydrochloric acid like the creatures able to deal with meat then the saturated fats and cholesterol coming from meat eating would be dissolved instead of choking our arteries.
I only hope you never become a doctor like most of the doctors these days as we would have more and more people ending up in hospitals and then in the box.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:34 am)enrico Wrote: Does it means that what they teach is 100% true?
If science would be 100% true then the teachers and the doctors wouldn't tell the people that meat is necessary to us humans and therefore the hospitals wouldn't be full of people with cardiovascular diseases so my suggestion to you is not to take what they teach you for granted except if you need to pass the tests.

Unless you can prove that meat is the main contributor to cardiovascular diseases, shut the hell up about it.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:34 am)enrico Wrote: Idiot.
Your personal opinion is 100% bankrupt.

How? No seriously how? For once I would like you to explain one of your insults.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:34 am)enrico Wrote: If we would have enough hydrochloric acid like the creatures able to deal with meat then the saturated fats and cholesterol coming from meat eating would be dissolved instead of choking our arteries.
I only hope you never become a doctor like most of the doctors these days as we would have more and more people ending up in hospitals and then in the box.

Prove it. Prove what you just said. Oh wait, yet again, you can't. The sad thing is you haven't been able to link us to ONE peer reviewed article or even one scientist that agrees with you, and yet for some reason you still think you are right.

(February 15, 2014 at 8:51 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Science is about observable reality, and atheism, for the most part, is about a disbelief in entities that cannot be observed by anyone. The more science shows how things DO work, the less people turn to mythology to explain how things work.

You got it wrong boy.
1) Science is NOT about......observable reality.
Reality is something fix and never changing so it is impossible for physical science working in a universe always moving and changing to get hold of reality.
All physical science can do is to observe this ever changing universe and try to make a bit of sense of it.
To get hold of the real reality you got to use a different type of science but this is something in the future for people like you stuck in this physical reality.
2) Your idea that entities can not be observed by anyone is bankrupt.
How can physical science get hold of something which is not physical?

---

(February 16, 2014 at 8:40 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Prove it. Prove what you just said. Oh wait, yet again, you can't. The sad thing is you haven't been able to link us to ONE peer reviewed article or even one scientist that agrees with you, and yet for some reason you still think you are right.

Before i worry what other people say i take into account what i see with my own eyes in my work environment and i follow math as well.
When 99% of people with cardiovascular diseases are meat eater then a bell ring in my head.
And when i know that their arteries are choked with saturated fats and cholesterol then an other bell ring in my head.
And when i know that this shit can not come other then meat then one more bell ring in my head so why should i go looking for peer review when i already know the very cause of the problem?

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: Before i worry what other people say i take into account what i see with my own eyes in my work environment and i follow math as well.
When 99% of people with cardiovascular diseases are meat eater then a bell ring in my head.

Its like you can't even read. Twice now I have explained this to you. Shall we go for 3? OK. Vegetarians are much much much less common than meat eaters. Of course you are going to see more meat eaters with cardiovascular diseases, because there are more meat eaters, period. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? I also highly doubt that 99% of people you saw with cardiovascular problems were meat eaters. And didn't you work in a psych ward last time we asked? Apparently?

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: And when i know that their arteries are choked with saturated fats and cholesterol then an other bell ring in my head.

Yes, I'm sure you scraped their arteries and tested the samples yourself. No?

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: And when i know that this shit can not come other then meat

How do you know that? They could just eat a lot of chocolate.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: then one more bell ring in my head so why should i go looking for peer review when i already know the very cause of the problem?

No you don't know. You think you know, but you don't know. That is why peer review exists, to confirm, to add up the evidence, to evaluate the method and results. Have you ever considered any extraneous variables that could affect cardiovascular disease, such as: age, diet, % of body fat, ethnicity. I'm guessing you haven't. Correlation does not imply causation. You can't go making these grand conclusions from some (poorly collected, inaccurate) data

(February 15, 2014 at 10:44 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Can we kill pray with our canine?

No we cannot, I have already explained why but you seem to just phase out whenever evolution is involved. The reason we cannot kill prey with our canine teeth is because we didn't evolve to. As the lions main weapon was its jaws and teeth, ours was our opposable thumbs and hands.

Gee, i knew that you were stupid but at every turn you reach a new low.
Forget about God and concentrate only about mother nature.
She never ever put anyone in the position not to deal with the problem of life.
If we really need to kill and eat animals then we would be equipped with whatever it is needed.
The fact that we are not equipped with this it is a clear sign that we are not omnivore.
In the far past before omindis invented the tools to kill the prey how could they kill animals?
Do you really think that they could kill prey with their thumbs?
Get real boy.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Can we swallow pieces of meat without chewing like carnivore and omnivore?

Quote:Yes we can swallow meat without chewing it. It might be more difficult and we won't get as much nutrients out of it but it is possible. I don't know where you got the idea that omnivores and carnivores don't chew their food. Sure snakes swallow their prey whole and many toothed whales and dolphins only use their teeth to grip onto their prey. But carnivores such as lions have specialised molars designed to slice meat up into digestible portions. They chew their food.

One more new low boy that show how ignorant you are.
When we masticate we get alkaline saliva which help to predigest the food with his ptyalin content.
If we swallow without masticate then there is no predigestion and our digestive system would have to do extra work to digest the food and on the long run it would wear down with terrible consequences.
On the other end meat eaters do not have alkaline saliva as meat is NOT alkaline so they do not need to predigest meat in their mouth.
Just look at a cat when he eat meat.
He will swallow without chewing.
Open your eyes and learn boy.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Do we have the same hydrocloric acid like carnivore and omnivore?

Quote:So for you to believe that we are omnivores, we would have to have the exact same stomach acid as every other carnivore and omnivore. Well in that case, you will never believe we are omnivores because we don't have identical stomach acid. We are different species after all. Do you honestly expect a bear to have the same stomach acid as us? And what about between all the different species? Their stomach acid isn't identical, does that mean that they aren't carnivores or omnivores? Not that any of this matters as a difference in stomach acid doesn't prove anything. In fact, it doesn't even mean anything.

One more new low boy.
We are alkaline unlike meat eater.
Alkaline and acidic are two totally different things.
But i guess you wouldn't know the difference, isn't it boy?

(February 15, 2014 at 10:02 am)enrico Wrote: Do we salivate at the sight of raw meat?
No, no, no, no, no, no so get use to it.

Quote:Yes and no. Some people do and some people don't.

True, boy but you wouldn't know why do you?
Inuits do but as i just said few days ago they got use to (in this case by circumstances) so for them it is natural.
But natural is not as they can not really judge what is natural and what is not.
So when i say that we do not salivate i mean we human being as we are made physically-mentally.
Of course you can not expect that a junkie will say that drugs are bad or unnatural.

(February 16, 2014 at 9:45 am)enrico Wrote: Gee, i knew that you were stupid but at every turn you reach a new low.
Forget about God and concentrate only about mother nature.
She never ever put anyone in the position not to deal with the problem of life.
If we really need to kill and eat animals then we would be equipped with whatever it is needed.
The fact that we are not equipped with this it is a clear sign that we are not omnivore.

No it fucking isn't. Do some fucking research you ignorant cunt. It shows we are not top predators.

(February 16, 2014 at 9:45 am)enrico Wrote: In the far past before omindis invented the tools to kill the prey how could they kill animals?
Do you really think that they could kill prey with their thumbs?
Get real boy.

Are you fucking kidding me? Kill prey with their thumbs? You fucking idiot. You fucking arrogant, stupid, ignorant little man. Trolls don't act this fucking stupid. Go fuck yourself, you dishonest cunt.

(February 16, 2014 at 9:45 am)enrico Wrote: One more new low boy that show how ignorant you are.
When we masticate we get alkaline saliva which help to predigest the food with his ptyalin content.
If we swallow without masticate then there is no predigestion and our digestive system would have to do extra work to digest the food and on the long run it would wear down with terrible consequences.

I wasn't arguing that we don't chew our food or that we don't have to.

(February 16, 2014 at 9:45 am)enrico Wrote: On the other end meat eaters do not have alkaline saliva as meat is NOT alkaline so they do not need to predigest meat in their mouth.
Just look at a cat when he eat meat.
He will swallow without chewing.
Open your eyes and learn boy.

And your point is?

(February 16, 2014 at 9:45 am)enrico Wrote: One more new low boy.
We are alkaline unlike meat eater.
Alkaline and acidic are two totally different things.
But i guess you wouldn't know the difference, isn't it boy?

Fucking pathetic. You really are. You are both a liar and fucking ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric_acid

You will notice the part where it says PH 1-2.
You literally have no clue on what you talk about.

(February 16, 2014 at 9:45 am)enrico Wrote: True, boy but you wouldn't know why do you?
Inuits do but as i just said few days ago they got use to (in this case by circumstances) so for them it is natural.
But natural is not as they can not really judge what is natural and what is not.
So when i say that we do not salivate i mean we human being as we are made physically-mentally.
Of course you can not expect that a junkie will say that drugs are bad or unnatural.

Enrico, read these fucking words ok? Read them, and think about what they mean. Are you ready? OK:
You have no evidence for this hypothesis of yours. Stop bringing it up.

(February 16, 2014 at 9:37 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Vegetarians are much much much less common than meat eaters. Of course you are going to see more meat eaters with cardiovascular diseases, because there are more meat eaters, period. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? I also highly doubt that 99% of people you saw with cardiovascular problems were meat eaters.

The ratio (less then 10 compared to about 2000) is far far too much to make any mistakes.

Quote:And didn't you work in a psych ward last time we asked? Apparently?

1) In the last 24 years i worked in different units.
2) It is not only cardiovascular diseases that i saw but also dementia, Parkinson and Alzheimer and all these diseased ring a bell in my mind when i see that only NON veg. are affected.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: And when i know that their arteries are choked with saturated fats and cholesterol then an other bell ring in my head.

Quote:Yes, I'm sure you scraped their arteries and tested the samples yourself. No?

You don't need to study as much as a doctor to know that in most cases arteries are choked with these elements.
There are other cases in which arteries are choked but these cases are much more rare like when the cells in the blood are swollen or other.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: And when i know that this shit can not come other then meat

Quote:How do you know that? They could just eat a lot of chocolate.

I look after these people and i can see what they eat and what they don't eat.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: then one more bell ring in my head so why should i go looking for peer review when i already know the very cause of the problem?

Quote:No you don't know. You think you know, but you don't know. That is why peer review exists, to confirm, to add up the evidence, to evaluate the method and results. Have you ever considered any extraneous variables that could affect cardiovascular disease, such as: age, diet, % of body fat, ethnicity. I'm guessing you haven't. Correlation does not imply causation. You can't go making these grand conclusions from some (poorly collected, inaccurate) data

You would think that these people are all old people.
You would be surprised to find out that most of these people are in their 50 as average.