What's the one on bread with mustard on it? Literally looks like a stick of shit

No, its just a stick, or a dildo as its known in Ethiopia.

Since we meat again.

You're vegan and you feel the urge to tell everybody what a good person you are. You're anti-vegan and it's exactly the same. Give us some rest with these useless internet fights.

esr is made for ""discussion"" (aka fight and troll)

Well vegans do not cause the needless suffering and death of billions of sentient beings every year, that's probably why

Hey it's not our problem if Mother Nature made us that way

#bornthisway

Sure, I suppose we should go out and rape kill people since that's how mothernature made us.

#rapeandmurderyourfamilythisway

You mean to say you consider normal having the instincts of raping and murdering your relatives? Uhhhh, buddy, maybe you should speak to a psychologist before we hear about you on the news

As mammals we rape, murder/kill throughout all of history so it's normal, but you wouldn't consider it normal in a human-being nor would you condone it, but we've done it for millions of years

"As mammals we"? As mammals we fly and swim a mile underwater.... oh wait, only some mammals do that. Silly me, i was expecting third grade notions from someone so mentally ill to not eat what his body is supposed to eat

Our bodies were made to be herbivores, clogging arteries with dead flesh and dying proves this, now go away

Actually, science says otherwise. You can't "go away" facts

Carnivorouse animals have intestines which are made for meat and more so raw meat, they never develop atherosclerosis which is a disease that only herbivorous animals get, sound familiar?

Retard

Actually, humans are omnivores.

Cool story bro, show me your evidence for that

It's a well know fact. You show me where's the evidence for that myth you believe in.

By UT2004 NicholAs - Reply to #108
Carnivorouse animals have intestines which are made for meat and more so raw meat, they never develop atherosclerosis which is a disease that only herbivorous animals get, sound familiar?

Retard

So much evidence, much wow.

That actually is evidence you tard

You're right. It's evidence that you're clueless, dumb and not worth my time.

mad? Go die of heart disease and cancer with your meat

#govegann :D!!

First of all, humans weren't "made" for anything. They are the result of their evolution over the course of millions and millions of years, that's all.
Just search for "Diet of early humans" or something on reputable sources and you'll get your answers. Example :

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/libr...-103874273

I always thought humans were created as opposed to millions and millions of years of evolution, and placed on this planet randomly. We are the aliens.

edit: kinda feeling regret for starting this thread

This. Which does not mean though that we must eat meat as nowadays we can control our environment, grow everything we want or even produce it in a lab (vitamins etc).

But I think this whole discussion is almost religious anyway.

Wash it down with sunflower oil.

That taught me absolutely nothing, herbivorous animals can eat animal flesh, but much like what happens to us humans, we develop atherloscorosis which is plaque build up in our ateries which then leads to heart disease then death, carnivorous animals don't have this problem.

Also canines, lol, really?

http://freefromharm.org/photo-galleries/9-rea...eat-eater/

That entire article was mostly anecdotal.

#govegan

#nooil

Herbivorous animals have digestive systems much more complex and long than those of omnivores like humans or carnivores.

I used to feed meat to my pet mouse and she liked eating it

Yes, not a single insect is harmed when whole swaths of land have to be adapted for agricultural use.

Or do we not count the suffering and death of a creature that doesn't say "moo"?

Yes, plant agriculture isn't completely harmless either, insects and small animals can get killed, etc. No-one who isn't intellectually dishonest denies that.
But, veganism isn't about perfection, it's about reducing unnecessary harm.
Furthermore, it is so common for people to overlook the fact that animals need to be fed (a LOT of) plants, typically soy, corn. That is a huge part of why animal agro is so destructive.
Here are some interesting stats to look at: http://www.cowspiracy.com/infographic
It's a great documentary btw.

But, veganism isn't about perfection, it's about reducing unnecessary harm.

what about driving cars that increase global warming and destroy the north pole and hence causing unnecessary harm to polar bears?

whatever you do in life, there will always be another way to do it to reduce 'unnecessary harm'. that's not to justify going in the opposite direction and doing as much harm as possible btw, but i think the argument about reducing unnecessary harm is flimsy because nigh-on every little thing that humans do causes harm to an animal one way or another which could be reduced by inactivity but still being alive.

Yea, that's my point. You are causing some kind of damage simply by being alive, and you have to feed yourself too.
Like you said, it doesn't justify the opposite, that'd be appeal to futility fallacy.

I wouldn't say the arguments are flimsy, but the definition of veganism is not absolute, there's a lot of gray areas, and room for discussion. Like plants being alive / feeling pain(they don't have a central nervous system, though). Which is an argument ppl often use but forget what I've explained above - that meat production ultimately leads to much more plant life destroyed.

Sixty billion land animals killed each year, there's just no need for this. I choose not to contribute to it. I'm much healthier for it, I have a much smaller carbon footprint - which is great since we're fucking raping the environment - and I sleep better with a lighter conscience. Win all-around. People will do whatever they want anyways, I just share my experience.

Eating meat is causing over half of all greenhouse emissions, driving your car is just a small dent when compared to the meat and dairy industry

when compared to the meat and dairy industry

that's not relevant to the point i'm making, though. If the fundamental goal is to minimise unnecessary harm but still maintain human life, then as well as stop eating meat, vegans, to be consistent, should also preach that we stop driving cars, since we don't need cars to survive but they still contribute to animal harm.

the goal shouldn't be to minimise harm, but to reach an equilibrium level of harm which should be calculated using cost-benefit analysis.

>If the fundamental goal is to minimise unnecessary harm but still maintain human life, then as well as stop eating meat, vegans, to be consistent, should also preach that we stop driving cars, since we don't need cars to survive but they still contribute to animal harm.

We live in the 21st century, heck why not throw out our iphones as well?

It's not sustainable, especially considering where one lives and where one has to commute to.

>the goal shouldn't be to minimise harm, but to reach an equilibrium level of harm which should be calculated using cost-benefit analysis.

So the goal shouldn't be to kill sentient beings unnecessary, but we should just kill them because we can.

Okay

We live in the 21st century, heck why not throw out our iphones as well?

It's not sustainable, especially considering where one lives and where one has to commute to.

when push comes to shove, if the human race had to, it would outlaw cars and find sustainable alternatives to them.

and that's exactly the point i'm making, we live in the 21st century, so under your argument, if vegans were genuinely consistent, they would use public transport which would further reduce unnecessary harm.

whichever way you look at it, personal cars are nothing more than a convenience which contributes towards the detriment of a sentient animal.

So the goal shouldn't be to kill sentient beings unnecessary, but we should just kill them because we can.

Okay

that's not what i said and you know it's not. we should kill them because they provide benefit in the form of people enjoying meat despite alternatives available. that's not the same as killing them 'because we can'

>when push comes to shove, if the human race had to, it would outlaw cars and find sustainable alternatives to them.

Implies "When" we haven't reached that point yet have we? It's going to take a long time before a sustainable mass produced affordable alternative is created, electric cars still aren't there yet.

>and that's exactly the point i'm making, we live in the 21st century, so under your argument, if vegans were genuinely consistent, they would use public transport which would further reduce unnecessary harm.

There's a difference between stepping on a bug by accident by walking outside and choosing to slaughter and kill sentient beings for your pleasure, big difference.

>whichever way you look at it, personal cars are nothing more than a convenience which contributes towards the detriment of a sentient animal.

If you need to work, and the closest job you have is 60+ miles, it's not possible to walk/cycle there every single day.

>that's not what i said and you know it's not. we should kill them because they provide benefit in the form of people enjoying meat despite alternatives available

So we should kill sentient beings for enjoying how they taste. How about I just murder your family? Hell they might taste nice and it's for my benefit and enjoyment. I'll just kill your loved ones until alternatvies because available.

End of the day, there is absolutely no justification for killing and murdering billions of sentient beings every single year needlessly. You cannot refute me on that.

Implies "When" we haven't reached that point yet have we? It's going to take a long time before a sustainable mass produced affordable alternative is created, electric cars still aren't there yet.

but public transport is, and i don't see vegans preaching about how we should all switch to that to reduce unnecessary harm.

There's a difference between stepping on a bug by accident by walking outside and choosing to slaughter and kill sentient beings for your pleasure, big difference.

but you're not killing polar bears 'by accident' are you? you're using a car knowing that you are contributing to their detriment despite there being perfectly acceptable alternatives.

If you need to work, and the closest job you have is 60+ miles, it's not possible to walk/cycle there every single day.

but again, public transport is available which would reduce the carbon footprint and reduce 'unnecessary harm' to animals.

So we should kill sentient beings for enjoying how they taste. How about I just murder your family? Hell they might taste nice and it's for my benefit and enjoyment. I'll just kill your loved ones until alternatvies because available.

the big difference is that we place a vastly higher value on human life than we do on animals, so those are incomparable events. even human enjoyment is placed vastly higher than an animals life.

>but public transport is, and i don't see vegans preaching about how we should all switch to that to reduce unnecessary harm.

What if you live in a very rural setting and not in a town/city? What do you do then? Walk 30+ miles to work everyday?

>but you're not killing polar bears 'by accident' are you? you're using a car knowing that you are contributing to their detriment despite there being perfectly acceptable alternatives.

The meat and dairy industry contributes to over half the co2 emmissions alone, even if vegans were the only ones who used cars, they still wouldn't get anywhere close to what the meat and dairy industry contribute.

but again, public transport is available which would reduce the carbon footprint and reduce 'unnecessary harm' to animals.

Again I was talking about rural areas, not just towns nor cities.

the big difference is that we place a vastly higher value on human life than we do on animals, so those are incomparable events. even human enjoyment is placed vastly higher than an animals life.

Why do we prioritize species over another?

Why is a dog man's best friend, but a cow is somehow inferior? By your logic though, where does the value end? Is it not just humans, but also the value of a human's life? So for example, an autistic person should have less value than a non-autistic?

What if you live in a very rural setting and not in a town/city? What do you do then? Walk 30+ miles to work everyday?

unless you live in a cave, public transport is still accessible to those areas. furthermore, if they really were such rural areas, then they can live on subsistence and not have a job altogether assuming their mortgage was paid off (in fact, even if it wasn't, they could move to a rural area where house prices are often vastly lower and sell the produce for a profit and still live off subsistence). again, i don't see any vegans aspiring to do this.

The meat and dairy industry contributes to over half the co2 emmissions alone, even if vegans were the only ones who used cars, they still wouldn't get anywhere close to what the meat and dairy industry contribute.

you're still missing the point. just because it contributes a 'little' relative to meat and dairy production, it still means that use of cars is contributing to harm towards animals.

Why do we prioritize species over another?

Why is a dog man's best friend, but a cow is somehow inferior? By your logic though, where does the value end? Is it not just humans, but also the value of a human's life? So for example, an autistic person should have less value than a non-autistic?

i'll ask you this. if god came down tomorrow and asked you 'if you had to choose between killing all other humans except yourself and killing all cows (assuming there would be no effect on the food chain)' what are you actually going to choose? don't say 'kill all humans' to try and prove a point because that would be a stupid answer.

By your logic though, where does the value end? Is it not just humans, but also the value of a human's life? So for example, an autistic person should have less value than a non-autistic?

we live in a system, at least, the west does, where all human life is regarded as having the same value, and that value transcends that of all other animals that are not human. That's all there is to the value system.

>you're still missing the point. just because it contributes a 'little' relative to meat and dairy production, it still means that use of cars is contributing to harm towards animals.

There is a very big difference when you compare someone driving their car which has little to no impact in comparison to you consciously choosing to support the meat and dairy industry which makes you responsible for over half of global co2 emmissions.

>i'll ask you this. if god came down tomorrow and asked you 'if you had to choose between killing all other humans except yourself and killing all cows (assuming there would be no effect on the food chain)' what are you actually going to choose? don't say 'kill all humans' to try and prove a point because that would be a stupid answer.

Well first of all, God doesn't exist.

Secondly, I would think for myself and not kill anything that is sentient and feeling. It is barbaric, especially in the 21st century with all the scientific objective data that we have gathered which proves that animals do infact, feel, think and love just like human-beings do. I'm not a serial killer sorry.

>we live in a system, at least, the west does, where all human life is regarded as having the same value, and that value transcends that of all other animals that are not human. That's all there is to the value system.

Well that's bullshit, considering mere hundreds of years ago we considered black people less than human, when infact they were and are human.

You have absolutely no justification for slaughtering and killing sentient-beings for food whenever there are other sources which do not cause the suffering and death of sentient-beings.

There is a very big difference when you compare someone driving their car which has little to no impact in comparison to you consciously choosing to support the meat and dairy industry which makes you responsible for over half of global co2 emmissions.

the fact that you are consciously choosing to drive a car knowing that it causes harm to animals, despite alternatives available that would reduce unnecessary harm, shows that the principles behind the two are one and the same. it just causes less harm, but still causes unnecessary harm nonetheless.

Well first of all, God doesn't exist.

Secondly, I would think for myself and not kill anything that is sentient and feeling. It is barbaric, especially in the 21st century with all the scientific objective data that we have gathered which proves that animals do infact, feel, think and love just like human-beings do. I'm not a serial killer sorry.

you're obviously trying to evade the question. again, IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE i.e. if you didn't, everything including you would die, what would you choose?

Well that's bullshit, considering mere hundreds of years ago we considered black people less than human, when infact they were and are human.

all human life in the west does, at least in principle, have equal value. the 'lowest human of the low' is more valuable to humanity than any animal that is not human. it's called self-preservation of the species. again, if you HAD to choose, you would choose to save a human life over an animal life.

You have absolutely no justification for slaughtering and killing sentient-beings for food whenever there are other sources which do not cause the suffering and death of sentient-beings.

I have as much justification for it as you do for driving a car, or doing absolutely anything that incurs a detrimental cost on sentient animals that does not constitute eating, drinking, sleeping or living in shelter, all of which are possible (and practised by many) in the 21st century.

>the fact that you are consciously choosing to drive a car knowing that it causes harm to animals, despite alternatives available that would reduce unnecessary harm, shows that the principles behind the two are one and the same. it just causes less harm, but still causes unnecessary harm nonetheless.

Everything you do causes harm, walking down the street will cause harm, but it's not of your choosing. The majority of people need a vechile for their line of work, you however do NOT need to eat meat but you choose to do it, big difference. You are choosing to cause suffering and death I on the otherhand am not.

you're obviously trying to evade the question. again, IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE i.e. if you didn't, everything including you would die, what would you choose?

These what if's which will never happen, nice red herring.

You have NO justification for slaughtering and killing animals other than your own pleasure.

>
I have as much justification for it as you do for driving a car, or doing absolutely anything that incurs a detrimental cost on sentient animals that does not constitute eating, drinking, sleeping or living in shelter, all of which are possible (and practised by many) in the 21st century.

As I have made clear before, we live in the 21st century, to the majority of people, a vechile is a must to get to and from work. Same as using the internet.

You're just trying to justifiy as good as you can to continue causing suffering and death to living sentient-beings. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Everything you do causes harm, walking down the street will cause harm, but it's not of your choosing. The majority of people need a vechile for their line of work, you however do NOT need to eat meat but you choose to do it, big difference. You are choosing to cause suffering and death I on the otherhand am not.

Except it is of your choosing, since you know of an alternative to driving a car that would cause less unnecessary harm to sentient animals

no, you do NOT need a personal vehicle to SURVIVE. I don't have a car and I survive. plenty of people survive without one. By owning and using one, you are also CHOOSING to cause unnecessary suffering to animals as much as I am choosing to cause suffering and death to animals by eating them, at least in principle. You're just arguing about which one causes more damage, not the inherent principles behind them.

These what if's which will never happen, nice red herring.

You have NO justification for slaughtering and killing animals other than your own pleasure.

I was using these 'what if's to help reveal your underlying priorities with respect to animals and humans. you avoiding answering the question only proves the point that if you had to choose, you would have to concede and save a human.

As I have made clear before, we live in the 21st century, to the majority of people, a vechile is a must to get to and from work. Same as using the internet.

You're just trying to justifiy as good as you can to continue causing suffering and death to living sentient-beings. You don't have a leg to stand on.

and as I have made clear before, anyone can drop their line of work and live off subsistence. plenty of humans in the 21st century can do even more than not eat meat to reduce their unnecessary harm to animals but vegans just like to pick and choose when to do it and be all self righteous about it.

the point i'm trying to make is that reducing unnecessary harm to sentient animals is a stupid goal because everything causes unnecessary harm. the goal should be an equilibrium of unnecessary harm where the cost is met with benefits. You cannot, under any circumstance, place an animal life on par with that of a human.

I can see that you're just simply outright ignoring everything I've stated, God bless you

either you are contradicting yourself (by claiming the amount of unnecessairy harm is impossible to change, and afterwards demanding we change thea mount of unnecessairy harm to a level where it results in as much benefits as costs). or you are claiming the level of unnecessairy harm is impossible to change, but the costs and benefits of our (harm causing) actions might change. means you can vary actions and hence behavior consequences, but magically the results are always equally "unjust" (causing unnecessairy harm). stealing all married females clothes + raping them + killing their husbands = equally unnecessairy harmful than "only" stealing their clothes + going to sleep, and sleeping 2hours longer instead? think of your personal life. do you really belief that you could never have avoided some unnecessairy harm? either u are god, logically inconsistent, unreflected as fuck and/or a ignorant idiot.


[alternatively put: u are exactly making this "either go full retard or do nothing" point that u allegedly reject all the time. do you think improvement from any situation is impossible unless utopia is created instantly? . or do you think improvements are not desirable?


if u don't aggree with any of the statements implied by the questions above, ur only straw would be to claim that everything is in perfect nash use-cost equilibrium atm. do u rlly think this is the case? if we don't give the slightest shit about our environment (non-human-beings included), this is probably indeed true, cause atm the meat-consumption is pretty much determined by supply and demand - (flawed, cause wage rates are prolly not perfectly fair) exchange of (monetized vs productized) human work. u have to be a very big market believer to make this point though, and also believe in the inexistance of any motivational and opportunity-barrers that economical models need to work. and humans are nothing more than developed apes, of course i could put them on par with other animals If i wanted (in fact I am more empathic to other humans than to animals though, so I m not doing thatrigurosly).

dream on about determining a impossible-to-calculate equilibrium and go on not giving a fuck about other beings. ]

if u don't aggree with any of the statements implied by the questions above, ur only straw would be to claim that everything is in perfect nash use-cost equilibrium atm. do u rlly think this is the case? if we don't give the slightest shit about our environment (non-human-beings included), this is probably indeed true, cause atm the meat-consumption is pretty much determined by supply and demand - (flawed, cause wage rates are prolly not perfectly fair) exchange of (monetized vs productized) human work. u have to be a very big market believer to make this point though, and also believe in the inexistance of any motivational and opportunity-barrers that economical models need to work.

This is exactly my point (although yes, there are also lag-effects associated with food, agriculture etc), but even simple 'cobweb' supply and demand effects smooth out over time, at least in theory. I don't understand what the part in bold has to do with it though. the principle still stands that vegan hypocrisy exists because whatever opportunities or barriers exist, there is nothing stopping them doing what I suggested, ditching their way of life and living off subsistence, to be consistent.

and humans are nothing more than developed apes, of course i could put them on par with other animals If i wanted (in fact I am more empathic to other humans than to animals though, so I m not doing thatrigurosly).

You can if you stubbornly wanted to, but you would look like and expose yourself as an idiot doing it out of spite to make a point.

Most biologists think plants are sentient too you fuckin retard. Animals die far better deaths at the hands of humans than they would in the wild.

Most insects dont feel pain nor are particularly self aware/conscious/have enotions, due to their small nervous systems. Also im not sure what u want to feed them cows with!

Firstly, that's under dispute, which is why you'd be incorrect without the vagueness that terms like "most" or "particularly" afford you.

Secondly, I'm not against killing animals, so your implicit point about there being a dissonance between caring about insects and letting cows starve by caring about insects is misdirected when it's fired at me.

Thirdly, cows eat grass.

Lmfao

As an individual, it is inevitable that you will cause death to something else, although the keyword is unintentionally.

Choosing to not contribute to the suffering and death of billions of every animals each year is a choice you make.

Also I never mentioned anything about a cow.

Why is choosing to contribute to death and suffering of insects and rodents less ignoble than contributing to death and suffering of farm animals? You do realise that the former is a prerequisite for the maintenance of the current agricultural production?

Regardless of what we do, vegan or not we will cause harm to insects, whether that be simply by walking down the street or by using plane.

But you choose to go to the store and purchase dead animal that has been purposeivly tortured and murdered in confined spaces for economic demand, that's the real difference.

Breeding and slaughtering livestock is intentional, and you can choose whether you contribute to that industry or not.
Deaths from plant agriculture are accidental, not intentional, and while you could choose not to contribute to it either, you have to eat something.
That's the problem with your argument.

I replied to you above, did you not read it?
You continuously overlook the fact that livestock are fed plants, so if you support animal agro with your money, you contribute to ALL of those damages, indirectly, even though it's not a necessity.

It's simply not correct to say that both aren't intentional. Are you saying that when a meadow is transformed into arable land, the people involved in this process aren't aware that either the part of the fauna will be directly killed off or thanks to a change in flora it will die in the near future?

The killing is less direct but in no way is it unintentional.

I read your post but didn't reply because in the first sentence of it you agreed with my objection to Nicholas' initial post and said no intellectually honest vegan would disagree with it.

In the second sentence you gave an argument for why the cost of animal farming is higher than most people think it is. OK, but that on its own is meaningless unless you compare it to the "insects and rodents" cost of agriculture.

Maybe one is higher, maybe the other. I'm neither interested in nor capable of determining which is the case. What I objected to is Nicholas' mistaken argument which implied that there is no such cost related to agriculture.

So you compare insects to sentient beings with certainty because "it's disputed", don't know that u need more land to grow animals than grow crops (which is logically self evident, really), misinterpreted pretty much every single point was made. Solid effort on this thread gienek lol and well played being pedantic.

OK let me try to explain. You are splitting hairs with your example.
You have to focus on the main things here.
On one hand you have animals being bred and slaughtered when the time comes, that's as intentional as it gets.
On the other hand you have plant agro, where let's say insects die regularly during farming practices, and maybe small animals occasionally. Are they aware of that happening? Maybe, I don't know. That is still accidental, they do not intend to kill those animals - like slaughterhouses do - they intend to do their job which is to grow produce. It's accidental. That's the difference.

OK, but that on its own is meaningless unless you compare it to the "insects and rodents" cost of agriculture.

Of course I do compare them, that's the whole point, since they(both agricultures) are intertwined.

Maybe one is higher, maybe the other. I'm neither interested in nor capable of determining which is the case.

You can easily determine which one is higher, I even gave you a link to an infographic. But you don't need that, just common sense: a farm animal is fed over a long period of time - years - consuming large amounts of water and plant feed, and in the end only producing a certain amount of meat, which compared to the total plant feed required is infinitely less nutrients. It's insanely inefficient, the cost is at the very least a dozen times higher.
Now, more plant feed required means more deaths on the plant agro side.
This is what I've been trying to explain, that you are not actually choosing between the two, you are doing BOTH.
Your question would make more sense if animals didn't have to eat any plants, they'd just magically grow for instance. Then I would tell you that yes you can debate whether their lives are equal or matter the same, but eating meat is still not a biological requirement, just a habit - in other words, unnecessary harm, which veganism seeks to reduce, and that's exactly what it does.
You can debate the life value of different beings if you want I'm sure it's interesting, but simply inconsequential here.

And lastly, let me ask you a question, I'm just really curious:
if you were given a cucumber to slice and dice, and then given a hen to cut its throat, how would you feel about those two things and would there be a difference in what you felt? Try to answer honestly.

ugh, discussing this topic on esr is asking for major trouble haha...

Yeah, they do. Every acre of farm land cleared destroys an eco system.

We're meant to be hunters. No diet in human history has ever been vegetable only. I'm gonna laugh at the vegans who die a very early death given how fucking stupid and preachy they are.

i like steaks

Believe me, I understand steaks, it's my favorite food

I like *stakes

stake gun in reflex was a nice idea

also, i see your IP a lot, why not make an account?

'vegan gains' is a pretty funny vegan youtuber and makes videos about 'the worst in the fitness industry' which are quite entertaining.

apart from him though, veganism is cancer.

nothing compared to durianrider 2bh

Durian used to be funny and helpful but now he's just turned full on tumblr retard

If he wasn't mostly rambling about animals in his vids I would have guessed he's a hardcore quaker tbh.

Vegan gains is a twerp

It would be funny if people didn't actually believe his crap. But yea he looks pretty acceptable as a tranny.

i certainly one of the few subscribers who doesn't believe in his crap lol. i just watch because i like how he obnoxiously presents his views and digs at other people.

I've kinda got bored of chicken though, eating mostly pork and salmon these days.

I've been curious about grass fed beef.

I would eat you if I was allowed ;)

i only like one thing thats green

u feel me?

pot is my vegetable

I like it concentrated even more so.

My ex is a vegan for about 10 years, she told me that one day she realized how much she love animals and couldn't eat "corpses" no more. Now that's all nice, but she also told me how ridiculously low her cholesterol levels are and how low on protein her body is, she has defects in almost all organs and whenever I tried to suggest diet changes, or correlate her miserable health, depression, mental instability and many other things with her diet, her only reply was that "No, I eat fine, you don't what I eat. Vegans can eat very healthy." Like talking to a brick wall, but I understand she was already suffering from some form of encephalopathy, basically brain damage due to a lack of resources to sustain normal nerve functioning, cholesterol is necessary for normal brain functioning and you can optimally uphold normal reserves of it with only animal fat.

My mother has worked in the blood preparation and transfusion department for more than 20 years, she hasn't ever seen so much anemia's and general health problems since the popularization of meat free diets in our country.

People are fucking dumb. They start these diets and feel good, yes, there are many benefits of cutting down on these kind of heavy products... temporarily, for example, the digestive system is very thankful for it and it reflects on the well being of the person in some way, but depending on the individual the body is able to withstand this kind of diet for only so long, the problems start to exhibit when the body has used most of the reserves and it takes years. After such a long time many of them have a hard time contemplating, correlating their health problems with their diet, because it has worked so well for so long, how can it be wrong?

Well, she wasn't eating healthy then, I don't believe it has anything to do with not eating meat.

Overeating, too much sugar, industrial fats, those are the real problems in the modern diet.

Sounds more like total malnutrition.

He already said she's vegan

I lived with 2 vegans for a few years, and while careful on their diet, they had problems. One had spot on his eyes (which usually come at a old age) and the other had the stomach mouth always contracted, which apparently is seen in anorexic people who force themselves into not wanting to eat. They are both vegetarian now, and feel healthier.

Sorry but this is nothing more than weak personal anecdotes.
There are millions of vegans worldwide in amazing health.
If she had very specific health conditions / mental health problems / underate and/or didn't understand basic nutrition and plan meals properly, that's not veganism's fault.
It's pretty hard to fuck it up honestly, but I guess some can manage that if clueless, especially if undereating.

"and you can optimally uphold normal reserves of it with only animal fat."
Simply incorrect.
And, our liver produces all the cholesterol we need.


According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."
Here is the full scientific paper: http://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpr...-diet.ashx

Would you say that you have to go through additional efforts with a vegen diet to make sure you get all the nutrients you need?

No, not really. Having a basic understanding of nutrition is very helpful, but not a necessity. Eating from all the food groups throughout the week(fruits, veggies, legumes, grains, nuts and seeds) is a safe bet if you're not sure what you're doing.
You should know approximately your caloric needs, depending on what you're doing that day, and how much you're eating / how much you need to prepare. It quickly becomes routine.

For the vast majority, taking a B12 supplement will be all they need.
B12 is cheap, it will run you a few bucks a year. It's harmless and you can't overdose, you pee out any excess. If you don't get enough sunshine / during winter, you can take D3. That's also really cheap.
I eat ground flaxseed to be safe on omega3 conversion, that's once again piss cheap, and very delicious too.
So, no, for most ppl there won't be any additional efforts required.
There's also Cronometer which easily tracks all your nutrients. I never felt the need to use it though personally, and you have to take the daily requirement guidelines with a grain of salt. They're normalized values and usually very safe.

meat > legumes, grains

Legumes has sugars humans cant process, that pass undigested to the colon, and creats lots of bloat and gas.

Grains, oh grains, grains are fucking horrible for your health. Nobody ate grains till communities grew so big they had to start cultivating shit.

Its all in the balance. 100g max of animal protein per day is enough.

"Legumes has sugars humans cant process, that pass undigested to the colon, and creats lots of bloat and gas."
Evidence please?

I'm not to keen on starting a huge debate though. I could link you hundreds of scientific papers showing the adverse effects of animal proteins and cholesterol, but I won't.
Have you tried not eating meat? If you haven't, how do you know you wouldn't be even better off, replacing them with plant proteins?
Just a thought.

By the way, you have to realize that if you never eat legumes, you will have a different gut microbiome, so of course it takes a little time for you to adjust. This is why some ppl have initial digestive issues.

Quick link of the general topic

http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg...s-1a.shtml

"Humans may have indeed eaten these foods for "millennia," but millennia (even 10 millennia) in the overall timeframe of human existence represents 0.4%. Because the estimated amount of genetic change (0.005%) which has occurred in the human genome over this time period is negligible, the genetic makeup of modern man has remained essentially unchanged from that of pre-agricultural man [Eaton et al. 1985]. Consequently, the human genome is most ideally adapted to those foods which were available to pre-agricultural man, namely lean muscle meats, limited fatty organ meats, and wild fruits and vegetables--but, significantly, not grains, legumes, dairy products, or the very high-fat carcasses of modern domesticated animals."

Quick link about legumes

http://paleomagazine.com/paleo-why-legumes-are-bad

"Have you tried not eating meat? If you haven't, how do you know you wouldn't be even better off, replacing them with plant proteins?"

No i havent. When you eat 2kilos of fruits and an abundance of salads and cooked vegetables, you have more than enough antioxidants to repel the damage of 100g of animal protein.

You cant replace animal foods with vegetables. Its about balancing them in the correct proportion.

Those are some few anecdotes, yeah. The body is astounding in its ability to adapt, but for most it's only a matter of time till it starts to suffer from these diets. The additional vitamins and nutrition you need to intake like Iron, B12 and so on, often they do not get absorbed as well as they should, because it's not normal food, the human being is not meant to eat like that. It sounds all very nice on paper, but in practice the reality is different.

Liver needs resources to produce this cholesterol, we do not intake cholesterol and the natural nutrients that do not strain the liver of producing it are in sufficient amounts in animal fat. Most protein apart from meat doesn't assimilate in the body very well, there are more good reasons for a balanced diet than this vegan shit. What kind of diets are these if they have to monitor their liver health markers?

There is quite some thruth in his post though. Meat is a big source of b12 vitamins and people who abstain from meat generally have to get a b12 shot or supplement it with oils/pills in order to sustain healthy nerve function. Since the brain is the central of the nervous system you could say that a b12 deficiency is extremely hazardous to a persons well-being.

Also, having chronically low (good) cholesterol will negatively impact endocrinal functions such as sperm production, testosterone, estrogen etc. For having a healthy amount of cholestorol you also need to have a stable intake of saturated fats, which are found in animal fats. Ofcourse this is a slightly inferior problem than above noted since it's generally easier to get the required fats out of nuts and oils, but people jumping on the vegan bandwagon without having any knowledge of a balanced and healthy vegan diet are probably going to be sorry in the long run.

Also, keep in mind that for athletic reasons you need to have an x amount of proteines in each day. It's not too hard to hit these requirements as a vegan, but it requires tweaking and measuring since lots of plants and grains don't have the full amino-acid profile like meat does. Some reasearch and combining foods is mandatory to maximize recovery and performance.

Science on B12 is still quite unclear. It's supposed to be destroyed upon cooking, but I guess only partially. Yes studies show that vegans have higher rates of B12 deficiency, however it is not exclusive to vegans only.
Some ppl will have issue with absorption(due to past antibiotics, drugs screwing their gut), so they will have to skip the digestive system and take B12 injections, but this is very rare, and again not vegan exclusive.
Most people will be fine taking a very cheap B12 supplement, or eating fortified foods.
Your B12 stores will last you for about 3-5 years, developing symptoms can take several years. It is a real issue but it's easily avoided, there's a lot of B12 fear-mongering and exaggeration.

Now, as for meat being a source of B12, here is the thing.
B12 is synthesized by bacteria, from cobalt, hence the name cobalamin. So, the original source of B12 is nature, spring water, dirt. This isn't realistic anymore due to modern farming practices and way of living.
Animals get theirs the same way, except in many cases they don't. Livestock are often supplemented with B12, which is essentially what you get when eating them.
We also make B12 in our intestines, but it's not absorbed, because it's not meant to be. It's meant for fertilization.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking a cheap cyanocobalamin supplement.

"Also, having chronically low (good) cholesterol will negatively impact endocrinal functions such as sperm production, testosterone, estrogen etc."
Source please?
Never heard of this, sounds like malnutrition-induced hormonal problems, probably due to undereating / too low fat intake. Not really a fault of a plant-based diet.

Plants have saturated fats too, FYI. They just have no cholesterol.
Like I said, never heard of any cholesterol issues on a plant-based diet.

As for amino acids:
Yes I'm aware, I do bodyweight training and running. I've researched protein requirement quite a bit, there are many nitrogen balance studies done with bodybuilders.
And you're right, it's really not hard to hit, legumes and whole grains have a ton of protein.
Plants not having a complete protein profile is a myth that's still being perpetuated apparently. They are in fact complete proteins, and you can verify this yourself by searching for a food item in the USDA nutritional database and then you can look at the detailed breakdown of amino acids, and everything else. Food combining is not needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid_hormone

"The natural steroid hormones are generally synthesized from cholesterol in the gonads and adrenal glands. These forms of hormones are lipids. They can pass through the cell membrane as they are fat-soluble,[5] and then bind to steroid hormone receptors (which may be nuclear or cytosolic depending on the steroid hormone) to bring about changes within the cell. Steroid hormones are generally carried in the blood, bound to specific carrier proteins such as sex hormone-binding globulin or corticosteroid-binding globulin. Further conversions and catabolism occurs in the liver, in other "peripheral" tissues, and in the target tissues."

First hit after I googled explains the pathway and/or metabolisation of steroids from cholesterol:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/957b/61546c2...c8e0a6.pdf

Before you reply back to me I want to say that I am not against a vegan lifestyle or vegans in general. I'm just saying that a lot of people that are jumping on the vegan bandwagon are clueless about what a good, healthy and balanced diet consists of, and because of this end up getting ill or weak because their diets lack essential fats and even not so, they consume too few to hit their daily demand. The latter is also caused by the anti-fat mafia that originated from the 80's causing people to avoid (healthy) fats altogether.

You can atleast admit that the above requires common sense, research and time to dial in a well thought out vegan diet that doesn't let you go to shits.

On the other hand I believe this vegan hype is just another fad, in my opinion, to emasculate the male population. Just look at how society is becoming. I'm not saying veganism is the cause of the problem. But nowadays we have so much weird shit going on (feminism, liberalism, rise in homosexuality, men actually losing their rights etc) that I started to 2nd guess anything that's becoming hip, popular or a hype.

Great reply though, I can see you did your research.

>On the other hand I believe this vegan hype is just another fad,

not causing the suffering and death of animals isn't a fad, much like not locking jews up and killing them isn't a fad.

>to emasculate the male population

How is choosing not to eat meat emasculating men? If anything vegan men have higher free-testosterone than their meat eating brethren because of lower cholesterol levels.

>Just look at how society is becoming. I'm not saying veganism is the cause of the problem

This has absolutely nothing to do with veganism, you are talking out of your ass.

>But nowadays we have so much weird shit going on (feminism, liberalism, rise in homosexuality, men actually losing their rights etc)

Feminism is the pretty much the main one, everything else is far below.

Animal products are proven to cause cancer and heart disease yet you claim vegan diets aren't healthy.

u wot mate

Before you reply back to me I want to say that I am not against a vegan lifestyle or vegans in general.

That's okay, I'm just here to share my experience, give information, and hopefully make ppl think a little bit.

I agree that this path generally takes a different mindset than your average person sleepwalking thru life, but still, from my experience most ppl do succeed rather than fail.
It's never been easier. Literally hundreds of vegan channels on youtube, full of information. Somebody totally clueless could spend 1hr watching basic guides and What I Ate videos, and have a good general idea already.

I started off as very low fat macros too, nowadays I'm eating higher protein and fat. Long-term effects of this is also quite unclear.
There are very low fat raw vegans who do great long term, and for some it just doesn't work, they feel shit(despite of healing illnesses on a raw diet, then going back to cooked/high fat/whatever since some of them prefer that normally).

On the other hand I believe this vegan hype is just another fad, in my opinion, to emasculate the male population.

Oh, it's definitely not a fad, it's already been proven to work great long-term, scientifically and otherwise. Anyway the diet is just plant-based, veganism itself is more of an ideology / lifestyle.

As for emasculation, that's an entirely different discussion I'm not sure I wanna get into. But uhm, there are some related things considered to be masculine or manly, which really aren't that masculine if you think about it.
Let's see for example hunting, you have a gun and all kinds of tools, all the advantage, it's not even fair lol. I don't see anything manly about it, quite cowardly rather.
Or let's say, walking into a supermarket and picking up some meat, paying for it, which ultimately supports the farms. There's a reason for the saying "kill your meat, if you want to eat it". How many would eat meat then? Paying for someone else to do your dirty work isn't masculine tbh.
Going against societal norms which invites all kinds of adversities also takes confidence and strong personality, females admittedly find that and compassion quite sexy. Just to have a counter-example. Could probably think of so many more things but you get the point.
Check out George Carlin's The Male Disease on youtube, it's a great short piece.

Um no, considering meat causes cancer and heart disease you're talking complete horseshit.

A well planned vegan diet allows one to thrive, not get sick/and or suffer any issues. That girl obviously wasn't a) eating enough calories, which is very common after transitioning to a vegan diet as you have to eat a lot more food than when you ate meat or b) she was lacking vitamin b12 which you can easily get from either a) supplementation over the counter or b) from fortified foods like almond milk or breakfast cereals.

It is scientifically proven that meat causes cancer and heart disease whilst whole plant foods do not.

Stop talking horse shit about things you do not understand

Genetic predisposition causes cancer, body forms cancer cells out of mistake for the simple minded. Diet is considered among risk factors to develop certain diseases, but food does not cause anything on its own.

I study medicine and know a great deal about these things. I see people who have gathered numerous facts, but absolutely fail to interpret them. Maybe you can also tell me more about my ex than I can tell you?

>Genetic predisposition causes cancer

Agreed, but there are other factors which cause cancer, not just genetics.

>Diet is considered among risk factors to develop certain diseases, but food does not cause anything on its own.

Sorry, what was that? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34615621

>
I study medicine and know a great deal about these things. I see people who have gathered numerous facts, but absolutely fail to interpret them. Maybe you can also tell me more about my ex than I can tell you?

That makes no sense asshat, this is proven, whilst I know nothing about your ex.

BBC news, fucking moron.

It took you 20 days to come back with an ad-hominem.

*slow clap*

Way to refute me jackass.

Meat is murder

Coming from a guy whose country is probably going to ban peeing standing due to it offending some feminist.

murder is letting all those muzzies in, sweden has no more balls

no more meatballs in sweden?!

Grass fed meat is amazing. Key is balance, no more than 100g per day animal protein, only at lunch (mid day).

I start the day with up to 1k of fruit, midday, animal protein and some vegetables. 5 o'clock fruit, dinner salads (green leafy a must) and cooked vegetables (potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc). Some pumpking seeds (amazing source of organic zinc and magnesium). Some nuts (not every day). Thats all your body really needs and likes.

Lugol solution for iodine (more energy, better immune system, better heavy metals chelation, thyroid protection vs radiation)

Magnesium chloride + sodium borate (glands decalcification, which means more hormones, magnesium is low on nearly everybody due to the broken balance of eating too much calcium, boron is key for testosterone and prostate health)

Could go on but thats a start.

I recommend the book "The mucusless diet" from the 1920s for a start. He was murdered one week after publishing it by the pharmaceutical mafia. Nutrition is one of the most important aspects of this times where you need an open mind and read books from when the system wasnt as rigged as its today.

If, according to you, the system is as rigged as you say it is, I hope comment #40 is a troll. Else you really need to re-think what caused the mass immigration, and remind yourself those 'muzzies' are people like you and I deserving a life worth living.

You dont get it.

They deserve a life worth living yes, they must make adjustments and fix their countries. Not go to nice countries to whine and try to create the same system that made them flee in the first place. Thats the great problem of those muzzies, their invadres, no immigrants. Immigration is about blending with the country you are receiving help off, not fucking it up.

that's the dumbest thing i read in 2017 yet

Why is it gstructor that you have to limit eating animal foods for health yet I do not ever have to limit whole plant foods?

Because protein digestion byproducts are nasty. Thats why carnivores have a short intestine and stronger stomach acid. BUT you need some nutrients from animals, exactly like hominids, our closest relatives, eat insects. In fact insects are a higher quality source of protein for humans too, but due to social taboo its considered weird in most parts of the world.

About amount, well, all that crap about overloading yourself to get muscle for example is just that, crap. They end with damaged liver and kidneys, bone demineralization, soft tissue calcification, premature gray hair, etc. Your body recicles some of the aminoacids in your body, fruits vegetables also have some protein in them. Animal protein isnt only about aminoacids but key vitamins, like the infamous b12, but there are much more. B vitamins are still being discovered, its the most complex vitamin group. But in total, the amount of protein your body uses per day is more than covered with 100g, only at mid day, when the gastric juices are more potent, and the digestion takes place quicker.

There is not a single nutrient found in animal foods that can't be found in plant foods, not one.

If there is one, name it for me.

Also b12 is actually found in soil, but because of intense farming it isn't found in soil anymore because of the poor quality, that's why livestock are fed supplemental b12 and that's why vegans need to take supplements for b12.

There are nutrients that hasnt even been discovered yet, did you read my post?. B12 is easy cause its known for a long time. Keep eating only plants if you enjoy it, each to his own. Maybe you end devolving into an ape, cause you know, eating some protein was key for out development as species. Also, i dont eat soil, i prefer a nice grass fed steak for my b12.

Also b12 can be in the soil, but it doesnt gets picked up by plants, even if its there. You need to actually eat some soil, like in unwashed fruits. I still prefer a steak anyway than eating fruits with soil.

>There are nutrients that hasnt even been discovered yet

Such as? Also if that is even true, why does that only apply to animals?

>Keep eating only plants if you enjoy it, each to his own. Maybe you end devolving into an ape, cause you know, eating some protein was key for out development as species

Actually, cooking our food was key to the development of our species, not meat itself.

>Also, i dont eat soil, i prefer a nice grass fed steak for my b12.

I wasn't implying that you have to eat soil to get b12, I was referancing that b12 infact comes from soil and not animals which is what you claimed which is false.

>Also b12 can be in the soil, but it doesnt gets picked up by plants, even if its there.

Plant supplements containing b12 say otherwise.

>even if its there. You need to actually eat some soil, like in unwashed fruits.

Has nothing to do with what im talking about

>I still prefer a steak anyway than eating fruits with soil.

Enjoy your artery clogging cancer causing meal

> Enjoy your artery clogging cancer causing meal

Even water can kill you if you drink too much, so according to your logic, no more water?

Problem with meat can be

- If its intensive (no grass fed and no excersive) which yes, raises the bad colesterol and has no omega 3 fatty acids, etc.

- If you eat too much, even if its grass fed and raised in the wild.

NOTE: Milk and cheese are way worse than meat.

If you dont eat any animal protein, you will eat too much vegetables, which unless its really organic, has bad stuff too, which when you eat huge amounts... Cancer...

Soy is cancer causing, damages the intestine wall, is estrogenic, etc.

Its all about balance.

>Even water can kill you if you drink too much, so according to your logic, no more water?

You would have to drink so much water it's almost not possible to drown yourself, I should know I drink about a gallon or so of water per-day. Water is alkaline by nature and doesn't cause disease or inflammation unlike meat.

>- If its intensive (no grass fed and no excersive) which yes, raises the bad colesterol and has no omega 3 fatty acids, etc.

Even "Grass fed beef" contains saturated fat and cholesterol, are you dense?

>- If you eat too much, even if its grass fed and raised in the wild.

Like I've said in a previous discussion, how come I can eat all the fruits and vegetables I want yet you have to limit eating animal products because of saturated fat and cholesterol?

>If you dont eat any animal protein, you will eat too much vegetables, which unless its really organic, has bad stuff too, which when you eat huge amounts... Cancer...

Where's your evidence for this baseless claim? Like what pesticides? Sorry but pesticides even in large amounts don't cause cancer, red and processed meat however do.

>Soy is cancer causing, damages the intestine wall, is estrogenic, etc.

Again where's your evidence that soy causes cancer? Also it's funny that you claim that it's "Estrogenic" whenever soy actively lowers cholesterol and actually stablislizes testosterone production.

>
Its all about balance.

I agree, self-harm every once in a while is a good balance, not.

> Again where's your evidence that soy causes cancer?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wi...to-cancer/

You say im dense while you reply every line?

Another example, Cholesterol is healthy, and needed for example in ample amount in the brain, maybe eating too little cholesterol has already damaged yours?

Yes brain is made up of mostly cholesterol and the cells body is made of it too. Hilarious.

That isn't soy you retard

Gliphosphate is used in the soy you consume, if you cant even make that link i think its clear who the tard in this exchange is.

And what has that got to do with soy itself?

Doesn't that mean gliphosphate causes cancer, not soy you retard

It has all to do, nutritional newbie. When you eat soy, you also eat gliphosphate, got it already or you need a slower explanation?

Never heard of anyone dying of soy, it's also not proven to contain cancer causing agents according to WHO.

Meat however does, especially red and processed

Also as I said before, soy itself does not cause cancer, it's the agent that's put into it that does.

R E T A R D E D D U M B F U C K

Ok i give up, keep eating soy and become a cancerous fag.

Calm down spaz, we can all be friends

So would you advice 100g of protein or 100g piece of meat?

100g of protein from meat would mean I would have to eat over 400g of chicken breast (23g/100g).

a piece of 100g

I recently shot and killed a boar and the pasta al sugo with it was fuckin amazing

sounds delicious

Pasta al sugo ftw

Cool story boar!

It boarderline was best moment ever

hunting with a gun is such cowardice. how about get some skills and go hunting with a bow and knife, you sorry weakling?

Lol get real, them animals run fast how tf r u supposed to hit them with an arrow? It would be like trying to kill rapha with nades

Hunt wild boar with a spear. That's how warriors do.

Fuck spears, that's unfair as fuck. One on one, bare handed is where it's at.

:o

I mean if you want to skip the peas and go straight for the cucumber that's fine bro it's 2k17

i like to eat meat

sausage best

nothing can beat that polish sausage

http://www.esreality.com/index.php?a=post&id=771906

dizzle jr wants to be a vegan

my son is a fag im certain =[

A wise man once said, "if you care about the animals, why are you eating their food?"

Love that argument "Animals eat other animals so it's okay for humans to do the same" Yeah animals lack moral agency and their brains aren't big enough to comprehend the harm they are doing.

Also since when was the last time we as humans needed to eat meat to survive? We go to the supermarket to buy prepackaged meat without having to actually kill it.

Amen.

new docu I just watched. was great, very high production quality too.
imdb
torrent

i wish this documentary covered in more detail the relationship and lobbying between big pharma and the food industry.

you can extrapolate this relationship to every single federal & government agency and its respective corporate affiliation that is pulling the strings on this planet - that's when it really dawns on you and you immerse yourself in the 'conspiracy' world without realizing it

these guys do not make money off cures, but diseases. they do not treat the diseases, but the symptoms. why make millions curing something when you can make trillions treating it? human well-being is the last thing they care about.

follow the money people, not just 'scientific' studies, facts of which are as easily fabricated as lying in front of a camera nowadays. peer-reviewed my ass. 21st century academia and science is a dogma no different than funded religion.

uh, that wasn't the goal of the film, but it's covered plenty, more than enough to make a strong point.

yes you can extrapolate it to other areas, nothing is exempt from corruption of the monetary/market system.

21st century academia and science is a dogma no different than funded religion.

no, that's a ridiculous exaggeration. religion is useless, not even comparable. it's just that, like I said, nothing is exempt from corruption, so, occasionally studies could be manipulated.

Just like most health awareness documentaries of this type out there, it doesn't cover shit when it comes to (much needed) simple philosophies and the flow of money. It addresses the nuts and bolts of the LONG-known health implications while "ignoring" the deeply rooted big picture.

I’m perfectly aware that corruption and the monetary system are not the focus of the film. I simply stated that if you want the crux of the matter you gotta follow the money to the point where you can no longer trace it (which said documentary hardly did). Otherwise all you can hope to achieve is an endless passive-aggressive arguing over less important (important nonetheless) subsequent details, the likes of which you may notice in this thread - division and diluted confusion. People are prone to arguing over the effect rather than the root cause itself or they just scratch the surface and think they have it all figured out.

All the documentary says is that the same alphabet agencies that set forth the health standards are funded by the very same corporations that have their carcinogenic and diabetic commodities promoted – it’s literally a century-old information portrayed in countless films and sources over the years. Very few however address how deep the rabbit hole really goes and that's where you enter the realm of outlandish "conspiracy theories" where ridicule and denial to even consider are rampant. Much like the proposed link between cigarettes and lung cancer in the 19th century – you’d be treated like garbage for “conspiring against the public” for speaking the truth. Nothing has changed.

As to my religious analogy, you missed the point completely. When you realize how much money is poured into smearing, ridiculing, suppressing and discrediting campaigns when it comes to alternative energy resources, eastern medicine, food and water, you’ll probably want to revise your definition of “occasionally”. Until then, “no” and “ridiculous exaggeration” is all you’re good for and this discussion is pretty pointless.

peace

that's all "I'm good for" ? lol. so, I disagree on one thing, and suddenly you assume this condescending attitude? why?

and it was never really meant to be a discussion anyway, there's not much to discuss, not really.
I simply wanted to share this documentary that just got released, anybody who gives a shit about their health and wanna learn some valuable info in an hour and a half can go and watch it.

and yea of course that wasn't the point of this movie. if you want to see the big picture, there are other docus for that.

century-old information? ugh, another ridiculous exaggeration.
how could it be that, when the world has changed so much even the last few decades? in terms of animal agro, foods we produce and eat, and disease rates.
besides, from my interaction with ppl, they clearly are NOT aware of these things, oh dear, not even remotely. it is neither old nor well-known.

how could I miss the point, when you literally said that 21st century science is no different than religion? or maybe you should
express yourself more precisely.

OF COURSE there is a lot of money and effort put into corrupting and manipulating science, for personal gain, but science still remains one of the purest things today, considering the system we live in.
take for example, an enormous meta-analysis of thousands of climate change-related studies and data, that conclude it being real and affected by the actions of humans. you can try as hard as you want to spread a propaganda of climate change being a hoax(hello ExxonMobil), and it's going to have SOME form of impact, but you are NEVER going to change the conclusion of that meta-analysis, because it is way past that point. and THAT is science.
religion on the other hand, has literally zero use in today's world. but I'm not even going there, that could be a separate essay... the two can't be compared nonetheless.