I’m with JJ on this one. Presentation is so important. I’ve considered voicing over my own videos but I think I’ll use a voice changer to lend my voice some more age and gravitas if I do it. Anyone on these forums have a good radio voice and would consider doing a voice over for anti-state and AE-oriented videos?
Clayton -
Graham Wright’s voice is perfect.
Thanks John James.
Clayton, I’d be happy to help. PM me.
Decided to move it here.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7
Note that they call it a rant three times, when it’s actually accurate and reasoned. And exactly what AE predicts.
The speaker is Steve Wynn, the CEO of casino company Wynn Resorts.
The whole thing is priceless; here’s a bit:
And I’m saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime… my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration
…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, God, don’t be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama’s deal and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America.
… the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.
Apparently there’s a “Hollywood right”…
It seems the only people telling the truth these days to anything like a major audience are a small contingent of incorrigible comedians. Bill Hicks and George Carlin are RIP… let’s hope there is a new wave of modern prophets out there willing to speak the truth.
Clayton -
Sweet clip Daniel.
What do you mean ‘these days’? 
The jester is the only one who gets to tell the truth without being thrown out of the royal court.
Not sure how many people are interested in this, but it’s a speech by Gary Yourofsky on veganism, and after watching it I’ve considered making the switch from vegetarianism to veganism. There are parts where it gets preachy, but he has a lot of information to offer.
If not interested in watching the video (at which two videos are shown that shows animal torture in factory farms, the second video near the end has the sound of the animals moaning while the workers kick, punch, and stab the cows), he has a site that has information on veganism with some things I did not know about (and will research further). A bit of information:
Let’s compare the bodies of humans and herbivores to the bodies of carnivores and omnivores. First, the length of intestine in humans and other herbivores falls somewhere between 7 and 13 times the length of the trunk/torso section of the body. In contrast, the length of intestine in carnivores and omnivores is only 3 to 6 times the length of the trunk/torso. (The length of trunk or torso is used as the means of comparison rather than overall body length or height because humans are bipedal animals whereas most nonhuman animals are quadrupeds.) Moreover, the interior surface of human intestines is rather heavily fluted and striated, whereas the interior intestinal surfaces of carnivorous and omnivorous animals tend to be smooth in comparison. The relatively short intestinal length in carnivores and omnivores, along with the relatively smooth interior surface, allow rotting animal flesh, animal protein, cholesterol and saturated fat to pass through quickly; that is why it’s impossible for any real carnivore or omnivore to get clogged arteries. Clogged arteries, however, kills 50 percent of all meat-eating humans!
[…]
Humans and other herbivores have carbohydrate digestive enzymes in their saliva, meaning our bodies were created for fruits and vegetables. Animal products have no complex carbohydrates, which is why carnivores and omnivores lack carbohydrate digestive enzymes in their saliva. Human teeth are broad, short, blunt, flat and spade-shaped like the teeth of other herbivores, not the fanged-mouths of carnivores and omnivores. Herbivores have canines, incisors and molars, which are used for ripping rough fruits like apples and carrots, or nuts.
If your lower jaw moves from side to side—and you grind and chew your food—then you are an herbivore. The jaws of carnivores and omnivores only move up and down, vertically. They don’t chew, just rip and swallow. Humans sweat through their pores to cool down. They don’t pant like dogs, cats or lions. There are no claws on the human hand, although claws are a trademark of the carnivore and the omnivore.
[…]
Moreover, mother cows make milk for THEIR babies and for THEIR babies alone. That case is closed forever. No debate. No discussion. The jury is in. They don’t make milk for baby humans, adolescents humans or adult humans. The human body has absolutely no need for cow milk, just as it has absolutely no need for dog milk, giraffe milk, zebra milk, camel milk, goat milk or rhinoceros milk. This is why dairy is responsible for most allergies, asthma, Crohn’s disease, childhood ear infections, acne, and breast, ovarian, colon, prostate and pancreatic cancers.
Cows, like every other female mammal, only produce milk during and after pregnancy. Cows, therefore, are artificially impregnated (raped) once a year to keep the milk-flow going. Within moments after giving birth, babies are stolen from their mothers. From a business standpoint, the dairy industry has to steal babies because it can’t have calves sucking up all that milk that was meant for them when they would rather sell it to humans instead. Every time humans have a glass of cow milk, some calf is not!
[…]
If you think milk builds strong bones, why do Americans—the largest consumer of dairy products worldwide—have astounding rates of osteoporosis and bone fractures (and cancers)?
More than ten years ago, the Harvard University Nurses’ Health Study, with over 120,000 subjects, found that the consumption of milk and other dairy products does not protect against the bone fractures of osteoporosis (the bone-thinning disease that the dairy industry wants you to believe is related to too little milk in your diet). In fact, those in the study who drank three or more servings of milk a day actually had a slightly higher rate of fractures than women who drank little or no milk (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87 (1997), pp. 992-997).
In Western societies, we’re told that calcium is the answer to preventing bone loss. However, it’s not a lack of calcium that causes osteoporosis. Excessive intake of animal-based protein (which is always acidic) and a lack of exercise, magnesium and vitamin D cause osteoporosis. The Lancet, The U.S. Department of Health, and Harvard University call the link between meat and dairy based diets and osteoporosis “INESCAPABLE”. Tobacco, salt and caffeine contribute to bone loss as well.
Animal protein contributes to the acceleration of osteoporosis because keeping blood at a neutral Ph balance always takes priority over keeping calcium in the bones. Bones can hold out for years with insufficient calcium, but blood cannot. When blood becomes acidic with animal protein, the result can be fatal. So the body withdraws calcium phosphate from the bones and uses the alkaline mineral phosphate to keep the blood’s Ph level balanced. The calcium is then excreted through our urine. Animal products are the only sources of acidic protein. Plant protein is not acidic. People who consume the least amount of animal protein, always have the lowest rates of osteoporosis and bone fractures (and cancers) because of their non-acidic protein diets.
Sorry to take up space on this nonsense, but it is the low content thread, so I’m going to refute some of this vegan hippy crap.
A human’s small intestine is approximately 6.5 times the length of the body. A wolf’s or dog’s small intestine is approximately 6 times the length of its body. Is this a magical 0.5, or are wolves also supposed to be vegans?
If humans are supposed to be herbivores, then why don’t we have an enlarged caecum to help us dissolve cellulose, which you would need to digest the vast majority of high-fibre plants that haven’t (for the most part) been especially farmed and bred to be easy on an omnivore’s digestive tract? We have an appendix instead. A useless remnant of natural selection liable to pop on you eventually, and saturate your gut in lethal toxins.
If large mammalian carnivores have a small intestine averaging shorter than the human one, and large mammalian herbivores have one averaging longer, then I’d say we probably fall in the middle - we are omnivores.
“Clogged arteries” is caused by hyperlipidemia - too much fat in the blood. Primary cause? Genetics. Secondary (acquired) cause? Acquired diabetes, and to a lesser extent the abuse of certain drugs like alcohol or eostrogen. What causes acquired diabetes, i.e. the insulin regulation system breakdown? Is insulin shock instigated by spikes in blood sugar, or blood lipid levels? Does eating too much glucose, rather than meat, perhaps have something to do with the acquisition of secondary hyperlipidemia?
Our bodies were not created. They were naturally selected. Does veganism necessitate a certain kind of religious belief? That would explain a lot.
Humans were naturally selected from animals which ate meat.
So omnivores can’t eat plants?
Anyone have trouble chewing their steak? Did you know that in about a quarter of female horses today, the canine teeth do not even emerge, and in the rest of all horses they are tiny and vestigial? For them - now herbivores - canines are an evolutionary remnant, like the appendix/caecum is for us.
This is just cherry-picking. What about binocular vision? Maybe it was naturally selected for leaping through the trees, I don’t know, but it works damned well for what predators our size use it for too. The fact is that we can’t leap through the trees any more, unless you’re an exceptionally lithe acrobat in his prime, but we can still prey on other animals. Which was naturally selected in the end?
Again… So omnivores can’t eat plants?
We are perfectly capable of chewing certain very soft and plump vegetables, just like we are perfectly capable of chewing the meat that we eat. Our incisors and cananines and molars are nicely balanced to allow for the omnivorous diet we enjoy today.
The peach tree doesn’t produce peaches for humans either. By cultivating fruit, you are raping the peach tree. The peach fruit is its fertilised ovum, you know. For shame. We should really be cannibals, because human flesh - prion issues aside - is by far the closest thing to what your body needs in terms of nutrition.
I have heard that people who are lactose intolerant react better to whole or raw milk which isn’t pasteurised. Dunno how true that is, but we’d better be able to know if the government didn’t regulate and enforce pasteurisation and treat whole milk as if it were plutonium.
Yeah, my heart bleeds for the cow that might just gore me to death without incurring any responsibility, because’s it’s just a dumb animal. Of course that cow and that calf wouldn’t exist if humans didn’t have such a need for them. I suppose you’d rather they were just left to get torn to shreds by wild dogs, because you’re not talking about animals that were naturally selected to exist - they exist because they were bred by humans to serve a purpose. I don’t want to be cruel to animals. I don’t think it’s necessary.
I do think that if there’s any argument to be made for veganism, or at least vegetarianism, it is a moral one and not a utilitarian one. I mean, I’m still not convinced, but I do think (some) animals are cute, and it might be possible for a vegan to develop this point… Rather than make up stories about how the human body works which are simply not true.
You also need vitamin D and certain minerals to prevent osteoporosis. Also, the dairy they consume is pasteurised crap with little calcium left in it.
Maybe that’s because the skimmed, pasteurized goo that passes for milk these days has had most of the calcium destroyed.
It is possible to get calcium from sources other than milk, of course. I don’t know why this guy denies that you need it, which is ridiculous and very dangerous. There is no question that calcium deficiency - whether or not someone drinks junk pasteurised low-fat milk - is a prime cause of osteoprorosis. The Harvard study doesn’t prove otherwise - it proves that what passes for milk these days is crap. You can get calcium from non-animal supplements, you know. It’s just a mineral. A very common one, in fact.
Guess what. The digestion of plant matter in the caecum by symbiotic bacteria produces the same volatile fatty acids in the gut of herbivores that humans acquire from meat, and are supposedly so bad for us. It is necessary stuff. We do not have the ability to get it from plants, like herbivores with caecums do.
Metabolic acidosis in the blood is heavily associated with hyperlipidemia, which can be acquired by eating too much processed sugar - it results in the inability to properly metabolise lipids. It’s not caused by some sort of fundamental inability in all humans. Once you get it, yes, you should avoid eating too much meat or fatty food in general. You have become sick, and can no longer function like a healthy person does. But you’re far better off not eating glucose in the first place.
The fact is that you will find tribes and societies who live where you can’t grow vegetables (e.g the arctic), all they ever eat is fatty, fatty meat, and they do not suffer from high levels of osteoporosis or hyperlipidemia. They don’t eat any sugar either. Explain.
Vegan = crazy
right?
Bee Pollen is like the healthiest food on the planet and the vegan psycotics attack people for using it. We need to keep the bees alive and well so we can continue to have it. Pythagoras and Hippocrates would be ashamed of us killing the bees with fucking cell phones and pesticides, among other things.
In fact, i think if you take any smart person from the past and present them with our world today, many of them would be ashamed.
Sorry to take up space on this nonsense, but it is the low content thread, so I’m going to refute some of this vegan hippy crap.
I didn’t know that someone’s diet makes them a hippy, nor did I know this is all “crap”. I don’t see a vegan diet as abnormal or unhealthy. I’ve been vegetarian for 4-5 years, and if I go vegan I’d mainly be cutting out cheese, and some foods that use milk in the process, which is no big deal to me. I’m not crazy nor a hippy. I might be open to you refuting this if you weren’t doing it out of being “vegan hippy crap”.
For whatever reason I decided to respond to your remarks, yet I have no reason to “refute” anything you said as if I hold this position absolute. It’s simply something I posted out of interest and to inform, not to debate over, but since it seems that some people are rather offended and are already on the offensive of this issue I’ll give some time on what I’ve looked up.
A human’s small intestine is approximately 6.5 times the length of the body. A wolf’s or dog’s small intestine is approximately 6 times the length of its body. Is this a magical 0.5, or are wolves also supposed to be vegans?
The small intestine of a human is about 19 feet (and I’ve read up to 22). This site says the small intestine of a dog is about two and a half times of the dogs total body length, which for a 24 inch dog is 60 inches of small intestine. The original source that seems to be of debate said…
…the length of intestine in humans and other herbivores falls somewhere between 7 and 13 times the length of the trunk/torso section of the body. In contrast, the length of intestine in carnivores and omnivores is only 3 to 6 times the length of the trunk/torso.
If my torso is 17 inches, and my small intestine is 228 inches, that’s approx. 13 times the size of my torso, now what I cited said that of a dogs total body length, and said 2.5 times. Also, don’t ask dumbass questions if wolves suppose to be vegans when I’m talking about what humans can digest.
If humans are supposed to be herbivores, then why don’t we have an enlarged caecum to help us dissolve cellulose, which you would need to digest the vast majority of high-fibre plants that haven’t (for the most part) been especially farmed and bred to be easy on an omnivore’s digestive tract? We have an appendix instead. A useless remnant of natural selection liable to pop on you eventually, and saturate your gut in lethal toxins.
We have a rather small caecum , and from the caecum an appendix that can range from 2 to 20 centimeters that seems to have lost it’s original purpose, but according to Wiki, we read…
It may be a vestigial organ, evolutionary baggage, of ancient humans that has degraded down to nearly nothing over the course of evolution. The very long cecum of some herbivorous animals, such as found in the koala, supports this theory. The koala’s cecum enables it to host bacteria that specifically help to breakdown cellulose. Human ancestors may have also relied upon this system when they lived on a diet rich in foliage. As people began to eat more easily digested foods, they became less reliant on cellulose-rich plants for energy. As the cecum became less necessary for digestion, mutations that were previously deleterious (and would have hindered evolutionary progress) were no longer important, so the mutations have survived. These alleles became more frequent and the cecum continued to shrink. After thousands of years, the once-necessary cecum has degraded to be the appendix of today.
It seems we, as humans, did once have a large diet in cellulose-rich plants, thus your statement neither confirms nor denies the statement at hand, except that we did have a stage as humans that was more aligned with a herbivore diet.
“Clogged arteries” is caused by hyperlipidemia - too much fat in the blood. Primary cause? Genetics. Secondary (acquired) cause? Acquired diabetes, and to a lesser extent the abuse of certain drugs like alcohol or eostrogen. What causes acquired diabetes, i.e. the insulin regulation system breakdown? Is insulin shock instigated by spikes in blood sugar, or blood lipid levels? Does eating too much glucose, rather than meat, perhaps have something to do with the acquisition of secondary hyperlipidemia?
Do you ever think it has more to do with diet than genetics, and that maybe meat, and what’s pumped into the meat, has something to do with this?
Also, if it means anything, I have a friend who has diabetes, and the doctors said he should have died when he was 10, but he’s in his early 30’s and has a vegan diet.
Our bodies were not created. They were naturally selected. Does veganism necessitate a certain kind of religious belief? That would explain a lot.
You don’t think our bodies were selected for a herbivore diet and not that of a carnivore or omnivore? If we look at natural selection it seems there was a point in our existence where we had a diet in cellulose-rich plants.
So omnivores can’t eat plants?
Fuck if I know. How about you look it up.
Anyone have trouble chewing their steak? Did you know that in about a quarter of female horses today, the canine teeth do not even emerge, and in the rest of all horses they are tiny and vestigial? For them - now herbivores - canines are an evolutionary remnant, like the appendix/caecum is for us.
This is just cherry-picking. What about binocular vision? Maybe it was naturally selected for leaping through the trees, I don’t know, but it works damned well for what predators our size use it for too. The fact is that we can’t leap through the trees any more, unless you’re an exceptionally lithe acrobat in his prime, but we can still prey on other animals. Which was naturally selected in the end?
Can anyone eat their steak raw directly from the animal, or any meat for that matter, that has not been cooked or prepared in any way?
When was the last time you’ve ever preyed on another animal?
Again… So omnivores can’t eat plants?
We are perfectly capable of chewing certain very soft and plump vegetables, just like we are perfectly capable of chewing the meat that we eat. Our incisors and cananines and molars are nicely balanced to allow for the omnivorous diet we enjoy today.
Is this more of natural selection over time, or it’s just the way our teeth are designed? Yet, has anyone ever tried to chew raw meat?
The peach tree doesn’t produce peaches for humans either. By cultivating fruit, you are raping the peach tree. The peach fruit is its fertilised ovum, you know. For shame. We should really be cannibals, because human flesh - prion issues aside - is by far the closest thing to what your body needs in terms of nutrition.
The peach tree produces peaches, just as the cow produces milk, but this is for it’s young, it’s children. The difference in the peach tree and the cow is that one is a plant, while another is an animal. Do we drink each others breast milk? No, so why do we drink another animals breast milk that can only be produced from pregnancy? So, we constantly artificially impregnate a cow so we can get it’s milk that’s literally meant for it’s children. How does drinking another animals milk make sense? How is that natural? The difference is that a plant =/= animal.
Yeah, my heart bleeds for the cow that might just gore me to death without incurring any responsibility, because’s it’s just a dumb animal. Of course that cow and that calf wouldn’t exist if humans didn’t have such a need for them. I suppose you’d rather they were just left to get torn to shreds by wild dogs, because you’re not talking about animals that were naturally selected to exist - they exist because they were bred by humans to serve a purpose. I don’t want to be cruel to animals. I don’t think it’s necessary.
I’ve never seen a cow ever gore someone to death, besides that when’s the last time you were ever near a cow or approached by one with aggression? Yes, those animals were bred for a purpose, would they naturally exist otherwise? Not on this scale. This reminds me of something I once heard along the lines of, “If we don’t eat all the cows they’ll over populate”, while the person is not realizing we are artifically populating them just for our own enjoyment. You don’t think it’s necassary to be cruel to animals? Did you even bother to watch the video that shows them literally being beat and tortured?
I do think that if there’s any argument to be made for veganism, or at least vegetarianism, it is a moral one and not a utilitarian one. I mean, I’m still not convinced, but I do think (some) animals are cute, and it might be possible for a vegan to develop this point… Rather than make up stories about how the human body works which are simply not true.
Oddly, for me, it’s utilitarian, and not moral. I’ve known people who have been vegan their entire lives, from childhood up, and they are perfectly healthy. I know people who are raising their newborn children on a vegetarian/vegan diet, and they are also perfectly healthy.
It is possible to get calcium from sources other than milk, of course. I don’t know why this guy denies that you need it, which is ridiculous and very dangerous. There is no question that calcium deficiency - whether or not someone drinks junk pasteurised low-fat milk - is a prime cause of osteoprorosis. The Harvard study doesn’t prove otherwise - it proves that what passes for milk these days is crap. You can get calcium from non-animal supplements, you know. It’s just a mineral. A very common one, in fact.
I assume you didn’t watch the video, because he doesn’t deny calcium intake (in which you seem to be designing a strawman from the information you didn’t look over, and are now trying to debunk). He mentions plenty of milk substitutes as well. Here’s a list of calcium rich foods.
You also need vitamin D and certain minerals to prevent osteoporosis. Also, the dairy they consume is pasteurised crap with little calcium left in it.
Mushrooms are high in vitamin D.
Guess what. The digestion of plant matter in the caecum by symbiotic bacteria produces the same volatile fatty acids in the gut of herbivores that humans acquire from meat, and are supposedly so bad for us. It is necessary stuff. We do not have the ability to get it from plants, like herbivores with caecums do.
Metabolic acidosis in the blood is heavily associated with hyperlipidemia, which can be acquired by eating too much processed sugar - it results in the inability to properly metabolise lipids. It’s not caused by some sort of fundamental inability in all humans. Once you get it, yes, you should avoid eating too much meat or fatty food in general. You have become sick, and can no longer function like a healthy person does. But you’re far better off not eating glucose in the first place.
Wouldn’t you think refraining from eating meat would halt this in the first place?
The fact is that you will find tribes and societies who live where you can’t grow vegetables (e.g the arctic), all they ever eat is fatty, fatty meat, and they do not suffer from high levels of osteoporosis or hyperlipidemia. They don’t eat any sugar either. Explain.
Explain what? I’m not part of those tribes, I don’t know their diet, I only know mine. If you want to know exactly look up their entire diet and their life span. You can bring up them just as much as I can bring up people who have lived on vegetarian/vegan diets. Yet, I’m not part of a tribe, I don’t hunt for my own food. I’m part of a society that buys meat pumped with chemicals that they raise just for slaughter. Raping cows and any other animal for substance, when it’s not necessary. Yet, I do live in a society where I can buy a variety of vegetables, fruits, and grains at an affordable price. I can live my entire life without meat products, yet people want to challenge this. It’s as if they are offended by my own personal choice, and the moment it’s brought up it’s attacked. They consider it hippy crap when it’s just a diet choice. Does it really bring someone displeasure to know I don’t eat meat? Is their any harm in that? There’s none, yet I could bring up the harm in eating meat. There’s no argument, there’s nothing to debate against someone becoming vegan. Why does it matter to anyone?
For whatever reason I decided to respond to your remarks, yet I have no reason to “refute” anything you said as if I hold this position absolute. It’s simply something I posted out of interest and to inform, not to debate over, but since it seems that some people are rather offended and are already on the offensive of this issue I’ll give some time on what I’ve looked up.
A human’s small intestine is approximately 6.5 times the length of the body. A wolf’s or dog’s small intestine is approximately 6 times the length of its body. Is this a magical 0.5, or are wolves also supposed to be vegans?
The small intestine of a human is about 19 feet (and I’ve read up to 22). This site says the small intestine of a dog is about two and a half times of the dogs total body length, which for a 24 inch dog is 60 inches of small intestine. The original source that seems to be of debate said…
…the length of intestine in humans and other herbivores falls somewhere between 7 and 13 times the length of the trunk/torso section of the body. In contrast, the length of intestine in carnivores and omnivores is only 3 to 6 times the length of the trunk/torso.
If my torso is 17 inches, and my small intestine is 228 inches, that’s approx. 13 times the size of my torso, now what I cited said that of a dogs total body length, and said 2.5 times. Also, don’t ask dumbass questions if wolves suppose to be vegans when I’m talking about what humans can digest.
If humans are supposed to be herbivores, then why don’t we have an enlarged caecum to help us dissolve cellulose, which you would need to digest the vast majority of high-fibre plants that haven’t (for the most part) been especially farmed and bred to be easy on an omnivore’s digestive tract? We have an appendix instead. A useless remnant of natural selection liable to pop on you eventually, and saturate your gut in lethal toxins.
We have a rather small caecum , and from the caecum an appendix that can range from 2 to 20 centimeters that seems to have lost it’s original purpose, but according to Wiki, we read…
It may be a vestigial organ, evolutionary baggage, of ancient humans that has degraded down to nearly nothing over the course of evolution. The very long cecum of some herbivorous animals, such as found in the koala, supports this theory. The koala’s cecum enables it to host bacteria that specifically help to breakdown cellulose. Human ancestors may have also relied upon this system when they lived on a diet rich in foliage. As people began to eat more easily digested foods, they became less reliant on cellulose-rich plants for energy. As the cecum became less necessary for digestion, mutations that were previously deleterious (and would have hindered evolutionary progress) were no longer important, so the mutations have survived. These alleles became more frequent and the cecum continued to shrink. After thousands of years, the once-necessary cecum has degraded to be the appendix of today.
It seems we, as humans, did once have a large diet in cellulose-rich plants, thus your statement neither confirms nor denies the statement at hand, except that we did have a stage as humans that was more aligned with a herbivore diet.
“Clogged arteries” is caused by hyperlipidemia - too much fat in the blood. Primary cause? Genetics. Secondary (acquired) cause? Acquired diabetes, and to a lesser extent the abuse of certain drugs like alcohol or eostrogen. What causes acquired diabetes, i.e. the insulin regulation system breakdown? Is insulin shock instigated by spikes in blood sugar, or blood lipid levels? Does eating too much glucose, rather than meat, perhaps have something to do with the acquisition of secondary hyperlipidemia?
Do you ever think it has more to do with diet than genetics, and that maybe meat, and what’s pumped into the meat, has something to do with this?
Also, if it means anything, I have a friend who has diabetes, and the doctors said he should have died when he was 10, but he’s in his early 30’s and has a vegan diet.
Our bodies were not created. They were naturally selected. Does veganism necessitate a certain kind of religious belief? That would explain a lot.
You don’t think our bodies were selected for a herbivore diet and not that of a carnivore or omnivore? If we look at natural selection it seems there was a point in our existence where we had a diet in cellulose-rich plants.
So omnivores can’t eat plants?
Fuck if I know. How about you look it up.
Anyone have trouble chewing their steak? Did you know that in about a quarter of female horses today, the canine teeth do not even emerge, and in the rest of all horses they are tiny and vestigial? For them - now herbivores - canines are an evolutionary remnant, like the appendix/caecum is for us.
This is just cherry-picking. What about binocular vision? Maybe it was naturally selected for leaping through the trees, I don’t know, but it works damned well for what predators our size use it for too. The fact is that we can’t leap through the trees any more, unless you’re an exceptionally lithe acrobat in his prime, but we can still prey on other animals. Which was naturally selected in the end?
Can anyone eat their steak raw directly from the animal, or any meat for that matter, that has not been cooked or prepared in any way?
When was the last time you’ve ever preyed on another animal?
Again… So omnivores can’t eat plants?
We are perfectly capable of chewing certain very soft and plump vegetables, just like we are perfectly capable of chewing the meat that we eat. Our incisors and cananines and molars are nicely balanced to allow for the omnivorous diet we enjoy today.
Is this more of natural selection over time, or it’s just the way our teeth are designed? Yet, has anyone ever tried to chew raw meat?
The peach tree doesn’t produce peaches for humans either. By cultivating fruit, you are raping the peach tree. The peach fruit is its fertilised ovum, you know. For shame. We should really be cannibals, because human flesh - prion issues aside - is by far the closest thing to what your body needs in terms of nutrition.
The peach tree produces peaches, just as the cow produces milk, but this is for it’s young, it’s children. The difference in the peach tree and the cow is that one is a plant, while another is an animal. Do we drink each others breast milk? No, so why do we drink another animals breast milk that can only be produced from pregnancy? So, we constantly artificially impregnate a cow so we can get it’s milk that’s literally meant for it’s children. How does drinking another animals milk make sense? How is that natural? The difference is that a plant =/= animal.
Yeah, my heart bleeds for the cow that might just gore me to death without incurring any responsibility, because’s it’s just a dumb animal. Of course that cow and that calf wouldn’t exist if humans didn’t have such a need for them. I suppose you’d rather they were just left to get torn to shreds by wild dogs, because you’re not talking about animals that were naturally selected to exist - they exist because they were bred by humans to serve a purpose. I don’t want to be cruel to animals. I don’t think it’s necessary.
I’ve never seen a cow ever gore someone to death, besides that when’s the last time you were ever near a cow or approached by one with aggression? Yes, those animals were bred for a purpose, would they naturally exist otherwise? Not on this scale. This reminds me of something I once heard along the lines of, “If we don’t eat all the cows they’ll over populate”, while the person is not realizing we are artifically populating them just for our own enjoyment. You don’t think it’s necassary to be cruel to animals? Did you even bother to watch the video that shows them literally being beat and tortured?
I do think that if there’s any argument to be made for veganism, or at least vegetarianism, it is a moral one and not a utilitarian one. I mean, I’m still not convinced, but I do think (some) animals are cute, and it might be possible for a vegan to develop this point… Rather than make up stories about how the human body works which are simply not true.
Oddly, for me, it’s utilitarian, and not moral. I’ve known people who have been vegan their entire lives, from childhood up, and they are perfectly healthy. I know people who are raising their newborn children on a vegetarian/vegan diet, and they are also perfectly healthy.
It is possible to get calcium from sources other than milk, of course. I don’t know why this guy denies that you need it, which is ridiculous and very dangerous. There is no question that calcium deficiency - whether or not someone drinks junk pasteurised low-fat milk - is a prime cause of osteoprorosis. The Harvard study doesn’t prove otherwise - it proves that what passes for milk these days is crap. You can get calcium from non-animal supplements, you know. It’s just a mineral. A very common one, in fact.
I assume you didn’t watch the video, because he doesn’t deny calcium intake (in which you seem to be designing a strawman from the information you didn’t look over, and are now trying to debunk). He mentions plenty of milk substitutes as well. Here’s a list of calcium rich foods.
You also need vitamin D and certain minerals to prevent osteoporosis. Also, the dairy they consume is pasteurised crap with little calcium left in it.
Mushrooms are high in vitamin D.
Guess what. The digestion of plant matter in the caecum by symbiotic bacteria produces the same volatile fatty acids in the gut of herbivores that humans acquire from meat, and are supposedly so bad for us. It is necessary stuff. We do not have the ability to get it from plants, like herbivores with caecums do.
Metabolic acidosis in the blood is heavily associated with hyperlipidemia, which can be acquired by eating too much processed sugar - it results in the inability to properly metabolise lipids. It’s not caused by some sort of fundamental inability in all humans. Once you get it, yes, you should avoid eating too much meat or fatty food in general. You have become sick, and can no longer function like a healthy person does. But you’re far better off not eating glucose in the first place.
Wouldn’t you think refraining from eating meat would halt this in the first place?
The fact is that you will find tribes and societies who live where you can’t grow vegetables (e.g the arctic), all they ever eat is fatty, fatty meat, and they do not suffer from high levels of osteoporosis or hyperlipidemia. They don’t eat any sugar either. Explain.
Explain what? I’m not part of those tribes, I don’t know their diet, I only know mine. If you want to know exactly look up their entire diet and their life span. You can bring up them just as much as I can bring up people who have lived on vegetarian/vegan diets. Yet, I’m not part of a tribe, I don’t hunt for my own food. I’m part of a society that buys meat pumped with chemicals that they raise just for slaughter. Raping cows and any other animal for substance, when it’s not necessary. Yet, I do live in a society where I can buy a variety of vegetables, fruits, and grains at an affordable price. I can live my entire life without meat products, yet people want to challenge this. It’s as if they are offended by my own personal choice, and the moment it’s brought up it’s attacked. They consider it hippy crap when it’s just a diet choice. Does it really bring someone displeasure to know I don’t eat meat? Is their any harm in that? There’s none, yet I could bring up the harm in eating meat. There’s no argument, there’s nothing to debate against someone becoming vegan. Why does it matter to anyone?
I am personally glad Bert posted the vid. I have personally been internally debating the merits of switching to a vegan diet for quite a while. i doubt this will push me over the edge, but i am happy to hear the case.
anyways, doesn’t anyone else think it is strange for someone HERE to call someone else “crazy” for holding minority beliefs? “climate skepticism, abolishing the state, returning to sound money, yes yes i am totally on board. but suggest that a veggie based diet is more healthy (an argument hardly dismissed by nutritional research)??? you’re out of your mind man!!!”