https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland    Contact            Users: 328 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 14:35

Truth Discussion Time - Page 13

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
  First 
  < 
  8 
  9 
  10 
  11 
  12 
 13 
  14 
  15 
  16 
  17 
  24 
  > 
  Last 
Baalim   Mexico. Sep 11 2016 00:40. Posts 34246


  On September 10 2016 23:36 Spitfiree wrote:
Our species didn't evolve for thousands of years so I can eat the food of my food.



Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Sep 11 2016 04:12. Posts 20963


  On September 10 2016 23:23 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



I couldn't give a fuck less about the supposed health benefits, the only argument and a strong one I struggle with is the morality of the issue of consuming animals fwiw



Yes and that argument is crucial for me. It's funny you would bring that up and that Spitfiree would make that post right after it so I can illustrate this point. We can argue about evolution and what made us human (recent studies say it wasn't eating meat, it was eating cooked starches) but at the end of the day people suffer from confirmation bias and will tend to choose whichever theory fits their narrative, no matter how wacky it is (See Joe Rogan's "but plants are intelligent and have feelings''). They will also conveniently filter out all of those evolutionary arguments when they don't fit their narrative, e.g. we know we didn't evolve being breastfed by cows throughout our entire lives but people like Rogan will argue that it doesn't matter at all since we can do it now.

One thing we can't argue though is the ethics. At least to some level. If I used Spitfiree's logic and said, "I didn't evolve to be able to make a fist and knock people out whenever I want to take something from them, so why shouldn't I?" or "I raped her because I evolved to subdue women, otherwise I wouldn't be physically stronger than them", no one who is in his right mind would think these statements are reasonable. So, at the end of the day, most people arguing against this position are probably subconsciously combatting their guilt with the poorest form of arguments there are.

If you can admit that you struggle with it, then you are revealing that you are not involved in the kind of denialism that most people are stuck in. What I absolutely hate is when this leads people to believe it's a necessary evil for them to be healthy. This is where the health part comes in for people like you who are lucid individuals. You might not care about the benefits per se, but at the very least you need to know that your health wouldn't suffer for it. Sam Harris was and is still having this problem now as a vegetarian. He is convinced that he is depriving his body of necessary nutrients in order to be more ethical. This is just too silly. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation out there especially by the likes of Joe Rogan who goes as far as saying that we need dietary saturated fat and cholesterol to be healthy. He gets this kind of shit from people who have been bought by the meat and dairy industry. People like Joe and Chris Kresser who was recently on his podcast cause too much noise and speak confidently about shit they know little to nothing about and sadly those are the people with the most influence.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 11/09/2016 09:57

Loco   Canada. Sep 11 2016 09:12. Posts 20963


  On September 10 2016 19:56 cariadon wrote:
Show nested quote +



How is this news? I was taught this in middle school. da fuq.




It's news because it's talking about our taste buds. We weren't aware of a specific taste that could single out starches. You're talking about the enzymes in saliva to break down the starches. Two completely different things. I mean, come on. Can't you at least take a little bit of time to read the article and give people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that we're all so dumb and that we wouldn't know what you knew in middle school? :/

It's relevant because our taste buds are a reflection of what we evolved to seek out for our survival. Lots of Paleo/Keto advocates talk about starches like they're a poison from the agricultural revolution. Well, let's say we were to ignore all of recorded human history and all of the medical literature available showing us that this is patently false, now from an evolutionary standpoint this becomes even harder to believe. It's clearly no mistake of nature. Carnivores like cats do have taste buds for meat - more specifically the amino acids found in meat, but they don't have a taste for sweets. We don't have those taste buds for meat but we have them for sweets and starches. Interesting if you ask me, and clearly not the design of a carnivore or an obligate omnivore.

If for some reason all of that is lost on you and you think meat really is your food and plants are your "food's food", then ask yourself why is it that people need to put sauces, spices and salt on their meat to make it palatable. I've never seen anyone eating and enjoying a big meal of plain, unseasoned boiled or raw beef, chicken or organ meats. Have you? But I know my cats wouldn't need to doctor this up with a bunch of stuff to enjoy it because that's their food.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 11/09/2016 09:44

Loco   Canada. Sep 11 2016 11:45. Posts 20963


  On September 10 2016 19:49 cariadon wrote:
Show nested quote +



This was bugging my head. I got to say that losing that much weight over such a short period of time is unhealthy. Bodybuilding.com has a bunch of really good articles about weightloss. It aligns with common sense aswell. some notes: a) something was very wrong before he switched up his diet b) losing that much too fast is not good c) slow and steady wins over drastic changes because the body loves routine


Of course something was very wrong. He explained it. Every meal he ate was centered around a big piece of meat. Doesn't get much more wrong than that.

I agree that his weight loss was excessive, but it's important to note that he wasn't doing a weight loss diet. He was doing an experiment to see how he would feel and see if he could sustain his athletic efforts. We tend to associate negative effects from extreme weight loss with the equally extreme diets people follow. This guy wasn't doing the "5 bites diet" or some other fad-- he was eating whole plant foods: nutrient dense foods. He gained strength and endurance. Of course there can be issues with things like gallstones when weight loss is excessive, but the benefits clearly outweighted the risks. And he's a n=1, he doesn't represent how the average person does when they switch. According to Dr. McDougall's published data, people lose on average between 3-4 pounds per week, so much less than this guy.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Sep 11 2016 15:46. Posts 9634

Today seems like the perfect day to post this :
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

European physics society with a report on 9/11 attacks
Cliff notes : they believe all data leads towards inside demolition.

Tbh not interested in a discussion about it as the material speaks for itself, just posting it.

 Last edit: 11/09/2016 15:46

cariadon   Estonia. Sep 11 2016 20:28. Posts 4019


  On September 11 2016 08:12 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



It's news because it's talking about our taste buds. We weren't aware of a specific taste that could single out starches. You're talking about the enzymes in saliva to break down the starches. Two completely different things. I mean, come on. Can't you at least take a little bit of time to read the article and give people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that we're all so dumb and that we wouldn't know what you knew in middle school? :/

It's relevant because our taste buds are a reflection of what we evolved to seek out for our survival. Lots of Paleo/Keto advocates talk about starches like they're a poison from the agricultural revolution. Well, let's say we were to ignore all of recorded human history and all of the medical literature available showing us that this is patently false, now from an evolutionary standpoint this becomes even harder to believe. It's clearly no mistake of nature. Carnivores like cats do have taste buds for meat - more specifically the amino acids found in meat, but they don't have a taste for sweets. We don't have those taste buds for meat but we have them for sweets and starches. Interesting if you ask me, and clearly not the design of a carnivore or an obligate omnivore.

If for some reason all of that is lost on you and you think meat really is your food and plants are your "food's food", then ask yourself why is it that people need to put sauces, spices and salt on their meat to make it palatable. I've never seen anyone eating and enjoying a big meal of plain, unseasoned boiled or raw beef, chicken or organ meats. Have you? But I know my cats wouldn't need to doctor this up with a bunch of stuff to enjoy it because that's their food.



So its one step from starch to sugar, big wow. That article wasn't convincing. SCIENTISTS DISCOVERED. Someone being called a scientist doesn't make anything he says true. Why aren't everyone raving about this new great discovery? I don't like you quoting assfire and putting it on me. Guy is a total asshat who only speaks up when he has something to argue, confront or troll. He adds 0 value and speaks constantly out of his ass.


cariadon   Estonia. Sep 11 2016 20:31. Posts 4019

Also Loco, why narrow it down to boiling or raw? What's the deal there. Eating raw is a whole different discussion. The complexity of flavours of meat can be compared to that of coffee and wine because of maillard reaction. If you can sear a steak it tastes delicious. Saying meat needs to be eaten raw is the same as saying plants should be eaten straight from the ground on your knees.


Liquid`Drone   Norway. Sep 11 2016 21:59. Posts 3093

quite a lot of plants taste pretty crappy if raw and unseasoned- definitely true for the plant protein sources?

And raw meat is delicious (not really unseasoned though). like sure I can eat bell pepper and cucumber and lettuce and carrots and to some extent tomatoes raw and unseasoned, but not potato beans rice lentils..

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. Sep 11 2016 22:43. Posts 20963


  On September 11 2016 19:28 cariadon wrote:
Show nested quote +



So its one step from starch to sugar, big wow. That article wasn't convincing. SCIENTISTS DISCOVERED. Someone being called a scientist doesn't make anything he says true. Why aren't everyone raving about this new great discovery? I don't like you quoting assfire and putting it on me. Guy is a total asshat who only speaks up when he has something to argue, confront or troll. He adds 0 value and speaks constantly out of his ass.



You didn't even care to understand the article so I don't think it's relevant that you are unconvinced. I never said it was a great discovery, I said it was interesting. You have to be somewhat familiar with the history of nutrition in the US to understand its particular relevance. Starches have been reviled for decades now. Robert Atkins has had a big influence on this and it's still mainstream to fear things like pasta and bread which he said we should avoid. Some people today go as far as saying that carbohydrates are literally 100% useless and unneeded because the body has no true need for a carb, but it needs protein and essential fats.

I apologize for including a response to his comment in my response to you-- let me clarify that this part wasn't about you specifically, but anyone who believes something along the lines of what Spitfiree wrote.


  On September 11 2016 19:31 cariadon wrote:
Also Loco, why narrow it down to boiling or raw? What's the deal there. Eating raw is a whole different discussion. The complexity of flavours of meat can be compared to that of coffee and wine because of maillard reaction. If you can sear a steak it tastes delicious. Saying meat needs to be eaten raw is the same as saying plants should be eaten straight from the ground on your knees.



I thought the reason I used those examples was clear. The point of contention I brought up relates to biological appropriateness. If it was biologically appropriate for us to eat this food, i.e. if we thrived on it, we wouldn't be the only animal that only enjoys it under specific circumstances. The foods I named and which are unappealing to us are foods you can give a cat or a dog (who is a true omnivore) and it's still feast-worthy for them. We have to introduce carcinogens by cooking the meat in a specific way and season it to make it palatable to us, and our health is even more likely to suffer as a result.

The topic of the palatability of meat is an interesting one. I'm not sure that it's innate. Do infants enjoy the taste of a seared steak if you were to make it into a puree? I think a lot of it comes down to gut bacteria. Until you've learned that behavior and modified your microbiome I think it's a lot more likely you'd want to eat fruit and starch instead.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 12/09/2016 00:59

Liquid`Drone   Norway. Sep 11 2016 23:39. Posts 3093

is there even a single starch that you would like raw and unseasoned?

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. Sep 11 2016 23:43. Posts 20963


  On September 11 2016 20:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
quite a lot of plants taste pretty crappy if raw and unseasoned- definitely true for the plant protein sources?

And raw meat is delicious (not really unseasoned though). like sure I can eat bell pepper and cucumber and lettuce and carrots and to some extent tomatoes raw and unseasoned, but not potato beans rice lentils..



I've eaten plain baked potatoes, as well as plain rice before. I know a guy who eats this way often, see video below. I've yet to find someone who enjoys eating large meals of plain meat and I'd be particularly interested in their athletic abilities if they did. I've also eaten whole wheat pasta with nothing but crushed tomatoes on them. It's boring, but it's not unappealing to me. Any form of unseasoned meat, cooked or raw, on the other hand, is not merely boring, it's unappealing, and I'd dread having to get it down. Even when I was into low carb Paleo and actually ate raw meat, I did not enjoy it. Raw liver was absolutely disgusting. I'm pretty sure I am not alone in this and if you were to compare the brain scans of people eating plain meat vs those who eat plain starch or fruit, you'd find a lot more pleasure experienced in the latter camp.





  On September 11 2016 22:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
is there even a single starch that you would like raw and unseasoned?



Why specifically raw? I explained to cariadon why I used it in my example, and I wasn't exclusively using raw as a criterion to judge the appealingness of meat. If it has to be raw then I'd go with oats, various cereals, yellow corn and bananas. Not very enjoyable but not unappealing either.



This guy eats (or ate, not sure about his diet nowadays) raw oats all the time:

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 12/09/2016 00:36

Liquid`Drone   Norway. Sep 12 2016 03:07. Posts 3093

I think unseasoned rice or potato is pretty terrible, but then mostly all of my personal snobbery is food related.

I'm just saying that I'm not gonna judge a food based on how tasty it is without cooking it because that kinda leaves me with fruits, berries and some nuts as the only tasty options, with a couple decent other vegetables like tomato bell pepper cucumber carrots lettuce, but that's about it for stuff that is palatable without seasoning or cooking, imo. I'm not disputing that it's possible to eat raw oats but to me I'd at least have to mix in some honey and or dairy and or berries. potatoes pasta and rice all need salt.

I totally accept that a plant based diet is significantly healthier than a meat based diet by virtually any metric, I have been adjusting my diet over the past couple years to have more meat-free meals (absolutely never going full vegan though, love butter and cheese way too much for that), but I'm totally on board with having meat be more of a just weekends thing or something like that. I'm just saying that the specific argument against meat that because meat has to be cooked and seasoned to be palatable it's not necessarily a natural part of our diet also discounts a whole lot of foods you would argue are healthy - and for me a large part of the challenge with being less carnivorous is that I feel it's difficult to make enough different meals to sate my food-hedonism, it's important to me that the food I eat is tasty. Which certainly doesn't require it to be meat, but with the exception of fresh berries and fruit, it does require cooking and seasoning.

lol POKER 

Baalim   Mexico. Sep 12 2016 06:13. Posts 34246


  On September 11 2016 03:12 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



Yes and that argument is crucial for me. It's funny you would bring that up and that Spitfiree would make that post right after it so I can illustrate this point. We can argue about evolution and what made us human (recent studies say it wasn't eating meat, it was eating cooked starches) but at the end of the day people suffer from confirmation bias and will tend to choose whichever theory fits their narrative, no matter how wacky it is (See Joe Rogan's "but plants are intelligent and have feelings''). They will also conveniently filter out all of those evolutionary arguments when they don't fit their narrative, e.g. we know we didn't evolve being breastfed by cows throughout our entire lives but people like Rogan will argue that it doesn't matter at all since we can do it now.

One thing we can't argue though is the ethics. At least to some level. If I used Spitfiree's logic and said, "I didn't evolve to be able to make a fist and knock people out whenever I want to take something from them, so why shouldn't I?" or "I raped her because I evolved to subdue women, otherwise I wouldn't be physically stronger than them", no one who is in his right mind would think these statements are reasonable. So, at the end of the day, most people arguing against this position are probably subconsciously combatting their guilt with the poorest form of arguments there are.

If you can admit that you struggle with it, then you are revealing that you are not involved in the kind of denialism that most people are stuck in. What I absolutely hate is when this leads people to believe it's a necessary evil for them to be healthy. This is where the health part comes in for people like you who are lucid individuals. You might not care about the benefits per se, but at the very least you need to know that your health wouldn't suffer for it. Sam Harris was and is still having this problem now as a vegetarian. He is convinced that he is depriving his body of necessary nutrients in order to be more ethical. This is just too silly. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation out there especially by the likes of Joe Rogan who goes as far as saying that we need dietary saturated fat and cholesterol to be healthy. He gets this kind of shit from people who have been bought by the meat and dairy industry. People like Joe and Chris Kresser who was recently on his podcast cause too much noise and speak confidently about shit they know little to nothing about and sadly those are the people with the most influence.



Confirmation bias is so brutal, I find myself so often researching stuff wanting to confirm my belief instead of approaching it without preconceptions, It takes a lot of brain power not to do this

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Sep 12 2016 06:56. Posts 20963


  On September 12 2016 02:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think unseasoned rice or potato is pretty terrible, but then mostly all of my personal snobbery is food related.

I'm just saying that I'm not gonna judge a food based on how tasty it is without cooking it because that kinda leaves me with fruits, berries and some nuts as the only tasty options, with a couple decent other vegetables like tomato bell pepper cucumber carrots lettuce, but that's about it for stuff that is palatable without seasoning or cooking, imo. I'm not disputing that it's possible to eat raw oats but to me I'd at least have to mix in some honey and or dairy and or berries. potatoes pasta and rice all need salt.

I totally accept that a plant based diet is significantly healthier than a meat based diet by virtually any metric, I have been adjusting my diet over the past couple years to have more meat-free meals (absolutely never going full vegan though, love butter and cheese way too much for that), but I'm totally on board with having meat be more of a just weekends thing or something like that. I'm just saying that the specific argument against meat that because meat has to be cooked and seasoned to be palatable it's not necessarily a natural part of our diet also discounts a whole lot of foods you would argue are healthy - and for me a large part of the challenge with being less carnivorous is that I feel it's difficult to make enough different meals to sate my food-hedonism, it's important to me that the food I eat is tasty. Which certainly doesn't require it to be meat, but with the exception of fresh berries and fruit, it does require cooking and seasoning.



The "it needs to be raw to be natural" argument is a fallacy and I've addressed it previously in this thread when I responded to the guy who keeps posting the videos of John Rose (the lunatic doing rants outside). We've obviously evolved to benefit from eating cooked foods and cooked meat has been a part of our natural diets without any doubt. The example I gave was not in any way debating this fact, which is why I didn't only say raw, I included boiled and cooked but plain. It was just a common sense observation that some forms of meat are unappealing to the average human being, and that this should tell us something. If it really was essential for us to thrive as a species, we'd have developed a taste for its amino acids just like the other animals and we would find it to be very palatable even when plain, boiled or raw. If this doesn't have any truth to it, then the only other alternative would be to believe that it's a learned aversion. We're somehow born with a taste for animal protein and fat, but we'd lose it due to our environment. I've not seen any data about this and I've never fed a baby but I'm pretty sure they like pureed sweets and starches the most.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 12/09/2016 06:57

Loco   Canada. Sep 12 2016 07:02. Posts 20963


  On September 12 2016 05:13 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



Confirmation bias is so brutal, I find myself so often researching stuff wanting to confirm my belief instead of approaching it without preconceptions, It takes a lot of brain power not to do this



Indeed. I think it takes detachment. If you're incredibly invested in something that benefits you, you simply have no choice but to be biased. It's like that Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Btw, since we're talking about bias, I guess I'll use the opportunity to say this: if any of you think I am biased towards veganism, that is perfectly reasonable. But you should know this: I have just been permanently banned today from the Dr. McDougall forums for "not being vegan enough" essentially. Being an independent thinker has its costs. They haven't told me why but we can easily assume. You can read about my "crime" here: https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53092.

The TL;DR if you don't want to read it: I believe that oysters and mussels might provide an otherwise vegan diet with health benefits. (they basically make supplementation unnecessary). I've explained that so far I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, and I lightly criticized the doctor's self-professed bias against all seafood, which resulted in a permanent ban and censorship. The great irony in this is that McDougall has been banned from a Vegan conference this year because he admitted that he sometimes eat turkey on thanksgiving, so as to say that he's "not a vegan". So, apparently turkey is okay, but farmed oysters aren't.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 12/09/2016 07:48

Baalim   Mexico. Sep 12 2016 10:09. Posts 34246

You are certainly biased towards veganism, if somehow a strong study proved vegan diet to be unhealthy you would be upset, so you want veganism to be healthy, but obviously true objectivity is unattainable.


Veganism how its commonly defined its retarded ethically, there are many animals who have an alike consciousness level than plants, mollusks as you mention are basic animals with no brain, they have no consciousness and simply react to stimulus cant really process pain, have a will to live, feel fear etc.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. Sep 12 2016 10:15. Posts 34246

God I made the mistake of reading the thread you posted on that forum... I think instead of going vegan I should eat vegans, like mollusks they clearly have no brain either.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Sep 12 2016 12:16. Posts 20963

I think everyone suffers from confirmation bias to some degree, but I know that I'm more interested in the truth than "being vegan" or "being right". What makes you think I would be upset if there was such a strong study? Upset is a really strong word to me, I don't get upset easily. There is technically already one such study. The Seventh Day Adventist Health Study is a huge study that vegans refer to a lot because these people tend to be vegetarians and they are the longest-lived population in recorded human history, and the data clearly shows the benefits of a vegan diet vs a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet and an omnivorous diet. This is probably the best nutrition study we have to date all things considered. But what it shows as well is that the pesco-vegans have even lower all-cause mortality than vegans, but not by much. I find that result interesting and not upsetting in the slightest, even though I've abandoned my pescatarian self a while ago. This data informed part of my decision to consume bivalves.

There's two important things to note:
1) I would not bother with the health arguments if they weren't true, and I'd focus on the ethical and environmental arguments. They are strong enough to advocate for veganism if that's all I care about.
2) Don't forget that I wasn't always an (ostro)vegan. I know the other side, and I certainly attempted to defend my previous dietary choices. I was a pescatarian for most of the last 7 years. I was also a vegan who failed at being a vegan about 8 years ago, so I not only have the experience of going to veganism (twice) but also coming back and having to deal with that discomfort. This is where confirmation bias is at its strongest because no one wants to believe they are regressing.


  On September 12 2016 09:09 Baalim wrote:


Veganism how its commonly defined its retarded ethically, there are many animals who have an alike consciousness level than plants, mollusks as you mention are basic animals with no brain, they have no consciousness and simply react to stimulus cant really process pain, have a will to live, feel fear etc.




Agreed, but there's more to it than that. It's incredibly simplistic to believe that the most ethical diet is necessarily going to be one that avoids all animal products and that it's the only variable you should care about as a vegan. Animal products are not the only products that cause harm to animals. Take something like palm oil for example, there are tons of vegans who consume it every day in their processed foods and butter replacements. That stuff is incredibly unethical and its production relies on the devastation of the rain forest and it kills a great number of endangered species that are highly sensitive animals like orangutans, elephants and tigers. They are often burned alive. It's less ethical to buy this stuff than eating certain animal products once in a while.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 12/09/2016 13:27

Liquid`Drone   Norway. Sep 12 2016 13:25. Posts 3093


  On September 12 2016 05:56 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



The "it needs to be raw to be natural" argument is a fallacy and I've addressed it previously in this thread when I responded to the guy who keeps posting the videos of John Rose (the lunatic doing rants outside). We've obviously evolved to benefit from eating cooked foods and cooked meat has been a part of our natural diets without any doubt. The example I gave was not in any way debating this fact, which is why I didn't only say raw, I included boiled and cooked but plain. It was just a common sense observation that some forms of meat are unappealing to the average human being, and that this should tell us something. If it really was essential for us to thrive as a species, we'd have developed a taste for its amino acids just like the other animals and we would find it to be very palatable even when plain, boiled or raw. If this doesn't have any truth to it, then the only other alternative would be to believe that it's a learned aversion. We're somehow born with a taste for animal protein and fat, but we'd lose it due to our environment. I've not seen any data about this and I've never fed a baby but I'm pretty sure they like pureed sweets and starches the most.


I was specifically addressing your 'If for some reason all of that is lost on you and you think meat really is your food and plants are your "food's food", then ask yourself why is it that people need to put sauces, spices and salt on their meat to make it palatable. I've never seen anyone eating and enjoying a big meal of plain, unseasoned boiled or raw beef, chicken or organ meats.' statement. I'm just saying that for me, the need for sauces, spices and salt applies just as much for starches as it does for meat- for some meats, even more so. (I can eat raw beef, but never chicken or pork. Mostly everything I eat either has so much sugar naturally that I can eat it plain, or it needs salt/cooking. ) It's also the case for the vegans I know that they tend to eat a lot of stuff that is 'supposed to taste like meat', they eat 'steak' from soy beans and 'bernaise sauce' without eggs.

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. Sep 12 2016 13:44. Posts 20963

You're giving me a n=1 here. I was making a generalization. There are people who enjoy sticking needles in their dicks too. Most people would never entertain the idea of eating plain, boiled chicken. Or raw, unseasoned beef. Organ meats, even less, and yet those are the most nutritious animal products. The reason why that is is not "because it's less enjoyable", the reason is because it's not enjoyable, inherently. You are defending the former proposition, I am defending the latter. Why? I've given two reasons. First, I've never seen those people who enjoy eating plain, cooked meat, but I have seen people who enjoy eating plain starches and I didn't have difficulties finding them. Secondly, because infants prefer sweet fruit and starches to those. Conclusion: the enjoyment of eating plain, cooked meat and raw meat would have to be a learned behavior or "acquired taste", rather than the result of a biological adaptation that was necessary for our survival. Starch, on the other hand, has primacy: it always was, and is still necessary for us for good long term health.

Lastly, let's not forget the context in which I said this. There is absolutely no point in arguing this if you do not acknowledge the context. I first said that if we were to ignore human history and all of the medical literature and we were to build a case for starch vs meat using our taste buds alone, it would be pretty convincing now knowing this. Obviously, we don't need this for the conclusion to be correct.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 12/09/2016 14:10

 
  First 
  < 
  8 
  9 
  10 
  11 
  12 
 13 
  14 
  15 
  16 
  17 
  24 
  > 
  Last 



Poker Streams

















Copyright © 2024. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap