https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland latinoamerica Iceland    Contact            Users: 211 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 13:56

Truth Discussion Time - Page 2

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
  First 
  < 
  1 
 2 
  3 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  7 
  8 
  9 
  10 
  17 
  > 
  Last 
Loco   Canada. Jul 21 2016 21:46. Posts 19940


  On July 21 2016 20:17 lebowski wrote:
ok cliffs someone?
This guy is both gay and christian and somehow not a moron?
Is the podcast really worth it?



As with most Joe Rogan podcasts, it's only worth watching if you're bored and don't have anything better to do. I couldn't stomach 3 hours of this shit though. I listened to about an hour and found the discussion of the same old topics to be pretty tedious. Don't expect anything ground-breaking there, but there is some entertainment value.

Btw if you want to add something to the list, he also believes in the legitimacy of the Myers-Briggs test lol, and he tries to tell Joe that he knows his type is the same as his or some shit. Surprisingly and quite extraordinarily, Joe Rogan proceeded to display more intelligence on a subject than his guest on this topic.

Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible, will make a violent revolution inevitable.Last edit: 21/07/2016 21:50

Liquid`Drone   Norway. Jul 21 2016 22:04. Posts 2811


  On July 21 2016 19:45 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



Not sure if you're defending the idea or just trying to clarify his position? Either way, it's completely irrational to believe that an unconscious, undeveloped fetus has more of a right to life than some other animals that are fully sentient and can have the intelligence of 3-4 year old human babies, which of course is the position that is held by these people. You don't see these people protesting the fact that we kill billions of these intelligent animals every year to inefficiently feed human beings. It's just anthropocentric nonsense and arbitrary judgments without any internal consistency.


just clarifying. I have no issue with abortion. I don't have an issue with eating meat either - although I wish we would treat animals significantly more humanely and that we'd eat less of it - the latter not because it in itself is desirable but because it'd help with the 'treat them better' aspect- as well as climate concerns.

However, I also accept that some people, whose minds I cannot influence nor fault for having, consider it a truly heinous, evil act. I believe as a society we are pragmatically best off catering to their feelings to some degree, and try to limit abortions through freely accessible prevention and improved sexual education - then accept some kinda arbitrary period of time during which abortion is permissible, because this should not really influence people who want abortions all that negatively (should easily be possible to make up your mind during a 3 month period) and then it doesn't really matter if we cater to irrationality for the greater good. (obviously my ideal society also has other mechanisms in place to eventually curtail the influence of irrationality but whatever. also I'm rambling and long since stopped really replying to you). :D

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. Jul 22 2016 01:33. Posts 19940


  On July 21 2016 21:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Show nested quote +



just clarifying. I have no issue with abortion. I don't have an issue with eating meat either - although I wish we would treat animals significantly more humanely and that we'd eat less of it - the latter not because it in itself is desirable but because it'd help with the 'treat them better' aspect- as well as climate concerns.

However, I also accept that some people, whose minds I cannot influence nor fault for having, consider it a truly heinous, evil act. I believe as a society we are pragmatically best off catering to their feelings to some degree, and try to limit abortions through freely accessible prevention and improved sexual education - then accept some kinda arbitrary period of time during which abortion is permissible, because this should not really influence people who want abortions all that negatively (should easily be possible to make up your mind during a 3 month period) and then it doesn't really matter if we cater to irrationality for the greater good. (obviously my ideal society also has other mechanisms in place to eventually curtail the influence of irrationality but whatever. also I'm rambling and long since stopped really replying to you). :D



Didn't mean to start an argument about meat eating, but since this is a "truth thread", and I think the "we should focus on humane slaughter" argument is pretty bad, I'm just going to leave this here (it's a good read): http://freefromharm.org/animal-produc...y-i-dont-believe-in-humane-slaughter/

Perhaps the most relevant bulletpoint in that article:


  5. The Orwellian oxymoron of humane slaughter
Humane slaughter is an oxymoron that can only be explained by the dominant culture’s belief in what social psychologist Melanie Joy calls carnism. Joy maintains that when we see the world through the lens of carnism, we view eating animals as a “given” and when confronted with a view critical of carnism, we seek to justify eating animals as normal, natural and necessary. (3) Humane slaughter therefore fails to question our most basic assumptions about animals and food — assumptions we inherited from previous generations rather than beliefs based on an evaluation of the true and current consequences of our food choices. Food choices based on these assumptions are not “free” According to Joy,”There is no free choice without awareness”.



I think if you want to be progressive about the issue, "humane" slaughter isn't what you should be aiming for, but rather lab-grown meat replacements, ideally plant-based. Because regardless of ethical issues, you just can't feed the planet through organic, pasture-raised animal farming. It's way too inefficient. Now perhaps there's a third option that will come up and which is some kind of Brave New World factory farming ordeal, but right now this is what we have.

Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible, will make a violent revolution inevitable.Last edit: 22/07/2016 02:29

RiKD    United States. Jul 22 2016 01:51. Posts 5576


  On July 21 2016 05:45 Loco wrote:



YES!

Bill Hicks makes every thread better, especially when it is relevant and on point.


Baalim   Mexico. Jul 22 2016 02:06. Posts 32896

I think your anti-natalist position (which I fully agree on) is simply too complex for the discussion, while you might think its vital for the abortion Issue i think there are much more simple and easy to understand arguments than to make people think about consciousness and the morality of bringing life into existence.

I think its a futile discussion with a guy with FMLuser, maybe Eri can have that discussion though.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Jul 22 2016 02:13. Posts 19940


  On July 22 2016 01:06 Baalim wrote:
I think your anti-natalist position (which I fully agree on) is simply too complex for the discussion, while you might think its vital for the abortion Issue i think there are much more simple and easy to understand arguments than to make people think about consciousness and the morality of bringing life into existence.

I think its a futile discussion with a guy with FMLuser, maybe Eri can have that discussion though.




When I argue things I argue them for their own sake, not to change someone's mind. I really don't think it's vital; the abortion issue isn't that complex, which is why I posted the Bill Hicks video first-- he nails it perfectly.

Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible, will make a violent revolution inevitable.Last edit: 22/07/2016 02:15

RiKD    United States. Jul 22 2016 02:31. Posts 5576


  On July 21 2016 07:59 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



Its actually quite a bad example because the guy in the movie clearly is mentally ill.


Milo is outrageous on purpose and says shits he doesnt mean like theres no such thing as transphobia, I had a transgender friend who was actually kidnapped tortured, killed and burned so yeah pretty sure transphobia is real, also you cannot categorize transgender people as mentally ill and not do the same for gay people, either both are or none and frankly it all depends on how you want to define mental illness which is a subjective thing.

Also as Rogan says obviously people should do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies, if that 40% regret statistic is true then its a shame, but who cares, if people regret tattoos now we wont allow people to get them? its your body, you own it, you can do whatever you want with it.




Yeah, I definitely disagree strongly with Milo on the transphobia point. I am probably biased thinking about the issue in general. The only transgender people I know are recovering substance abusers with likely mental health issues. The Milo point that they are just gay with maybe some deeper issues just stuck with me. It would seem to be difficult to not have some issues having a female consciousness in a male body and vice versa plus the fact that sexuality could be anywhere on the spectrum. It would be great if someone could set up a better standard operating procedure between Doctor and therapy. Like if someone is Bipolar and has PTSD let them try to work through some of that stuff instead of flying to Thailand and getting it all done in a mania. If someone is more or less healthy and committed to it then great. If the state is paying for it anyway (which I think Milo is wrong about in the USA but I know it's true in Argentina for example) then might as well put some resources in doing it intelligently.

Should the state should pay for the process?

I do agree that at the end of the day people can do what they want. I am still carrying some bias perhaps. I do not understand trans to be honest. If I had a son and he was like "Dad I am cutting off my johnson and becoming the woman I have always been." I would not know what to do. Or maybe I would if they showed that progression their whole life. I would still want to seek professional help for hypothetical son.


RiKD    United States. Jul 22 2016 03:14. Posts 5576


  On July 22 2016 00:33 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



Didn't mean to start an argument about meat eating, but since this is a &quot;truth thread&quot;, and I think the &quot;we should focus on humane slaughter&quot; argument is pretty bad, I'm just going to leave this here (it's a good read): http://freefromharm.org/animal-produc...y-i-dont-believe-in-humane-slaughter/

Perhaps the most relevant bulletpoint in that article:


  5. The Orwellian oxymoron of humane slaughter
Humane slaughter is an oxymoron that can only be explained by the dominant culture’s belief in what social psychologist Melanie Joy calls carnism. Joy maintains that when we see the world through the lens of carnism, we view eating animals as a “given” and when confronted with a view critical of carnism, we seek to justify eating animals as normal, natural and necessary. (3) Humane slaughter therefore fails to question our most basic assumptions about animals and food — assumptions we inherited from previous generations rather than beliefs based on an evaluation of the true and current consequences of our food choices. Food choices based on these assumptions are not “free” According to Joy,”There is no free choice without awareness”.



I think if you want to be progressive about the issue, &quot;humane&quot; slaughter isn't what you should be aiming for, but rather lab-grown meat replacements, ideally plant-based. Because regardless of ethical issues, you just can't feed the planet through organic, pasture-raised animal farming. It's way too inefficient. Now perhaps there's a third option that will come up and which is some kind of Brave New World factory farming ordeal, but right now this is what we have.



My ideal would be to kill animals in accordance to wildlife conservation science. 80 lbs of wild deer does a body good. One thing that is tilting is that they stock the rivers with farmed trout. No one ever catches the awesome wild stuff. The farmed meat is white. The wild variety is pink like salmon. I have dreams of hunting Alaskan black bear whose diet consists very heavily in wild blueberries. It is rumored to be magical. Mussels are delicious and are one thing that do pretty well farmed. They barely have a consciousness and are theorized by neuroscientists to not feel pain. Murdering mussels is analogous to murdering fetuses.

I have become ultra snob at the grocery store. I am still looking into finding a local 100% grass fed, pasture raised cow farm and buying by the cow. I have heard that it comes out to ~$3.70/lb for ~100 lbs of meat.

No idea how to feed the world though.

Loco,

Why can't a movement towards a more local, healthy approach work?

No one is going to care about food as much as the french but one thing they do is subsidize the baguettes and the cheeses and the wines and the smaller sane farms that their culture has had in tact for many years. Right now, the USA subsidizes high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, toxic livestock, poultry, all the bad stuff. Is it not possible to produce enough of the healthy stuff? Part of me still thinks the whole farm industrial complex can be overturned at some point or at least improved greatly. Why not?


whamm!   Albania. Jul 22 2016 04:12. Posts 11625

don't worry guys. soon this'll be a thing of the past. (keep your fingers crossed or donate to this if you can lol)
if you leave shit up as important as this to women you're going have some problems 100%
whoever gets to this first might even get richer than bill gates in under 5 years

dated March 29 2016
http://www.sciencealert.com/reversibl...l-and-could-be-on-sale-within-2-years

 Last edit: 22/07/2016 04:14

Baalim   Mexico. Jul 22 2016 04:56. Posts 32896


  On July 22 2016 01:31 RiKD wrote:
Show nested quote +



Yeah, I definitely disagree strongly with Milo on the transphobia point. I am probably biased thinking about the issue in general. The only transgender people I know are recovering substance abusers with likely mental health issues. The Milo point that they are just gay with maybe some deeper issues just stuck with me. It would seem to be difficult to not have some issues having a female consciousness in a male body and vice versa plus the fact that sexuality could be anywhere on the spectrum. It would be great if someone could set up a better standard operating procedure between Doctor and therapy. Like if someone is Bipolar and has PTSD let them try to work through some of that stuff instead of flying to Thailand and getting it all done in a mania. If someone is more or less healthy and committed to it then great. If the state is paying for it anyway (which I think Milo is wrong about in the USA but I know it's true in Argentina for example) then might as well put some resources in doing it intelligently.

Should the state should pay for the process?

I do agree that at the end of the day people can do what they want. I am still carrying some bias perhaps. I do not understand trans to be honest. If I had a son and he was like "Dad I am cutting off my johnson and becoming the woman I have always been." I would not know what to do. Or maybe I would if they showed that progression their whole life. I would still want to seek professional help for hypothetical son.



No the state should not pay for it ofcourse the transexual im talking about was a psychologist in perfect mental health.

Of course you should send your son to a psychologist before having such a surgery , it would be absolutely irresponsible not to do so

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Ryan Neilly   United States. Jul 22 2016 05:02. Posts 1275

Truth........ guys don't talk about abortion


Baalim   Mexico. Jul 22 2016 06:16. Posts 32896


  On July 22 2016 04:02 Ryan Neilly wrote:
Truth........ guys don't talk about abortion



Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Jul 22 2016 06:50. Posts 19940

Hiding previously quoted stuff-->+ Show Spoiler +




  One thing that is tilting is that they stock the rivers with farmed trout. No one ever catches the awesome wild stuff.



The oceans are overfished. According to some experts, seafood will be gone by 2048, so enjoy it while you can, I guess.


  Mussels are delicious and are one thing that do pretty well farmed. They barely have a consciousness and are theorized by neuroscientists to not feel pain. Murdering mussels is analogous to murdering fetuses.



I agree. This is why I self-identify as an ostrovegan, a term that was coined by Diana Fleischman (@sentientist). Mussels and oysters are sessile mollusks without a central nervous system, so they are outside of any ethical considerations. They can also be farmed without accidental by-kills. They are extremely nutritious as well and could be especially useful for vegans to fill the very few nutritional gaps in an otherwise extremely nutrient-dense diet. I can't possibly pretend to have a big concern over environmental issues since I have no stake in this world (I won't be leaving any children behind), but I can see how they could be the answer (or part of the answer along with farming insects) in the near future. They can purify water and convert toxins into nutrition for us. Pretty neat stuff.




  No idea how to feed the world though.



On paper, it's simple enough. You take all that grain and water you use to feed the animals and you use that to feed people instead. It's more efficient and it's healthier. Human arrogance and greed just won't let that happen though.


  Loco,

Why can't a movement towards a more local, healthy approach work?

No one is going to care about food as much as the french but one thing they do is subsidize the baguettes and the cheeses and the wines and the smaller sane farms that their culture has had in tact for many years. Right now, the USA subsidizes high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, toxic livestock, poultry, all the bad stuff. Is it not possible to produce enough of the healthy stuff? Part of me still thinks the whole farm industrial complex can be overturned at some point or at least improved greatly. Why not?



The local movement is already pretty big, at least where I live. It's one of those things that makes sense but has more to do with people feeling comfortable while avoiding the elephant in the room. Animal agriculture is more environmentally destructive than all forms of transportation combined.

Of course it's possible to produce enough of the healthy stuff. But currently livestock occupies almost half of the earth's total land. Then you have all the land we use to grow food to feed those animals-- and all the land we keep destroying to grow even more--so that we can end up with the most inefficient food products in the world. It's what we have because it's what there is a demand for, of course. We can't even say that it's Big Food's fault-- they are not intent on making you consume this food or that food, they only care about making money. If the demand for healthful food was higher, they'd be the first to market it. But it's just not how it is because people are ignorant and/or self-destructive. They are also easily manipulated. Those huge industries have incredibly effective marketing tactics and are highly skilled at deceiving people. They also have corrupt people who infiltrate the system and work on the government dietary guidelines which is absolutely infuriating. They get away with lying and manipulating others and they don't have any competition from Big Broccoli or the Pinto Beans industry. It comes down to the individual informing himself. At least there are some great guys out there getting through to people so they become informed and make better decisions, like Dr. John McDougall.

Really, it should be easy when you have access to the internet and something as amazing as PubMed, but unfortunately people are not taught to think critically and they don't learn how to interpret scientific research. People fall for the silliest diets and gurus promoting nonsense. They find click-bait articles and poorly interpreted study results, and they think they've found the answer there. Or sometimes there's just too much contradictory information and it becomes a case of decision fatigue; people will shake their heads and go back to what they were comfortable doing. For me it's mostly about looking at history and what has worked and what hasn't. I think the Paleo folks have that part right, but most of them have their facts dead wrong and make poor choices as a result.


  No one is going to care about food as much as the french but one thing they do is subsidize the baguettes and the cheeses and the wines and the smaller sane farms that their culture has had in tact for many years.



...and they are in the top 10 "industrialized" countries with the highest percentage of obese people, unsurprisingly. Not quite the success story.

Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible, will make a violent revolution inevitable.Last edit: 22/07/2016 07:37

RiKD    United States. Jul 22 2016 17:23. Posts 5576


  On July 22 2016 05:50 Loco wrote:
Hiding previously quoted stuff-->+ Show Spoiler +




  One thing that is tilting is that they stock the rivers with farmed trout. No one ever catches the awesome wild stuff.



The oceans are overfished. According to some experts, seafood will be gone by 2048, so enjoy it while you can, I guess.


  Mussels are delicious and are one thing that do pretty well farmed. They barely have a consciousness and are theorized by neuroscientists to not feel pain. Murdering mussels is analogous to murdering fetuses.



I agree. This is why I self-identify as an ostrovegan, a term that
Submit post Preview



was coined by Diana Fleischman (@sentientist). Mussels and oysters are sessile mollusks without a central nervous system, so they are outside of any ethical considerations. They can also be farmed without accidental by-kills. They are extremely nutritious as well and could be especially useful for vegans to fill the very few nutritional gaps in an otherwise extremely nutrient-dense diet. I can't possibly pretend to have a big concern over environmental issues since I have no stake in this world (I won't be leaving any children behind), but I can see how they could be the answer (or part of the answer along with farming insects) in the near future. They can purify water and convert toxins into nutrition for us. Pretty neat stuff.




  No idea how to feed the world though.



On paper, it's simple enough. You take all that grain and water you use to feed the animals and you use that to feed people instead. It's more efficient and it's healthier. Human arrogance and greed just won't let that happen though.


  Loco,

Why can't a movement towards a more local, healthy approach work?

No one is going to care about food as much as the french but one thing they do is subsidize the baguettes and the cheeses and the wines and the smaller sane farms that their culture has had in tact for many years. Right now, the USA subsidizes high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, toxic livestock, poultry, all the bad stuff. Is it not possible to produce enough of the healthy stuff? Part of me still thinks the whole farm industrial complex can be overturned at some point or at least improved greatly. Why not?



The local movement is already pretty big, at least where I live. It's one of those things that makes sense but has more to do with people feeling comfortable while avoiding the elephant in the room. Animal agriculture is more environmentally destructive than all forms of transportation combined.

Of course it's possible to produce enough of the healthy stuff. But currently livestock occupies almost half of the earth's total land. Then you have all the land we use to grow food to feed those animals-- and all the land we keep destroying to grow even more--so that we can end up with the most inefficient food products in the world. It's what we have because it's what there is a demand for, of course. We can't even say that it's Big Food's fault-- they are not intent on making you consume this food or that food, they only care about making money. If the demand for healthful food was higher, they'd be the first to market it. But it's just not how it is because people are ignorant and/or self-destructive. They are also easily manipulated. Those huge industries have incredibly effective marketing tactics and are highly skilled at deceiving people. They also have corrupt people who infiltrate the system and work on the government dietary guidelines which is absolutely infuriating. They get away with lying and manipulating others and they don't have any competition from Big Broccoli or the Pinto Beans industry. It comes down to the individual informing himself. At least there are some great guys out there getting through to people so they become informed and make better decisions, like Dr. John McDougall.

Really, it should be easy when you have access to the internet and something as amazing as PubMed, but unfortunately people are not taught to think critically and they don't learn how to interpret scientific research. People fall for the silliest diets and gurus promoting nonsense. They find click-bait articles and poorly interpreted study results, and they think they've found the answer there. Or sometimes there's just too much contradictory information and it becomes a case of decision fatigue; people will shake their heads and go back to what they were comfortable doing. For me it's mostly about looking at history and what has worked and what hasn't. I think the Paleo folks have that part right, but most of them have their facts dead wrong and make poor choices as a result.


  No one is going to care about food as much as the french but one thing they do is subsidize the baguettes and the cheeses and the wines and the smaller sane farms that their culture has had in tact for many years.



...and they (France) are in the top 10 "industrialized" countries with the highest percentage of obese people, unsurprisingly. Not quite the success story.





  The oceans are overfished. According to some experts, seafood will be gone by 2048, so enjoy it while you can, I guess.



Damn, that is a bummer and a shame. I have faith that better wildlife conservation tactics and movements can change that but that does not mean it will. I just do not want the damn farmers feeding the fish shit and dying them et al. Major bummer.


  I agree. This is why I self-identify as an ostrovegan, a term that was coined by Diana Fleischman (@sentientist). Mussels and oysters are sessile mollusks without a central nervous system, so they are outside of any ethical considerations. They can also be farmed without accidental by-kills. They are extremely nutritious as well and could be especially useful for vegans to fill the very few nutritional gaps in an otherwise extremely nutrient-dense diet. I can't possibly pretend to have a big concern over environmental issues since I have no stake in this world (I won't be leaving any children behind), but I can see how they could be the answer (or part of the answer along with farming insects) in the near future. They can purify water and convert toxins into nutrition for us. Pretty neat stuff.



Rock on. Yeah, the non-accidental by-kills is groovy. I have seen that argument that large scale "vegetarian" farming actually kills tons of animals in the process. Insect farming is a really cool idea. The marketing divisions have some work to do on that one. I heard they are already experimenting with cricket protein powder and bars. I would have no issues eating cricket. Might be labor intensive to fill up a bag of crickets but they do it with shrimp. I heard the lab-produced meat is still extremely expensive but that is a cool technology as well.


  On paper, it's simple enough. You take all that grain and water you use to feed the animals and you use that to feed people instead. It's more efficient and it's healthier. Human arrogance and greed just won't let that happen though.

The local movement is already pretty big, at least where I live. It's one of those things that makes sense but has more to do with people feeling comfortable while avoiding the elephant in the room. Animal agriculture is more environmentally destructive than all forms of transportation combined.

Of course it's possible to produce enough of the healthy stuff. But currently livestock occupies almost half of the earth's total land. Then you have all the land we use to grow food to feed those animals-- and all the land we keep destroying to grow even more--so that we can end up with the most inefficient food products in the world. It's what we have because it's what there is a demand for, of course. We can't even say that it's Big Food's fault-- they are not intent on making you consume this food or that food, they only care about making money. If the demand for healthful food was higher, they'd be the first to market it. But it's just not how it is because people are ignorant and/or self-destructive. They are also easily manipulated. Those huge industries have incredibly effective marketing tactics and are highly skilled at deceiving people. They also have corrupt people who infiltrate the system and work on the government dietary guidelines which is absolutely infuriating. They get away with lying and manipulating others and they don't have any competition from Big Broccoli or the Pinto Beans industry. It comes down to the individual informing himself. At least there are some great guys out there getting through to people so they become informed and make better decisions, like Dr. John McDougall.

Really, it should be easy when you have access to the internet and something as amazing as PubMed, but unfortunately people are not taught to think critically and they don't learn how to interpret scientific research. People fall for the silliest diets and gurus promoting nonsense. They find click-bait articles and poorly interpreted study results, and they think they've found the answer there. Or sometimes there's just too much contradictory information and it becomes a case of decision fatigue; people will shake their heads and go back to what they were comfortable doing. For me it's mostly about looking at history and what has worked and what hasn't. I think the Paleo folks have that part right, but most of them have their facts dead wrong and make poor choices as a result.



Yeah, in my estimations the food pyramid pushed here in the USA is absurd. From my experiences in many parts of the USA the ideal meal or more so stereotypical meal of the "masses" is perhaps 12 or 16oz of steak with a load of some form of potato. That is a generalization and generalizations are generally bad. I will call it an example of what should ideally change. On the other side I was talking to a friend that lives in the Pacific Northwest and said there are many restaurants that provide a living history of the meats used on the menu. That is not my argument for where we should go, I just found it somewhat comical but also in some ways cool.

I am both arrogant and greedy on the meat eating issue for sure. I do have an attitude of my tastes being important. I would like to think I am progressing though. I was a 16oz steak with potato guy to excess and have toned it down a lot. I am more so at a 6oz grass fed ribeye and broccoli guy for what I consider a great meal now. I would be heavily for a Big Broccoli movement.

What facts do Paleo folks have dead wrong and where do they make poor choices?

I would consider myself a Paleo guy. It helped me lose 30 lbs. and have maybe the best health markers at a checkup ever. Part of why I ask the question is the grain issue. I never really bought a lot of the science they were pushing. I do not understand leaky gut. All I know is that I did not eat grains, beans, or milk and typically kept carbohydrates under 100g and I lost about 1-2 lbs of body fat per week, improved my testable health, and generally feel better.

Where are the facts wrong and how could we Paleos be making better choices?


  ...and they (France) are in the top 10 "industrialized" countries with the highest percentage of obese people, unsurprisingly. Not quite the success story.



There is some truth. I had no idea. I was always biased by that "French paradox" stuff about heart health and such. The stories and personal experience of portion control and eating until satiety not fullness. Besides the title of the book "Eat Food, Mostly Plants, Not Too Much" (which I liked) one of the author's main points was "eat like the French." I guess if I am going to get obese on food there is no better place than France!

 Last edit: 22/07/2016 17:24

Baalim   Mexico. Jul 22 2016 21:22. Posts 32896


  On July 22 2016 05:50 Loco wrote:
On paper, it's simple enough. You take all that grain and water you use to feed the animals and you use that to feed people instead. It's more efficient and it's healthier. Human arrogance and greed just won't let that happen though.



Hunger is a food distribution problem, not a production one, same as clean water, so it might help but I dont think reducing cattle in extreme poverty areas would solve hunger

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Jul 22 2016 21:27. Posts 8771

Main problem there is corruption tbh, everything else can be fixed, human nature however..


Liquid`Drone   Norway. Jul 22 2016 21:31. Posts 2811

sure it can, we just have to take away people's autonomy.

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. Jul 23 2016 07:59. Posts 19940


  On July 22 2016 20:22 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



Hunger is a food distribution problem, not a production one, same as clean water, so it might help but I dont think reducing cattle in extreme poverty areas would solve hunger


Of course, I get your point, but they are inseparable issues. Once you've screwed up the efficiency equation, you're automatically able to feed less people regardless. What's more is that when people consume large amounts of these disease-causing food products it ends up being responsible for at least half of total health care costs (probably quite a bit more). You're losing massive amounts of resources at both ends. Point is, the reason it's badly distributed is the same reason it's so wasteful. Either both will get fixed simultaneously or neither ever will.

Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible, will make a violent revolution inevitable.Last edit: 23/07/2016 08:15

Loco   Canada. Jul 23 2016 08:07. Posts 19940


  On July 22 2016 16:23 RiKD wrote:
Show nested quote +




  The oceans are overfished. According to some experts, seafood will be gone by 2048, so enjoy it while you can, I guess.



Damn, that is a bummer and a shame. I have faith that better wildlife conservation tactics and movements can change that but that does not mean it will. I just do not want the damn farmers feeding the fish shit and dying them et al. Major bummer.


  I agree. This is why I self-identify as an ostrovegan, a term that was coined by Diana Fleischman (@sentientist). Mussels and oysters are sessile mollusks without a central nervous system, so they are outside of any ethical considerations. They can also be farmed without accidental by-kills. They are extremely nutritious as well and could be especially useful for vegans to fill the very few nutritional gaps in an otherwise extremely nutrient-dense diet. I can't possibly pretend to have a big concern over environmental issues since I have no stake in this world (I won't be leaving any children behind), but I can see how they could be the answer (or part of the answer along with farming insects) in the near future. They can purify water and convert toxins into nutrition for us. Pretty neat stuff.



Rock on. Yeah, the non-accidental by-kills is groovy. I have seen that argument that large scale "vegetarian" farming actually kills tons of animals in the process. Insect farming is a really cool idea. The marketing divisions have some work to do on that one. I heard they are already experimenting with cricket protein powder and bars. I would have no issues eating cricket. Might be labor intensive to fill up a bag of crickets but they do it with shrimp. I heard the lab-produced meat is still extremely expensive but that is a cool technology as well.


  On paper, it's simple enough. You take all that grain and water you use to feed the animals and you use that to feed people instead. It's more efficient and it's healthier. Human arrogance and greed just won't let that happen though.

The local movement is already pretty big, at least where I live. It's one of those things that makes sense but has more to do with people feeling comfortable while avoiding the elephant in the room. Animal agriculture is more environmentally destructive than all forms of transportation combined.

Of course it's possible to produce enough of the healthy stuff. But currently livestock occupies almost half of the earth's total land. Then you have all the land we use to grow food to feed those animals-- and all the land we keep destroying to grow even more--so that we can end up with the most inefficient food products in the world. It's what we have because it's what there is a demand for, of course. We can't even say that it's Big Food's fault-- they are not intent on making you consume this food or that food, they only care about making money. If the demand for healthful food was higher, they'd be the first to market it. But it's just not how it is because people are ignorant and/or self-destructive. They are also easily manipulated. Those huge industries have incredibly effective marketing tactics and are highly skilled at deceiving people. They also have corrupt people who infiltrate the system and work on the government dietary guidelines which is absolutely infuriating. They get away with lying and manipulating others and they don't have any competition from Big Broccoli or the Pinto Beans industry. It comes down to the individual informing himself. At least there are some great guys out there getting through to people so they become informed and make better decisions, like Dr. John McDougall.

Really, it should be easy when you have access to the internet and something as amazing as PubMed, but unfortunately people are not taught to think critically and they don't learn how to interpret scientific research. People fall for the silliest diets and gurus promoting nonsense. They find click-bait articles and poorly interpreted study results, and they think they've found the answer there. Or sometimes there's just too much contradictory information and it becomes a case of decision fatigue; people will shake their heads and go back to what they were comfortable doing. For me it's mostly about looking at history and what has worked and what hasn't. I think the Paleo folks have that part right, but most of them have their facts dead wrong and make poor choices as a result.



Yeah, in my estimations the food pyramid pushed here in the USA is absurd. From my experiences in many parts of the USA the ideal meal or more so stereotypical meal of the "masses" is perhaps 12 or 16oz of steak with a load of some form of potato. That is a generalization and generalizations are generally bad. I will call it an example of what should ideally change. On the other side I was talking to a friend that lives in the Pacific Northwest and said there are many restaurants that provide a living history of the meats used on the menu. That is not my argument for where we should go, I just found it somewhat comical but also in some ways cool.

I am both arrogant and greedy on the meat eating issue for sure. I do have an attitude of my tastes being important. I would like to think I am progressing though. I was a 16oz steak with potato guy to excess and have toned it down a lot. I am more so at a 6oz grass fed ribeye and broccoli guy for what I consider a great meal now. I would be heavily for a Big Broccoli movement.

What facts do Paleo folks have dead wrong and where do they make poor choices?

I would consider myself a Paleo guy. It helped me lose 30 lbs. and have maybe the best health markers at a checkup ever. Part of why I ask the question is the grain issue. I never really bought a lot of the science they were pushing. I do not understand leaky gut. All I know is that I did not eat grains, beans, or milk and typically kept carbohydrates under 100g and I lost about 1-2 lbs of body fat per week, improved my testable health, and generally feel better.

Where are the facts wrong and how could we Paleos be making better choices?


  ...and they (France) are in the top 10 "industrialized" countries with the highest percentage of obese people, unsurprisingly. Not quite the success story.



There is some truth. I had no idea. I was always biased by that "French paradox" stuff about heart health and such. The stories and personal experience of portion control and eating until satiety not fullness. Besides the title of the book "Eat Food, Mostly Plants, Not Too Much" (which I liked) one of the author's main points was "eat like the French." I guess if I am going to get obese on food there is no better place than France!



Don't have time right now to give you a proper elaborate response, but I'll just say that the diet of most people who believe they are following anything resembling an ancestral diet is far from it. You can watch this TedTalk discussing some of those issues:



Also a couple more:







On the "French Paradox:

Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible, will make a violent revolution inevitable.Last edit: 23/07/2016 17:41

Baalim   Mexico. Jul 23 2016 09:13. Posts 32896

so this thread is about anti-natalism and veganism... yeah loco is back

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

 
  First 
  < 
  1 
 2 
  3 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  7 
  8 
  9 
  10 
  17 
  > 
  Last 





Poker Streams


















Copyright © 2019. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap