Serious people think being a vegan is hard? Obvious if you do it over night everything is hard. Takes time to adjust. If you are so narrow minded to think it's impossible I feel bad for your mentality. I am not saying all vegans are healthy but I do believe in that future diets being vegan is optimal if you have the right diet: some people are just not very conscious of suffering. How the fuck do you justify suffering. But in today times people are just selfish but people will start to realize suffering is bad for the soul. Loco there are a lot of bullshit in our society that wise people don't fall for but for the unwise we can only hope to change their mind one day. Until that day just be happy and try your best.
On September 17 2017 02:32 Mortensen8 wrote:
That's because they thought they could larp as christcucks and not defend themselves, shows what slave morality gives you nature doesn't give a shit stop it with your phony outrage thats going to be a problem in the future and already is for Scandis such as yourself who are oversocialized happens everytime to civilized people get too comfortable.
Literally everything you say is nonsense. I've realized this on many occasions in the past and generally choose to just ignore you, and I'm gonna keep going that direction.
On August 31 2017 06:25 Loco wrote:
The video has nothing to do with "diets". No one's talking about the Zone Diet, The Atkins diet, the Raw Till 4 Diet or whatever else. Those are fun to make fun of, but the video's about the science of nutrition: that's what a dietitian is, someone who is (at least in part) paid to understand the data and give evidence-based advice. Here, rather than elucidate something with humor, which they could have easily done, they chose to misrepresent what genuine nutrition experts have known and advocated for in the past few decades. As a skeptic and scientifically-minded individual, you would normally be condemning those who misportray scientific research, but your prejudice against the subject and/or your ignorance blinds you here. Like I said, this video could have been good if the person who gave the advice was playing a nutrition blogger or that annoying friend who keeps going on new diets and who knows nothing about nutrition research, but since he's playing a dietitian, someone who is rigorously trained to study food with the scientific method, it fails miserably. Also, the video's been up for more than one month and they still haven't fixed their misspelling of 'dietitian' either, which shows just how sloppy they are.
Btw, my girlfriend's aunt, whom I love, chain smokes, eats eggs/bacon/butter/beef/chicken/milk every day because she is convinced that the end message of the video you posted is correct -- the idea that it's all genetic and there's no reason to be concerned with lifestyle choices. To justify herself, she gives me the typical "I knew someone who was a health nut, never smoked, ate perfectly and exercised but she died from X disease before her time". It's difficult to see the people you love destroy themselves, especially out of ignorance. I hate knowing that I'm going to be losing her early while it could have easily been avoided if she had educated herself. That's why misinformation like this bothers me. It's not about some nerdy, abstract concern for the purity of a discipline that I study. I'm constantly witnessing the real suffering it causes to be misinformed about the impact that lifestyle choices have on the quality of life.
People dont think pizzas are just as healthy as a sald
You sure? Watch the video Mortensen posted on this page. His channel is growing. People are so fucking confused about nutrition they'll follow the diet of a guy who eats one-year-old rotten meat for health reasons.
The problem with dietitians is they have to speak from the government view or they will lose their license. Especially in US they go after "alternative thinkers" really hard and take their licenses. The goverment view has to be based on a lot of factors that are not necessarily based on the best possible advice. Lets say norwegian goverment decides to inform the public about how bad sugar really is for your health. Now, what would happen to norwegian candy and chocolate companies ? Maybe you would see a big downfall % wise and that would be bad for our companies + more unemployed people etc etc. So the compromise is "everything in moderation" view even thou its clearly a bullshit advice for a lot of people. I totally understand the governments position and why they will have to go with "everything in moderation" but its a bullshit advice and very not optimal. The diet you make fun of "Atkins diet" really helps a lot of people. Thou, Atkins was not aware that some amino acids burns like sugar. So for a lot of people the diet ended up beeing a high protein, that is not optimal for most people. High fat, moderat protein, low carbohydrate seems to give REALLY GOOD results for most people that want to lose weight or diabetes type 2 (and several other issues). The most effective by far is just fasting thou (and in some ways acctually the simplest way)
On September 17 2017 02:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, my preferred type of meat is lamb. In Norway, sheep are truly free range. They are born, live regular sheep lives largely like they would if there were no people, and then after half a year or so, they are brought back to the farm and slaughtered. Sure, being slaughtered always sucks, but their actual lives are probably better than the average free animal in actual nature (food is plentiful and predators are rare). As for chicken, a majority of chicken and egg production is industrialized and while cages are slightly bigger, it's not that different from in the US. As for dairy production, I'm reading that in the US, one cow produces on average 6-7 gallons of milk per day. That equates to something like 9000 liters per year. In Norway, the average is 6000 liters. I think it's fair to assume that a reduction of 33% equates to considerably better conditions. We've also banned some cattle breeds (like the Belgian Blue) because of animal welfare reasons. Pigs I think generally live in pretty crappy conditions, which sucks as I love pork.
To be fair, we've also started with the milking robots, and our current government has tried to make farms more industrialized and productive (and less concerned with animal welfare), which I think sucks. But we have a long tradition of subsidizing farmers and adding import taxes on meat from other countries so that it will be possible for more ethically minded farms to compete with the bigger factory farms on the european mainland.
How is it a regular sheep life if their lives are ended after one or two years? Their natural lifespan is 10-12 years.
The dairy cows might produce less because they are a different breed, but even in the best circumstances possible, they are still forcibly impregnated and their whole life is spent in a constant cycle of births and their babies are taken away from them. Have you ever heard the cries of a cow that has her baby taken from her after birth? It's not a trivial thing for them. There's a reason why they are considered 'spent' after living for around 20% of their normal lifespan. A life like this causes extreme stress and suffering. Better overall conditions don't suddenly elevate a practice into a humane one.
The "it's still a better life than being in nature" is a non-argument. These animals are not taken out of nature to be put in these farms. If they were, it'd be a whole different discussion. They're bred specifically for that (unnecessary) purpose.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On August 31 2017 06:25 Loco wrote:
The video has nothing to do with "diets". No one's talking about the Zone Diet, The Atkins diet, the Raw Till 4 Diet or whatever else. Those are fun to make fun of, but the video's about the science of nutrition: that's what a dietitian is, someone who is (at least in part) paid to understand the data and give evidence-based advice. Here, rather than elucidate something with humor, which they could have easily done, they chose to misrepresent what genuine nutrition experts have known and advocated for in the past few decades. As a skeptic and scientifically-minded individual, you would normally be condemning those who misportray scientific research, but your prejudice against the subject and/or your ignorance blinds you here. Like I said, this video could have been good if the person who gave the advice was playing a nutrition blogger or that annoying friend who keeps going on new diets and who knows nothing about nutrition research, but since he's playing a dietitian, someone who is rigorously trained to study food with the scientific method, it fails miserably. Also, the video's been up for more than one month and they still haven't fixed their misspelling of 'dietitian' either, which shows just how sloppy they are.
Btw, my girlfriend's aunt, whom I love, chain smokes, eats eggs/bacon/butter/beef/chicken/milk every day because she is convinced that the end message of the video you posted is correct -- the idea that it's all genetic and there's no reason to be concerned with lifestyle choices. To justify herself, she gives me the typical "I knew someone who was a health nut, never smoked, ate perfectly and exercised but she died from X disease before her time". It's difficult to see the people you love destroy themselves, especially out of ignorance. I hate knowing that I'm going to be losing her early while it could have easily been avoided if she had educated herself. That's why misinformation like this bothers me. It's not about some nerdy, abstract concern for the purity of a discipline that I study. I'm constantly witnessing the real suffering it causes to be misinformed about the impact that lifestyle choices have on the quality of life.
People dont think pizzas are just as healthy as a sald
You sure? Watch the video Mortensen posted on this page. His channel is growing. People are so fucking confused about nutrition they'll follow the diet of a guy who eats one-year-old rotten meat for health reasons.
The problem with dietitians is they have to speak from the government view or they will lose their license. Especially in US they go after "alternative thinkers" really hard and take their licenses. The goverment view has to be based on a lot of factors that are not necessarily based on the best possible advice. Lets say norwegian goverment decides to inform the public about how bad sugar really is for your health. Now, what would happen to norwegian candy and chocolate companies ? Maybe you would see a big downfall % wise and that would be bad for our companies + more unemployed people etc etc. So the compromise is "everything in moderation" view even thou its clearly a bullshit advice for a lot of people. I totally understand the governments position and why they will have to go with "everything in moderation" but its a bullshit advice and very not optimal. The diet you make fun of "Atkins diet" really helps a lot of people. Thou, Atkins was not aware that some amino acids burns like sugar. So for a lot of people the diet ended up beeing a high protein, that is not optimal for most people. High fat, moderat protein, low carbohydrate seems to give REALLY GOOD results for most people that want to lose weight or diabetes type 2 (and several other issues). The most effective by far is just fasting thou (and in some ways acctually the simplest way)
Yeah I've already talked about the government guidelines being a compromise between industry needs and health concerns. Dietitians aren't perfect by any means. The main reason I didn't want to become one despite my interest in the field is precisely for this reason. But they're also not just wishy-washy morons who are constantly changing their opinion on specific foods, as it was portrayed in the FoD video.
The Atkins diet doesn't help people long term, which is the only thing that matters. I've looked at the literature on this extensively. It's a diet, and like all diets, they fail in the long term. Many people swear by the high protein, moderate fat version, others the high fat ketogenic diet. What they both have in common is very little evidence to back up the anecdotal claims you see everywhere. The fact that you can reverse type 2 diabetes eating this way is meaningless. You can reverse type 2 diabetes by eating whatever you want as long as it's restrictive enough to encourage consistent weight loss. If you're increasing inflammation and your risk of heart disease, multiple cancers and dementia in the process, it's hardly a win.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On August 31 2017 06:25 Loco wrote:
The video has nothing to do with "diets". No one's talking about the Zone Diet, The Atkins diet, the Raw Till 4 Diet or whatever else. Those are fun to make fun of, but the video's about the science of nutrition: that's what a dietitian is, someone who is (at least in part) paid to understand the data and give evidence-based advice. Here, rather than elucidate something with humor, which they could have easily done, they chose to misrepresent what genuine nutrition experts have known and advocated for in the past few decades. As a skeptic and scientifically-minded individual, you would normally be condemning those who misportray scientific research, but your prejudice against the subject and/or your ignorance blinds you here. Like I said, this video could have been good if the person who gave the advice was playing a nutrition blogger or that annoying friend who keeps going on new diets and who knows nothing about nutrition research, but since he's playing a dietitian, someone who is rigorously trained to study food with the scientific method, it fails miserably. Also, the video's been up for more than one month and they still haven't fixed their misspelling of 'dietitian' either, which shows just how sloppy they are.
Btw, my girlfriend's aunt, whom I love, chain smokes, eats eggs/bacon/butter/beef/chicken/milk every day because she is convinced that the end message of the video you posted is correct -- the idea that it's all genetic and there's no reason to be concerned with lifestyle choices. To justify herself, she gives me the typical "I knew someone who was a health nut, never smoked, ate perfectly and exercised but she died from X disease before her time". It's difficult to see the people you love destroy themselves, especially out of ignorance. I hate knowing that I'm going to be losing her early while it could have easily been avoided if she had educated herself. That's why misinformation like this bothers me. It's not about some nerdy, abstract concern for the purity of a discipline that I study. I'm constantly witnessing the real suffering it causes to be misinformed about the impact that lifestyle choices have on the quality of life.
People dont think pizzas are just as healthy as a sald
You sure? Watch the video Mortensen posted on this page. His channel is growing. People are so fucking confused about nutrition they'll follow the diet of a guy who eats one-year-old rotten meat for health reasons.
The problem with dietitians is they have to speak from the government view or they will lose their license. Especially in US they go after "alternative thinkers" really hard and take their licenses. The goverment view has to be based on a lot of factors that are not necessarily based on the best possible advice. Lets say norwegian goverment decides to inform the public about how bad sugar really is for your health. Now, what would happen to norwegian candy and chocolate companies ? Maybe you would see a big downfall % wise and that would be bad for our companies + more unemployed people etc etc. So the compromise is "everything in moderation" view even thou its clearly a bullshit advice for a lot of people. I totally understand the governments position and why they will have to go with "everything in moderation" but its a bullshit advice and very not optimal. The diet you make fun of "Atkins diet" really helps a lot of people. Thou, Atkins was not aware that some amino acids burns like sugar. So for a lot of people the diet ended up beeing a high protein, that is not optimal for most people. High fat, moderat protein, low carbohydrate seems to give REALLY GOOD results for most people that want to lose weight or diabetes type 2 (and several other issues). The most effective by far is just fasting thou (and in some ways acctually the simplest way)
Yeah I've already talked about the government guidelines being a compromise between industry needs and health concerns. Dietitians aren't perfect by any means. The main reason I didn't want to become one despite my interest in the field is precisely for this reason. But they're also not just wishy-washy morons who are constantly changing their opinion on specific foods, as it was portrayed in the FoD video.
The Atkins diet doesn't help people long term, which is the only thing that matters. I've looked at the literature on this extensively. It's a diet, and like all diets, they fail in the long term. Many people swear by the high protein, moderate fat version, others the high fat ketogenic diet. What they both have in common is very little evidence to back up the anecdotal claims you see everywhere. The fact that you can reverse type 2 diabetes eating this way is meaningless. You can reverse type 2 diabetes by eating whatever you want as long as it's restrictive enough to encourage consistent weight loss. If you're increasing inflammation and your risk of heart disease, multiple cancers and dementia in the process, it's hardly a win.
Well, I admit that I too seem to fuck up quite a lot when i do the low carb thing. Even thou its clearly good for me. But im still pretty sure Atkins diet beats the 99% failure rate of the traditional "eat less, workout more". I lost 40 kg's since April mainly by fasting a lot (the longest fast I had was 14 days). I lost 8kg's the last time I fasted for 12 days and it stays off. For me its a lot easier to eat nothing at all than restricting something. With some kind of regime/eating plan I just dont have any self disipline and I end up cheating for some reason. If you want I can give you before/after picture. (I dont really want to post it public). Having a bet to win also gives some motivation obv
On September 17 2017 02:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, my preferred type of meat is lamb. In Norway, sheep are truly free range. They are born, live regular sheep lives largely like they would if there were no people, and then after half a year or so, they are brought back to the farm and slaughtered. Sure, being slaughtered always sucks, but their actual lives are probably better than the average free animal in actual nature (food is plentiful and predators are rare). As for chicken, a majority of chicken and egg production is industrialized and while cages are slightly bigger, it's not that different from in the US. As for dairy production, I'm reading that in the US, one cow produces on average 6-7 gallons of milk per day. That equates to something like 9000 liters per year. In Norway, the average is 6000 liters. I think it's fair to assume that a reduction of 33% equates to considerably better conditions. We've also banned some cattle breeds (like the Belgian Blue) because of animal welfare reasons. Pigs I think generally live in pretty crappy conditions, which sucks as I love pork.
To be fair, we've also started with the milking robots, and our current government has tried to make farms more industrialized and productive (and less concerned with animal welfare), which I think sucks. But we have a long tradition of subsidizing farmers and adding import taxes on meat from other countries so that it will be possible for more ethically minded farms to compete with the bigger factory farms on the european mainland.
How is it a regular sheep life if their lives are ended after one or two years? Their natural lifespan is 10-12 years.
life span =/= avg lifespan.
And even so its a silly point, its not about making sheep-paradise, its about using them for consumption but trying to reduce cruelty to a minimum, If your goal is to actually help minimize suffering (in animals) I dont think taking a hard-line is an effective way, I think we will gradually move to not killing animals but people going straight to veganism is most likely not the path, we are going to move to more ethical farming in a near future and we will probably develop synthethic meat in a more distant one, so you shouldnt discard these ideas, because they are the path.
Unless your goal is simply pursue moral purity in which case take a shit on ethical farming and synthethic substitutes.
On September 17 2017 02:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, my preferred type of meat is lamb. In Norway, sheep are truly free range. They are born, live regular sheep lives largely like they would if there were no people, and then after half a year or so, they are brought back to the farm and slaughtered. Sure, being slaughtered always sucks, but their actual lives are probably better than the average free animal in actual nature (food is plentiful and predators are rare). As for chicken, a majority of chicken and egg production is industrialized and while cages are slightly bigger, it's not that different from in the US. As for dairy production, I'm reading that in the US, one cow produces on average 6-7 gallons of milk per day. That equates to something like 9000 liters per year. In Norway, the average is 6000 liters. I think it's fair to assume that a reduction of 33% equates to considerably better conditions. We've also banned some cattle breeds (like the Belgian Blue) because of animal welfare reasons. Pigs I think generally live in pretty crappy conditions, which sucks as I love pork.
To be fair, we've also started with the milking robots, and our current government has tried to make farms more industrialized and productive (and less concerned with animal welfare), which I think sucks. But we have a long tradition of subsidizing farmers and adding import taxes on meat from other countries so that it will be possible for more ethically minded farms to compete with the bigger factory farms on the european mainland.
How is it a regular sheep life if their lives are ended after one or two years? Their natural lifespan is 10-12 years.
life span =/= avg lifespan.
And even so its a silly point, its not about making sheep-paradise, its about using them for consumption but trying to reduce cruelty to a minimum, If your goal is to actually help minimize suffering (in animals) I dont think taking a hard-line is an effective way, I think we will gradually move to not killing animals but people going straight to veganism is most likely not the path, we are going to move to more ethical farming in a near future and we will probably develop synthethic meat in a more distant one, so you shouldnt discard these ideas, because they are the path.
Unless your goal is simply pursue moral purity in which case take a shit on ethical farming and synthethic substitutes.
I don't know much about the semantics of average lifespan and life expectancy. It seems to just be different calculations where one includes early mortality and one doesn't. It changes nothing about my point. If sheep are well taken care of, their life expectancy is 10 to 12 years, like most large breeds of dog. If you have a dog that dies when he's one and a half year old, do you qualify that he's had a normal life?
Moral purity (deontological veganism) has never been what I advocate. That's why you saw me get into trouble on the McDougall forums for being fine with eating bivalves and challenging their claims. "Pure" vegans are against using animal products no matter what the consequences are. My veganism is consequentalist. But that doesn't mean people get a free pass for using deceitful language, like "truly humane farming". I've granted that better circumstances is a win, it's just not enough to use that kind of language and people should have no illusions about what they are contributing to.
It doesn't seem like we are going to be moving into more ethical farming. Why would we go back to using more land to produce less food? Lab-grown meat has to be the future IMO.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I am in the camp that vegan is ideal yet I don't eat that way. I don't know if it is out of convenience, laziness, cruelty. I am like the German that has seen the insides of a concentration camp and does nothing about it. In fact I comply with the practices most days. Actually, most accurately is that I do something about it and then remiss at speed bumps or even more accurately than that it just happens. So, it happens and I am eating a burger and it's good, a pizza and it's good, ice cream and it's good and then I just sort of have this freedom to enjoy food and I enjoy that. I don't even know if the food is that good. I guess we have been through this all before with the pleasure trap and everything else in this thread. I was gone last week on a vacation and just about every meal I enjoyed good eats. Not once did I think about the suffering animals. I take that back. I thought of the suffering cow while the lomo altropa was cooking on the fire. I didn't mind when the lomo altropa hit my taste buds and my satiation parts of the brain were doing cartwheels. At the same time, for lunch today I had many choices of what to eat and I chose a mushroom and black bean burrito, 2 vegetable samosas, and an apple. It was quite good. I don't seek out animal products but if there is animal products in something I want to eat I don't like saying no. I think that just might be the way it is for me at this point in time.
Problem with people knowing something is bad but don't change their path is worst than someone not knowing.
Find solutions, pray to the creator of the universe for help. Try to change in the right direction and improve at your own pace everyday. Small steps one day at a time. Got to applied the knowledge or no point in having the knowledge. Guys if you do not think vegan is optimal right now for yourself,I can understand, but to say it will not be optimal is false until you try it. If you tried it and said yeah it's not for me, I can understand but to say it is sub optimal without ever trying is just wrong. Animal suffering is wrong, if you do not see this, got to open your consciousness. I recently converted to pretty much pure vegan, might have a cookie with egg in it but trying to reduce that once I lose the cravings. I am much healthier and have more energy than I ever had in the past 15 years. Life is great being a vegan. Just my thought
On September 17 2017 02:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, my preferred type of meat is lamb. In Norway, sheep are truly free range. They are born, live regular sheep lives largely like they would if there were no people, and then after half a year or so, they are brought back to the farm and slaughtered. Sure, being slaughtered always sucks, but their actual lives are probably better than the average free animal in actual nature (food is plentiful and predators are rare). As for chicken, a majority of chicken and egg production is industrialized and while cages are slightly bigger, it's not that different from in the US. As for dairy production, I'm reading that in the US, one cow produces on average 6-7 gallons of milk per day. That equates to something like 9000 liters per year. In Norway, the average is 6000 liters. I think it's fair to assume that a reduction of 33% equates to considerably better conditions. We've also banned some cattle breeds (like the Belgian Blue) because of animal welfare reasons. Pigs I think generally live in pretty crappy conditions, which sucks as I love pork.
To be fair, we've also started with the milking robots, and our current government has tried to make farms more industrialized and productive (and less concerned with animal welfare), which I think sucks. But we have a long tradition of subsidizing farmers and adding import taxes on meat from other countries so that it will be possible for more ethically minded farms to compete with the bigger factory farms on the european mainland.
How is it a regular sheep life if their lives are ended after one or two years? Their natural lifespan is 10-12 years.
life span =/= avg lifespan.
And even so its a silly point, its not about making sheep-paradise, its about using them for consumption but trying to reduce cruelty to a minimum, If your goal is to actually help minimize suffering (in animals) I dont think taking a hard-line is an effective way, I think we will gradually move to not killing animals but people going straight to veganism is most likely not the path, we are going to move to more ethical farming in a near future and we will probably develop synthethic meat in a more distant one, so you shouldnt discard these ideas, because they are the path.
Unless your goal is simply pursue moral purity in which case take a shit on ethical farming and synthethic substitutes.
I don't know much about the semantics of average lifespan and life expectency. It seems to just be different calculations where one includes early mortality and one doesn't. It changes nothing about my point. If sheep are well taken care of, their life expectency is 10 to 12 years, like most large breeds of dog. If you have a dog that dies when he's one and a half year old, do you qualify that he's had a normal life?
Moral purity (deontological veganism) has never been what I advocate. That's why you saw me get into trouble on the McDougall forums for being fine with eating bivalves and challenging their claims. "Pure" vegans are against using animal products no matter what the consequences are. My veganism is consequentalist. But that doesn't mean people get a free pass for using deceitful language, like "truly humane farming". I've granted that better circumstances is a win, it's just not enough to use that kind of language and people should have no illusions about what they are contributing to.
It doesn't seem like we are going to be moving into more ethical farming. Why would we go back to using more land to produce less food? Lab-grown meat has to be the future IMO.
Depends what you define normal but a high % of dogs die young so you could say its normal, or you cant but I dont think that is the word of the point we are discussing, Its about minimizing the suffering of the animal.
Humane farming is still farming, its still using animals, its still wrong but its much much better than factory/unethical farming.
Indeed lab-grown meat is the future but its a distant one we are not yet there yet, it will also take a while to pass regulations and even longer for mass consumer adoption, the middle-step is ethical farming.
That being said ethical farming brings some interesting social aspects into play, since naturally products will have massive increase in prices we will kind of revert to the old days where eating meat was a luxury and reserved mostly for higher income families, it doesn't matter much to me, but its interesting.
On September 19 2017 01:28 jfound888 wrote:
Problem with people knowing something is bad but don't change their path is worst than someone not knowing.
Find solutions, pray to the creator of the universe for help. Try to change in the right direction and improve at your own pace everyday. Small steps one day at a time. Got to applied the knowledge or no point in having the knowledge. Guys if you do not think vegan is optimal right now for yourself,I can understand, but to say it will not be optimal is false until you try it. If you tried it and said yeah it's not for me, I can understand but to say it is sub optimal without ever trying is just wrong. Animal suffering is wrong, if you do not see this, got to open your consciousness. I recently converted to pretty much pure vegan, might have a cookie with egg in it but trying to reduce that once I lose the cravings. I am much healthier and have more energy than I ever had in the past 15 years. Life is great being a vegan. Just my thought
It's not, knowing somethin is worng is the first path to correct it, ignorance is no excuse and the biggest evils in the world are due to ignorance.
For example, you believe praying for the creator of the universe does shit, your ignorance doesnt absolve you from actually doing nothing, you are no better than the one that is aware there is no such thing yet does nothing, you are in fact, worse.
Its also wrong saying you have to try it to claim if its right/wrong, you cant say that the best diet in the world is eating horse cock unless you try it, see how that works?
But indeed animal suffering is wrong and most will simply ignore that or do absurd justifications for it, or simply are complete psychopaths like Mortensen
On September 19 2017 01:28 jfound888 wrote:
Problem with people knowing something is bad but don't change their path is worst than someone not knowing.
Find solutions, pray to the creator of the universe for help. Try to change in the right direction and improve at your own pace everyday. Small steps one day at a time. Got to applied the knowledge or no point in having the knowledge. Guys if you do not think vegan is optimal right now for yourself,I can understand, but to say it will not be optimal is false until you try it. If you tried it and said yeah it's not for me, I can understand but to say it is sub optimal without ever trying is just wrong. Animal suffering is wrong, if you do not see this, got to open your consciousness. I recently converted to pretty much pure vegan, might have a cookie with egg in it but trying to reduce that once I lose the cravings. I am much healthier and have more energy than I ever had in the past 15 years. Life is great being a vegan. Just my thought
It's not, knowing somethin is worng is the first path to correct it, ignorance is no excuse and the biggest evils in the world are due to ignorance.
For example, you believe praying for the creator of the universe does shit, your ignorance doesnt absolve you from actually doing nothing, you are no better than the one that is aware there is no such thing yet does nothing, you are in fact, worse.
Its also wrong saying you have to try it to claim if its right/wrong, you cant say that the best diet in the world is eating horse cock unless you try it, see how that works?
But indeed animal suffering is wrong and most will simply ignore that or do absurd justifications for it, or simply are complete psychopaths like Mortensen
Ah yes Baal you are right, knowing something is better than not knowing if in the future you change but I guess I am assuming if you don't it be worst. I should not assume though. I get your point about horse but what I'm implying is making something suffer for your gain is not an optimal play. For example eating horse cock you have to make an animal suffer which is negative. I am saying what is the best way to help yourself without hurting anythhing in the future. Obvious I do not expect that anytime soon but I'm saying social concisous one day willl realize vegan is best. At the moment the way we consume food is so grotesque.
I dont disagree with your points about the morality of animal consumption, but I am aware of that yet I eat meat, so I'm one of those who know but dont act that you are talking about and no, refusing to see the immorality of animal suffering is NOT better than where I am at, altought I understand why you think so, most people excuse evil if it comes from ignorance, I do not.
I think I'll eventually stop consuming meat, but its such an effort that I need to be pretty much the only "thing in my plate" (no pun intended), but the time for it will come.
its harder for some of us, I dont care how much Loco claims to love cheese its just not the same, most of my friends are hippy-type so I know a lot of vegans and every single one of them wasnt a huge fan of meat while I basically grew up with a Skimo diet.
This reminds me of that Skrim dragon quote, " Is it better to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort"
Exactly you get the point, you are not at the stage to become vegan yet but will entertain the thought of becoming one in the future. That's my point human are not there yet but with time, they will start to realize vegan is best.
That is a good question, I would want to be born good and know evil so I stay good.
On September 19 2017 06:12 Baalim wrote:
I dont disagree with your points about the morality of animal consumption, but I am aware of that yet I eat meat, so I'm one of those who know but dont act that you are talking about and no, refusing to see the immorality of animal suffering is NOT better than where I am at, altought I understand why you think so, most people excuse evil if it comes from ignorance, I do not.
I think I'll eventually stop consuming meat, but its such an effort that I need to be pretty much the only "thing in my plate" (no pun intended), but the time for it will come.
its harder for some of us, I dont care how much Loco claims to love cheese its just not the same, most of my friends are hippy-type so I know a lot of vegans and every single one of them wasnt a huge fan of meat while I basically grew up with a Skimo diet.
This reminds me of that Skrim dragon quote, " Is it better to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort"
You say that as if it was an easy transition for me. You truly don't know how much of a struggle it was. It took me years of going back and forth. I re-evaluated things many times and failed. Even back in 2008 when I posted Earthlings on LP and committed to going vegan, I was extremely motivated to succeed and could only stay vegan for a couple months. And at my worst a few years ago I was completely addicted to animal products. I had to add cheese to everything, even if there was already plenty of cheese on it. I ate plenty of meat, and I was no longer sourcing it from the least harmful farms because of the cost. I found ways to justify it to myself like everybody does. "My decisions don't change anything in the grand scheme of things" "I'm just one person" "The harm's already been done".
I know a lot behind the psychology of addiction, both personally and in theory now. I also have no illusions about my motives. I know I didn't make the commitment and succeeded because of my concern for the suffering of the animals. I had to know it was better for me before I even allowed myself to truly care about that. I became plant-based before becoming a vegan. I'm selfish just like everyone else. Things just eventually clicked down the road and I knew I had no good reason to do it anymore and I found the motivation to put a stop to it.
Everyone has to work through their issues at their own pace. The only thing that will help everyone equally is keeping an ever-present openness to new information and committing to trying not to deceive oneself. It's impossible not to deceive oneself 100% but we can shed a great many illusions in life if we're committed enough.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Oh fuck off baal you can't pathologize people based on message board posts if that were the case basically everyone is a 'psycopath' on the internet besides I'm writing about things I believe are best for society in the future something sociopaths don't give a shit about. The views may be contrary to humanism but that's because of the nature of the natural world is not a fluffy feel good bullshit and I'm seeing a brutal downfall of this unnatural system soon.
What a psycopath/sociopath (same thing except one has less impulse control) actually does is to take the least threatening least social taboo positions on everything and gains your trust eventually they stab you in the back. This is why people who believe in all the government has their best interests at heart I'm telling them they don't know what they're messing with. All hierarchical structures eventually get ruled by them because of the nature of the system for all of their feel good talking points you see throughout the liberal media today it is merely a stepping stone to something else.
If you were going to be pathologizing me at least get it right I'm more of a paranoid schizo.
On September 17 2017 00:46 Mortensen8 wrote:
I pointed out the sickly looking vegans and you seemed to have issue with it. If he is fat or not has nothing to do with the actual arguments that he makes or that sv3rige translated it you are constantly saying that I'm being fallacious etc. but you do it all the time. This lie that vegans constantly say we can just eat the animal grains is not true because it is literally inedible most of it and not to mention grass.
For all your talk about longevity I consider fertility to be more important something vegans struggle with. I don't want to be a burden sitting there at 100 years old in old norse culture it was considered shameful and they would kill themselves or try and die in war if they could'nt contribute. Are you above nature? We have already identified that you can't get b12, dha-epa without those things your kind will not survive 5 generations I'll shape my worldview on nature and her wisdom and not paid shills from the US naturalistic fallacy be damned.
I can't be bothered taking some fat dude's advice on diet or tackling his arguments, especially when it comes from sv3rige's channel, sorry to disappoint you. Speaking of sickly looking people, did you keep your eyes closed all the way through the video of his meeting with his anti-vegan buddies that I posted? Not a single one of them looks healthy and fit. Ironically, the healthiest looking was sv3rige, who is clearly clinically insane. You can cherry-pick unhealthy looking vegans all you want, but I never claimed that veganism was healthy. It's an ethical stance and plenty of vegans have unhealthy diets.
What are you talking about they look normal to me and to be honest I'd suck all of them off if I had to. If you look at sv3rige old videos from his vegan days he looked worse.
You've convenently overlooked that massive dump of studies at least watch this video or address 'the french paradox'
I didn't "conveniently overlook" anything. You've proceeded to diarrhea dump a bunch of irrelevant links which you didn't even assemble yourself, you lazy fuck. You just went to some anti-vegan forum and dumped this shit here expecting me to work on debunking this nonsense? Anyone who has spent time debating is aware of the popular bullshit asymmetry: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. And what is my reward if I start going through them? I'm not going to change the mind of a true believer and no one on this forum believes a thing you say anyway. You can spread all the BS you want.
We already talked about the so-called French Paradox in this thread. There is no French Paradox. I know all I have to know from the thumbnail of your video alone. He's a denialist who has no idea what he's talking about. He studies neuroscience, not nutrition. His one paper on health and nutrition is laughably bad. One worthless experiment on rats from which he extrapolates that "steak, cholesterol and saturated aren't bad for you."
Here's what an actual cardiologist had to say on your dude:
"Diamond is not a cardiologist; he is a Ph.D. researcher focused on post-traumatic stress disorder. Ironically, Diamond, in criticizing early (flawed) research on the link between dietary fat and heart disease, criticized the scientist who conducted those studies as he “had no expertise whatsoever in nutrition or heart disease . . . and in fact he was completely wrong about much of his assertions.” Diamond, himself having no expertise in heart disease, went on to make multiple false claims including that people with high cholesterol are healthier than people with low cholesterol, that cholesterol does not cause heart disease, that statins have a trivial effect on heart disease and that alternative therapies like vitamin K2, chocolate or eating butter may reduce heart disease more than statins." http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article93997317.html
So being a mere neuroscientist makes him incapable of looking at their studies and calling out their bullshit manipulation with their numbers? Also I know sophistry when I see it that shills reputation is on the line please refer to where he prescribes alternative therapies and doesn't just suggest that people eat things high in k2 so the calcium gets absorbed.
Yes I have a lot of respect for people who go against the system. The second you go against the dogma your reputation is ruined you recieve no funding much easier to just be a shill and manipulatet results so the outcome doesn't even matter.
People are so fucking confused about nutrition they'll follow the diet of a guy who eats one-year-old rotten meat for health reasons.
United States. Sep 18 2017 22:34. Posts 8535
