| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 17:35 - Dec 12 with 603 views | Highjack |
I can understand the argument for veganism when it comes to animal welfare, sustainability etc. But to suggest we are herbivores is absolutely f*cking idiotic.
Meat like anything in this world should be enjoyed in moderation and as part of a balanced diet. |  |
|  |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 17:41 - Dec 12 with 595 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 17:27 - Dec 12 by Drizzy |
Gosh you're a f*cking tedious bore aren't you?
It's exactly this kind of preachy hyperbole that puts people off the very idea of veganism. The irony being it makes meat-eaters more defensive of their habits and less likely to change.
I've been slowly transitioning the veganism over the last year or so, no thanks to the ramblings of self-righteous c*cks like you, but can happily admit that changing generational habits takes time and there are some aspects of cooking that can't be replaced with purely plant-based alternatives and a lot of current replacements taste like sh*t (see: Quorn).
Hamburgers taste good to the vast majority of "unenlightened" folk even those who weren't raised eating them. Sorry. This is a fact. It's so good that the solution to destructive cattle farming, in the developed world, will probably become artificial lab-grown meat rather than a global dietary shift.
The problem, as with most vices, is excessive consumption. Of course another point is that some people don't aspire to live the healthiest/longest life possible and just want to do things they enjoy. A simple fact that you cannot seem to grasp. |
Very possibly yes. But I am not here to entertain Drizzy my old friend.
But I would assume people against domestic violence or such like also have similar staunch views to what is clearly right and wrong, but they don't tend to be labelled as ''habits'' that need to be changed, or people stating it is wrong labelled as ''preaching''. Needless violence is needless violence, preaching is not really something that underlines speaking out against that behaviour.
Well done on slowly transitioning, although I would suggest that if you are put off by people promoting veganism then you are probably doing it for the wrong reasons and will take an awful lot of self searching to make it a permanent change.
''Generational habits'' take as long as you allow them to, I have always been a meat eater and changed overnight after realising what I was contributing to. Generational habits shouldn't really come into it, slavery was a ''generational habit'' too which doesnt really compute that someone would slowly phase out their cruelty, if you see it as wrong then change. Nobody is forcing you to eat anything you do not want to.
Hamburgers tasting good again isnt really a reason. Other things taste good too. I also challenge you to taste Fry's hamburgers and tell me with a straight face that you taste the difference. The immediate change will of course be these sort of alternative plant based meats, in fact I had a wonderful meal of fried chicken (seitan) in hackney the other day.
But the long term goal will absolutely be a dietary shift. It is happening right before your eyes in fact.
To your last paragraph. It isn't a vice. If I like booting dogs in the ribs for an adrenaline kick - would this be ok because I am doing things I enjoy? Or is animal cruelty only ok for certain pleasures, pleasures you happen to partake in?
I am sorry but you scream of an excuse making meat eater. You contribute to the problem then think of every avenue to justify it, each as ridiculous as the other. Nobody is going to mollycoddle you out of your contribution to these vile industries if that is the tack you are looking for. If you see it as something you want to change, then change it and stop making excuses. And you can count that fully grasped. |  |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 17:42 - Dec 12 with 594 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 17:35 - Dec 12 by Highjack |
I can understand the argument for veganism when it comes to animal welfare, sustainability etc. But to suggest we are herbivores is absolutely f*cking idiotic.
Meat like anything in this world should be enjoyed in moderation and as part of a balanced diet. |
It isn't a suggestion. It is an obvious statement of reality. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 18:00 - Dec 12 with 560 views | Highjack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 17:42 - Dec 12 by E20Jack |
It isn't a suggestion. It is an obvious statement of reality. |
We'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes 'reality' in this instance. I'll just toddle off with 99% of the worlds scientists and leave you with your article on the PETA website. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 18:07 - Dec 12 with 554 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 18:00 - Dec 12 by Highjack |
We'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes 'reality' in this instance. I'll just toddle off with 99% of the worlds scientists and leave you with your article on the PETA website. |
Is that a stat you have plucked out of the air to make yourself feel better? (rhetorical)
I would say that stat is far closer to actual reality if you reversed it.
Although I am amazed you need a small minority of probable meat eating rogue scientists to tell you what is obviously in front of your very eyes. I guess people see what they want to see.
We posses nearly no biological similarities to carnivores, but share almost every biological similarity to herbivores. We changed due to societal conditions which are clearly not natural, hence why we now face a worldwide dietary epidemic that is crippling nations health services globally.
Your friends ''the scientists'' also note the above... funnily enough. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 18:13]
| |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 18:59 - Dec 12 with 532 views | Drizzy |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 17:41 - Dec 12 by E20Jack |
Very possibly yes. But I am not here to entertain Drizzy my old friend.
But I would assume people against domestic violence or such like also have similar staunch views to what is clearly right and wrong, but they don't tend to be labelled as ''habits'' that need to be changed, or people stating it is wrong labelled as ''preaching''. Needless violence is needless violence, preaching is not really something that underlines speaking out against that behaviour.
Well done on slowly transitioning, although I would suggest that if you are put off by people promoting veganism then you are probably doing it for the wrong reasons and will take an awful lot of self searching to make it a permanent change.
''Generational habits'' take as long as you allow them to, I have always been a meat eater and changed overnight after realising what I was contributing to. Generational habits shouldn't really come into it, slavery was a ''generational habit'' too which doesnt really compute that someone would slowly phase out their cruelty, if you see it as wrong then change. Nobody is forcing you to eat anything you do not want to.
Hamburgers tasting good again isnt really a reason. Other things taste good too. I also challenge you to taste Fry's hamburgers and tell me with a straight face that you taste the difference. The immediate change will of course be these sort of alternative plant based meats, in fact I had a wonderful meal of fried chicken (seitan) in hackney the other day.
But the long term goal will absolutely be a dietary shift. It is happening right before your eyes in fact.
To your last paragraph. It isn't a vice. If I like booting dogs in the ribs for an adrenaline kick - would this be ok because I am doing things I enjoy? Or is animal cruelty only ok for certain pleasures, pleasures you happen to partake in?
I am sorry but you scream of an excuse making meat eater. You contribute to the problem then think of every avenue to justify it, each as ridiculous as the other. Nobody is going to mollycoddle you out of your contribution to these vile industries if that is the tack you are looking for. If you see it as something you want to change, then change it and stop making excuses. And you can count that fully grasped. |
Oh for goodness sake.
Straight away you equate it with domestic violence, on what grounds exactly? It's a facile comparison that offers nothing to the debate. Exactly the kind of emotional fallacy that makes people more defensive. Slavery too, another irrelevant allusion.
You're not promoting veganism as you've had a platform on this thread and meat eaters to engage with but all you've done is further entrench them in their beliefs. You're part of the problem. You (hilariously) take a condescending tone, consistently change the focus of the argument and make blanket statements which aren't true (example: if you were to take a bite out of an animal you'd be ill).
Rather than take a more nuanced approach of accepting the initial transition will have to come through more humane slaughter practices, increasing consumer awareness and highlighting the dangers of excessive consumption. You've done this to some extent but persevere with blanket statements with no evidence of sources. You mentioned a link between milk and breast cancer, here's an abstract from one of the main studies:
"Laboratory data suggest that calcium and vitamin D, found at high levels in dairy products, might reduce breast carcinogenesis. However, epidemiologic studies regarding dairy products and breast cancer have yielded inconsistent results. "
Also I'm not seeing conclusive evidence of a dietary shift here: [ https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm] Encouragingly steady decrease in developed countries but in Asia and South America consumption continues to rise.
One does wonder whether the extent of your veganism crusade extends beyond football forums to the corporations that encourage deforestation in the developing world and promote unhealthy Westernised diets.
Of course there is the question of whether killing for meat is fundamentally evil but there are plenty of reasonable people that don't kick dogs who would agree that swift slaughter of animals who've been reared in humane and natural conditions is not the heinous crime you portray it to be. To take a leaf out of your book, do you own any plastic products?
Congratulations on your overnight transition into a sensationalist, albeit well-meaning, cretin. I'll be sure to try Fry's burgers, though I found their prawn bites to be quite disappointing. |  |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:06 - Dec 12 with 527 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
Hunting for fun
nah ,they can all f@ck off .
We've ruined this planet
cant beat a good steak though |  |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:28 - Dec 12 with 515 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 18:59 - Dec 12 by Drizzy |
Oh for goodness sake.
Straight away you equate it with domestic violence, on what grounds exactly? It's a facile comparison that offers nothing to the debate. Exactly the kind of emotional fallacy that makes people more defensive. Slavery too, another irrelevant allusion.
You're not promoting veganism as you've had a platform on this thread and meat eaters to engage with but all you've done is further entrench them in their beliefs. You're part of the problem. You (hilariously) take a condescending tone, consistently change the focus of the argument and make blanket statements which aren't true (example: if you were to take a bite out of an animal you'd be ill).
Rather than take a more nuanced approach of accepting the initial transition will have to come through more humane slaughter practices, increasing consumer awareness and highlighting the dangers of excessive consumption. You've done this to some extent but persevere with blanket statements with no evidence of sources. You mentioned a link between milk and breast cancer, here's an abstract from one of the main studies:
"Laboratory data suggest that calcium and vitamin D, found at high levels in dairy products, might reduce breast carcinogenesis. However, epidemiologic studies regarding dairy products and breast cancer have yielded inconsistent results. "
Also I'm not seeing conclusive evidence of a dietary shift here: [ https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm] Encouragingly steady decrease in developed countries but in Asia and South America consumption continues to rise.
One does wonder whether the extent of your veganism crusade extends beyond football forums to the corporations that encourage deforestation in the developing world and promote unhealthy Westernised diets.
Of course there is the question of whether killing for meat is fundamentally evil but there are plenty of reasonable people that don't kick dogs who would agree that swift slaughter of animals who've been reared in humane and natural conditions is not the heinous crime you portray it to be. To take a leaf out of your book, do you own any plastic products?
Congratulations on your overnight transition into a sensationalist, albeit well-meaning, cretin. I'll be sure to try Fry's burgers, though I found their prawn bites to be quite disappointing. |
You can say ''for goodness sake'' all you like, a whole manner of exasperated nuances if you wish. But the fact remains that violence is violence. That is the grounds on which I am basing my tolerance of violence on... funnily enough.
What makes humans free and all other species not free, but for us to do with how we please? Again, if that put you off or makes you more defensive about enslaving, mistreating and murdering these mammals then again you are probably not doing it for any reasons that will stand the test of time. People go mental at the fact that an Orca is stolen from the wild an enslaved in sea world for entertainment.... yet go home and eat a cow subjected to the same thing. If you don't want to see the similarities then that is at your door.
I am taking a condescending tone to stupidity, not valid arguments, they are always welcome - Although the manner in which you have conducted yourself thus far suggests again you do not align your morals with your behaviour.
In fact my tone is very much in keeping with the tone of the other side, it is just you are so entrenched in - presumably your own guilt, you are blaming others attitudes on why you wish to not completely cut out the cruelty you are choosing to inflict. Please do not blame me for your lack of ability to align your actions with your apparent morals - that is again at your door, please stop making excuses.
Humane slaughter practices? Don't be ridiculous. How do you humanely murder something that wants to live? If I took your dog an put a bullet through its eyes because I saw its skin as something I could use for the mat in my car. Would that be humane and justifiable?
You are not seeing it because you don't want to see it. You are a typical meat eater that knows what they are doing is wrong, know it is unhealthy, know they are putting their family at risk by feeding it to them - yet do it anyway and look for justification and blame elsewhere.
Please don't congratulate me on being vegan. It is like congratulating me on not being an animal rapist. It just happens that animal rape is not normalised... well in fact it is the foundation of the dairy industry in fact but you get my drift.
There has been a 350% increase in veganism in the last decade, if that is not evidence of a dietary shift then I am not entirely sure what else you would want as proof.
You have also been very selective in what you research, which again is a typical attitude of someone who is ingrained in their cruelty and looking for any justification to continue.
data from the Nurses' Health Study II found women who ate 2 or more servings of high-fat dairy products (like whole milk or butter) every day had a higher risk of breast cancer before menopause.
You also clearly ignored the fact that meats such as bacon are in the group one carcinogenic alongside plutonium and red meat is listed as a group 2. Red meat is undisputed in its link to heart disease and a plant based diet is the only diet known to man to reverse diabetes. Another disease caused by unnatural food sources our body is not designed to handle.
If you want to change then change... but don't go looking for people to wrap you up in cotton wool and blaming them for your own ignorance.
''Reasonable people'' can argue that killing animals that are reared in humane and natural conditions is ok (its an oxymoron and an impossible scenario though as I am sure you understand). But that doesn't mean that it is. It means it is normalised in their minds. It is never ok to needlessly murder another living being for pleasure. To even suggest it is suggests that they may not be ''reasonable'' people then surely?
Nothing sensationalist about me sonny, I say it as it is. And yes my veganism absolutely stretches beyond football forums, in fact I was only a few weeks ago at a Canada Goose coat launch voicing my concerns. In case you dont know, they are the popular fashion movement in all yuppies around the UK at the moment. They acquire the fur band by capturing wild Cayotes and skinning them alive. I guess thats ok too though and its my attitude of being utterly disgusted that is the problem and making people want to buy these products of extreme cruelty yes? (I am amazed that you have the lack of self awareness to call me the cretin).
Take control of your own life. Stop making excuses. Stop blaming others. Make the change.
Enjoy your burgers. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 19:30]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:32 - Dec 12 with 511 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:06 - Dec 12 by oh_tommy_tommy |
Hunting for fun
nah ,they can all f@ck off .
We've ruined this planet
cant beat a good steak though |
Hunting for fun and eating for pleasure is no different what so ever. Surely? Where is the difference?
In fact the planet is clearly ruined far more by the latter than the former. I can give you some statistics if you like?
56 billion land animals slaughtered every year simply for taste purposes.
56 BILLION. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:36 - Dec 12 with 505 views | max936 |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 16:22 - Dec 10 by whoflungdung |
Grouse shooting and salmon fishing come to that makes me chortle to see them described as "sport" ...birds peeping from the heather to knobs with shotguns and chaps and salmon with a steel hook in their mouth teasing ..
Not sure if it can be classified as sport as the other parties don't seem to consent |
Need to research Salmon Fishing Rich most if not all are returned, down here and in rural West Wales most of Scotland if not all are catch and release to. |  |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:39 - Dec 12 with 503 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
tiger
rhino
elephants
gorillas
leopard
killed for pleasure for some trophy sh!te
cows
pigs
chickens
all farmed to feed billions
theres a massive difference | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:43 - Dec 12 with 500 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:39 - Dec 12 by oh_tommy_tommy |
tiger
rhino
elephants
gorillas
leopard
killed for pleasure for some trophy sh!te
cows
pigs
chickens
all farmed to feed billions
theres a massive difference |
But when you put the word ''needlessly'' after the words ''all farmed'' then the difference pales into insignificance. A lot of these (if not all) Trophy hunting reserves are farmed, did you know that? Tigers are bred to be hunted and shot in the head by these rich businessmen. So is the farming aspect that makes it ok?
The first one is for some neurological satisfaction. The second one is for some taste bud satisfaction. What makes your taste buds more important than a trophy hunters brain?
There is no difference. Both utterly needless. Plenty of healthy food for you to eat that has no victim subjected to this horrific practice. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 19:50]
| |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 20:01 - Dec 12 with 485 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:43 - Dec 12 by E20Jack |
But when you put the word ''needlessly'' after the words ''all farmed'' then the difference pales into insignificance. A lot of these (if not all) Trophy hunting reserves are farmed, did you know that? Tigers are bred to be hunted and shot in the head by these rich businessmen. So is the farming aspect that makes it ok?
The first one is for some neurological satisfaction. The second one is for some taste bud satisfaction. What makes your taste buds more important than a trophy hunters brain?
There is no difference. Both utterly needless. Plenty of healthy food for you to eat that has no victim subjected to this horrific practice. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 19:50]
|
Farmed gorillas
F'ck my eyes
fair play | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 20:05 - Dec 12 with 480 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 20:01 - Dec 12 by oh_tommy_tommy |
Farmed gorillas
F'ck my eyes
fair play |
You didn't say Gorillas hunting was what you were objecting to, you said...
''tiger
rhino
elephants
gorillas
leopard ''
The majority of the above that are subject to this trophy hunting is due to them being farmed. I think the common term is ''canned'' hunting.
So does that make it ok for some rich businessman to come along with a high power rifle and put a bullet through their brain for pleasure?
If, assuming your answer is no, then we can remove farming from the equation as something that makes it ok and we arrive back at the only thing it boils down to - which is sensory pleasure. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 20:07]
| |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 20:08 - Dec 12 with 478 views | Drizzy |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:28 - Dec 12 by E20Jack |
You can say ''for goodness sake'' all you like, a whole manner of exasperated nuances if you wish. But the fact remains that violence is violence. That is the grounds on which I am basing my tolerance of violence on... funnily enough.
What makes humans free and all other species not free, but for us to do with how we please? Again, if that put you off or makes you more defensive about enslaving, mistreating and murdering these mammals then again you are probably not doing it for any reasons that will stand the test of time. People go mental at the fact that an Orca is stolen from the wild an enslaved in sea world for entertainment.... yet go home and eat a cow subjected to the same thing. If you don't want to see the similarities then that is at your door.
I am taking a condescending tone to stupidity, not valid arguments, they are always welcome - Although the manner in which you have conducted yourself thus far suggests again you do not align your morals with your behaviour.
In fact my tone is very much in keeping with the tone of the other side, it is just you are so entrenched in - presumably your own guilt, you are blaming others attitudes on why you wish to not completely cut out the cruelty you are choosing to inflict. Please do not blame me for your lack of ability to align your actions with your apparent morals - that is again at your door, please stop making excuses.
Humane slaughter practices? Don't be ridiculous. How do you humanely murder something that wants to live? If I took your dog an put a bullet through its eyes because I saw its skin as something I could use for the mat in my car. Would that be humane and justifiable?
You are not seeing it because you don't want to see it. You are a typical meat eater that knows what they are doing is wrong, know it is unhealthy, know they are putting their family at risk by feeding it to them - yet do it anyway and look for justification and blame elsewhere.
Please don't congratulate me on being vegan. It is like congratulating me on not being an animal rapist. It just happens that animal rape is not normalised... well in fact it is the foundation of the dairy industry in fact but you get my drift.
There has been a 350% increase in veganism in the last decade, if that is not evidence of a dietary shift then I am not entirely sure what else you would want as proof.
You have also been very selective in what you research, which again is a typical attitude of someone who is ingrained in their cruelty and looking for any justification to continue.
data from the Nurses' Health Study II found women who ate 2 or more servings of high-fat dairy products (like whole milk or butter) every day had a higher risk of breast cancer before menopause.
You also clearly ignored the fact that meats such as bacon are in the group one carcinogenic alongside plutonium and red meat is listed as a group 2. Red meat is undisputed in its link to heart disease and a plant based diet is the only diet known to man to reverse diabetes. Another disease caused by unnatural food sources our body is not designed to handle.
If you want to change then change... but don't go looking for people to wrap you up in cotton wool and blaming them for your own ignorance.
''Reasonable people'' can argue that killing animals that are reared in humane and natural conditions is ok (its an oxymoron and an impossible scenario though as I am sure you understand). But that doesn't mean that it is. It means it is normalised in their minds. It is never ok to needlessly murder another living being for pleasure. To even suggest it is suggests that they may not be ''reasonable'' people then surely?
Nothing sensationalist about me sonny, I say it as it is. And yes my veganism absolutely stretches beyond football forums, in fact I was only a few weeks ago at a Canada Goose coat launch voicing my concerns. In case you dont know, they are the popular fashion movement in all yuppies around the UK at the moment. They acquire the fur band by capturing wild Cayotes and skinning them alive. I guess thats ok too though and its my attitude of being utterly disgusted that is the problem and making people want to buy these products of extreme cruelty yes? (I am amazed that you have the lack of self awareness to call me the cretin).
Take control of your own life. Stop making excuses. Stop blaming others. Make the change.
Enjoy your burgers. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 19:30]
|
It's quite hilarious picking your arguments apart whilst you dance around in circles consistently moving the goalposts. This time it's animal rape! Another pointless analogy you use on your moral crusade and if you can't see the counterproductiveness of your binary arguments then I suppose that's why you're protesting outside shops instead of enacting any real change. Like I said though, at least your intentions are good.
I'm not sure where you've pulled that line from because I've looked at the study and it's likely you've used a secondary website to spin your narrative. Here's an excerpt:
"Although positive associations between dietary fat and breast cancer risk were seen in some case—control studies, we did not observe an association between dietary fat intake and risk in the NHS in the first decade of follow-up."
If you're going to reference statistics at least do everyone the decency to read them yourself rather than parroting secondary resources. The study actually showed a stronger correlation between shift work and breast cancer.
This is an interesting one: "You also clearly ignored the fact that meats such as bacon are in the group one carcinogenic alongside plutonium and red meat is listed as a group 2. Red meat is undisputed in its link to heart disease and a plant-based diet is the only diet known to man to reverse diabetes. Another disease caused by unnatural food sources our body is not designed to handle. "
This is such a loaded paragraph with so many inaccuracies and a glaring lack of understanding. It was never disputed that processed meats were dangerous and that's not the subject of the debate. Then you bleat on about type 2 diabetes, something predominantly attributed to high glucose intake, is the part of the same argument? Animal protein is generally much worse than plant protein. Again that's not up for debate.
Just for a laugh other type 1 carcinogens include polluted air and paint. It's this kind of cherry-picking that leads to sensationalist headlines like "bacon akin to plutonium". It's your lack of any tact, nuance or genuine research that irks me.
So despite the 360% increase (you could at least cut and paste correctly) that's still only 1% of the adult population. To address the actual problems associated with cattle farming it would be far wiser and sustainable to gradually reduce the consumption of the other 99% rather than promote radical shifts. It would help though if the radical element could take a more sensible view as if they genuinely cared about the problems associated with carnism they could at least construct a balanced argument instead of shouting on football forums and outside shops. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 20:13 - Dec 12 with 476 views | max936 |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 19:43 - Dec 12 by E20Jack |
But when you put the word ''needlessly'' after the words ''all farmed'' then the difference pales into insignificance. A lot of these (if not all) Trophy hunting reserves are farmed, did you know that? Tigers are bred to be hunted and shot in the head by these rich businessmen. So is the farming aspect that makes it ok?
The first one is for some neurological satisfaction. The second one is for some taste bud satisfaction. What makes your taste buds more important than a trophy hunters brain?
There is no difference. Both utterly needless. Plenty of healthy food for you to eat that has no victim subjected to this horrific practice. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 19:50]
|
Where's the proof that Tigers have been bred to be hunted and Shot, I watch loads and loads of programs of big cats and other animals and I never heard or seen any of it, lots are bred in semi captivity in the hope of stopping their extinction, but what you are suggesting is ridiculous fair play. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 20:27 - Dec 12 with 469 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 20:08 - Dec 12 by Drizzy |
It's quite hilarious picking your arguments apart whilst you dance around in circles consistently moving the goalposts. This time it's animal rape! Another pointless analogy you use on your moral crusade and if you can't see the counterproductiveness of your binary arguments then I suppose that's why you're protesting outside shops instead of enacting any real change. Like I said though, at least your intentions are good.
I'm not sure where you've pulled that line from because I've looked at the study and it's likely you've used a secondary website to spin your narrative. Here's an excerpt:
"Although positive associations between dietary fat and breast cancer risk were seen in some case—control studies, we did not observe an association between dietary fat intake and risk in the NHS in the first decade of follow-up."
If you're going to reference statistics at least do everyone the decency to read them yourself rather than parroting secondary resources. The study actually showed a stronger correlation between shift work and breast cancer.
This is an interesting one: "You also clearly ignored the fact that meats such as bacon are in the group one carcinogenic alongside plutonium and red meat is listed as a group 2. Red meat is undisputed in its link to heart disease and a plant-based diet is the only diet known to man to reverse diabetes. Another disease caused by unnatural food sources our body is not designed to handle. "
This is such a loaded paragraph with so many inaccuracies and a glaring lack of understanding. It was never disputed that processed meats were dangerous and that's not the subject of the debate. Then you bleat on about type 2 diabetes, something predominantly attributed to high glucose intake, is the part of the same argument? Animal protein is generally much worse than plant protein. Again that's not up for debate.
Just for a laugh other type 1 carcinogens include polluted air and paint. It's this kind of cherry-picking that leads to sensationalist headlines like "bacon akin to plutonium". It's your lack of any tact, nuance or genuine research that irks me.
So despite the 360% increase (you could at least cut and paste correctly) that's still only 1% of the adult population. To address the actual problems associated with cattle farming it would be far wiser and sustainable to gradually reduce the consumption of the other 99% rather than promote radical shifts. It would help though if the radical element could take a more sensible view as if they genuinely cared about the problems associated with carnism they could at least construct a balanced argument instead of shouting on football forums and outside shops. |
Again you can claim anything is hilarious and say you are picking apart this that and the other, you can say you have picked apart Steven Hawking's theory of the black hole if you like - reality suggests otherwise though.... You would have to have proven that eating animal products is not bad for our health and murdering sentient beings for pleasure is ok - you may need to point me to those bits as I, along with the rest of the universe, has clearly missed them. 
My argument (It isn't an argument by the way, just a basic moral compass) is not ever changing, no goalposts are moving, they are entirely consistent. That is what comes naturally with having a stance that aligns a moral standpoint rather than a sensory whim.
I have not used any website, my research was done long ago and the obvious conclusions made. It is you that is in the googling phase and trying to back up your strawman arguments to ease the feeling of your own guilt.
I have literally no idea what on earth you are wibbling on about with your carcinogen waffle. There is nothing loaded, inaccurate or selective about what I said at all. We are discussing meat not paint, although what paint and pollution being equally toxic is something I cannot fathom being any sort of justification. Would you think about gulping down some paint or buying a house in a severely polluted area then? I wouldn't. So where is the inaccuracy? or is that one of your usual silly soundbites when you feel you have been beaten.
But just like you, for a laugh - are you telling the world right now that you reject the notion that a plant based diet can reverse the effects of type 2 diabetes? That would be fascinating to read you explain that one Drizzy. Or indeed that the ingestion of red meat and poultry isnt linked to Adult onset type 2 diabetes? 17% higher chance apparently.
''Red-meat consumption is already linked to higher levels of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis, heart disease, and stroke). Now researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have added an increased risk of type 2 (adult onset) diabetes to that list.''
But I am glad we now both agree with the obvious science (and common sense) that suggests there is an undeniable link between ingesting animal products and severe downturn in health... which would also suggest we are not intended to eat it. That is without getting into the obvious biological evidence which cannot be disputed with any form of a straight face.
How do you cut and paste correctly? Do you even think about what you type? If I cut and pasted anything then it would be the figure you googled wouldn't it? 350% or 360% (and growing) makes little difference, it is a sizeable dietary shift whether you like it or not.
I am not entirely sure you are in a position when you are not even capable of making a change you wish to implement. While I am lobbying for the end - or at least the awareness- of certain fashion that exploits animals and also the health and cruelty side of the meat and dairy industry, you stay safe by making incoherent arguments trying to not buy things you dont want to because you perceive it as a ''traditional habit'' 
There is nothing radical about not contributing to industries that rape (rape isnt just the right of humans to not have done to them) torture and slaughter of sentient beings.
Again the fact you think that is radical suggests you have an awful long way to go and an awful lot more learning and googling before we can even attempt to continue a debate in which you do not want to discuss anything that harms your position of ignorance.
As I said previously, stop looking for justification and blame for your own actions. You are controlling your own contribution to these industries, nobody else is doing it for you. Nobody is going to mollycoddle you out of it either as much as you are seemingly pining for it.
Take control of your life and get a grip of your own decisions. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 20:52]
| |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:00 - Dec 12 with 441 views | Highjack |
If only Dimi was still posting on here. He had a PhD in nutrition. He'd sort this out. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:03 - Dec 12 with 434 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:00 - Dec 12 by Highjack |
If only Dimi was still posting on here. He had a PhD in nutrition. He'd sort this out. |
Or anyone else with a modicum of sense of course.
There is nothing to sort. Humans are born with a set of morals, that is innate in us. It has already been sorted who is correct.
It is just some refuse and are doing their best to not see it. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:29 - Dec 12 with 420 views | Drizzy |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 20:27 - Dec 12 by E20Jack |
Again you can claim anything is hilarious and say you are picking apart this that and the other, you can say you have picked apart Steven Hawking's theory of the black hole if you like - reality suggests otherwise though.... You would have to have proven that eating animal products is not bad for our health and murdering sentient beings for pleasure is ok - you may need to point me to those bits as I, along with the rest of the universe, has clearly missed them.
My argument (It isn't an argument by the way, just a basic moral compass) is not ever changing, no goalposts are moving, they are entirely consistent. That is what comes naturally with having a stance that aligns a moral standpoint rather than a sensory whim.
I have not used any website, my research was done long ago and the obvious conclusions made. It is you that is in the googling phase and trying to back up your strawman arguments to ease the feeling of your own guilt.
I have literally no idea what on earth you are wibbling on about with your carcinogen waffle. There is nothing loaded, inaccurate or selective about what I said at all. We are discussing meat not paint, although what paint and pollution being equally toxic is something I cannot fathom being any sort of justification. Would you think about gulping down some paint or buying a house in a severely polluted area then? I wouldn't. So where is the inaccuracy? or is that one of your usual silly soundbites when you feel you have been beaten.
But just like you, for a laugh - are you telling the world right now that you reject the notion that a plant based diet can reverse the effects of type 2 diabetes? That would be fascinating to read you explain that one Drizzy. Or indeed that the ingestion of red meat and poultry isnt linked to Adult onset type 2 diabetes? 17% higher chance apparently.
''Red-meat consumption is already linked to higher levels of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis, heart disease, and stroke). Now researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have added an increased risk of type 2 (adult onset) diabetes to that list.''
But I am glad we now both agree with the obvious science (and common sense) that suggests there is an undeniable link between ingesting animal products and severe downturn in health... which would also suggest we are not intended to eat it. That is without getting into the obvious biological evidence which cannot be disputed with any form of a straight face.
How do you cut and paste correctly? Do you even think about what you type? If I cut and pasted anything then it would be the figure you googled wouldn't it? 350% or 360% (and growing) makes little difference, it is a sizeable dietary shift whether you like it or not.
I am not entirely sure you are in a position when you are not even capable of making a change you wish to implement. While I am lobbying for the end - or at least the awareness- of certain fashion that exploits animals and also the health and cruelty side of the meat and dairy industry, you stay safe by making incoherent arguments trying to not buy things you dont want to because you perceive it as a ''traditional habit''
There is nothing radical about not contributing to industries that rape (rape isnt just the right of humans to not have done to them) torture and slaughter of sentient beings.
Again the fact you think that is radical suggests you have an awful long way to go and an awful lot more learning and googling before we can even attempt to continue a debate in which you do not want to discuss anything that harms your position of ignorance.
As I said previously, stop looking for justification and blame for your own actions. You are controlling your own contribution to these industries, nobody else is doing it for you. Nobody is going to mollycoddle you out of it either as much as you are seemingly pining for it.
Take control of your life and get a grip of your own decisions. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 20:52]
|
As suspected, more whimsical guff. I've never contradicted the fact that consuming animal products (in excess) is bad and that's exactly the kind of statement that you lacks any kind of nuance. It's not the notion of red meat being bad for you that's under your attack it's your selective, inaccurate and deliberately binary arguments that have come under attack to which you have no response.
"I have not used any website, my research was done long ago" is another hilarious statement because the notion of researching and finding credible sources seems alien to you. You throw around statements like "strawman arguments" when you quite clearly have no idea what they mean and continually (and mistakenly) project some sort of guilt on my behalf.
"I have literally no idea what on earth you are wibbling on about with your carcinogen waffle." It was you who brought carcinogens in to the debate by equating bacon and plutonium, I was highlighting the ridiculousness of the comparison by revealing other carcinogens on the list as your kind of selective scaremongering is easily rejected by the vast majority of the population.
"are you telling the world right now that you reject the notion that a plant based diet can reverse the effects of type 2 diabetes?" A perfect example of the strawman fallacy you accused me of.
And here it is: "an undeniable link between ingesting animal products and severe downturn in health" you clearly lack the intellect to make a balanced argument. You take the careful wording of a scientific hypothesis to create sensationalised arguments.
"...which would also suggest we are not intended to eat it. That is without getting into the obvious biological evidence which cannot be disputed with any form of a straight face." F*cking hell you continue to make these blanket statements without the decency to cite an accurate source for the claim you make. As a counter-point, this study [ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16990]
"The arrival of Homo erectus almost two million years ago introduced hominins with dramatically smaller teeth than anything that went before, implying a reduced capacity for processing the amount of food required to sustain a large animal. It is often claimed that the development of cooking allowed for tooth reduction, but cooking didn't become common until about 500,000 years ago. What happened in the interim? Katherine Zink and Daniel Lieberman tested the effects of eating meat and of simple food preparation techniques on masticatory effort and oral fracture efficiency. Their findings suggest that the introduction of raw yet eminently chewable meat could have made the difference together with the use of stone tools to pound the less digestible but starch-rich storable plant materials."
So remind me in which way it's unnatural? Of course the human digestive system is better suited to vegetables, legumes etc. But to totally dismiss the idea of meat-consumption as unnatural is reductive.
It's also interesting you've chosen not comment on the dairy breast-cancer link after your misinformation was exposed.
As stated the 360% increase still only equates to just over 1% of the adult population. Do you care to address a realistic plan to inhibit the dangers of excess of meat consumption for 99% of people that are accustomed to this diet?
Here's a thought, E20. Before you go parroting sh*te on a football forum you could do yourself a favour and use the wealth of resources on the internet to find factual evidence for your otherwise baseless claims. Your form of lobbying consists solely of protest, you have little to no scientific understanding nor the ability to accurately interpret scientific data.
Your branch of veganism is more destructive, it unnecessarily demonises people who don't conform to your moral standpoint. As I said though, you have good intentions so keep making your noise outside the shops because maybe your scaremongering might convince to somebody to lead a healthier life. However chances are, as with most people reading your posts, they'll probably tune it out. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:33 - Dec 12 with 415 views | Drizzy |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:03 - Dec 12 by E20Jack |
Or anyone else with a modicum of sense of course.
There is nothing to sort. Humans are born with a set of morals, that is innate in us. It has already been sorted who is correct.
It is just some refuse and are doing their best to not see it. |
You've really exposed yourself here. You do realise the question of whether humans are even born with any innate knowledge beyond biological functions such as suckling and sh*tting is still up for debate? To say categorically that we're born with a set of morals is the kind of baseless sh*te that's all too common in everything you post. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:36 - Dec 12 with 409 views | max936 |
Nothing on Animal Planet or Nat Geo Wild or the like that I've seen.
But thanks for those links, its grotesque that they're doing that and getting away with it, they are killing Cats that are virtually fuking tame the vicious sadistic bastards, I really hope one of their guns jam and a Tiger, Lion or the like pounce and rip them apart. | |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:59 - Dec 12 with 402 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:29 - Dec 12 by Drizzy |
As suspected, more whimsical guff. I've never contradicted the fact that consuming animal products (in excess) is bad and that's exactly the kind of statement that you lacks any kind of nuance. It's not the notion of red meat being bad for you that's under your attack it's your selective, inaccurate and deliberately binary arguments that have come under attack to which you have no response.
"I have not used any website, my research was done long ago" is another hilarious statement because the notion of researching and finding credible sources seems alien to you. You throw around statements like "strawman arguments" when you quite clearly have no idea what they mean and continually (and mistakenly) project some sort of guilt on my behalf.
"I have literally no idea what on earth you are wibbling on about with your carcinogen waffle." It was you who brought carcinogens in to the debate by equating bacon and plutonium, I was highlighting the ridiculousness of the comparison by revealing other carcinogens on the list as your kind of selective scaremongering is easily rejected by the vast majority of the population.
"are you telling the world right now that you reject the notion that a plant based diet can reverse the effects of type 2 diabetes?" A perfect example of the strawman fallacy you accused me of.
And here it is: "an undeniable link between ingesting animal products and severe downturn in health" you clearly lack the intellect to make a balanced argument. You take the careful wording of a scientific hypothesis to create sensationalised arguments.
"...which would also suggest we are not intended to eat it. That is without getting into the obvious biological evidence which cannot be disputed with any form of a straight face." F*cking hell you continue to make these blanket statements without the decency to cite an accurate source for the claim you make. As a counter-point, this study [ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16990]
"The arrival of Homo erectus almost two million years ago introduced hominins with dramatically smaller teeth than anything that went before, implying a reduced capacity for processing the amount of food required to sustain a large animal. It is often claimed that the development of cooking allowed for tooth reduction, but cooking didn't become common until about 500,000 years ago. What happened in the interim? Katherine Zink and Daniel Lieberman tested the effects of eating meat and of simple food preparation techniques on masticatory effort and oral fracture efficiency. Their findings suggest that the introduction of raw yet eminently chewable meat could have made the difference together with the use of stone tools to pound the less digestible but starch-rich storable plant materials."
So remind me in which way it's unnatural? Of course the human digestive system is better suited to vegetables, legumes etc. But to totally dismiss the idea of meat-consumption as unnatural is reductive.
It's also interesting you've chosen not comment on the dairy breast-cancer link after your misinformation was exposed.
As stated the 360% increase still only equates to just over 1% of the adult population. Do you care to address a realistic plan to inhibit the dangers of excess of meat consumption for 99% of people that are accustomed to this diet?
Here's a thought, E20. Before you go parroting sh*te on a football forum you could do yourself a favour and use the wealth of resources on the internet to find factual evidence for your otherwise baseless claims. Your form of lobbying consists solely of protest, you have little to no scientific understanding nor the ability to accurately interpret scientific data.
Your branch of veganism is more destructive, it unnecessarily demonises people who don't conform to your moral standpoint. As I said though, you have good intentions so keep making your noise outside the shops because maybe your scaremongering might convince to somebody to lead a healthier life. However chances are, as with most people reading your posts, they'll probably tune it out. |
Nothing whimsical here my friend. It is just the fact you don't like the answers to your ridiculous reasoning.
Nothing to do with excess. Consuming animal products is bad for you. It is like saying smoking in excess is bad for you. No, smoking is bad for you full stop, as is eating animal products. Both can limit the damage done by ingesting less of it, but to suggest it is healthy (which you are implying) is just incorrect.
I have already touched upon your projective language. You are finding nothing hilarious here what so ever, that much is evident. You are finding it frustrating that you have to take up a stance you don't wish to take up as it buts you on a lower footing off the bat. You are currently pushing jelly up a hill using a fork .
Yes, it was me who brought up the fact that processed meat is a class one type alongside plutonium. I still do not understand why you think also making the point it is in the same group as toxic paint and extreme pollution would mean my statement is scaremongering. I suggest you read what you wrote again. In fact it is the most bizarre justification argument I have heard to date - and I have heard a few.
So you now realise that Type 2 diabetes IS in fact linked to red meat consumption then? But it is just a ''moving swiftly on'' type of thing for you?
I have not taken any part of scientific hypothesis and create any sensationalist arguments. Eating meat is bad for you and causes a whole host of disease. That is the long and the short of it. Each meat will have a differing effect due to the toxins in each so each case is not specific, but all are bad for you. No getting around it I am afraid.
You keep demanding sources. By that you seem to be suggesting that I am basing my opinion on very current and active research, I have little idea how I came to have a far greater knowledge on the subject than yourself - it is from years of studying it. I think it is unrealistic to think I would store every source. But as you are currently in the googling and learning stage feel free to research it. I will happily help you on the journey.
I am amazed you have reduced the whole biological viewpoint (the vast argument that has so many concepts to it which overwhelmingly back what I am saying) and focus on an unconfirmed theory on teeth??! I mean, is this really your comeback to the biological argument? You are better than that.
Nothing has been exposed Drizzy (apart from your google based arguments due to a need to win an unwinnable debate rather than a thirst to learn) - the link between breast cancer and dairy is entirely subjective at this stage, but there are vast resources to suggest the link is there. Even beyond cancer there is a clear correlation between brittle bone disease not to mention the fact that the majority of humans are lactose intolerant on even a basic level. To expose anything, you would have to prove that dairy is healthy - which of course is an impossible task.
360% is a massive increase whether you wish to admit it or not. Massive. 9 animals per year get killed for every 1 person on the planet. if you think the increase is representative of 1% of the population (going by your statistics) then that means 675 million less animals are enslaved, mistreated and murdered each year. That is staggering.
I think you will find that sort of movement will be registered as one of the biggest dietary movements on the planet today. Movements naturally progress and grow, it is not down to me to hold everybodies hand to invoke change - that will happen simply by the fact the movement is growing. And it will continue to grow and I hope you remember this conversation in 20 years time when it is more prevalent than any other. If you have not been to LA recently then I suggest you do, every other restaurant is vegan and top businessmen are investing heavily into it (Bill Gates the most notable).
I have every bit of scientific data, every bit of base to my accurate and factual arguments and every bit of information behind my stance. Your replies to them seemingly consist of ''nah''. Again, nobody can make these decisions for you. You are struggling with your own decisions clearly as you have only managed to make small changes over the last year, you are mentally unable to align what you want with what you do. You cant go blaming others for this lack of self control.
You can kick and scream that you are losing an unwinnable debate all you like Drizzy. While you are pining over a hamburger that you just cant possibly go without, I am making real change. I have raised tens of thousands of pounds for animal based charities, raised awareness for ethical situations, directly impacted on the demand for fur and meat and converted hundreds of people to veganism by simply showing them the facts and allowing them to see it for themselves and then providing any support they need through their journey.
Lets ask the animals who they prefer, as we do tend to judge injustices through the eyes of the victim, who is doing the greater for the planet and for these causes? someone like me - or the cant even control his own actions contributing to these problems keyboard warrior.. I think the answer would be resounding, don't you?
As I have told you countless times - if you deem someone being stern with you and not mollycoddling you through the process as something that will make you want to increase your animal cruelty - then that is at your door, not mine.
You are what you eat, and this fear, hate and adrenaline you clearly consume is radically becoming you. It manifests, whether that is in disease or hormonal or chemical unbalances - it is having an effect.
If you wish to continue you journey you claim to have started then I will happily guide you through it, genuine offer. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 22:03]
| |
| |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 22:04 - Dec 12 with 397 views | E20Jack |
| Prince Harry,Royals never change on 21:36 - Dec 12 by max936 |
Nothing on Animal Planet or Nat Geo Wild or the like that I've seen.
But thanks for those links, its grotesque that they're doing that and getting away with it, they are killing Cats that are virtually fuking tame the vicious sadistic bastards, I really hope one of their guns jam and a Tiger, Lion or the like pounce and rip them apart. |
It wont be, it is the ugly side of the planet.
But appreciate you taking the time to look at them. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
