It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eating Animals is Making us Sick

page: 16
27
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
In fact, many of the references in your link concerning cancer, are from the 70's and 80's.

Are you really reading your links?




posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER
 


Yes, I did.

And most of the infromation that you're basing your assumptions on are from about the same time period.

Had you any idea of how studies are conducted, you'd realize that date, especially concerning OBSERVATIONAL studies, has no releveance.


no relevance?
are you suggesting int eh last 43 years weve not gained significant knowledge and made tremendous advances in medicine?
back then they didnt know many many many things we do now.
its clearly an antiquated p.o.v., one form an era gone by, like your dietary choices will be soon enough.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
no relevance?
are you suggesting int eh last 43 years weve not gained significant knowledge and made tremendous advances in medicine?
back then they didnt know many many many things we do now.
its clearly an antiquated p.o.v., one form an era gone by, like your dietary choices will be soon enough.


They didn't know as much as we do now? Facepalm!

We're talking about observational studies. That's it. Epidemiology relies on observations and correlations.

And do you really think that studies conducted years ago have no place in current research endeavours?

-Dev



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER

3. heart disease - www.npr.org...


My god. You really are just googling. This is the easiest debate I've had on this website. If you don't read your own sources, you'll never win.



The study included some 545,000 adults who were surveyed about their eating habits. The major drawback of the study is that it relies on people's memories, which are not always accurate.


The truth is, this is just another observational study, that proves nothing. It associates red meat consumption with heart disease, that's it.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER

6. diabetes - www.bio-medicine.org...


Ah yes, ANOTHER observational study. Oh...and watch this:


According to researchers, a diet packed with hot dogs, bologna and bacon can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes by about 50 percent in men.


What do people normally eat with bologna and hot dogs......come on....you know the answer. BREAD!!!!!! This study proves nothing.

Type 2 diabtes is a hormonal imbalance. It's caused by an over-exposure to insulin and insulin resistance. Do you know what regulates insulin?????

Carbohydrate, not fat, are the enemy of diabetics.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
provided exapmles from each becasue i can tell your excited to discredit everything ive posted, this sohudl keep you busy for another few hours.
i guess that about covers the immediatly obvious things that pop up , im sure theres more if you would liek to continue.


You forgot about one other, that seems to be an "epidemic" in the states, OBESITY.

I'll wait for you to google your next response.

You still haven't provided me with any substantial clinical evidence. You haven't provided me with the physiological effects from red meat that cause cancer, or any other disease of civilization. I'm BEGGING you. Please. Find Something.

Oh, and if you think this has been bad, just try me on Obesity.


-Dev



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Would you like to see my first GOOGLE post? lol

Cancer incidence among California Seventh-Day Adventists, 1976-1982.


Cancer incidence was monitored in a population of 34,000 Seventh-day Adventists in California. By religious belief, Adventists do not consume tobacco, alcohol, or pork and approximately one-half adhere to a lacto-ovovegetarian lifestyle. Only a small percentage are pure vegetarians. Comparisons of cancer-incidence rates in this population with an external reference population were completed by calculating standardized morbidity ratios (SMRs) for all cancer sites. Also, within the population, relative risks were calculated by using data obtained from a detailed lifestyle questionnaire that members of the study population completed. For all cancer sites combined in males, the SMR was lower in the Adventists (SMR = 0.73). The SMR was also lower in males for most individual cancer sites. However, prostate cancer risk was higher. For females, the all-cancer SMR was lower but not significantly so (SMR = 92). Most site-specific SMRs were lower, although not as much as the male SMRs. The SMR for endometrial cancer was significantly higher in female Adventists.


In this particular 1994 study, as pointed out by the Weston A. Price foundation, the Seventh Day Adventists did have lower rates of some cancers but higher rates for several others(including Hodgkin's disease, malignant melanoma, brain, skin, prostate, cervical and ovarian).

So, please do your research before posting nonsense on these boards. You will be called out if you are wrong.

-Dev



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
hi buddy
im not sure where you are going with this, but i did provide multiple links, with all kinds of scientific sounding quotes from people with titles taht are numerous and impressive.
you have continued to ignore them, much like the painful, simple truth that is right in front of your face , meat is dead animals.
im not sure exaclty what part of ravaging a corpse = bad taht your not understanding.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
hi buddy
im not sure where you are going with this, but i did provide multiple links, with all kinds of scientific sounding quotes from people with titles taht are numerous and impressive.


Wow, that is the best quote I've seen in a long time. Those quote/people/titles are impressive to the unwitted eye. The evidence you've brought forth is nothing less that typing your preconceived notion into google search and posting the results. You have provided some nice epidemiological studies, but they're just not going to hold water. THEY DON"T PROVE ANYTHING.



you have continued to ignore them, much like the painful, simple truth that is right in front of your face , meat is dead animals.
im not sure exaclty what part of ravaging a corpse = bad taht your not understanding.


Did I ignore them? It seems I addressed the majority of your posts/links/articles/non scientific BS, unlike yourself. You decided to attack me instead of rebutting my responses.

It's sad, really, that you belive what everything you read from a google search.

Hey, if you want, just U2U me and I'll give you some advice on how to live a better life, under the table so that you don't have to concede defeat.


-Dev



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Edit: I'll remove the original post, as it was uncalled for.

But I'm not your buddy. And....


I LOVE YOU!




[edit on 6-11-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


And isn't his *or her* argument a logical fallacy besides?
This one I believe:

argumentum ad verecundiam



Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


Maybe if you tell yourself that enough times it will become true.
Good day sir.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 

From wikipedia for ease.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...
Keywords here, with Malice aforethought, but that doesn't necessarily mean premeditation, just means with malicious intent, otherwise crimes of passion would not be technically murder. But, you are right, murder doesn't apply to animals. As I was saying before you told me it was.


[edit on 7-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Excuse me if this was already pointed out, but I've not the patience to go through 16 pages to verify. Anyhow, this should make you meat eaters drool, huh:

What's really in that burger? E.coli and chicken feces both allowed by USDA

Yummy. Bon appétit. Ya'll deserve it. And remember, you are what you eat.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Excuse me if this was already pointed out,

but I've not the patience to go through 16 pages to verify.

Anyhow, this should make you meat eaters drool, huh:

What's really in that burger? E.coli and chicken feces both allowed by USDA

Yummy. Bon appétit. Ya'll deserve it. And remember, you are what you eat.


Otherwords you don't know if it's true or not. I highlighted the most relevant line.
Yet you are accepting it as true since it supports your rather self-rightous stance. Imagine that. Never saw that coming.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Not sure what you mean? Certainly it is true that feces is in that flesh and blood everyone loves so much. Heck, have to see what the FDA and USDA allows to be qualify as food?

Funny, isn't it, people will wear condoms while having sex, but they will gulp down a big hot dog and not think twice about what they just did. Ya'll might as well be having unprotected sex with your dinner before you eat it, ha.


Anyhow, just trying to help ya out here by warning you about what's in that stuff. No thanks are necessary. And it's no skin off my back if you want to eat that trash. Really, knock yourselves out if feces peppered death is your thang for dinner.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


but I've not the patience to go through 16 pages to verify.


Just because you think it should be true does not make it in fact true for one. And secondly you are forgetting that lovely tirade you have been going on for a while now. Remember that whole "murderers" silliness? While you may have forgotten that you did it I certainly have not and I cannot be the only one.
Your perception is skewed by your extreme stance so thusly suspect *meaning you better damn well prove it given that you need no evidence for your opinion and it shows*. And trying to pretend you did not make that stance clear does not mean you did not.


[edit on 7-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
so you really dont believe theres feces and urine in your meats?
i hate to break it to you, but when you disembowel and animal, no matter how careful you are, teh whole digestive tract is bound to let loose somewhere. they pay people working in abbatoirs next to nothing, most dont speak english, and are expsoed to horrible things on a day to day basis. you really think they care about waht happens to the aniamls and teh entrails after they are done gutting them? and for the sake of arguing with clearly delusional flesh eaters on teh interenets, im sure you all liek your sausages with "natural casing". (***spoiler alert**** natural casings are a nice way of saying intestines, and if you still dont understand waht im getting at, tahts where the poop is stored before the animals become food for you and your obese family)
tbh, if all you get is alittle # and piss, your getting off lucky.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER
 


Allow me to reiterate.

Just because you think it should be true does not make it in fact true.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
There are a lot of adverse paybacks from eating animals. There is no way to reason with someone, let alone the planet and get it to change. Consciousness is raising and someday it will be more comprehensible to more spirits. The beasts eating the animals today will one day, in one lifetime or another come to abhor the taking of other life and the association with their mentality and emotions. The creation isn't broken.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join