Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Eating Animals is Making us Sick

page: 35
27
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Avarus
reply to post by TrueTruth
 


I'm sorry, but belittling your opponent's view by accusing him of using runes and omens is an "elaborate argument", I'm not sure you understand what an elaborate argument is.

Also, There are MANY old theories and studies that are still used today. Just because Einstein's contribution to physics was in the early 1900's, many of his theories are still true today. Pythagoras of Samos (530 BC) contributed to mathematics and is still being taught in school today.

The point is, you can't dismiss it, just because it's old.


How about I dismiss it because it's wrong? For example, it is archaeological fact that humans ate meat before we cold cook it. Fine by me if you want to skip 100+ years of data to defend this conclusion, but it's wrong. It's not wrong because it's old - it's wrong because, it's disproven.

Theories about what we 'should' eat based on the design of our teeth, intestines, etc., are purely speculative. They have no scientific merit. They're mere guesses.

And I didn't dismiss old knowledge - I was speaking to rawhemp's decision to eschew NEW knowledge - his out of hand rejection of any new science since the late 19th century, a belief he stated explicitly and repeatedly. I was explaining to him why it is a terrible mistake.

So don't make my argument something it isn't just because you wish it was. You've got the dynamics all backwards.

***

You didn't say squat about 'elaborate arguments', and your opinion of my writing is irrelevant. Neither is what I said logically false. I think your accusation is complete bunk. Also, an elaborate argument is not necessarily circular logic - they aren't the same thing.

What I said serves to make a point, and I stand by it. This thread floats an unsustainable argument that is founded in unproven and untestable theories about human biology. Ever heard of 'fallacia accidentis'? How about 'false cause'? Take your pick.

All you've done so far is sling a few weak and pointless criticisms. You're attempting to turn a scientific argument into a philosophical exercise, and it isn't. You haven't addressed anything of substance.

You guys can't prove your case, so you stoop to personal attacks. I know you think you're clever, but you're opining. Nothing more.

Trust me, rawhemp doesn't need your help, and he gets the treatment he earned by being incredibly rude. If you don't believe me, you haven't read the thread very carefully.

Now, if you want to try to defend this 'meat is bad' argument, by all means do so.

If you just came to troll, then kindly buzz off.


[edit on 11-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 11-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 11-12-2009 by TrueTruth]




posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth


How about I dismiss it because it's wrong? For example, it is archaeological fact that humans ate meat before we cold cook it.


Theories about what we 'should' eat based on the design of our teeth, intestines, etc., are purely speculative. They have no scientific merit. They're mere guesses.


Humans ate meat before they could cook is somehow archeological fact, its not a archeological fact its an assumption/theory, but verifiable facts about our digestive system and teeth are purely speculative?? HAHAHAHA.

Get a clue dude. You have no idea what our ancestors ate along with the scientist, you personally don't even know that these ancestors exist because you've never seen them. Just to clarify I'm not dismissing that some early humans may have eaten meat but this proves nothing. Some early humans probably tried to eat dog crap.

It all comes down to the simple fact that you base your life on what other people tell you is true, people that are often very misled and misguided. I have no problem with that but don't belittle me because i think differently and you can't handle it.

FYI the only reason i was so rude to you, i said your wife is probably one of these vegetarian retards, is because you basically claimed all vegans(specifically pregnant ones) will get anemia at one point or another. Which is as far from the truth as you can get, plenty of mothers have vegan pregnancies and do wonderfully. Your wife couldn't manage to get enough calories/eat a none vegan junk food diet so some how you think this translates to all vegans.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


You're attempting to make an argument about what we are 'meant' to do, which doesn't exist in biology. Our teeth chew meat because they can. Period. End of story. And no, it's not debatable that our ancestors ate meat long before they could make a fire. I don't care how much you wish it were otherwise. It's reality. Face it, or admit you live in a fantasy.

You can call your little ideas 'science' as much as you want to, but they aren't. The first is flat wrong, and the second two are guesses, and guesses which disregard contrary facts at that.

Misconceptions shrouded in denial.

"Hey, we have opposable thumbs, and monkeys have them too... that must mean they're supposed to drive cars, right"

Oh wait. We're different. In the context of Human, that overlapping trait takes on new 'meanings'. Guess it makes no sense to think this way, right?

Right.



Like I said before.

If your entire strategy boils down to the outright rejection of everything that has happened over the last 125 years in science, we have nothing to talk about.
Rational discourse has come to a stop.
Enjoy your fantasy life.


[edit on 11-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 11-12-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 



I'm not going to read an entire book to rehash ideas bandied about on this thread. Instructing people to read entire books in a debate is just poor form. Source it - recapitulate the salient points in brief.


You're employing a specious logic that attempts to assign causes in the absence of establishing an evidentiary proof. Nature isn't as rigid as the people who look to her for ratification of their rules. It is foolish to believe that something as complex as 'what's good for us' can be determined by the selective and superficial examination of gross anatomy.

If we followed this brand of logic to the end we would arrive at some curious conclusions. For example, it is commonly observed that the spine, as a design, is maximally efficient for a 4 legged animal, not a 2 legged animal. Studying the design, it 'looks' like we were 'meant' to walk on 4 legs. Indeed, evidence can be produced that links our upright posture to our common experience of back pain. Does that mean we 'should' go back to using our arms as legs, or hands as feet?

Also consider that organs and body parts don't function in isolation. The behavior we call 'eating' is extremely complicated. We have many anatomical parts that go towards that single concept of function. Obsessing about one part is meaningless.

If we look long enough at many of our anatomical features, we could conjure up many 'shoulds' that are 'implied' by design. We could create a list that shows how 'Feature X' is for 'Funciton Y', and using your method of proof, we could determine these parameters by watching other 'less evolved' (older forms) animals, and let the 'intended purpose' of things be revealed.

Except it doesn't work like that. Using the same basic design, nature developed a spine that works for 4 legged creatures and though less efficiently, also for 2 legged creatures. The trade off is the brain, and that's how it balanced out. Nature didn't pause, develop a better model for the uprights, and then resume....it transitioned forms, which is what life is all about.




The kind of logic you are using - and I really am not trying to tar your with a dirty brush - is used commonly by people who disapprove of homosexuality. They argue that our organs were designed with a clear function, and that we 'should' not deviate from that. Except, all over the animal kingdom, we see that the sex organs really aren't only for reproduction. They often seem to have functions related to simple pleasure, social bonding, and establishing dominance. Nature seems to love a multipurpose tool.











[edit on 12-12-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Rawhemp
 



I'm not going to read an entire book to rehash ideas bandied about on this thread. Instructing people to read entire books in a debate is just poor form. Source it - recapitulate the salient points in brief.



Its 8-9 pages...



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth


For example, it is commonly observed that the spine, as a design, is maximally efficient for a 4 legged animal, not a 2 legged animal. Studying the design, it 'looks' like we were 'meant' to walk on 4 legs.


Source?


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Also consider that organs and body parts don't function in isolation. The behavior we call 'eating' is extremely complicated. We have many anatomical parts that go towards that single concept of function. Obsessing about one part is meaningless.


This has nothing to do with the article, i mean what are you even trying to say here? It never obsesses over one part... Try reading it before you make assumptions


Originally posted by TrueTruth
If we look long enough at many of our anatomical features, we could conjure up many 'shoulds' that are 'implied' by design. We could create a list that shows how 'Feature X' is for 'Funciton Y', and using your method of proof, we could determine these parameters by watching other 'less evolved' (older forms) animals, and let the 'intended purpose' of things be revealed.


Actually you can't
Lets see you use this theory, at this point your making illogical claims about nothing.





Originally posted by TrueTruth
The kind of logic you are using - and I really am not trying to tar your with a dirty brush - is used commonly by people who disapprove of homosexuality. They argue that our organs were designed with a clear function, and that we 'should' not deviate from that. Except, all over the animal kingdom, we see that the sex organs really aren't only for reproduction. They often seem to have functions related to simple pleasure, social bonding, and establishing dominance. Nature seems to love a multipurpose tool.



Our sexual organs are designed for one purpose, they just happen to give pleasure because if they didn't no one would reproduce. Just because animals have found a way to exploit this along with humans doesn't mean that now they are meant for other functions as well




[edit on 12-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp

For example, it is commonly observed that the spine, as a design, is maximally efficient for a 4 legged animal, not a 2 legged animal. Studying the design, it 'looks' like we were 'meant' to walk on 4 legs.

Source?


Emergence and optimization of upright posture among hominiform hominoids and the evolutionary pathophysiology of back pain

Aaron G. Filler, M.D., Ph.D., F.R.C.S.
Institute for Spinal Disorders, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; Center for Advanced Spinal Neurosurgery, Santa Monica, California; and Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts


thejns.org...



Originally posted by TrueTruth
Also consider that organs and body parts don't function in isolation. The behavior we call 'eating' is extremely complicated. We have many anatomical parts that go towards that single concept of function. Obsessing about one part is meaningless.

This has nothing to do with the article, i mean what are you even trying to say here? It never obsesses over one part... Try reading it before you make assumptions


I already told you I'm not reading your article. I'm responding to your earlier comments about teeth and intestines. You attributed them to that guy who wrote that book in the late 1800's that you consider to be the historical end of science.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
If we look long enough at many of our anatomical features, we could conjure up many 'shoulds' that are 'implied' by design. We could create a list that shows how 'Feature X' is for 'Funciton Y', and using your method of proof, we could determine these parameters by watching other 'less evolved' (older forms) animals, and let the 'intended purpose' of things be revealed.

Actually you can't
Lets see you use this theory, at this point your making illogical claims about nothing.


Wrong. I'm simply demonstrating above, why your method of analysis here leads to false conclusions; it attributes causality to any observed correlation that agrees with it, and it ignores evolutionary science.

There's nothing wrong with my claims at all. In fact, this entire discussion is about YOUR claim, and my attempt to falsify it, which I and others have have done amply.

Your arguments about humans are 'meant' to eat is simply not supported by the evidence - not that you care about little things like facts that can be such a bother when you're busy telling everyone else how though oughtta live.




Our sexual organs are designed for one purpose, they just happen to give pleasure because if they didn't no one would reproduce. Just because animals have found a way to exploit this along with humans doesn't mean that now they are meant for other functions as well


They weren't 'designed' for anything - that entire concept assumes a planner who had a goal, and you are invoking a separate unproven hypothesis to support your first. It's something like a 'begging the question' fallacy as well, insofar as you persist on arguing a teleological view of biology with both of the hypotheses.

The functions they serve are the functions they serve. Here's another example: hands can be used to hold babies, make tools, or kill people. They're extremely versatile. Many forms in nature are versatile, and hence are perpetuated. Nature riffs on themes. Nature remixes. Old samples find places in new songs.

You're trying to think entirely too linearly about all of this. Ironically, science allows a more free and open minded approach than replacing it with idiosyncratic imaginings.

It really does resemble throwing runes.... you are reading what you wish into an arrangement of items in the natural world, when the 'meanings' are purely artifacts of your own cognition.







[edit on 12-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
if eating animals isnt making us sick, how come the packages of uncooked meat have safe handeling instructions and precautions on them?
its food, why is it dangerous to use?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
totally didnt see that coming.
jk i saw it coming from a mile away.
meat is dead.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The topic of this thread should be is it right to eat animals, not it's bad for you to eat animals. I think it's bad and yes we can live without meat.

Milk alone is a 100% complete protein, it has all 8 essential amino acids, eggs also do that, beans,tofu, brown rice,penut butter has them, and soy, or soya that has a very high conentration of amino acids, I'm not even counting fruits. So yes it's possible.

Meat tastes good, that is the only reason people stick to it. Other animals
suffer and die so we can enjoy the taste, it's the truth. Other than that
everything is an excuse for us.







[edit on 17-12-2009 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


Milk alone is a 100% complete protein




Milk is just as bad as meat if not worse, casein is probably the most cancerous thing consumed by humans.

Watch the vid i posted acouple post above yours

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp

Originally posted by pepsi78


Milk alone is a 100% complete protein




Milk is just as bad as meat if not worse, casein is probably the most cancerous thing consumed by humans.

Watch the vid i posted acouple post above yours

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Rawhemp]

Well everything can kill you including vitamins, mix things up and you will end up fine. You are exposed to cancer, anyone is.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
arguments for meat : protien
arguments against meat : everythign else



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Eskimos, who daily consume 250 to 400 grams of proteins in fish, walrus, or whale meats and 2,200 mg of calcium from fish bone, have the highest incidence of osteoporosis of any population in the world. And proof of the Eskimos' affliction with "thin bones" can be found in bodies that are centuries old. Two women, about 20 and 40 years old when they died, were buried in an ice flow in the Arctic more than 500 years ago. Recently their well-preserved frozen bodies were discovered and autopsied. The examination showed that both women had suffered from extensive atherosclerosis and osteoporosis.

www.drmcdougall.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


A post of mine from another thread touching on Dr. Campbell:


Campbell?


You're referring to the guy who said:


“Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy.”


The same guy who serves on the advisory board for the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine(PCRM), an organization full of militant vegetarians with obvious ties with PETA.

Think this guy is biased?

Throughout the entirety of The China Study(the actual study), sugar consumption is hardly ever mentioned.

Also, Campbell jumps from 'Casein causes cancer' to 'All animal protein causes cancer.' Is that generalization really warranted?

Campbell spent nearly 20 pages discussing the auto-immune diseases caused by the consumption of cows milk, yet he never mentions the auto-immune diseases caused by wheat gluten.

He raved about Dr. Dean Ornish and his findings yet never once mentioned Dr. Weston Price's study of primitive people who relied heavily on animal-based food, nor did he mention George Mann's research on the Masai.

Thanks for the data, Mr. Campbell, now lets have objective, non-biased scientists analyze them.


www.cholesterol-and-health.com...

See, it really does help to analyze data, instead of blindly accepting supporting information.


Originally posted by Rawhemp
Eskimos, who daily consume 250 to 400 grams of proteins in fish, walrus, or whale meats and 2,200 mg of calcium from fish bone, have the highest incidence of osteoporosis of any population in the world.


Why do you constantly ignore the fact that traditional Inuit consuming just as much, if not more meat were VERY healthy. The above may be true for westernized eskimos....not traditional.


And proof of the Eskimos' affliction with "thin bones" can be found in bodies that are centuries old. Two women, about 20 and 40 years old when they died, were buried in an ice flow in the Arctic more than 500 years ago. Recently their well-preserved frozen bodies were discovered and autopsied. The examination showed that both women had suffered from extensive atherosclerosis and osteoporosis.


The statistical significance of this finding is almost nonexistant and holds little relavence in the scientific community.......because you're talking about 2 bodies.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


... an organization full of militant vegetarians with obvious ties with PETA.


Show me the sign-up sheet, and I'll not only sign it but I might actually believe you.


Think this guy is biased?


as much as militant meat eaters...



Why do you constantly ignore the fact that traditional Inuit consuming just as much, if not more meat were VERY healthy. The above may be true for westernized eskimos....not traditional.


What is true is that anything can look VERY healthy while isolated and undisturbed.


The statistical significance of this finding is almost nonexistant and holds little relavence in the scientific community.......because you're talking about 2 bodies.


Cows and a caribou... and your scientific relevance to this thread? And source?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

You're referring to the guy who said:


“Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy.”


They are?


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
The same guy who serves on the advisory board for the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine(PCRM), an organization full of militant vegetarians with obvious ties with PETA.


Your point?


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Think this guy is biased?


no



Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Also, Campbell jumps from 'Casein causes cancer' to 'All animal protein causes cancer.' Is that generalization really warranted?


Imo yes



Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Campbell spent nearly 20 pages discussing the auto-immune diseases caused by the consumption of cows milk, yet he never mentions the auto-immune diseases caused by wheat gluten.


Source?? By the way no ones arguing the danger of grains or wheat gluten, I personally think grains are nearly as dangerous as meat.

Wheat protein, unlike casein for example, did not stimulate cancer development but when its limiting amino acid, lysine, was restored, it acted just like casein.

www.vegsource.com...

Dr. campbells response to Dr. mercola, WAPF and Chris Masterjohn


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
See, it really does help to analyze data, instead of blindly accepting supporting information.


I do analyze the data, I'm not just some random retard who finds tidbits of info that supports his theories and flies with it. As much as you would like to think



Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Why do you constantly ignore the fact that traditional Inuit consuming just as much, if not more meat were VERY healthy. The above may be true for westernized eskimos....not traditional.


See paragraph you quoted below that one lol


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
The statistical significance of this finding is almost nonexistant and holds little relavence in the scientific community.......because you're talking about 2 bodies.



They just happen to find 2 bodies and they just happen to both have osteoporosis, what are the chances of that? I highly doubt they just happen to find some special cases that are the only Inuits that had medical problems. You may remember earlier in the thread the article i posted about the Inuit mummy found with a tumor behind her eye and major deficiencies









 
27
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join