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.

 

meat = shorter life

page: 21
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ong Bak
i love it!
havent you even once bothered to ask yourself why you think its a good idea to eat a corpse? doesnt it register with your brain at all its dead and decaying flesh? do you ignore the fact your feeding of a lifeless body or do you jsut not care? do the worms and bacteria not bother you or do you like the taste?


Sorry but i'm going to right you off as a troll, you have at no point answered anything i have said and ignored areas where you have been proven incorrect as if you are still correct. You're a troll or simply blinded by ideology.

Understand that when you eat fruit or vegetables you are also eating something that is dead and decaying, it's a lifeless organism. As for worms and bacteria, as stated the bacteria die with cooking and bacteria exist on fruits and vegetables, as for worms, i've never contracted worms from meat because i cook it properly. The only time i have ever encountered a worm like thing in food was when a small maggot crawled out of an apple i was eating lol.

Oh but i love those chicken corpses, so tasty! In fact i'm going to go and eat some chicken curry now, mmmm corpse curry yum yum.




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
no, fruit is not dead. if anything its filled with life energy.
when a piece of fruit detaches from the tree and nature takes its course, a whole new tree will grow from the ground where it fell . it returns to the earth and fufills its destiny to procreate.
when a piece of meat detaches from an animal and falls to the earth, it rots and attracts disease.
which one sounds more like something taht would help an animal with its energy needs for the day?
and i havent ignored any of your posts, its jsut obvious to me that no answer i will give will satisfy your needs to reassure yuo that what your doing isnt barbaric, cruel, unhealthy, and hurting the earth.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ong Bak
no, fruit is not dead. if anything its filled with life energy.
when a piece of fruit detaches from the tree and nature takes its course, a whole new tree will grow from the ground where it fell . it returns to the earth and fufills its destiny to procreate.
when a piece of meat detaches from an animal and falls to the earth, it rots and attracts disease.
which one sounds more like something taht would help an animal with its energy needs for the day?
and i havent ignored any of your posts, its jsut obvious to me that no answer i will give will satisfy your needs to reassure yuo that what your doing isnt barbaric, cruel, unhealthy, and hurting the earth.


That's some quality hippy stuff right there lol, you are now using philosophical arguments to prove your point regarding meats effects on health. Science and philosophy don't mix when trying to prove or disprove the same topic. When you speak of energy needs you are utterly forgetting science, meat contains more energy, lb to lb than fruit or vegetables. It also contains the much sought after protein in complete form. So quite simply it is the meat which will help an omnivorous animal the most with it's energy needs. But fruits and vegetables have a very clear role in the health of a human being.

And yes you are ignoring my posts, if you don't want to debate the topic then don't create a thread, if you are unable to argue with the science that utterly disproves everything you have said then don't post the topic. You are out of your depth and trying everything you can to avoid answering points that are raised.

Your original post stated that meat = a shorter life. This has now been proven incorrect (assuming a healthy diet), you have then gone on to debate the ethical issues surrounding meat consumption which while interesting has absolutely no place in a scientific debate regarding health. If you want to create a seperate thread on that then please do so.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   


That's some quality hippy stuff right there lol, you are now using philosophical arguments to prove your point regarding meats effects on health. Science and philosophy don't mix when trying to prove or disprove the same topic. When you speak of energy needs you are utterly forgetting science, meat contains more energy, lb to lb than fruit or vegetables. It also contains the much sought after protein in complete form. So quite simply it is the meat which will help an omnivorous animal the most with it's energy needs. But fruits and vegetables have a very clear role in the health of a human being.

not a hippy. also, lets see a link please of the meat containing more energy lb to lb.


And yes you are ignoring my posts, if you don't want to debate the topic then don't create a thread, if you are unable to argue with the science that utterly disproves everything you have said then don't post the topic. You are out of your depth and trying everything you can to avoid answering points that are raised.

right, you have now accused me of ignoring you in 3 posts all of which i responded to. what exactly is your definition for ignoring? also, dont tell me waht to do. ever.

Your original post stated that meat = a shorter life. This has now been proven incorrect (assuming a healthy diet), you have then gone on to debate the ethical issues surrounding meat consumption which while interesting has absolutely no place in a scientific debate regarding health. If you want to create a seperate thread on that then please do so.

i was not the one to derail this thread, and stick to my original staement. biased backwater studies quoted my militant pro carnivores doesnt exaclty constitute proof for me. i understand taht people CAN eat meat and not drop dead on the spot. nothing in this thread has proven otherwsie that removing meat would shorten ones live, yet the study my the annals of internal medicine clearly shows that adding meat to ones diet decresed the life of those observed. at this point one can easily deduce that the presence of meat somehow negativly impacts ones health.
i suggest you change your tone when adressing other people as well, you wont get anywhere in life with that attitude.




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
When you brush your teeth, look at the sharp and pointed ones to the left and right of your incisors. Are they designed/evolved (not bothered about that argument tonight) for taking the meat off mushrooms/carrots/swiss chard?
Nope. meat specialists. Why would we have those unless there's an omnivorous bent in us? Chimpanzees have them too - but they eat meat, don't they?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ong Bak
not a hippy. also, lets see a link please of the meat containing more energy lb to lb.


Yes when you start talking about a fruit having more life energy and providing a new plant when it hits the floor while meat rots you are most certainly using some of the more new age, hippy talk. As for energy density.

nutritiondata.self.com...

Using that website you can compare, side by side 100g of lets say banana, to 100g of bacon. You'll find the bacon has far more calories (exact numbers will depend on the method of cooking).



Originally posted by Ong Bak

right, you have now accused me of ignoring you in 3 posts all of which i responded to. what exactly is your definition for ignoring? also, dont tell me waht to do. ever.


You have failed to actually reply to content and facts instead resorting to philosophical arguments when your OP claimed to use science. The two simply do not mix, argue science with science and philosophy with philosophy. As for me telling you what to do, i was making a point that if you are not able to debate something you shouldn't post it, however the anger in your reply was quite interesting. Are you going to stop me from telling you what to do (i wasn't telling i was suggesting), although when you tell me to stop telling you what to do you are in effect telling me what to do so please don't tell me what to do.

Wow that was slightly convoluted.

Typing words does not mean you have actually dealt with anything a person has said. For example i could reply to something you post here with a 5 page document on the weather, sure it's a reply but it's not dealing with anything you have put fourth and so i would have ignored your posts content. Understand now what i meant by you ignoring my posts?



Originally posted by Ong Bak
i was not the one to derail this thread, and stick to my original staement. biased backwater studies quoted my militant pro carnivores doesnt exaclty constitute proof for me. i understand taht people CAN eat meat and not drop dead on the spot. nothing in this thread has proven otherwsie that removing meat would shorten ones live, yet the study my the annals of internal medicine clearly shows that adding meat to ones diet decresed the life of those observed. at this point one can easily deduce that the presence of meat somehow negativly impacts ones health.



Dear me. militant carnivores? Backwater studies? Check the study you linked it's been debunked rather thoroughly. You have really fallen into the ideology of an extremist vegetarian haven't you. No the study you linked has been called into question regarding it's authenticity many times over and from multiple sources. As for other studies i hate to tell you but they generally study heavy meat consumption along with societies who consume heavy amounts of processed food so they are not really applicable to your suggestion that eating meat shortens ones life. When studies look at people who consume moderate amounts of meat and have healthy lives the problems associated with western diets utterly disappear.

These are facts and you choose to ignore them, instead saying that anyone promoting these scientific facts must have an agenda. Let me tell you right now if anyone could prove a vegetarian diet was hands down healthier i would be on it rather quickly. I'll stick to my Okinawan-esc diet thanks



Originally posted by Ong Bak
i suggest you change your tone when adressing other people as well, you wont get anywhere in life with that attitude.



You're right i won't get anywhere, awful really, i had so much potential. I better eat some bacon, it'll cheer me up.

I would suggest the next time you properly reply to someone that you use the quote tags, it makes things much easier.


edit on 19-9-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Ong Bak
 


Ah , wait a sec, let me go wake up my 92 Year Old Meat Eating Father so he can read this Thread while eating yet another Ham sandwich .......



edit on 19-9-2010 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ong Bak
no, fruit is not dead. if anything its filled with life energy.
when a piece of fruit detaches from the tree and nature takes its course, a whole new tree will grow from the ground where it fell .
Let's use an apple for the example here. What happens to the flesh of the apple?

It rots. Attracts disease. Before you tell me that rotting apples don't spread disease, why does the government have producers put labels on un-pastuerized apple cider?

As far as the seeds of a plant go, they are alive. Every single one that you eat prevents another plant or tree from growing, flowering and reproducing normally. Making you a killer. Do you feel good about that?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ong Bak
when a piece of meat detaches from an animal and falls to the earth, it rots and attracts disease.
which one sounds more like something taht would help an animal with its energy needs for the day?

Hmmm.

Let's test your theory.

You can hand-feed some hungry lions, tigers and leopards some apples and celery. See what they need to satisfy their nutritional requirements.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Well I don't think Lady GaGa will last very long then......




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by stevcolx
 
Take notice to the one side of the T-bone hanging down low over her crotch!

Maybe the rumors are true.

On topic: If she would eat that meat like a person should, she won't have to worry about the rotting.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Off Topic: Is this the rumour that she is supposed to be a transsexual? Not sure about that one.

On Topic: I for one like meat but I don't think it is bad for you unless taken in large quantities. And regardless of what you eat it will always be bad for you. Due to the Draconian NWO controlled governments putting all sort of poisons in our food and taking all the nutrients that our bodies require. Population control at it's best.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
When you brush your teeth, look at the sharp and pointed ones to the left and right of your incisors. Are they designed/evolved (not bothered about that argument tonight) for taking the meat off mushrooms/carrots/swiss chard?
Nope. meat specialists. Why would we have those unless there's an omnivorous bent in us? Chimpanzees have them too - but they eat meat, don't they?


If you bothered to read the thread, you'd see that SEVERAL times this specific argument has been refuted. We also have appendices, get cancer, and all sorts of chronic diseases later in life. Evolution is not perfect, so you can't just point at a physical feature and say "we are 100% optimally designed to utilize this feature, and this is it's function". That's the argument of a creationist, not an evolutionist.

I've never seen a thread become so derailed without moderator intervention. This thread is about THE CHINA STUDY, and the scientifically-established links between a vegan diet and long-term health. I'll try to sum it up briefly -

It was A 25 year-long epidemiological study in remote provinces of China, studying hundreds of thousands of people. This is ideal because the diets are all natural, with almost a complete absence in processed foods, hormone-treated meat, pesticide-treated vegetables - in other words, every village studied was eating a basically organic diet. It is also ideal because all the villages have a strong genetic similarity, while eating widely differing diets. Perfect conditions for a study to flesh out what types of foods are correlated with what types of diseases.

It conclusively found that milk and meat proteins are associated with an increase in dozens of long-term ailments like cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc. while fruits, vegetables and whole grains were associated with a decrease in these ailments.

I don't get it - ATSers are obsessed with personal sovereignty, stopping illegal wars, returning justice and sanity to government, a whole range of activist ideals, and most notably, denying ignorance. But when it comes to the most important issue of all - one's own health - most of us would either completely ignore, or even attack, the hard data that recommends a change of lifestyle.

I've been on this thread since it started, and NOT ONCE has someone mentioned a scientific article that refutes The China Study. The only documents out there are *online blogs*, and one of them is written by a computer programmer with literally no academic background in nutrition or anything remotely related. Suffice to say, the study is correct.

At least check out some of the reviews, many are written by Ph.D nutritionists and health practitioners who know what they're talking about, and agree with him.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
I've never seen a thread become so derailed without moderator intervention. This thread is about THE CHINA STUDY, and the scientifically-established links between a vegan diet and long-term health. I'll try to sum it up briefly -



Debates evolve, that's a simple fact of life, the debate has not gone off topic when it discusses whether we are designed to eat meat or not, however yes lets stick with the China study, a piece of research which has been utterly discredited and people like yourself who continue to use it despite it being called into question.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
It conclusively found that milk and meat proteins are associated with an increase in dozens of long-term ailments like cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc. while fruits, vegetables and whole grains were associated with a decrease in these ailments.


It certainly did not conclude anything. Observational studies are good for hypothesis, however, there is no arrow of cause.


Even still, Campbell clearly perverted the data reporting misleading conclusions that were obviously driven by his vegetarian bias.


I don't get it - ATSers are obsessed with personal sovereignty, stopping illegal wars, returning justice and sanity to government, a whole range of activist ideals, and most notably, denying ignorance. But when it comes to the most important issue of all - one's own health - most of us would either completely ignore, or even attack, the hard data that recommends a change of lifestyle.


Damn skippy. You get a star for that!


I've been on this thread since it started, and NOT ONCE has someone mentioned a scientific article that refutes The China Study. The only documents out there are *online blogs*, and one of them is written by a computer programmer with literally no academic background in nutrition or anything remotely related. Suffice to say, the study is correct.



There have been many scientists that have refuted his work. Just ecause a belief is widely accepted doesn't prove it's validity.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Once again, you have only provided two sources that refute the China Study.

Both are online blogs - one was written by a computer programmer with no expertise whatsoever in nutrition or health. The other blog, written by someone who actually has credentials, remains just a blog and was never published in any journals.

So in your fantasy land, perhaps it has been discredited. But in reality, and the world of academia, where science trumps superstition, it has NEVER been refuted or discredited. Just ignored.

While you can cite maybe 5 or 6 people who support those online blogs you dubiously consider as monuments of scientific achievement, there are dozens more - hundreds more - who support the study. I don't know what compels you to even comment on something you haven't even read. It's sad, man.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Hate to tell you this but the reason no one has taken the time in acedemia to discredit the study is because the study is based on loose statistics which can be read a number of ways and so if someone takes the time to publish a paper on it then they'll be ignored. The study is a poor one and as others have raised it is rather damaged when you compare it to the diets of the longest lived populations. Do i have to once again bring up the okinawans and the fact they have the highest life expectancy and eat meat?

But you'll ignore that for your biased China study won't you


Are you a scientist? I only ask because you are confusing hard data with an observational study. Campbell is quite certainly guilty of confirmation bias.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Son of Will
I've never seen a thread become so derailed without moderator intervention. This thread is about THE CHINA STUDY, and the scientifically-established links between a vegan diet and long-term health. I'll try to sum it up briefly -



Debates evolve, that's a simple fact of life, the debate has not gone off topic when it discusses whether we are designed to eat meat or not, however yes lets stick with the China study, a piece of research which has been utterly discredited and people like yourself who continue to use it despite it being called into question.


Sorry but I will stick with my peer-reviewed, 25-year-long epidemiological studies over your online blogs written by computer programmers.

Research this concept, then feel free to try your hand at debating.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ong Bak
 


dude, even if this WAS true, and i'm inclined to believe that it is, people are never going to stop eating meat. we cant' even get people to stop smoking awful tasting cancer causing cigarettes which shorten our lives below the mid seventies. what makes you think any significant amount of people would give up tasty, relatively safe meat.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Hate to tell you this but the reason no one has taken the time in acedemia to discredit the study is because the study is based on loose statistics which can be read a number of ways and so if someone takes the time to publish a paper on it then they'll be ignored. The study is a poor one and as others have raised it is rather damaged when you compare it to the diets of the longest lived populations. Do i have to once again bring up the okinawans and the fact they have the highest life expectancy and eat meat?

But you'll ignore that for your biased China study won't you


Are you a scientist? I only ask because you are confusing hard data with an observational study. Campbell is quite certainly guilty of confirmation bias.


The life expectancy of Chinese is 73%. Of US, its 78%. Of the world, it's 69 years.

Maybe you need a geography lesson, Okinawa is off the coast of Japan. Nothing to do with the study at hand.

There are no vegan cultures in the world, so saying that "Okinawans eat meat yet live the longest" is exactly what you're accusing Campbell of - correlation instead of causation.

If Okinawans were to become entirely vegan, then perhaps they would live even longer? I suppose you didn't think about that in your confirmation-biased reality.

edit to add - I made no such confusion. I said the study "correlates" foods to various diseases. Please don't try to misconstrue my statements in order to win an argument, it doesn't speak highly of honesty or reading comprehension.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join