You do know that carnitine is used to help treat ADHD right? And the highest concentrations of carnitine are found in red meat. Very little is found in plants, nuts or seeds. Just another fun fact for ya.
You made this video to prove what you are trying to preach, which is limiting yourself, you are comparing, and arguing because you don't eat meat, maybe you should be open to not live in only one circle.
@GoodFoodisGreatFood You try it. I'm waiting for you. Come on! Let's us see if you're man to stand for your shit talk, as for me it's all nothing but idiotic insult and bullshit only. But do it very faster, cos, if not, the response of this body is so efficient and so quick that you'll be destroyed first. No power in the world can touch this. If you want to live long, don't mess with this. You joker.
@BLHProductions Hehe, no, the N64 as any other thing input here is what the body goes memorizing through its lifespan, so to speak, even before the birth it's already affected by what mother's says and her affection and all that it absorbs after the birth. Either thought vanishes by itself, acausally, or there's no way at all. No means to achieve it. Cos any movement in order to try to be free from thinking would be the very thinking itself, so no way.
@BLHProductions And as in the example of driving the car, it's not true that the body can handle only the basic functioning of breathing, digesting and so on, it memorizes anything that it receives as stimuli and it can be even capable to drive a car by itself, without 'you' there, we assume that with thinking it's better because thinking itself depends of that illusion to assure its own continuity through the human species, it's a like a parasite.
@22mar79: Let be ask you something "body." If what you say is true and if you think that the body acts on its own and is peaceful and that there is no right and wrong, why did you act in a hostile way when I questioned what you said?
And why did you say that people who eat meat have a limited amount of thinking if you now say it is from over thinking?
What you say now is opposite of what you said before, and you did seem to say that it was wrong to eat meat for "morbid taste."
@BLHProductions That response is your own stimulus, the body just throw it back to you in the form of a reaction, but there's no one here responding. The aggressiveness or the peacefulness etc are just imaginary divisions created by thought, the body is just responding to stimuli.
I said that people who eat meat have a limited thinking in the sense that to feed from death if you can feed from at least bloodless food is a limitation even within the very thinking itself.
@BLHProductions ...insane, I have to function efficiently in the world too, we have to accept the reality of the world as it's imposed on us, but there's no center, no self operating here, it's a computer, a robot. E.g., when I go to the market, I don't have a clue about what I'm doing, the body goes by itself, for me it's just a field of vision, the sight, 180 degrees, and two arms going on automatically picking up the food, and it never takes anything animal but milk and derivatives only.
Advice, stick to telling facts, like you said, tell how eating meat will improve the economic, do better for the environment and the other stuff that does make sense (which I know about that stuff)
All your "spiritual" talk is just annoying the meat eaters, you diluting an important message with all that shit talk, like other have said, you are turning vegetarianism into a "religion" and people hate religions.
You should only state the facts of why is good to avoid meat and let people chose.
and what of the ppl who balance their diet between plant and meat? do they have a better understanding over those who eat only vegies or only meat? by your analogy it would seem so...
Are you in a deep dark well? The deep dark well of eating plants? Do you limit yourself and your thought process by eating plants? Do you argue and compare everything and give yourself a reason to eat plants? Everything you base your arguments only continues to limit your understanding of the world outside of eating plants.
@haridham: A bit like what I did I think. Basically your argument could be made in reverse, or you could use people who went from omni to vegetarian to vegan to omni again as being more enlightened, even if the other vegs simply said they did it wrong.
@BLHProductions Anything could be reversed or changed into anything. Thats rather a distraction tactic thats all. We can go from one diet to the other but if we do not possess the proper consciousness and reasoning behind the diet, we will continue to slip. So for uplifting one's consciousness a diet of compassion is required.
@haridham: If it is a distraction argument in reverse could it not be a distraction argument going forward?
Though compassion is not required to be a vegan or vegetarian, though that is true for omnivores also. What you eat doesn't make you a better or worse person.
@BLHProductions "If it is a distraction argument in reverse could it not be a distraction argument going forward?"
More distraction attempts. Arguments 4 the sake of arguments r just a waste,. No reason to reverse if the point is evident & logical. The arguments can be reversed 2 "what ifs" "maybe's" "perhaps" etc but those are only tactics to deflect the subject and to concoct an argument & then argue from that point instead. Its a notion to stray away from the original point.
@BLHProductions "Though compassion is not required to be a vegan or vegetarian, though that is true for omnivores also. What you eat doesn't make you a better or worse person"
Yes compassion is not required to be vegan or vegetarian however it is a byproduct either directly or indirectly. Thats what matters. What we eat affects our consciousness, the consciousness affects the thought process, thoughts can lead to action. Eating meat is bad, not necessarily the person.
@haridham: Just beause someone goes veg because they think it is more compasonate to do so does not make it a fact that it is more compassionate. Some don't even care about animals and do it only for health or personal reasons.
The belief that eating meat is bad is subjective, just like my belife that it is OK is subjective.
I think that the very fact of eating meat itself is an evidence of limitation of thinking. If one can't even realize that he/she is being fed at the cost of the slaughter of many living beings and the destruction of the environment, and enjoy that morbid taste, that's already the most flashing signal of a very limited thinking. Eating corpses masked by tempers and cooked on fire without realizing that it's being fed at the cost of the death of other beings proofs that brains doesn't exist there.
@22mar79 Yes, great point. Why reduce and limit yourself to eating a dead carcass? Someone who depends on the suffering and torture of other beings to satisfy themselves has actually deevolved. Just for the taste? We eat and we behave with that consciousness. No meat Know peace.
@haridham: Why limit yourself to eating only dead plants (or killing them as you eat them?)
Actually no. Most animals that eat other animals "depend" on killing other animals. The other animal suffers, but the predator is not "deevolved." In fact, there isn't such a thing as deevolving. You can be less likely to survive in an environment, but once you are born that is it. Having a wider diet is actually more evolved to survive than the animals who can eat only one thing.
@BLHProductions "Actually no. Most animals that eat other animals "depend" on killing other animals." They are dependent. We are not dependent as our nature and consciousness limit us to that dependency. When we do not utilize our consciousness for progress towards compassion our intrinsic nature instead of the external temporary one based on the limited five senses we can never come to understand the gross negligence of eating meat.
@haridham: Some people do claim to be obligate omnivores, but being able to go without is not a reason to go without. You could go without religion of a computer, but just because you could and some would argue that it is the better thing to do, it isn't obligatory.
Most harm comes from factory farming. I mean, just because someone says we should have compassion for plants by not raising them for food and instead eat wild plants because of compassion doesn't make it a sound argument.
@haridham: And if we are to look at a few extreme veg cases, namely most of the members of ALF, we can see that vegs are also able to do violent things. If we look at a typical veg forum, you will see some infighting between vegans and vegetarians, not counting the rawists, Glutton Free, and fruitetarians that say they "know" their diet is best.
Thus, we can conclude that vegs are still people and people are, as House would say, idiots. You changed your mind, not personalty.
@22mar79: Firs of all, plants are also living, though I'm guessing you don't have a problem eating them..or the fact that growing plants the way we do in the US is bad for the environment too. The same is for omnivores. I could be more sustainable by hunting. I also don't think it is wrong to eat animals. Morals are a tricky think, I personally believe in them, but I could make a case for just about anything in the right context.
Hey, morbid smell. Meat and plants tastes similar.
@BLHProductions Hey, you bastard: How can you be so idiot to the point of comparing vegetarian diet to other kinds of diet which are violent, hum, you damn fool?! To begin with, you son of a bitch, you can feed from vegetables and fruits without having to kill the plant! You pick up apples and you don't need to kill the tree. You pick up certain vegetables and you don't need to kill the plant. So, to hell with your defence of violence here, you scoundrel! An amoeba's worth more than u! Get lost!
@22mar79: Because the popular consumerist vegetarian and vegan diet also are violent, rather it be to the land or to the animals that are killed through harvesting. No diet is bloodless or free from doing harm.
And really, you're resorting to insulting me and using weighted language. That weakens any sound thing you say.
Yes, you can be parasitic, but the part of the plant you eat dies by eating it. And again, popular methods include harvesting, killing both animals and plants.
@BLHProductions The offensive words don't harm anybody, being carnivorous does it. There's no difference between good or bad words, both are sound the same way, the problem is that we give a significance to our barking. But the point is: There's an enormous difference between killing a microbe, for example, and killing an animal. The most intelligent, harmless, honest, decent way for us to feed ourselves is through vegetarian or vegan diet, if possible, that's even better; that's the way...
@22mar79: Have a computer, eating even a vegan diet, and existing causes harm too. So should you stop all of that? No. People like you need to accept that you will cause suffering no matter what, and if you are going to pull the "need" argument, you should have zero luxuries so you are not a hypocrite.
@BLHProductions 'People like me' will cause suffering for whom? For microbes? Where's it that microbes suffer like the poor animals to become food??? Ah, please, give me a break... I won't even read the rest of your comments. You're kidding and I'm not interested in wasting my time with non-serious matters. The point is that we have not the right to commit what we commit against the other beings, and this you understood. So, finished, end of conversation. That's it. Get lost and stay lost. Bye.
@22mar79: Animals and people. Do you waste? Do you exist? By existing, you cause a desegregation to the planet, even a deer in a forest has a carbon foot print. By growing plants, you kill any animals in the soil when you planet it and when you harvest the plants you have a good chance of killing animals in the fields looking for food.
If you wish to ignore facts go ahead, but I doubt you raise your own food right? My family does for some of our food, so its possible you do too.
@22mar79: So you think that it isn't serious that I, in your mind, needlessly murder innocent sentient animals?
I mean, I'm being a lot more civil than you are, and you still can't be bothered to actually talk with me? Wow dude, I'd hate to see you with an omnivore who didn't care about animals.
Given up if a person has counter arguments. I mean really, did you think once you said "it's wrong to eat animals" everyone would agree with you?
@22mar79: We do not have a right to do to animals what we do in factory farms. However, humanely raising and killing animals is not immoral.
Your belief that it is immoral is subjective. After all, if it was objective, it would be wrong to kill and eat an animal to survive if you were starving or if you were an obligate omnivore, which some people are, rather you believe it or not
@BLHProductions Didn't you read what I told you? Stop directing your damn word to me! I'm not interested! You miss the point, so conversation is impossible. I don't give a damn to morality! Belief? What belief??? I don't believe in anything! If it were to survive it would be OK, but there would be many other alternatives for you to survive instead of killing an animal to feed from its corpse. Being civil? Haha! You're the moral nuts here, get real! And I'm not talking about insects at all. BYE.
@22mar79: Yes, you made a snobby comment about what I said, per-claimed yourself the winner, then told me not to comment as if it would actually work. My friend, I advise you not to comment, if you comment I will, if you won't I won't, unless you make another outrageous claim.
I understand clearly, you believe we shouldn't eat animals.
No, hysterical. So it's need? Do you need to be alive? Think about that before commenting or ranting.
@22mar79: One last comment. Insects are classified as animals and people do in fact eat insects. I have too, so I just want to through that in there before I get "Do you fucking eat insects? No? Then shut up about it!"
@BLHProductions Snobby? Ah, now you're dividing, now moral matters to you? To hell you with your idiocy! It's not that we shouldn't eat animals, we don't need and don't have the right to kill them to eat them! After dead is another matter. I support the Aghori, for example, they're even cannibals, but they only feed from what's already dead, that's a very noble attitude according to me. You don't even know me and are trying to conclude things about. Being alive, exist? What do you mean by life?
@22mar79: I believe that morality exists, however, I also understand that what I believe is subjective.
We don't need computers either. We also do not have a right to own one, in the since that is is guaranteed. Yet we both still have one and I bout you have a problem with that.
May I ask, why should we not eat animals? You say we have no right, I'm guessing this is to do it all all not that is is promised to us. Seems like morality to me, but why do you think that?
@BLHProductions And what winner, man? Are you childish to the point of believing that there's a competition in all fields of life? It's thought, thinking, that's creating the division, the thing is as a one whole organism. And stop being hypocrite! If it were not the computer you couldn't be here bothering me for hours the way you are! I have one too but I'm not interested in talking, it's you who are writing, I'm NOT interested! I didn't say we have no right to eat meat, I said we have not...
@22mar79: I was saying that you were acting like everything I said is 100% wrong and everything you said is 100% right.
Their typically is competition in all fields of life, you take for yourself which harms the planet a bit, but if it is less enough it won't destroy the planet. Anything can damage he environment, so if you want to talk about need, you shouldn't have any luxuries simply because you want them.
I'm not the one saying don't eat meat because you don't need it. You are. If I believed it was wrong to use a computer, I would be one. But I don't, I simply use a computer because I know you have one that you use.
@BLHProductions (cont)...the right to kill animals to eat their meat! After they're dead by natural death is another matter, then I see no problem at all apart from what meat can cause to the organism of who's ingesting it. That's it. Got it now or will I need to draw? Why do you think that you have the right to interrupt one's life to feed from his/her meat if you can feed without killing that way? You can even eat meat without need to kill, so what's the point? That's it.
@22mar79: Don't change the subject. You know what I meant. You think we shouldn't eat animals that we kill. So why is it wrong to kill animals for eat them but not wrong to say, kill animals in the process of obtain plants to eat?
A healthy omnivore diet isn't going to kill you. There are problems with it, but there are problems not doing it.
Because that's life and I don't feel it is wrong to kill an animal for food. But this belief is, like yours, subjective.
@22mar79: Again, I lack a moral issue with killing animals for food and you do. So I believe there is a point since meat is a great source of nutrients and we can use animals to turn food we can't eat into food we can.
@BLHProductions So we're gonna kill you and your mother and your whole family and make a big barbecue with you all! Get ready! I'm serious! Be sure we're gonna do it. To hell you with your idiotic ideas! I'm not interested in your blah blah blah. I didn't even read your stupid comments. To hell you with your whole shit! Get lost and stay lost! Don't dare to direct your idiotic words to me anymore, or you'll see! Fuck right off!
@22mar79: Golden rule argument which doesn't work. It's funny when a fetish can destroy your argument. Do you know what vore is? Vore is where people get sexually aroused with thoughts of being eaten, and yes, there has been some human cannibalism due to the idea of being consumed being a turn on.
So if the golden rule is true, that person could morally eat humans because they would want to be eaten. Do you see where your logic fails?
@BLHProductions This has nothing to do with morality, logic or anything in any field of the value system that man invented for himself, neither in any field of the human knowledge at all. There's where you fail to understand. That's why I said that communication is impossible so I prefer to end the conversation. But you keep on writing to me, you keep on adding more to the subject that I'm no way interested in, because, you see, your talk is based on logic, morality, on that human value...
@22mar79: Yes I agree, what you are saying has nothing to do with logic or any field of human knowledge at all XD
So you think we shouldn't kill animals because....why? If you lack a reason the only reason left is that you personally don't want to. This is a sound argument for you, but not really convincing to me who wants to eat meat.
Yep, I base what I say on logic. XD
Though just because I eat animals doesn't mean I think I am superior to them. That's life my friend.
@BLHProductions (cont.)...system, and to understand what I'm trying to point out you got to go a step further from that value system. That value system doesn't apply to this at all. It's not something understandable, something that you can comprehend through the intellect, through logic. This is something that either occurs to you by itself and for itself, acausally, or it doesn't occur anyway at all. Don't know if I'm making myself clear... Unless you go a step further even from yourself...
@22mar79: You know, I have asked you what you believed in and you said "you don't understand" and said something else. Just saying.
It seems to be that you are simply saying that animals are not inferior to humans and because of that we shouldn't eat them.
If humans and animals are 100% equal and we shouldn't eat them, then they shouldn't be allowed to eat each other. All equal means we can eat them, all unequal means we can eat them, as long as we choose to at least.
@22mar79: Yes I can, seems you mean humans are not that special. I agree, we are not, we are just animals that over think what we should and shouldn't do, especially when it comes to food.
I mean people say (though I don't think they actually do this) that they wold rather themselves suffer than eat animals if they had to eat meat to survive. Seems a bit dumb to me, though I'm sure it makes sense to some people.
@BLHProductions Whatever you conclude, that it's dumb or this or that, it's possible only through the intellect, only through the knowledge that you have, that is a human knowledge, created by humans for themselves, so it's pointless anyway. It can be dumb or wise or whatever only in relationship to that knowledge, but the body itself would feed even from sawdust and glue if necessary, but it wouldn't anyway look for killing in order to feed since it's not naturally carnivorous. Those diets...
@22mar79: The problem with all this is that animals don't seem to have a problem eating other animals now do they?
Um, we couldn't digest saw dust, perhaps glue though. The body will obtain food from anything it can and a person or animal will likely eat anything to get rid of hunger pains even if it isn't actually food.
And actually humans (and animals) that are starving will kill animals to eat they wouldn't normally eat. Perhaps even kill humans but at least human corpses.
@BLHProductions But that's exactly the point, they do it because their bodies are automatically in search for it, they don't choose to do it. The definition that we're omnivores is based on that same accumulated knowledge too, whatever we define is bound to be not the thing. That's why we'll just talk about according to our own thinking, and no matter what we say, it's just mere senseless noise. We say that they attack based on our own intellect, but they don't do it through rational thinking.
@22mar79: That might work for carnivores, but not for omnivores. They choose to search out meat or they choose to search out plants.
And the fact that we have found evidence of us eating meat back when we would be considered on par with animals. Back before "thinking" so to speak. That's the main problem with this, we didn't choose to eat animals because we felt like it, we did to survive and were able to eat meat to survive. By doing that we evolved into omnivores, or were already.
@22mar79: Seems to me that you have a problem with what humans do based on what they think is OK, and yet what you just said is based on that same thinking and reasoning you seem to be against. Just saying.
@BLHProductions ...are an imposition of thinking on the body, the body can goes by itself without 'you' there, without the imaginary 'I', that's a creation of thinking. That's why animals don't commit the atrocities that we commit, because they think too, but not in the same exaggerated way, that's responsible for our comfort but at the same time responsible for all the tragedy too. That's why we have not the right to commit whatever we commit against them. Thought, thinking, is the problem.
@22mar79: No. We are able to digest meat and draw nutrients from it. We are omnivores that evolved from herbivores, but no human is a a herbivore.
Actually animals do. It's just on a small scale. Bees will attack and kill other hives of bees to get food. Animals will kill one another for territory or females.
The one thing that animals have over humans is the ability to not right in the face of a stronger opponent. Humans need a world destroying situation before we will back down.
@22mar79: Animals kill, rape, enslave, commit cannibalism, commit infanticide, and are greedy. They also can be caring parents, forgo instant gratification for a better payoff, show affection for different species, and emphasize.
But they don't have greed for the sake of greed as humans do.
Sorry to burst your bubble of made up reality.
So we can't eat them because they can think because we think....even though they can eat each other and humans. Your right, it isn't logical.
@BLHProductions It's that accumulated knowledge that's telling itself (you) that they kill, rape, enslave, commit cannibalism and so on, but all those definitions are useful just within that knowledge that doesn't have they participation, it's all made by ourselves for ourselves, got it? But they're not scheming to do those things intentionally as that knowledge is telling itself. We can't look beyond that knowledge to realize the thing as it really is. There's no such thing as reality at all.
@22mar79: Actually they do. Now you could perhaps have some leeway with rape, but many animals kill, some ants will take ants from another hive to use as workers (enslave), and if a species eats their species, it's cannibalism. So those are less able to be a product of knowledge unless you are saying that it is just words that don't mean anything to animals and only man.
Nihilist eh?
Apply it to yourself. You saying that we shouldn't eat animals would still be within human thought.
@BLHProductions What's saying that it's this or that is that accumulated knowledge that doesn't apply to the other species, so finished, end of conversation. That's it. Get lost and stay lost.
@22mar79: Yes you said that before many times yet still comment back.
What I meant was that you are saying humans think and because of that we think it's OK to eat animals but that it isn't in our nature (even though we live an a society and haven't been in a place where nature can take place of culture). But what you believe is also a construct of human thought. If you were an animal, you wouldn't think, at least not like a human, you would just do.
For got to add something. Your argument is self defeating if it is actually true. But it's just saying we think its OK to eat meat so it's just because of that thinking that we eat meat, but you think we shouldn't and it's just that thinking that you don't do it.
Self defeating.
And if you want me to get lost why add me as a friend?
@BLHProductions And, just an addendum: That's why I reacted that aggressive way those times before, for what I sincerely apologize, because if there's someone in this world who doesn't deserve to be pressed with those questions and so on, it's me, because I really live in a way that I can rightfully maintain that we have not the right to commit what we commit against the other species. Our body would never behave in that predatory way as other bodies of other species if not due to thinking.
@22mar79: Well if nothing else I think I've prove that, at least for some omnivores, eating meat does not limit your thinking. I probably think about it as much as you or even Haridham, I just arrive at a different conclusion, though the path is similar.
I assume most of that is because of factory farming, but, is simply killing and eating an animal something we shouldn't do? What about raising them if it is done humanely? That is harder to answer.
@22mar79: Well if nothing else I think I've prove that, at least for some omnivores, eating meat does not limit your thinking. I probably think about it as much as you or even Haridham, I just arrive at a different conclusion, though the path is similar.
I assume most of that is because of factory farming, but, is simply killing and eating an animal something we shouldn't do? What about raising them if it is done humanely? That is harder to answer.
@22mar79: And what do you mean by maintain? Do you live sustainably? But if that is true, than you could also choose to kill and eat animals and not torture them.
Again, that is a result from thinking which you say is the problem. You assume we wouldn't eat animals though we have learned that in the past we have been omnivores, of course we also have been herbivores, though bears have been exclusive carnivores.
You THINK we wouldn't be predatory even though we have in the past.
@BLHProductions Hah, killing without torturing? Killing itself is worse than torture, buddy. For me there's no spirit or soul or self, you name it, so killing is something a way worse than what the religious people think, because it's about finishing one's life once and for all, no invisible self will survive the death cos there's already nothing in the body right now. Mine's not the result of thinking cos after an even that changed my life forever, somehow the body came back this way, free...
@22mar79: I think I send you a message. If you want to talk here that's fine, I don't mind helping Haridham out with more comments, but I did send you a message.
The problem with what you just said is life. Killing, especially for food, is part of life. Be it killing an animal or plant to exist you have to kill what you eat.
If there is no right and wrong, good or bad, why not do it? You say there is none, then say it is worse then torture. So animals that kill slowly are worse right?
@BLHProductions "Killing, especially for food, is part of life"
The issue is that animals and plants aren't digested the same. Moreover, people have a natural aversion to killing animals since it is not natural food, anyway. This is why only a fraction of the meat consumers actually kill animals themselves, directly. They pay others to do it and keep the process secret.
"you have to kill what you eat"
When there is enough plant food, there is no reason to kill animals.
@Chrisisms: You are right. For one, carbs are digested first and gives quick energy where fat and protein is digested slower and gives you longer lasting energy. Plants are about 40% digested where meat is about 90% digested.
No, society tends to give people a natural aversion to death, which is why people don't like the idea of killing animals. The same people, placed in a life and death situation, would have fewer qualms killing an animal, or even eaten a human, for survival.
False. u cannot digest purines, heme Fe, NeuG5c, chol, etc. Meat also has excess fat and protein contributing to digestive disorders and degenerative diseases. u may choose to consume it, nonetheless.
@Chrisisms: Actually that is true. By digestion, I mean assimilation, as in, your body can use it. I am not sure where this list of things you cannot digest comes from, likely a pro-veg source, but seeing as I didn't say 100%, that, assuming it is true, doesn't make what I said false. The problem with plants is cellulose, which is why you pass plant material so often but not meat.
You only get excess fat and protein if you eat too much. Too much water can kill you too.
@BSProductions "I am not sure where this list of things you cannot digest comes from"
Let's start with #1. I'll support w/scientific reference then u reply.
1. Heme Fe (in all meat):
Heme Fe intake increased lung carcinoma in both men (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.25; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.45; P for trend = 0.02) and women (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.18; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.42; P for trend = 0.002)...We observed a moderate association between meat consumption and lung carcinoma, which might be explained by heme iron intake"
Who said otherwise? What are you talking about? Are you just spamming the place up or are you able to post interleaved messages for clarity?
"Could I have a link to this so I know it's a legit study?"
Quote what you're after if you expect a link. I'm not going to chase after something you refuse to refer to specifically only to see another vague response of switching the topic on your part. Step up or out.
"Heme Fe intake increased lung carcinoma in both men (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.25; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.45; P for trend = 0.02) and women (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.18; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.42; P for trend = 0.002)...We observed a moderate association between meat consumption and lung carcinoma, which might be explained by heme iron intake"
Here's a reference for the above: Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 June; 89(6): 1884–1894. Since it was a quote it can also be pasted into browsers to directly retrieve source.
@Chrisisms: I do, however, know a bit about cholesterol in food. Your body makes all the cholesterol you need, but if you eat cholesterol, your body will make less cholesterol and use what you have eaten. Your body does know what to do with what you eat, only when you eat too much or too little do you have problems.
@BLHProductions " if you eat cholesterol, your body will make less cholesterol"
The chol synthesis is NOT rate limiting. H. Sapiens already synthesize chol. Engulfing meat USUALLY reduces chol synthesis to a degree but it is not an on-off switch for chol regulation & excess chol is obtained in meat.
"The liver efficiently synthesizes/recycles 75-85% of chol (vegan or not) some don't even decrease chol synth w/high chol diet".
@Chrisisms: We are also not at the point where a minute amount more will kill you. There is a difference in some cholesterol and too much. You can eat less cholesterol with fish too you know>
@BSProductions "We are also not at the point where a minute amount more will kill you"
Kill me? We? What are you talking about? Please be specific or preferably leave. You're just spamming. What 'amount' are you alluding to? You are intentionally being vague to appear as though you weren't exposed blatantly lying.
"There is a difference in some cholesterol and too much"
Well, will u specify that 'difference' or just daydream? Chol is not a dietary requirement.
@Chrisisms: I was talking about your last comment about cholesterol. Too much can be bad, but some will not kill you, as you said, we can regulate how much we make, even then, our body knows what to do with it.
No, I am carrying out a debate. I simple disagree with what you say. Nothing wrong with that. i don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, but we can debate the finer details can't we?
And eating it will not kill you unless you eat too much, which varies.
@BSProductions "about cholesterol...some will not kill you"
Atherosclerosis will not necessarily kill u. So consume your chol and get surgery. Its an unnecessary risk. Some may make u sick. NONE is needed. All u assume is 'much' may kill u. Beyond that u are babbling. No safe amount has been established in terms of health.
@Chrisisms: You know what I mean. There is an in between from zero and clogged arteries you know? There is an in between with zero and alcohol poisoning too, and that in between has health benefits.
So is driving a car, yet I do it every day.
It takes more than some actually.
That would depend on how much you eat. Again, your body knows what do do with it. It's cholesterol, you make it. Our bodies are not stupid.
@Chrisisms: I disagree with you and find that much of what you said is based on faulty logic, misinformation, or opinion being presented as facts.
Did you even look at the article? You are deflecting and using a strawman argument. If you are not going to try and debate with me, I will assume that you are unable to find counter evidence and move on to more intelligent people.
Actually they have found that wine, which is alcoholic, is good for you in moderation.
You haven't even disagreed with me because you haven't even considered the research I've relayed from those studying the synthesis of chol. We both agree that the body attempts to 'adjust' the amount of chol synthesized. I've looked at the effects on the various organs responsible for chol synthesis but you have not. Therefore to 'disagree' with someone it requires listening intently and mature consideration, which you have not exhibited. Continue reading.
@Chrisisms: You think it is bad in any amount. Since our body can modify the amount made we make in relation to what we eat you can see that 1) Our bodies regulates our cholesterol levels and 2) that our body can use the cholesterol that we eat.
Perhaps you should think about this another way: sugar. We can eat sugary foods, like fruit. Our body can regulate our blood sugar in relation to how much is in our blood. But it can only do so much. Too much can be harmful, but some isn't.
Those are YOUR words. I NEVER said 'bad'. What you consider 'bad' is your moral judgement. I do NOT share your morals. Bad is a meaningless term. Do you want to start being specific or continue to misquote and make believe? It's simple, if you want to try to start debating then quote me exactly and stop daydreaming. Are you ready to start talking about HEALTH?
"our body"
You do NOT have my body. Take responsibility and speak for yourself.
"Your body has the ability to make all the cholesterol it needs for these various functions. A diet that contains animal products, however, also supplies cholesterol to the body. In an effort to balance these two sources of cholesterol, your body adjusts the amount it produces each day."
@BSProductions "Your body has the ability to make all the cholesterol it needs"
This was established.
"A diet that contains animal products, however, also supplies cholesterol"
Unnecessary risks.
"In an effort to balance these"
So u imbalance serum chol w/dietary chol then make 'effort to balance'.
"your body adjusts the amount it produces"
It does not 'adjust' perfectly. The liver stops synthesizing but not adrenal cortex, skin, intestine, testes, and aorta, so chol intake is a health risk.
@Chrisisms: Yes, I do believe I said that too, but you said that eating cholesterol makes you sick, but the fact is that cholesterol ca be balanced. I take it you didn't bother to read the article?
"For example, if you eat many foods from animal sources, your body gets a substantial dose of cholesterol from the diet... your body then slows down its own production of cholesterol...when most of the foods you eat come from plant sources, your body manufactures more cholesterol..."
@Chrisisms: Your body has the ability to make all you need, but if you consume it, your body slows down it's own production and then uses the cholesterol you eat.
You say it is an unnecessary risk, but meat also has much that plants are lacking it. So, if you eat plants with some meat, you will eat some cholesterol, but you will also get the nutrients you need that are harder to get with a meatless diet.
@BSProductions "Your body has the ability to make all you need, but if you consume it, your body slows down it's own production"
Not totally, this was clearly covered, the liver stops synthesizing but all the other organs do NOT. In summary, it is possible to acquire high serum cholesterol and humans require NO dietary cholesterol. Dietary cholesterol being an unnecessary health risk.
"but meat also has much that plants are lacking it"
Be specific. You mean there are also other toxins in meat?
@Chrisisms: OK. But you can also remove excess. Your body is a well oiled machine. You seem to think eating any amount will cause great harm, which isn't the truth. I am talking about eating some cholesterol that comes with meat. Preferably leaner healthier meats, organs would be best. You seem to think that if you eat some, you will eat too much or that I argue for too much.
If you make 100 mg of chol and you eat 20 mg, if your liver makes 20, you still get 100 mg.
What's 'excess'? NO meat is necessary, no safe minimum meat intake has been established. Cancer is caused by small doses over time. When meat is consumed instead of berries its a health compromise. When is the last time u heard of a man dying from fiber or vitamin C? u think cholesterol, saturated fat or uric acid is in berries?
"You seem to think eating any amount will cause great harm"
Great? It's simple, the more meat u consume, the more unhealthy it is.
@Chrisisms: The things that people are typically, and perhaps a bit stereotypically, lacking when eating plants are: Iron, B12, Zinc, and if one doesn't know to combine carbs and protein like beans and bread, you miss out of essential amino acids.
Meat tends to have all of these at a fairly good amount in a fairly small amount. Pound for pound, 1 type of meat has more nutrients that one pound of a single plant.
There is plenty of iron in plants, vitamin C makes it more absorb-able. Red meat, when eaten together with the vegetables, can boost the absorption of non-heme iron by up to 400%. Vitamin C has a similar positive effect on the absorption of iron. – (Uzel C and Conrad ME. Absorption of heme iron. Semin Hematol 1998;35:27-34 / Davidsson L. Approaches to improve iron bioavailability from complementary foods. J Nutr 2003;133:1560S-2S).
@Chrisisms: There is a balance that has to be struck. If you eat meat, you can eat too much iron which leads to problems. If you don't, you can eat not enough iron, which also leads to problems. Of course, most of the problems people associate with meat tends to be from processed meat or red meat. Seems to me not eating processed meat and cutting down on red meat would be the answer. When you go veg, you don't get any of the drawbacks from meat, but you also get no benefits either.
Nobody 'has to strick a balance' of cholesterol, purines, heme Fe, growth hormones, saturated fat, Neu5Gc, etc. NONE is required. ALL nutrients necessary can be obtained while abstaining from toxic meat AND one is healthier in the process. If u don't IMBALANCE a diet there is no reason to try to 'balance your diet'.
"you can eat not enough iron"
False. This was covered. High vitamin C from natural foods increases plant iron absorption.
@Chrisisms: That is a strawman argument. I was saying that one diet tends to have too few nutrients where the other has too much. Pretty much everything you said can either be removed from the food or do not harm you in small enough amounts.
You do realize that you can get cancer on a veg diet right? In fact, you are more likely to get colerectal cancer. This is a risk factor though, not a reason to not eat veggies. -_-
"one diet tends to have too few nutrients where the other has too much"
The issue is antinutrients and toxins starting w/cholesterol. I already said pills can be taken to compensate for food grown in poor soil. The popular degenerative diseases are linked more with toxins than lack of nutrients. One can get nutrients from plants or animals, the main problem (and the topic) is the antinutrients in meat i.e., chol, Neu5Gc, purines, hormones, sat fat, etc.
@BLHProductions All necessary nutrients can be obtained from plants from iron to zinc. If you want to take a pill fine, I don't care, you're already eating from depleted soil and subsidizing and supplementing the animals with cobalt to indirectly cycle through to produce B12 so why not just eat it in a safe pill without the cholesterol, heme, purines, NeuG5c and all the other growth hormones and toxins that come with your animal B12? There's no issue, just take a pill if u even need it.
@Chrisisms: I never said they could not, well, B12 is a bit iffy, but there are plants that have it and also fortified foods and vitamins. My point, was that people who are vegs tend to have problems not getting enough of what they need where as people who eat meat tend to get too much. So it would seem that a balance between no meat and the typical American diet would be best. Lots of veggies and a little meat sounds like a winner.
Sentence fragment. How does the reader know what you're talking about? I don't know what you're responding to.
"B12 is a bit iffy"
Incomprehensible.
"there are plants that have it"
And it is found not just in but ON wild, organic plants that are unprocessed. This is why orangutans don't need to consume cows and they get plenty of B12. So eat wild plants if u want.
"people who are vegs tend to have problems not getting enough"
@Chrisisms: I go in order and talked about vitamin B12 so I assumed you would know I was talking about how you said that all necessary nutrients could be obtained from plants.
You can bet B12 from plant sources, but it is harder to get while not eating meat and is something vegs tend to be deficient in.
So all you have to do do is to eat wild organic plants without washing them (you said on not in so I assume you mean the B12 is on the plants).
That's YOUR 'order'. Interleaved comments as opposed to the top-posting you're doing allows one to resume exchanging information fluidly but you are burying information with various topics that you are dancing around. If you use quotes you link your responses with the actual topics and minimize misquoting or misinterpreting as you've done repeatedly in your topposting.
"There is no problem eating meat'
Not if u want to die. Address cholesterol and atherosclerosis.
@Chrisisms: Depleted soil comes from our harvesting methods. We also tend to use fossil fuels to make chemicals to grow the plants that we do on such a large scale.
Subsidizing is caused by the low price of corn, which is kept low by the people who control most of the distribution. They can't cut anymore corners to save money, so the grow more to get paid more, thus the price stays low.
How is a pill a natural diet? The tech that helped make that pill helped make the hormones.
The royal 'we' again... What group are you speaking on behalf of?
"Subsidizing is caused by the low price of corn"
False. Subsidizing corn is the effect of working backwards whereby culturati rely on the government to foot the bill for their aberrant diets by using government aid to pay for the otherwise expensive and inefficient process of cycling plants through animals to consume. Otherwise it would not be financially feasible to raise meat.
@Chrisisms: Oh not that much, just the billions of people that are fed on commercially raise food in developed countries. If you eat store bought food, it likely comes from the use of fossil fuels.
Actually we obtained the ability to grow a lot of plants, like corn and other grains. We then had a surplus. With this surplus we fed it to animals. Because this process has been continuing it has gotten to the point where the cost of corn is below the cost of production, thus subsidizing.
"Oh not that much, just the billions of people that are fed on commercially raise food in developed countries"
This is a meaningless sentence fragment because u intentionally refuse to quote what you're responding to so the reader has only to assume that u are trying to bury topics under spam.
"we obtained the ability to grow a lot of plants, like corn and other grains. We then had a surplus"
False. If there was a 'surplus' it would NOT cause government subsidies. u have it backwards.
@Chrisisms: What you seem to be saying is that we got a lot of animals and because we had a lot of animals we grew more corn for them, which is backwards thinking, the corn came first.
Actually you could. Organic grass fed cows, chickens on their natural diet, and pigs on theirs. Actually, the better thing to do would be to raise native animals from your area. Now the cost would be higher, but meat is a lot cheaper than it should be because of cheap corn.
@BLHProductions "What you seem to be saying is that we got a lot of animals and because we had a lot of animals we grew more corn"
False. I never said that. That's your interpretation and virtually EVERY post you make is a product of your misinterpretation. There is an obvious pattern... So now the rest of your message is u arguing with self. If it isn't worth quoting, it certainly isn't worth misinterpreting and typing your own views while claiming they are mine. I fairly quote you.
Who said it was? The most unnatural process is the routine supplementation of cobalt to cycle through mutated animals to produce B12 in striped soil for feral primates to consume. Taking pills of naturally cultured B12 is less unnatural. Theres no issue with B12, it can be obtained either way. You brought it up though... Why?
"The tech that helped make that pill helped make the hormones"
Animals have more hormones than the fraction of synthetic hormones added.
@Chrisisms: I get that we raise animals is a inhumane ass backwards way. So stop raising the animals the wrong way and do it right. Not that hard of a concept. If you make what you do sustainable, you won't need supplemental cobalt or antibiotics in vast quantities. Have you ever been to a humane farm? Nothing like what you see in Earthlings.
And? Unless another animals hormones can effect us it doesn't matter. BTW, plants make chemicals which also effect us negatively.
"I get that we raise animals is a inhumane ass backwards way"
I'm not part of your royal 'we'. So take responsbility and leave me out of your religion. I do NOT share your morals, diet, views of inhumanity, etc. If u want to consume animals that's YOUR political right. I'm talking about unnatural (in terms of health) raising of animals to consume as ALL animals possess growth hormones and NONE is needed in natural/healthy human diets, factory farmed or not. That was the topic.
I don't share your views of right or 'wrong' ways of killing. I don't kill animals intentionally and I don't care if u do. I'm talking about the health effects of unnatural food/meat for humans. Please stay on topic and address the unnecessary risks of cholesterol in meat and dairy.
@BLHProductions "but you said that eating cholesterol makes you sick"
Dietary chol is just 1 of the many ways one can acquire degenerative diseases from meat, correct.
"cholesterol ca be balanced"
Why are u advocating imbalancing chol to begin with? No dietary chol is necessary, it is a health risk. The body can potentially recover from consuming some dietary chol short-term. What's your point? You can also recover from a cold or flu. So? Expose yourself to more?
@BSProductions "if you eat many foods from animal sources, your body gets a substantial dose of cholesterol from the diet... your body then slows down its own production of cholesterol"
I wonder why you keep restating this? It was already covered. The liver stops synthesis of chol depending on dietary intake and all the other organs responsible for chol synthesis do NOT stop synthesizing chol, regardless of how much is consumed in diet, posing an unnecessary health risk of atherosclerosis.
"but you said that eating cholesterol makes you sick"
True.
"cholesterol ca be balanced"
Why are you imbalancing your diet with unnecessary dietary cholesterol known to contribute to atherosclerosis, then trying to tell me about 'balancing' it? The healthy balance would be 0 (zero dietary cholesterol).
@Chrisisms: That your body has the ability to make all the cholesterol it needs. You said this was established and I said that I had already said and agreed to that.
Good, glad we can agree on what you said.
You don't imbalance your diet with unnecessary cholesterol. If you imbalance anything it is cholesterol. What you are saying would be like "why are you imbalancing your diet with unnecessary amino acids that are in meat and plants?"
"You don't imbalance your diet with unnecessary cholesterol"
True, I don't consume animals.
"why are you imbalancing your diet with unnecessary amino acids that are in meat and plants?"
I don't. Humans require ESSENTIAL amino acids (AA) AND have AA pools to SAFELY use AAs to form protein as body requires with NO risk of atherosclerosis in this process AND AA combinations vary in all food sources and bodily requirements for AAs are ALWAYS in flux BUT dietary chol is UNNECESSARY AND unhealthy.
@Chrisisms: Again, that isn't correct. People pay for meat because it is easier that raising and killing your own animals, but people skill do that as well as hunt. The biggest flaw in your argument is that not very long ago people raise and killed their own animals and hunted more.
Again, not true. Ability to go without isn't a valid argument. Need food every day? No. So why do you eat food every day?
Also, long term vegs have had to go back to eating meat for health reasons.
@BLHProductions (cont.)...from the burden of thinking, so there's not any 'me' here, any 'I', it's your demand to bring about a response that operates the body and it automatically returns the questions in the form of responses to you, it would never be possible for this body here to initiate an action, it's only responding to the stimuli. So, the certainty I have that without thinking we would never cause what we cause is due to the way that I operate. I use the word 'I' otherwise I'd sound...
@22mar79: You are you. Be that your thought or your physical body. My Dog is herself, my cat is himself. You are an individual, a collective, well, unless you count the multiple cells and organisms in and on you.
Whatever happened to you, it simply changed the way you think, nothing more, nothing less.
Did you almost die or something? Near death experience?
Interesting how you say you don't think when you have to think to respond.
@BLHProductions No, it's thought that separates and establishes a division, imaginary, telling itself that your body ends after the feet and then there's the ground and so on, but without thinking there it would never separate itself from the totality of things, and it would never be afraid from anything, so it would never kill the way we (thinking) kill, we kill out of fear, without thinking here separation would never occur, so it would never do any of those things. The response here is...
@BLHProductions ...mechanical and automatic, you're operating this body here and creating me, you're responding to yourself, there's no one thinking here, it's a computer, a robot, we're not ready to accept this fact, that the 'I' and all the divisions created after that 'I' are just a mere separation created by thought, there's no self at all.
@BLHProductions If we were animals like those outside there, without the exaggerated thinking that occurred in our species somewhere along the line, we'd never commit what we commit against ourselves, the other species and the environment. We wouldn't be able to have the comfort that we have developed through the help of thinking, but on the other hand we wouldn't commit the whole tragedy that we alone cause either. We can't have one without the other. The other species never commit any crime.
@22mar79: Perhaps, perhaps not. That same thinking is what causes you to think that. And our species always were omnivores and our ancestors were too.
They don't commit crimes because crime and punishment is a human idea. If we were just like any other animals we would likely be similar to chips. They eat animals right now so we likely would too.
But this is a curious question. If you think that all the evil comes from out modern life, why live it?
@BLHProductions Not at all, this is not born out of my thinking, but that's another subject. But your idea that our species always were omnivore is born out of that thinking, that's not even yours, just part of that same accumulated knowledge. The body doesn't need you, thinking occurred somewhere along the line and it's the problem. Our bodies wouldn't kill if it were not the imposition of thought. The other species never commit the destruction that we cause, nothing to do with our laws at all.
@22mar79: Again, the problem is where does this come from? Do you think you had an epiphany, do you think it is divine inspiration? The problem is you still think this, you don't know it for a fact. You think we wouldn't even though our closest relatives, other apes, eat meat.
It is from Anthropologists, but that doesn't make it wrong. Of course, since we can eat meat it would seem we have been omnivores for a while.
@22mar79: Again, I ask why you think this. Any proof? I mean you say that proof is a product of our thinking, but you could say anything could be true because you don't need proof because you are arguing against thinking.
They do, just to a lesser extent. I mean it's obvious that a beaver changes its environment to suit it and that killing trees isn't exactly good for the environment.
Perhaps you don't want to accept that humans have a destructive nature?
@BLHProductions No, I don't believe in God, let alone in anthropologists, hehe, I don't believe anything, as I explained in the previous comments. That's why I suggested taking via message, it's a vast matter to try to talk about here. And I totally agree about the proof, I want proof in all fields too, that's right. But the problem here is that this that occurred by itself and for itself here has no way to be proved, but it can't be disproved either. That's why I say it's by and for myself only
You do know that carnitine is used to help treat ADHD right? And the highest concentrations of carnitine are found in red meat. Very little is found in plants, nuts or seeds. Just another fun fact for ya.
Backstabbinbasterd 1 week ago
You made this video to prove what you are trying to preach, which is limiting yourself, you are comparing, and arguing because you don't eat meat, maybe you should be open to not live in only one circle.
jkalksfj 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
GoodFoodisGreatFood 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
22mar79 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodFoodisGreatFood You try it. I'm waiting for you. Come on! Let's us see if you're man to stand for your shit talk, as for me it's all nothing but idiotic insult and bullshit only. But do it very faster, cos, if not, the response of this body is so efficient and so quick that you'll be destroyed first. No power in the world can touch this. If you want to live long, don't mess with this. You joker.
22mar79 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
sdfisjdfisjdfij 1 month ago
well maybe you're in the well and need another frog to show you how to eat a burger.
paenitet7nullum 1 month ago
@BLHProductions Hehe, no, the N64 as any other thing input here is what the body goes memorizing through its lifespan, so to speak, even before the birth it's already affected by what mother's says and her affection and all that it absorbs after the birth. Either thought vanishes by itself, acausally, or there's no way at all. No means to achieve it. Cos any movement in order to try to be free from thinking would be the very thinking itself, so no way.
22mar79 2 months ago
@BLHProductions And as in the example of driving the car, it's not true that the body can handle only the basic functioning of breathing, digesting and so on, it memorizes anything that it receives as stimuli and it can be even capable to drive a car by itself, without 'you' there, we assume that with thinking it's better because thinking itself depends of that illusion to assure its own continuity through the human species, it's a like a parasite.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Let be ask you something "body." If what you say is true and if you think that the body acts on its own and is peaceful and that there is no right and wrong, why did you act in a hostile way when I questioned what you said?
And why did you say that people who eat meat have a limited amount of thinking if you now say it is from over thinking?
What you say now is opposite of what you said before, and you did seem to say that it was wrong to eat meat for "morbid taste."
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions That response is your own stimulus, the body just throw it back to you in the form of a reaction, but there's no one here responding. The aggressiveness or the peacefulness etc are just imaginary divisions created by thought, the body is just responding to stimuli.
I said that people who eat meat have a limited thinking in the sense that to feed from death if you can feed from at least bloodless food is a limitation even within the very thinking itself.
No discrepancy at all.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Sent you a message.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Sorry bro, it was just kidding.. lol
GoodFoodisGreatFood 1 month ago
@BLHProductions ...insane, I have to function efficiently in the world too, we have to accept the reality of the world as it's imposed on us, but there's no center, no self operating here, it's a computer, a robot. E.g., when I go to the market, I don't have a clue about what I'm doing, the body goes by itself, for me it's just a field of vision, the sight, 180 degrees, and two arms going on automatically picking up the food, and it never takes anything animal but milk and derivatives only.
22mar79 2 months ago
Advice, stick to telling facts, like you said, tell how eating meat will improve the economic, do better for the environment and the other stuff that does make sense (which I know about that stuff)
All your "spiritual" talk is just annoying the meat eaters, you diluting an important message with all that shit talk, like other have said, you are turning vegetarianism into a "religion" and people hate religions.
You should only state the facts of why is good to avoid meat and let people chose.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 2 months ago in playlist Más vídeos de haridham
I didn't receive*
22mar79 2 months ago
great trolling
koko56 2 months ago
@koko56 Why thank you!
haridham 2 months ago
@haridham I lol'd
koko56 2 months ago
@koko56 Great,you should subscribe too! lol.
haridham 2 months ago
@haridham plenty of trolling on youtube, no need to sub
koko56 2 months ago
@koko56 C'mon now, there is no troll button on youtube. lol
haridham 2 months ago
and what of the ppl who balance their diet between plant and meat? do they have a better understanding over those who eat only vegies or only meat? by your analogy it would seem so...
Talisa1992 2 months ago
I like the analogy :)
TheCoolVegetarian 2 months ago
@TheCoolVegetarian I am glad you like the analogy.
haridham 2 months ago
Are you in a deep dark well? The deep dark well of eating plants? Do you limit yourself and your thought process by eating plants? Do you argue and compare everything and give yourself a reason to eat plants? Everything you base your arguments only continues to limit your understanding of the world outside of eating plants.
circular reasoning works because<
misplaceddirection 2 months ago
@misplaceddirection I think you are devising a clever way of trying to debate with me or someone else. Is this a nice baiting tactic?
haridham 2 months ago
@haridham: A bit like what I did I think. Basically your argument could be made in reverse, or you could use people who went from omni to vegetarian to vegan to omni again as being more enlightened, even if the other vegs simply said they did it wrong.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Anything could be reversed or changed into anything. Thats rather a distraction tactic thats all. We can go from one diet to the other but if we do not possess the proper consciousness and reasoning behind the diet, we will continue to slip. So for uplifting one's consciousness a diet of compassion is required.
haridham 2 months ago
@haridham: If it is a distraction argument in reverse could it not be a distraction argument going forward?
Though compassion is not required to be a vegan or vegetarian, though that is true for omnivores also. What you eat doesn't make you a better or worse person.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions "If it is a distraction argument in reverse could it not be a distraction argument going forward?"
More distraction attempts. Arguments 4 the sake of arguments r just a waste,. No reason to reverse if the point is evident & logical. The arguments can be reversed 2 "what ifs" "maybe's" "perhaps" etc but those are only tactics to deflect the subject and to concoct an argument & then argue from that point instead. Its a notion to stray away from the original point.
haridham 2 months ago
@BLHProductions "Though compassion is not required to be a vegan or vegetarian, though that is true for omnivores also. What you eat doesn't make you a better or worse person"
Yes compassion is not required to be vegan or vegetarian however it is a byproduct either directly or indirectly. Thats what matters. What we eat affects our consciousness, the consciousness affects the thought process, thoughts can lead to action. Eating meat is bad, not necessarily the person.
haridham 2 months ago
@haridham: Just beause someone goes veg because they think it is more compasonate to do so does not make it a fact that it is more compassionate. Some don't even care about animals and do it only for health or personal reasons.
The belief that eating meat is bad is subjective, just like my belife that it is OK is subjective.
And remember that correlation is not causation.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
:D Nice Video!
LittleMissKaminari 2 months ago
@LittleMissKaminari Thank you. I appreciate it.
haridham 2 months ago
I think that the very fact of eating meat itself is an evidence of limitation of thinking. If one can't even realize that he/she is being fed at the cost of the slaughter of many living beings and the destruction of the environment, and enjoy that morbid taste, that's already the most flashing signal of a very limited thinking. Eating corpses masked by tempers and cooked on fire without realizing that it's being fed at the cost of the death of other beings proofs that brains doesn't exist there.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79 Yes, great point. Why reduce and limit yourself to eating a dead carcass? Someone who depends on the suffering and torture of other beings to satisfy themselves has actually deevolved. Just for the taste? We eat and we behave with that consciousness. No meat Know peace.
haridham 2 months ago
@haridham: Why limit yourself to eating only dead plants (or killing them as you eat them?)
Actually no. Most animals that eat other animals "depend" on killing other animals. The other animal suffers, but the predator is not "deevolved." In fact, there isn't such a thing as deevolving. You can be less likely to survive in an environment, but once you are born that is it. Having a wider diet is actually more evolved to survive than the animals who can eat only one thing.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions "Actually no. Most animals that eat other animals "depend" on killing other animals." They are dependent. We are not dependent as our nature and consciousness limit us to that dependency. When we do not utilize our consciousness for progress towards compassion our intrinsic nature instead of the external temporary one based on the limited five senses we can never come to understand the gross negligence of eating meat.
haridham 2 months ago
@haridham: Some people do claim to be obligate omnivores, but being able to go without is not a reason to go without. You could go without religion of a computer, but just because you could and some would argue that it is the better thing to do, it isn't obligatory.
Most harm comes from factory farming. I mean, just because someone says we should have compassion for plants by not raising them for food and instead eat wild plants because of compassion doesn't make it a sound argument.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@haridham: And if we are to look at a few extreme veg cases, namely most of the members of ALF, we can see that vegs are also able to do violent things. If we look at a typical veg forum, you will see some infighting between vegans and vegetarians, not counting the rawists, Glutton Free, and fruitetarians that say they "know" their diet is best.
Thus, we can conclude that vegs are still people and people are, as House would say, idiots. You changed your mind, not personalty.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: Firs of all, plants are also living, though I'm guessing you don't have a problem eating them..or the fact that growing plants the way we do in the US is bad for the environment too. The same is for omnivores. I could be more sustainable by hunting. I also don't think it is wrong to eat animals. Morals are a tricky think, I personally believe in them, but I could make a case for just about anything in the right context.
Hey, morbid smell. Meat and plants tastes similar.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Hey, you bastard: How can you be so idiot to the point of comparing vegetarian diet to other kinds of diet which are violent, hum, you damn fool?! To begin with, you son of a bitch, you can feed from vegetables and fruits without having to kill the plant! You pick up apples and you don't need to kill the tree. You pick up certain vegetables and you don't need to kill the plant. So, to hell with your defence of violence here, you scoundrel! An amoeba's worth more than u! Get lost!
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Because the popular consumerist vegetarian and vegan diet also are violent, rather it be to the land or to the animals that are killed through harvesting. No diet is bloodless or free from doing harm.
And really, you're resorting to insulting me and using weighted language. That weakens any sound thing you say.
Yes, you can be parasitic, but the part of the plant you eat dies by eating it. And again, popular methods include harvesting, killing both animals and plants.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions The offensive words don't harm anybody, being carnivorous does it. There's no difference between good or bad words, both are sound the same way, the problem is that we give a significance to our barking. But the point is: There's an enormous difference between killing a microbe, for example, and killing an animal. The most intelligent, harmless, honest, decent way for us to feed ourselves is through vegetarian or vegan diet, if possible, that's even better; that's the way...
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Have a computer, eating even a vegan diet, and existing causes harm too. So should you stop all of that? No. People like you need to accept that you will cause suffering no matter what, and if you are going to pull the "need" argument, you should have zero luxuries so you are not a hypocrite.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions 'People like me' will cause suffering for whom? For microbes? Where's it that microbes suffer like the poor animals to become food??? Ah, please, give me a break... I won't even read the rest of your comments. You're kidding and I'm not interested in wasting my time with non-serious matters. The point is that we have not the right to commit what we commit against the other beings, and this you understood. So, finished, end of conversation. That's it. Get lost and stay lost. Bye.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Animals and people. Do you waste? Do you exist? By existing, you cause a desegregation to the planet, even a deer in a forest has a carbon foot print. By growing plants, you kill any animals in the soil when you planet it and when you harvest the plants you have a good chance of killing animals in the fields looking for food.
If you wish to ignore facts go ahead, but I doubt you raise your own food right? My family does for some of our food, so its possible you do too.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: So you think that it isn't serious that I, in your mind, needlessly murder innocent sentient animals?
I mean, I'm being a lot more civil than you are, and you still can't be bothered to actually talk with me? Wow dude, I'd hate to see you with an omnivore who didn't care about animals.
Given up if a person has counter arguments. I mean really, did you think once you said "it's wrong to eat animals" everyone would agree with you?
Must be nice to pick your reality huh?
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: We do not have a right to do to animals what we do in factory farms. However, humanely raising and killing animals is not immoral.
Your belief that it is immoral is subjective. After all, if it was objective, it would be wrong to kill and eat an animal to survive if you were starving or if you were an obligate omnivore, which some people are, rather you believe it or not
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Didn't you read what I told you? Stop directing your damn word to me! I'm not interested! You miss the point, so conversation is impossible. I don't give a damn to morality! Belief? What belief??? I don't believe in anything! If it were to survive it would be OK, but there would be many other alternatives for you to survive instead of killing an animal to feed from its corpse. Being civil? Haha! You're the moral nuts here, get real! And I'm not talking about insects at all. BYE.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Yes, you made a snobby comment about what I said, per-claimed yourself the winner, then told me not to comment as if it would actually work. My friend, I advise you not to comment, if you comment I will, if you won't I won't, unless you make another outrageous claim.
I understand clearly, you believe we shouldn't eat animals.
No, hysterical. So it's need? Do you need to be alive? Think about that before commenting or ranting.
Do I have an absolute right to exist?
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: One last comment. Insects are classified as animals and people do in fact eat insects. I have too, so I just want to through that in there before I get "Do you fucking eat insects? No? Then shut up about it!"
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Snobby? Ah, now you're dividing, now moral matters to you? To hell you with your idiocy! It's not that we shouldn't eat animals, we don't need and don't have the right to kill them to eat them! After dead is another matter. I support the Aghori, for example, they're even cannibals, but they only feed from what's already dead, that's a very noble attitude according to me. You don't even know me and are trying to conclude things about. Being alive, exist? What do you mean by life?
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: I believe that morality exists, however, I also understand that what I believe is subjective.
We don't need computers either. We also do not have a right to own one, in the since that is is guaranteed. Yet we both still have one and I bout you have a problem with that.
May I ask, why should we not eat animals? You say we have no right, I'm guessing this is to do it all all not that is is promised to us. Seems like morality to me, but why do you think that?
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions And what winner, man? Are you childish to the point of believing that there's a competition in all fields of life? It's thought, thinking, that's creating the division, the thing is as a one whole organism. And stop being hypocrite! If it were not the computer you couldn't be here bothering me for hours the way you are! I have one too but I'm not interested in talking, it's you who are writing, I'm NOT interested! I didn't say we have no right to eat meat, I said we have not...
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: I was saying that you were acting like everything I said is 100% wrong and everything you said is 100% right.
Their typically is competition in all fields of life, you take for yourself which harms the planet a bit, but if it is less enough it won't destroy the planet. Anything can damage he environment, so if you want to talk about need, you shouldn't have any luxuries simply because you want them.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79:
I'm not the one saying don't eat meat because you don't need it. You are. If I believed it was wrong to use a computer, I would be one. But I don't, I simply use a computer because I know you have one that you use.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions (cont)...the right to kill animals to eat their meat! After they're dead by natural death is another matter, then I see no problem at all apart from what meat can cause to the organism of who's ingesting it. That's it. Got it now or will I need to draw? Why do you think that you have the right to interrupt one's life to feed from his/her meat if you can feed without killing that way? You can even eat meat without need to kill, so what's the point? That's it.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79 SHUT YOURSELF UP, BIGG BROTHER IS HERE!
GoodFoodisGreatFood 2 months ago
@GoodFoodisGreatFood The only bastard talking here is you, so shut the fuck up yourself, you damn fool! Get lost.
22mar79 2 months ago
@GoodFoodisGreatFood Who is this Bigg Brother again?
haridham 2 months ago
@22mar79: Don't change the subject. You know what I meant. You think we shouldn't eat animals that we kill. So why is it wrong to kill animals for eat them but not wrong to say, kill animals in the process of obtain plants to eat?
A healthy omnivore diet isn't going to kill you. There are problems with it, but there are problems not doing it.
Because that's life and I don't feel it is wrong to kill an animal for food. But this belief is, like yours, subjective.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: Again, I lack a moral issue with killing animals for food and you do. So I believe there is a point since meat is a great source of nutrients and we can use animals to turn food we can't eat into food we can.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions So we're gonna kill you and your mother and your whole family and make a big barbecue with you all! Get ready! I'm serious! Be sure we're gonna do it. To hell you with your idiotic ideas! I'm not interested in your blah blah blah. I didn't even read your stupid comments. To hell you with your whole shit! Get lost and stay lost! Don't dare to direct your idiotic words to me anymore, or you'll see! Fuck right off!
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Golden rule argument which doesn't work. It's funny when a fetish can destroy your argument. Do you know what vore is? Vore is where people get sexually aroused with thoughts of being eaten, and yes, there has been some human cannibalism due to the idea of being consumed being a turn on.
So if the golden rule is true, that person could morally eat humans because they would want to be eaten. Do you see where your logic fails?
What will you do? Complain more? *Clicks Post*
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions This has nothing to do with morality, logic or anything in any field of the value system that man invented for himself, neither in any field of the human knowledge at all. There's where you fail to understand. That's why I said that communication is impossible so I prefer to end the conversation. But you keep on writing to me, you keep on adding more to the subject that I'm no way interested in, because, you see, your talk is based on logic, morality, on that human value...
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Yes I agree, what you are saying has nothing to do with logic or any field of human knowledge at all XD
So you think we shouldn't kill animals because....why? If you lack a reason the only reason left is that you personally don't want to. This is a sound argument for you, but not really convincing to me who wants to eat meat.
Yep, I base what I say on logic. XD
Though just because I eat animals doesn't mean I think I am superior to them. That's life my friend.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions (cont.)...system, and to understand what I'm trying to point out you got to go a step further from that value system. That value system doesn't apply to this at all. It's not something understandable, something that you can comprehend through the intellect, through logic. This is something that either occurs to you by itself and for itself, acausally, or it doesn't occur anyway at all. Don't know if I'm making myself clear... Unless you go a step further even from yourself...
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: You know, I have asked you what you believed in and you said "you don't understand" and said something else. Just saying.
It seems to be that you are simply saying that animals are not inferior to humans and because of that we shouldn't eat them.
If humans and animals are 100% equal and we shouldn't eat them, then they shouldn't be allowed to eat each other. All equal means we can eat them, all unequal means we can eat them, as long as we choose to at least.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions (final)...you can't comprehend this.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Yes I can, seems you mean humans are not that special. I agree, we are not, we are just animals that over think what we should and shouldn't do, especially when it comes to food.
I mean people say (though I don't think they actually do this) that they wold rather themselves suffer than eat animals if they had to eat meat to survive. Seems a bit dumb to me, though I'm sure it makes sense to some people.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Whatever you conclude, that it's dumb or this or that, it's possible only through the intellect, only through the knowledge that you have, that is a human knowledge, created by humans for themselves, so it's pointless anyway. It can be dumb or wise or whatever only in relationship to that knowledge, but the body itself would feed even from sawdust and glue if necessary, but it wouldn't anyway look for killing in order to feed since it's not naturally carnivorous. Those diets...
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: The problem with all this is that animals don't seem to have a problem eating other animals now do they?
Um, we couldn't digest saw dust, perhaps glue though. The body will obtain food from anything it can and a person or animal will likely eat anything to get rid of hunger pains even if it isn't actually food.
And actually humans (and animals) that are starving will kill animals to eat they wouldn't normally eat. Perhaps even kill humans but at least human corpses.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions But that's exactly the point, they do it because their bodies are automatically in search for it, they don't choose to do it. The definition that we're omnivores is based on that same accumulated knowledge too, whatever we define is bound to be not the thing. That's why we'll just talk about according to our own thinking, and no matter what we say, it's just mere senseless noise. We say that they attack based on our own intellect, but they don't do it through rational thinking.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: That might work for carnivores, but not for omnivores. They choose to search out meat or they choose to search out plants.
And the fact that we have found evidence of us eating meat back when we would be considered on par with animals. Back before "thinking" so to speak. That's the main problem with this, we didn't choose to eat animals because we felt like it, we did to survive and were able to eat meat to survive. By doing that we evolved into omnivores, or were already.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: Seems to me that you have a problem with what humans do based on what they think is OK, and yet what you just said is based on that same thinking and reasoning you seem to be against. Just saying.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions ...are an imposition of thinking on the body, the body can goes by itself without 'you' there, without the imaginary 'I', that's a creation of thinking. That's why animals don't commit the atrocities that we commit, because they think too, but not in the same exaggerated way, that's responsible for our comfort but at the same time responsible for all the tragedy too. That's why we have not the right to commit whatever we commit against them. Thought, thinking, is the problem.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: No. We are able to digest meat and draw nutrients from it. We are omnivores that evolved from herbivores, but no human is a a herbivore.
Actually animals do. It's just on a small scale. Bees will attack and kill other hives of bees to get food. Animals will kill one another for territory or females.
The one thing that animals have over humans is the ability to not right in the face of a stronger opponent. Humans need a world destroying situation before we will back down.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: Animals kill, rape, enslave, commit cannibalism, commit infanticide, and are greedy. They also can be caring parents, forgo instant gratification for a better payoff, show affection for different species, and emphasize.
But they don't have greed for the sake of greed as humans do.
Sorry to burst your bubble of made up reality.
So we can't eat them because they can think because we think....even though they can eat each other and humans. Your right, it isn't logical.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions It's that accumulated knowledge that's telling itself (you) that they kill, rape, enslave, commit cannibalism and so on, but all those definitions are useful just within that knowledge that doesn't have they participation, it's all made by ourselves for ourselves, got it? But they're not scheming to do those things intentionally as that knowledge is telling itself. We can't look beyond that knowledge to realize the thing as it really is. There's no such thing as reality at all.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Actually they do. Now you could perhaps have some leeway with rape, but many animals kill, some ants will take ants from another hive to use as workers (enslave), and if a species eats their species, it's cannibalism. So those are less able to be a product of knowledge unless you are saying that it is just words that don't mean anything to animals and only man.
Nihilist eh?
Apply it to yourself. You saying that we shouldn't eat animals would still be within human thought.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions What's saying that it's this or that is that accumulated knowledge that doesn't apply to the other species, so finished, end of conversation. That's it. Get lost and stay lost.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Yes you said that before many times yet still comment back.
What I meant was that you are saying humans think and because of that we think it's OK to eat animals but that it isn't in our nature (even though we live an a society and haven't been in a place where nature can take place of culture). But what you believe is also a construct of human thought. If you were an animal, you wouldn't think, at least not like a human, you would just do.
Your argument is self defeating.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
For got to add something. Your argument is self defeating if it is actually true. But it's just saying we think its OK to eat meat so it's just because of that thinking that we eat meat, but you think we shouldn't and it's just that thinking that you don't do it.
Self defeating.
And if you want me to get lost why add me as a friend?
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions And, just an addendum: That's why I reacted that aggressive way those times before, for what I sincerely apologize, because if there's someone in this world who doesn't deserve to be pressed with those questions and so on, it's me, because I really live in a way that I can rightfully maintain that we have not the right to commit what we commit against the other species. Our body would never behave in that predatory way as other bodies of other species if not due to thinking.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Well if nothing else I think I've prove that, at least for some omnivores, eating meat does not limit your thinking. I probably think about it as much as you or even Haridham, I just arrive at a different conclusion, though the path is similar.
I assume most of that is because of factory farming, but, is simply killing and eating an animal something we shouldn't do? What about raising them if it is done humanely? That is harder to answer.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@22mar79: Well if nothing else I think I've prove that, at least for some omnivores, eating meat does not limit your thinking. I probably think about it as much as you or even Haridham, I just arrive at a different conclusion, though the path is similar.
I assume most of that is because of factory farming, but, is simply killing and eating an animal something we shouldn't do? What about raising them if it is done humanely? That is harder to answer.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: And what do you mean by maintain? Do you live sustainably? But if that is true, than you could also choose to kill and eat animals and not torture them.
Again, that is a result from thinking which you say is the problem. You assume we wouldn't eat animals though we have learned that in the past we have been omnivores, of course we also have been herbivores, though bears have been exclusive carnivores.
You THINK we wouldn't be predatory even though we have in the past.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Hah, killing without torturing? Killing itself is worse than torture, buddy. For me there's no spirit or soul or self, you name it, so killing is something a way worse than what the religious people think, because it's about finishing one's life once and for all, no invisible self will survive the death cos there's already nothing in the body right now. Mine's not the result of thinking cos after an even that changed my life forever, somehow the body came back this way, free...
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: I think I send you a message. If you want to talk here that's fine, I don't mind helping Haridham out with more comments, but I did send you a message.
The problem with what you just said is life. Killing, especially for food, is part of life. Be it killing an animal or plant to exist you have to kill what you eat.
If there is no right and wrong, good or bad, why not do it? You say there is none, then say it is worse then torture. So animals that kill slowly are worse right?
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions "Killing, especially for food, is part of life"
The issue is that animals and plants aren't digested the same. Moreover, people have a natural aversion to killing animals since it is not natural food, anyway. This is why only a fraction of the meat consumers actually kill animals themselves, directly. They pay others to do it and keep the process secret.
"you have to kill what you eat"
When there is enough plant food, there is no reason to kill animals.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: You are right. For one, carbs are digested first and gives quick energy where fat and protein is digested slower and gives you longer lasting energy. Plants are about 40% digested where meat is about 90% digested.
No, society tends to give people a natural aversion to death, which is why people don't like the idea of killing animals. The same people, placed in a life and death situation, would have fewer qualms killing an animal, or even eaten a human, for survival.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions "meat is about 90% digested"
False. u cannot digest purines, heme Fe, NeuG5c, chol, etc. Meat also has excess fat and protein contributing to digestive disorders and degenerative diseases. u may choose to consume it, nonetheless.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: Actually that is true. By digestion, I mean assimilation, as in, your body can use it. I am not sure where this list of things you cannot digest comes from, likely a pro-veg source, but seeing as I didn't say 100%, that, assuming it is true, doesn't make what I said false. The problem with plants is cellulose, which is why you pass plant material so often but not meat.
You only get excess fat and protein if you eat too much. Too much water can kill you too.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BSProductions "I am not sure where this list of things you cannot digest comes from"
Let's start with #1. I'll support w/scientific reference then u reply.
1. Heme Fe (in all meat):
Heme Fe intake increased lung carcinoma in both men (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.25; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.45; P for trend = 0.02) and women (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.18; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.42; P for trend = 0.002)...We observed a moderate association between meat consumption and lung carcinoma, which might be explained by heme iron intake"
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: The blood in meat is very low. Red meat isn't red because of blood.
Could I have a link to this so I know it's a legit study?
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions "Red meat isn't red because of blood"
Who said otherwise? What are you talking about? Are you just spamming the place up or are you able to post interleaved messages for clarity?
"Could I have a link to this so I know it's a legit study?"
Quote what you're after if you expect a link. I'm not going to chase after something you refuse to refer to specifically only to see another vague response of switching the topic on your part. Step up or out.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
"Heme Fe intake increased lung carcinoma in both men (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.25; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.45; P for trend = 0.02) and women (HR(Q5vsQ1): 1.18; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.42; P for trend = 0.002)...We observed a moderate association between meat consumption and lung carcinoma, which might be explained by heme iron intake"
Here's a reference for the above: Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 June; 89(6): 1884–1894. Since it was a quote it can also be pasted into browsers to directly retrieve source.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: I do, however, know a bit about cholesterol in food. Your body makes all the cholesterol you need, but if you eat cholesterol, your body will make less cholesterol and use what you have eaten. Your body does know what to do with what you eat, only when you eat too much or too little do you have problems.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions " if you eat cholesterol, your body will make less cholesterol"
The chol synthesis is NOT rate limiting. H. Sapiens already synthesize chol. Engulfing meat USUALLY reduces chol synthesis to a degree but it is not an on-off switch for chol regulation & excess chol is obtained in meat.
"The liver efficiently synthesizes/recycles 75-85% of chol (vegan or not) some don't even decrease chol synth w/high chol diet".
So you're trying to minimize the issue.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: We are also not at the point where a minute amount more will kill you. There is a difference in some cholesterol and too much. You can eat less cholesterol with fish too you know>
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions "We are also not at the point where a minute amount more will kill you"
Kill me? We? What are you talking about? Please be specific or preferably leave. You're just spamming. What 'amount' are you alluding to? You are intentionally being vague to appear as though you weren't exposed blatantly lying.
"There is a difference in some cholesterol and too much"
Well, will u specify that 'difference' or just daydream? Chol is not a dietary requirement.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: I was talking about your last comment about cholesterol. Too much can be bad, but some will not kill you, as you said, we can regulate how much we make, even then, our body knows what to do with it.
No, I am carrying out a debate. I simple disagree with what you say. Nothing wrong with that. i don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, but we can debate the finer details can't we?
And eating it will not kill you unless you eat too much, which varies.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions "about cholesterol...some will not kill you"
Atherosclerosis will not necessarily kill u. So consume your chol and get surgery. Its an unnecessary risk. Some may make u sick. NONE is needed. All u assume is 'much' may kill u. Beyond that u are babbling. No safe amount has been established in terms of health.
"you said, we can regulate how much we make"
But not the amount absorbed in diet of meat.
"our body knows what to do with it"
No it does NOT. Support your counter claim.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: You know what I mean. There is an in between from zero and clogged arteries you know? There is an in between with zero and alcohol poisoning too, and that in between has health benefits.
So is driving a car, yet I do it every day.
It takes more than some actually.
That would depend on how much you eat. Again, your body knows what do do with it. It's cholesterol, you make it. Our bodies are not stupid.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions "You know what I mean"
I know you're trying to obfuscate the topic.
"There is an in between from zero and clogged arteries you know?"
So you're advocating for partially clogged arteries.
"There is an in between with zero and alcohol poisoning too"
All alcohol degrades digestion. A little alcohol is unhealthy, a lot kills you outright.
"in between has health benefits"
Alcohol does not have health benefits compared to fresh grapes. It is a compromise.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: I disagree with you and find that much of what you said is based on faulty logic, misinformation, or opinion being presented as facts.
Did you even look at the article? You are deflecting and using a strawman argument. If you are not going to try and debate with me, I will assume that you are unable to find counter evidence and move on to more intelligent people.
Actually they have found that wine, which is alcoholic, is good for you in moderation.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions "I disagree with you"
You haven't even disagreed with me because you haven't even considered the research I've relayed from those studying the synthesis of chol. We both agree that the body attempts to 'adjust' the amount of chol synthesized. I've looked at the effects on the various organs responsible for chol synthesis but you have not. Therefore to 'disagree' with someone it requires listening intently and mature consideration, which you have not exhibited. Continue reading.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: You think it is bad in any amount. Since our body can modify the amount made we make in relation to what we eat you can see that 1) Our bodies regulates our cholesterol levels and 2) that our body can use the cholesterol that we eat.
Perhaps you should think about this another way: sugar. We can eat sugary foods, like fruit. Our body can regulate our blood sugar in relation to how much is in our blood. But it can only do so much. Too much can be harmful, but some isn't.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions "You think it is bad in any amount"
Those are YOUR words. I NEVER said 'bad'. What you consider 'bad' is your moral judgement. I do NOT share your morals. Bad is a meaningless term. Do you want to start being specific or continue to misquote and make believe? It's simple, if you want to try to start debating then quote me exactly and stop daydreaming. Are you ready to start talking about HEALTH?
"our body"
You do NOT have my body. Take responsibility and speak for yourself.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: health.howstuffworks. com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/cholesterol/how-the-body-uses-cholesterol.htm
"Your body has the ability to make all the cholesterol it needs for these various functions. A diet that contains animal products, however, also supplies cholesterol to the body. In an effort to balance these two sources of cholesterol, your body adjusts the amount it produces each day."
Happy now?
BLHProductions 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BSProductions "Your body has the ability to make all the cholesterol it needs"
This was established.
"A diet that contains animal products, however, also supplies cholesterol"
Unnecessary risks.
"In an effort to balance these"
So u imbalance serum chol w/dietary chol then make 'effort to balance'.
"your body adjusts the amount it produces"
It does not 'adjust' perfectly. The liver stops synthesizing but not adrenal cortex, skin, intestine, testes, and aorta, so chol intake is a health risk.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: Yes, I do believe I said that too, but you said that eating cholesterol makes you sick, but the fact is that cholesterol ca be balanced. I take it you didn't bother to read the article?
"For example, if you eat many foods from animal sources, your body gets a substantial dose of cholesterol from the diet... your body then slows down its own production of cholesterol...when most of the foods you eat come from plant sources, your body manufactures more cholesterol..."
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: Your body has the ability to make all you need, but if you consume it, your body slows down it's own production and then uses the cholesterol you eat.
You say it is an unnecessary risk, but meat also has much that plants are lacking it. So, if you eat plants with some meat, you will eat some cholesterol, but you will also get the nutrients you need that are harder to get with a meatless diet.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BSProductions "Your body has the ability to make all you need, but if you consume it, your body slows down it's own production"
Not totally, this was clearly covered, the liver stops synthesizing but all the other organs do NOT. In summary, it is possible to acquire high serum cholesterol and humans require NO dietary cholesterol. Dietary cholesterol being an unnecessary health risk.
"but meat also has much that plants are lacking it"
Be specific. You mean there are also other toxins in meat?
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: OK. But you can also remove excess. Your body is a well oiled machine. You seem to think eating any amount will cause great harm, which isn't the truth. I am talking about eating some cholesterol that comes with meat. Preferably leaner healthier meats, organs would be best. You seem to think that if you eat some, you will eat too much or that I argue for too much.
If you make 100 mg of chol and you eat 20 mg, if your liver makes 20, you still get 100 mg.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions "remove excess"
What's 'excess'? NO meat is necessary, no safe minimum meat intake has been established. Cancer is caused by small doses over time. When meat is consumed instead of berries its a health compromise. When is the last time u heard of a man dying from fiber or vitamin C? u think cholesterol, saturated fat or uric acid is in berries?
"You seem to think eating any amount will cause great harm"
Great? It's simple, the more meat u consume, the more unhealthy it is.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: The things that people are typically, and perhaps a bit stereotypically, lacking when eating plants are: Iron, B12, Zinc, and if one doesn't know to combine carbs and protein like beans and bread, you miss out of essential amino acids.
Meat tends to have all of these at a fairly good amount in a fairly small amount. Pound for pound, 1 type of meat has more nutrients that one pound of a single plant.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions "lacking when eating plants are: Iron"
There is plenty of iron in plants, vitamin C makes it more absorb-able. Red meat, when eaten together with the vegetables, can boost the absorption of non-heme iron by up to 400%. Vitamin C has a similar positive effect on the absorption of iron. – (Uzel C and Conrad ME. Absorption of heme iron. Semin Hematol 1998;35:27-34 / Davidsson L. Approaches to improve iron bioavailability from complementary foods. J Nutr 2003;133:1560S-2S).
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: There is a balance that has to be struck. If you eat meat, you can eat too much iron which leads to problems. If you don't, you can eat not enough iron, which also leads to problems. Of course, most of the problems people associate with meat tends to be from processed meat or red meat. Seems to me not eating processed meat and cutting down on red meat would be the answer. When you go veg, you don't get any of the drawbacks from meat, but you also get no benefits either.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions "There is a balance that has to be struck"
Nobody 'has to strick a balance' of cholesterol, purines, heme Fe, growth hormones, saturated fat, Neu5Gc, etc. NONE is required. ALL nutrients necessary can be obtained while abstaining from toxic meat AND one is healthier in the process. If u don't IMBALANCE a diet there is no reason to try to 'balance your diet'.
"you can eat not enough iron"
False. This was covered. High vitamin C from natural foods increases plant iron absorption.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: That is a strawman argument. I was saying that one diet tends to have too few nutrients where the other has too much. Pretty much everything you said can either be removed from the food or do not harm you in small enough amounts.
You do realize that you can get cancer on a veg diet right? In fact, you are more likely to get colerectal cancer. This is a risk factor though, not a reason to not eat veggies. -_-
And I eat plants along with meat, so I'm fine.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
"That is a strawman argument"
What is?
"one diet tends to have too few nutrients where the other has too much"
The issue is antinutrients and toxins starting w/cholesterol. I already said pills can be taken to compensate for food grown in poor soil. The popular degenerative diseases are linked more with toxins than lack of nutrients. One can get nutrients from plants or animals, the main problem (and the topic) is the antinutrients in meat i.e., chol, Neu5Gc, purines, hormones, sat fat, etc.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@BLHProductions All necessary nutrients can be obtained from plants from iron to zinc. If you want to take a pill fine, I don't care, you're already eating from depleted soil and subsidizing and supplementing the animals with cobalt to indirectly cycle through to produce B12 so why not just eat it in a safe pill without the cholesterol, heme, purines, NeuG5c and all the other growth hormones and toxins that come with your animal B12? There's no issue, just take a pill if u even need it.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: I never said they could not, well, B12 is a bit iffy, but there are plants that have it and also fortified foods and vitamins. My point, was that people who are vegs tend to have problems not getting enough of what they need where as people who eat meat tend to get too much. So it would seem that a balance between no meat and the typical American diet would be best. Lots of veggies and a little meat sounds like a winner.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
"I never said they could not"
Sentence fragment. How does the reader know what you're talking about? I don't know what you're responding to.
"B12 is a bit iffy"
Incomprehensible.
"there are plants that have it"
And it is found not just in but ON wild, organic plants that are unprocessed. This is why orangutans don't need to consume cows and they get plenty of B12. So eat wild plants if u want.
"people who are vegs tend to have problems not getting enough"
There is no 'problem' taking a B12 pill.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: I go in order and talked about vitamin B12 so I assumed you would know I was talking about how you said that all necessary nutrients could be obtained from plants.
You can bet B12 from plant sources, but it is harder to get while not eating meat and is something vegs tend to be deficient in.
So all you have to do do is to eat wild organic plants without washing them (you said on not in so I assume you mean the B12 is on the plants).
There is no problem eating meat.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions "I go in order"
That's YOUR 'order'. Interleaved comments as opposed to the top-posting you're doing allows one to resume exchanging information fluidly but you are burying information with various topics that you are dancing around. If you use quotes you link your responses with the actual topics and minimize misquoting or misinterpreting as you've done repeatedly in your topposting.
"There is no problem eating meat'
Not if u want to die. Address cholesterol and atherosclerosis.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: Depleted soil comes from our harvesting methods. We also tend to use fossil fuels to make chemicals to grow the plants that we do on such a large scale.
Subsidizing is caused by the low price of corn, which is kept low by the people who control most of the distribution. They can't cut anymore corners to save money, so the grow more to get paid more, thus the price stays low.
How is a pill a natural diet? The tech that helped make that pill helped make the hormones.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions
"We also tend to use fossil fuels"
The royal 'we' again... What group are you speaking on behalf of?
"Subsidizing is caused by the low price of corn"
False. Subsidizing corn is the effect of working backwards whereby culturati rely on the government to foot the bill for their aberrant diets by using government aid to pay for the otherwise expensive and inefficient process of cycling plants through animals to consume. Otherwise it would not be financially feasible to raise meat.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: Oh not that much, just the billions of people that are fed on commercially raise food in developed countries. If you eat store bought food, it likely comes from the use of fossil fuels.
Actually we obtained the ability to grow a lot of plants, like corn and other grains. We then had a surplus. With this surplus we fed it to animals. Because this process has been continuing it has gotten to the point where the cost of corn is below the cost of production, thus subsidizing.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
"Oh not that much, just the billions of people that are fed on commercially raise food in developed countries"
This is a meaningless sentence fragment because u intentionally refuse to quote what you're responding to so the reader has only to assume that u are trying to bury topics under spam.
"we obtained the ability to grow a lot of plants, like corn and other grains. We then had a surplus"
False. If there was a 'surplus' it would NOT cause government subsidies. u have it backwards.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: What you seem to be saying is that we got a lot of animals and because we had a lot of animals we grew more corn for them, which is backwards thinking, the corn came first.
Actually you could. Organic grass fed cows, chickens on their natural diet, and pigs on theirs. Actually, the better thing to do would be to raise native animals from your area. Now the cost would be higher, but meat is a lot cheaper than it should be because of cheap corn.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions "What you seem to be saying is that we got a lot of animals and because we had a lot of animals we grew more corn"
False. I never said that. That's your interpretation and virtually EVERY post you make is a product of your misinterpretation. There is an obvious pattern... So now the rest of your message is u arguing with self. If it isn't worth quoting, it certainly isn't worth misinterpreting and typing your own views while claiming they are mine. I fairly quote you.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@BS "How is a pill a natural diet?"
Who said it was? The most unnatural process is the routine supplementation of cobalt to cycle through mutated animals to produce B12 in striped soil for feral primates to consume. Taking pills of naturally cultured B12 is less unnatural. Theres no issue with B12, it can be obtained either way. You brought it up though... Why?
"The tech that helped make that pill helped make the hormones"
Animals have more hormones than the fraction of synthetic hormones added.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: I get that we raise animals is a inhumane ass backwards way. So stop raising the animals the wrong way and do it right. Not that hard of a concept. If you make what you do sustainable, you won't need supplemental cobalt or antibiotics in vast quantities. Have you ever been to a humane farm? Nothing like what you see in Earthlings.
And? Unless another animals hormones can effect us it doesn't matter. BTW, plants make chemicals which also effect us negatively.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
"I get that we raise animals is a inhumane ass backwards way"
I'm not part of your royal 'we'. So take responsbility and leave me out of your religion. I do NOT share your morals, diet, views of inhumanity, etc. If u want to consume animals that's YOUR political right. I'm talking about unnatural (in terms of health) raising of animals to consume as ALL animals possess growth hormones and NONE is needed in natural/healthy human diets, factory farmed or not. That was the topic.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@BLHProductions "So stop raising the animals the wrong way"
I don't share your views of right or 'wrong' ways of killing. I don't kill animals intentionally and I don't care if u do. I'm talking about the health effects of unnatural food/meat for humans. Please stay on topic and address the unnecessary risks of cholesterol in meat and dairy.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@BLHProductions "but you said that eating cholesterol makes you sick"
Dietary chol is just 1 of the many ways one can acquire degenerative diseases from meat, correct.
"cholesterol ca be balanced"
Why are u advocating imbalancing chol to begin with? No dietary chol is necessary, it is a health risk. The body can potentially recover from consuming some dietary chol short-term. What's your point? You can also recover from a cold or flu. So? Expose yourself to more?
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@BSProductions "if you eat many foods from animal sources, your body gets a substantial dose of cholesterol from the diet... your body then slows down its own production of cholesterol"
I wonder why you keep restating this? It was already covered. The liver stops synthesis of chol depending on dietary intake and all the other organs responsible for chol synthesis do NOT stop synthesizing chol, regardless of how much is consumed in diet, posing an unnecessary health risk of atherosclerosis.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@BLHProductions "Yes, I do believe I said that too"
Said what???????????????????
"but you said that eating cholesterol makes you sick"
True.
"cholesterol ca be balanced"
Why are you imbalancing your diet with unnecessary dietary cholesterol known to contribute to atherosclerosis, then trying to tell me about 'balancing' it? The healthy balance would be 0 (zero dietary cholesterol).
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: That your body has the ability to make all the cholesterol it needs. You said this was established and I said that I had already said and agreed to that.
Good, glad we can agree on what you said.
You don't imbalance your diet with unnecessary cholesterol. If you imbalance anything it is cholesterol. What you are saying would be like "why are you imbalancing your diet with unnecessary amino acids that are in meat and plants?"
BLHProductions 1 month ago
"You don't imbalance your diet with unnecessary cholesterol"
True, I don't consume animals.
"why are you imbalancing your diet with unnecessary amino acids that are in meat and plants?"
I don't. Humans require ESSENTIAL amino acids (AA) AND have AA pools to SAFELY use AAs to form protein as body requires with NO risk of atherosclerosis in this process AND AA combinations vary in all food sources and bodily requirements for AAs are ALWAYS in flux BUT dietary chol is UNNECESSARY AND unhealthy.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@Chrisisms: Again, that isn't correct. People pay for meat because it is easier that raising and killing your own animals, but people skill do that as well as hunt. The biggest flaw in your argument is that not very long ago people raise and killed their own animals and hunted more.
Again, not true. Ability to go without isn't a valid argument. Need food every day? No. So why do you eat food every day?
Also, long term vegs have had to go back to eating meat for health reasons.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BSProductions "People pay for meat because it is easier that raising and killing your own animals"
Of course it is 'easier' to pay immigrant labor for tax subsidized junk food (meat) when u aren't willing to do the dirty work yourself.
"not very long ago people raise and killed their own animals and hunted"
So they were feral primates trying to survive. Your point?
"vegs have had to go back to eating meat for health reasons"
False. They chose to consume meat as it is cheap to 'fill u up'.
Chrisisms 1 month ago
@BLHProductions (cont.)...from the burden of thinking, so there's not any 'me' here, any 'I', it's your demand to bring about a response that operates the body and it automatically returns the questions in the form of responses to you, it would never be possible for this body here to initiate an action, it's only responding to the stimuli. So, the certainty I have that without thinking we would never cause what we cause is due to the way that I operate. I use the word 'I' otherwise I'd sound...
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: You are you. Be that your thought or your physical body. My Dog is herself, my cat is himself. You are an individual, a collective, well, unless you count the multiple cells and organisms in and on you.
Whatever happened to you, it simply changed the way you think, nothing more, nothing less.
Did you almost die or something? Near death experience?
Interesting how you say you don't think when you have to think to respond.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions No, it's thought that separates and establishes a division, imaginary, telling itself that your body ends after the feet and then there's the ground and so on, but without thinking there it would never separate itself from the totality of things, and it would never be afraid from anything, so it would never kill the way we (thinking) kill, we kill out of fear, without thinking here separation would never occur, so it would never do any of those things. The response here is...
22mar79 2 months ago
@BLHProductions ...mechanical and automatic, you're operating this body here and creating me, you're responding to yourself, there's no one thinking here, it's a computer, a robot, we're not ready to accept this fact, that the 'I' and all the divisions created after that 'I' are just a mere separation created by thought, there's no self at all.
22mar79 2 months ago
@BLHProductions If we were animals like those outside there, without the exaggerated thinking that occurred in our species somewhere along the line, we'd never commit what we commit against ourselves, the other species and the environment. We wouldn't be able to have the comfort that we have developed through the help of thinking, but on the other hand we wouldn't commit the whole tragedy that we alone cause either. We can't have one without the other. The other species never commit any crime.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Perhaps, perhaps not. That same thinking is what causes you to think that. And our species always were omnivores and our ancestors were too.
They don't commit crimes because crime and punishment is a human idea. If we were just like any other animals we would likely be similar to chips. They eat animals right now so we likely would too.
But this is a curious question. If you think that all the evil comes from out modern life, why live it?
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Not at all, this is not born out of my thinking, but that's another subject. But your idea that our species always were omnivore is born out of that thinking, that's not even yours, just part of that same accumulated knowledge. The body doesn't need you, thinking occurred somewhere along the line and it's the problem. Our bodies wouldn't kill if it were not the imposition of thought. The other species never commit the destruction that we cause, nothing to do with our laws at all.
22mar79 2 months ago
@22mar79: Again, the problem is where does this come from? Do you think you had an epiphany, do you think it is divine inspiration? The problem is you still think this, you don't know it for a fact. You think we wouldn't even though our closest relatives, other apes, eat meat.
It is from Anthropologists, but that doesn't make it wrong. Of course, since we can eat meat it would seem we have been omnivores for a while.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@22mar79: Again, I ask why you think this. Any proof? I mean you say that proof is a product of our thinking, but you could say anything could be true because you don't need proof because you are arguing against thinking.
They do, just to a lesser extent. I mean it's obvious that a beaver changes its environment to suit it and that killing trees isn't exactly good for the environment.
Perhaps you don't want to accept that humans have a destructive nature?
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions No, I don't believe in God, let alone in anthropologists, hehe, I don't believe anything, as I explained in the previous comments. That's why I suggested taking via message, it's a vast matter to try to talk about here. And I totally agree about the proof, I want proof in all fields too, that's right. But the problem here is that this that occurred by itself and for itself here has no way to be proved, but it can't be disproved either. That's why I say it's by and for myself only
22mar79 2 months ago