The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
Amongst all the silliness, some of the many points in this thread have really interested me, to the point as I mentioned many pages back that I do eat less meat, in fact I eat less of everything, I think that is an age thing as well. I am genuinely interested in eating less meat I dont want to cut it completely, and certainly would never stop eating fish, but there are some very valid and informative points brought up by the tree huggers, the dairy one is interesting for me, I drink a lot of milk, and have tried loads of the substitutes, but they taste bloody awful, so thats a sticking point for me. So a genuine question to the Vegans, is there a milk substitute that somehow tastes like milk?
This is the best milk replacement imo. Looks like milk if that bothers you, pretty close taste and texture to milk just has a kick of vanilla obviously, goes well in cereal, yet to try porridge but I imagine it would.
An awful lot of smaller vegan businesses are now being bought out by large companies such as Nestle and the like as they see the profits to be made. I have been sworn to secrecy so I cant say who but one of the largest dairy company's in the world is going to make 2019 its year of the Vegan.
Stevelamb: the vegan's James Seed, but without the apposite surname
The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
Amongst all the silliness, some of the many points in this thread have really interested me, to the point as I mentioned many pages back that I do eat less meat, in fact I eat less of everything, I think that is an age thing as well. I am genuinely interested in eating less meat I dont want to cut it completely, and certainly would never stop eating fish, but there are some very valid and informative points brought up by the tree huggers, the dairy one is interesting for me, I drink a lot of milk, and have tried loads of the substitutes, but they taste bloody awful, so thats a sticking point for me. So a genuine question to the Vegans, is there a milk substitute that somehow tastes like milk?
I have been trying mylk from rebel kitchen, it’s a blend of coconut, salt, rice milk, cashew nut and nutritional yeast. It tastes like milk
Advice for newcomers using soya 'milk' in hot drinks: Soya 'milk' (and other nut 'milks') is prone to separate and appear curdled if it is added directly to near-boiling water. Let very hot black tea or black coffee cool a little before adding soya 'milk' to it. (Similarly, if the soya 'milk' is already in the cup / mug, let the hot liquid to be added cool a bit).
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
Sorry seth if you think thats harsh. No offence meant but its just not possible to have a well balanced diet based in plants only for billions of people worldwide. Not everyone lives with the option of choice and supplements. Ive used two examples of peoples that could not be vegan in the inuit and Sami andi raise that in a completely different part of the world with the Masai. They mostly eat meat and regularly drink blood because they cant pop down to the local Holland and Barrett for a bottle if vitimin B12 even if they could grow crops enough. These are ancient peoples living the existence that hunter gatherers were enforced to live. Getting their needs where and how they could. That is the natural state of mankind. Not some Disneyland lifestyle we enjoy where we eat and get nourished as we please.
I'll tidy these up @Admin chaps, never you mind...
I would, but I'm not allowed on here no more Daz
AFKA they’re posturing again. Don’t forget I spent a whole night rewording ‘we didn’t start the fire’ by billy Joel on the takeover thread for the benefit of the forum. Dazzler can’t do that and ibborg’s a loose cannon
Not sure what the picture has to do with the link you posted , nor why Steve has liked an article espousing the great merit of a fish diet? Wierd.
@A-R-T-H-U-R It was an attempt at a humorous response to the Japanese eat 10% of fish but make up only 2 %of population comment by posting picture of sumo wrestling as to a possible reason why
Haven't had time to watch whole thing but from the beginning it's clearly not an academic lecture, it's an evangelical sermon on diet by a 5 stone overweight American preacher. Gave up after ten minutes and watched the last 2 minutes.
Introduced as someone "trying to convince people" who is "pressing the cause".
Starts out with an assertion and then sets out to prove it without any scientific evidence, merely deductions made from scientific studies he quotes out of context. Quotes research saying 80% of deaths from certain deseases could be eliminated by a change in diet, then proceeds to talk as if that change was veganism when it simply promotes the need for a healthy diet, omnivorous or otherwise.
The nonsense about carnivorous animals and herbivores was when i switched off. The preacher ignores historical facts, that humans were hunter gatherers, he just calls them hunters and explains how they couldn't have survived by hunting. I assume he goes on to prove we are more like deers and should be eating grass.
Authoritative studies suggest that man ate relatively little meat, because it was difficult to catch and store. He would, however, have eaten as much meat as he could catch. Had this preacher been an academic he would have explained that before we became farmers we did not have access to the domesticated varieties of seeds, grains, fruits and nuts we have today. Soya beans didn't exist, nor did oats or almonds or any other nuts beyond the wild varieties you might find today required in enormous quantity to provide nutrition.
Humans cannot process all 22 amino acids required to support life, unlike herbivores. Without access to Tescos and a sustainable quantities of the nuts and beans providing the missing amino acids, and no books on nutrition and how to get your daily five, humans didn't have a choice but to eat meat. But why let facts get in the way of "pressing the case" for veganism. The assertion that humans could have survived without eating meat and were not designed to eat the stuff is utter bollox.
By all means, vegans and vegetarians can argue that today we can go to Tesco and get any amount of non-meat protein we need, and so we don't have to eat meat. Just stop there.
By all means argue that less land is utilised to survive off plants compared to animals but please don't try and argue that we have too many animals and can save the planet by getting rid of animals - we have too many humans stupid. This woolly thinking seeks to address the symptoms and not the cause. If we now changed to being 100% plants eaters it would solve nothing, just create different problems and less bio diversity.
Why we shouldn't eat meat is what most of this thread has covered and don't want to get too drawn over old ground.
But - Vegans always trip over when it comes to justifying veganism by reference to feelings of animals. They don't understand what anthropomorphism is (or pretend they don't do it) - the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. It means it's pretending god animals and object can have human characteristics.
We have all been indoctrinated to think animals have human feelings, like all children, from the age they could listen to stories about Peter Rabbit and Jungle Book. Just for the record, cows don't know they are going to die and they can't read the sign that says you are now entering a slaughter house, so they have a contented life, one they would not have enjoyed had they not been bred to be eaten. Many still believe Peter Rabbit talks and became vegan.
I read with amusement the comment about "stealing" honey from bees from someone who has never kept bees and will never experience the pleasure of doing so. I used to keep bees and the fact is that beekeepers today manage their hives in such a way that more colonies of bees are created than in the wild. He doesn't kill them and he doesn't hurt them. He restricts the instinct for bees to swarm which is what they start to do if they sense smoke. It's not "fear", they don't know what a fire is, just that they need to move house. They are just doing what nature programmed them to do, suck up the honey and take it somewhere safe. If you knew anything about bees, apart from seemingly knowing how they feel and that they understand the law of property, you would know that they only store honey for the purpose of feeding themselves through the winter. They need about 80lbs of honey to take them through winter and with the help of the beekeeper they might make about 200lbs. If nature didn't intend bees to share their honey he wouldn't have made them so damn busy. They are free to leave anytime and Bees are less exploited than humans by their employer. So we have a vegan animal lover who does not support the keeping of bees, oblivious of the damage to the environment if no one ate honey and bee keeping disappeared leading to less bees and the plants on which the vegan expects to be fed dying off through lack pollination. It's the woolly not-joined-up thinking that frustrates me.
The bee thing is just proof of the reliance on myths and anthropomorphism to justify what is for many a belief system no different from a religion. I am an animal lover, a game fisherman and a discriminating omnivore outnumbered by vegans and vegetarians in my family, but I don't need to be vegan to do my bit for the environment, wildlife or animal welfare. I see vegetarianism doing more to promote urbanism, a disconnect with nature and reduction in bio diversity, but don't try and convert them to meat eating by pretending we have to eat meat.
So you watched just 11 minutes of a 1 hour 18 minute video and make a statement that its not an academic lecture by a Doctor who is the Associate Director of Preventive Medicine with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and co-author of PCRM’s report on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the U.S dietary Guidelines serves as the Race & Nutrition Specialist and Board Adviser for A Well Fed World. WTF!!
You watched just 11 minutes of a 1 hour 18 minute video and make a statement that its not an academic lecture by a Doctor who is the Associate Director of Preventive Medicine with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and co-author of PCRM’s report on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the U.S dietary Guidelines serves as the Race & Nutrition Specialist and Board Adviser for A Well Fed World. WTF!!
As the first person to come out in 2016 on CL,I think that the rise of veganism is linked to the rise in homosexualty. (Which is a good thing obviously.)
When I eat nice juicy steak; I'm like 'Boobies PHOWWARR.'
If I eat celery, lettuce and parsnips; I'm more 'meh.' about the opposite sex.
It's high time government scientists looked into this.
Haven't had time to watch whole thing but from the beginning it's clearly not an academic lecture, it's an evangelical sermon on diet by a 5 stone overweight American preacher. Gave up after ten minutes and watched the last 2 minutes.
Introduced as someone "trying to convince people" who is "pressing the cause".
Starts out with an assertion and then sets out to prove it without any scientific evidence, merely deductions made from scientific studies he quotes out of context. Quotes research saying 80% of deaths from certain deseases could be eliminated by a change in diet, then proceeds to talk as if that change was veganism when it simply promotes the need for a healthy diet, omnivorous or otherwise.
The nonsense about carnivorous animals and herbivores was when i switched off. The preacher ignores historical facts, that humans were hunter gatherers, he just calls them hunters and explains how they couldn't have survived by hunting. I assume he goes on to prove we are more like deers and should be eating grass.
Authoritative studies suggest that man ate relatively little meat, because it was difficult to catch and store. He would, however, have eaten as much meat as he could catch. Had this preacher been an academic he would have explained that before we became farmers we did not have access to the domesticated varieties of seeds, grains, fruits and nuts we have today. Soya beans didn't exist, nor did oats or almonds or any other nuts beyond the wild varieties you might find today required in enormous quantity to provide nutrition.
Humans cannot process all 22 amino acids required to support life, unlike herbivores. Without access to Tescos and a sustainable quantities of the nuts and beans providing the missing amino acids, and no books on nutrition and how to get your daily five, humans didn't have a choice but to eat meat. But why let facts get in the way of "pressing the case" for veganism. The assertion that humans could have survived without eating meat and were not designed to eat the stuff is utter bollox.
By all means, vegans and vegetarians can argue that today we can go to Tesco and get any amount of non-meat protein we need, and so we don't have to eat meat. Just stop there.
By all means argue that less land is utilised to survive off plants compared to animals but please don't try and argue that we have too many animals and can save the planet by getting rid of animals - we have too many humans stupid. This woolly thinking seeks to address the symptoms and not the cause. If we now changed to being 100% plants eaters it would solve nothing, just create different problems and less bio diversity.
Why we shouldn't eat meat is what most of this thread has covered and don't want to get too drawn over old ground.
But - Vegans always trip over when it comes to justifying veganism by reference to feelings of animals. They don't understand what anthropomorphism is (or pretend they don't do it) - the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. It means it's pretending god animals and object can have human characteristics.
We have all been indoctrinated to think animals have human feelings, like all children, from the age they could listen to stories about Peter Rabbit and Jungle Book. Just for the record, cows don't know they are going to die and they can't read the sign that says you are now entering a slaughter house, so they have a contented life, one they would not have enjoyed had they not been bred to be eaten. Many still believe Peter Rabbit talks and became vegan.
I read with amusement the comment about "stealing" honey from bees from someone who has never kept bees and will never experience the pleasure of doing so. I used to keep bees and the fact is that beekeepers today manage their hives in such a way that more colonies of bees are created than in the wild. He doesn't kill them and he doesn't hurt them. He restricts the instinct for bees to swarm which is what they start to do if they sense smoke. It's not "fear", they don't know what a fire is, just that they need to move house. They are just doing what nature programmed them to do, suck up the honey and take it somewhere safe. If you knew anything about bees, apart from seemingly knowing how they feel and that they understand the law of property, you would know that they only store honey for the purpose of feeding themselves through the winter. They need about 80lbs of honey to take them through winter and with the help of the beekeeper they might make about 200lbs. If nature didn't intend bees to share their honey he wouldn't have made them so damn busy. They are free to leave anytime and Bees are less exploited than humans by their employer. So we have a vegan animal lover who does not support the keeping of bees, oblivious of the damage to the environment if no one ate honey and bee keeping disappeared leading to less bees and the plants on which the vegan expects to be fed dying off through lack pollination. It's the woolly not-joined-up thinking that frustrates me.
The bee thing is just proof of the reliance on myths and anthropomorphism to justify what is for many a belief system no different from a religion. I am an animal lover, a game fisherman and a discriminating omnivore outnumbered by vegans and vegetarians in my family, but I don't need to be vegan to do my bit for the environment, wildlife or animal welfare. I see vegetarianism doing more to promote urbanism, a disconnect with nature and reduction in bio diversity, but don't try and convert them to meat eating by pretending we have to eat meat.
So you watched just 11 minutes of a 1 hour 18 minute video and make a statement that its not an academic lecture by a Doctor who is the Associate Director of Preventive Medicine with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and co-author of PCRM’s report on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the U.S dietary Guidelines serves as the Race & Nutrition Specialist and Board Adviser for A Well Fed World. WTF!!
Fucks sake. Doing even 30 seconds of research tells you that the PCRM carries no more scientific credence than the number of other shill pseudoscientific organisations that state global warming isn't real, or isn't man-made. Seriously? This is your argument? This is who you use to back up your 'science'?
They're the equivalent of an online university churning out fake diplomas, or a 'research organisation' set up and funded by the tobacco lobby telling you that fags are good for you
You watched just 11 minutes of a 1 hour 18 minute video and make a statement that its not an academic lecture by a Doctor who is the Associate Director of Preventive Medicine with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and co-author of PCRM’s report on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the U.S dietary Guidelines serves as the Race & Nutrition Specialist and Board Adviser for A Well Fed World. WTF!!
Who did ? Certainly not me.
Learn to use the quote button.
It's one of the many negative side effects of going vegan.
As the first person to come out in 2016 on CL,I think that the rise of veganism is linked to the rise in homosexualty. (Which is a good thing obviously.)
When I eat nice juicy steak; I'm like 'Boobies PHOWWARR.'
If I eat celery, lettuce and parsnips; I'm more 'meh.' about the opposite sex.
It's high time government scientists looked into this.
Best sit down with Mrs AUN for a bit of a chat, it seems I have something to tell her.
Haven't had time to watch whole thing but from the beginning it's clearly not an academic lecture, it's an evangelical sermon on diet by a 5 stone overweight American preacher. Gave up after ten minutes and watched the last 2 minutes.
Introduced as someone "trying to convince people" who is "pressing the cause".
Starts out with an assertion and then sets out to prove it without any scientific evidence, merely deductions made from scientific studies he quotes out of context. Quotes research saying 80% of deaths from certain deseases could be eliminated by a change in diet, then proceeds to talk as if that change was veganism when it simply promotes the need for a healthy diet, omnivorous or otherwise.
The nonsense about carnivorous animals and herbivores was when i switched off. The preacher ignores historical facts, that humans were hunter gatherers, he just calls them hunters and explains how they couldn't have survived by hunting. I assume he goes on to prove we are more like deers and should be eating grass.
Authoritative studies suggest that man ate relatively little meat, because it was difficult to catch and store. He would, however, have eaten as much meat as he could catch. Had this preacher been an academic he would have explained that before we became farmers we did not have access to the domesticated varieties of seeds, grains, fruits and nuts we have today. Soya beans didn't exist, nor did oats or almonds or any other nuts beyond the wild varieties you might find today required in enormous quantity to provide nutrition.
Humans cannot process all 22 amino acids required to support life, unlike herbivores. Without access to Tescos and a sustainable quantities of the nuts and beans providing the missing amino acids, and no books on nutrition and how to get your daily five, humans didn't have a choice but to eat meat. But why let facts get in the way of "pressing the case" for veganism. The assertion that humans could have survived without eating meat and were not designed to eat the stuff is utter bollox.
By all means, vegans and vegetarians can argue that today we can go to Tesco and get any amount of non-meat protein we need, and so we don't have to eat meat. Just stop there.
By all means argue that less land is utilised to survive off plants compared to animals but please don't try and argue that we have too many animals and can save the planet by getting rid of animals - we have too many humans stupid. This woolly thinking seeks to address the symptoms and not the cause. If we now changed to being 100% plants eaters it would solve nothing, just create different problems and less bio diversity.
Why we shouldn't eat meat is what most of this thread has covered and don't want to get too drawn over old ground.
But - Vegans always trip over when it comes to justifying veganism by reference to feelings of animals. They don't understand what anthropomorphism is (or pretend they don't do it) - the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. It means it's pretending god animals and object can have human characteristics.
We have all been indoctrinated to think animals have human feelings, like all children, from the age they could listen to stories about Peter Rabbit and Jungle Book. Just for the record, cows don't know they are going to die and they can't read the sign that says you are now entering a slaughter house, so they have a contented life, one they would not have enjoyed had they not been bred to be eaten. Many still believe Peter Rabbit talks and became vegan.
I read with amusement the comment about "stealing" honey from bees from someone who has never kept bees and will never experience the pleasure of doing so. I used to keep bees and the fact is that beekeepers today manage their hives in such a way that more colonies of bees are created than in the wild. He doesn't kill them and he doesn't hurt them. He restricts the instinct for bees to swarm which is what they start to do if they sense smoke. It's not "fear", they don't know what a fire is, just that they need to move house. They are just doing what nature programmed them to do, suck up the honey and take it somewhere safe. If you knew anything about bees, apart from seemingly knowing how they feel and that they understand the law of property, you would know that they only store honey for the purpose of feeding themselves through the winter. They need about 80lbs of honey to take them through winter and with the help of the beekeeper they might make about 200lbs. If nature didn't intend bees to share their honey he wouldn't have made them so damn busy. They are free to leave anytime and Bees are less exploited than humans by their employer. So we have a vegan animal lover who does not support the keeping of bees, oblivious of the damage to the environment if no one ate honey and bee keeping disappeared leading to less bees and the plants on which the vegan expects to be fed dying off through lack pollination. It's the woolly not-joined-up thinking that frustrates me.
The bee thing is just proof of the reliance on myths and anthropomorphism to justify what is for many a belief system no different from a religion. I am an animal lover, a game fisherman and a discriminating omnivore outnumbered by vegans and vegetarians in my family, but I don't need to be vegan to do my bit for the environment, wildlife or animal welfare. I see vegetarianism doing more to promote urbanism, a disconnect with nature and reduction in bio diversity, but don't try and convert them to meat eating by pretending we have to eat meat.
So you watched just 11 minutes of a 1 hour 18 minute video and make a statement that its not an academic lecture by a Doctor who is the Associate Director of Preventive Medicine with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and co-author of PCRM’s report on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the U.S dietary Guidelines serves as the Race & Nutrition Specialist and Board Adviser for A Well Fed World. WTF!!
Fucks sake. Doing even 30 seconds of research tells you that the PCRM carries no more scientific credence than the number of other shill pseudoscientific organisations that state global warming isn't real, or isn't man-made. Seriously? This is your argument? This is who you use to back up your 'science'?
They're the equivalent of an online university churning out fake diplomas, or a 'research organisation' set up and funded by the tobacco lobby telling you that fags are good for you
"Associate Director of Preventive Medicine with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and co-author of PCRM’s report on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the U.S dietary Guidelines serves as the Race & Nutrition Specialist and Board Adviser for A Well Fed World".
Advice for newcomers using soya 'milk' in hot drinks: Soya 'milk' (and other nut 'milks') is prone to separate and appear curdled if it is added directly to near-boiling water. Let very hot black tea or black coffee cool a little before adding soya 'milk' to it. (Similarly, if the soya 'milk' is already in the cup / mug, let the hot liquid to be added cool a bit).
Oh Anna, you were doing so well until you legitamised the making of tea in the wrong manner!
For me it would have to be dietary only. I'm not buying a new wardrobe just for a one off challenge. Even if I was going to go vegan permanently I'd still want to keep my old clobber for as long as possible; no point in being deliberately wasteful.
Comments
Soya 'milk' (and other nut 'milks') is prone to separate and appear curdled if it is added directly to near-boiling water.
Let very hot black tea or black coffee cool a little before adding soya 'milk' to it. (Similarly, if the soya 'milk' is already in the cup / mug, let the hot liquid to be added cool a bit).
It was an attempt at a humorous response to the Japanese eat 10% of fish but make up only 2 %of population comment by posting picture of sumo wrestling as to a possible reason why
Any link posted was accidental
Ah, so!
Whoosh moment there for me, sir!
Love a sumo competition. Very under-rated outside of a few Pacific nations.
Haven't had time to watch whole thing but from the beginning it's clearly not an academic lecture, it's an evangelical sermon on diet by a 5 stone overweight American preacher. Gave up after ten minutes and watched the last 2 minutes.
Introduced as someone "trying to convince people" who is "pressing the cause".
Starts out with an assertion and then sets out to prove it without any scientific evidence, merely deductions made from scientific studies he quotes out of context. Quotes research saying 80% of deaths from certain deseases could be eliminated by a change in diet, then proceeds to talk as if that change was veganism when it simply promotes the need for a healthy diet, omnivorous or otherwise.
The nonsense about carnivorous animals and herbivores was when i switched off. The preacher ignores historical facts, that humans were hunter gatherers, he just calls them hunters and explains how they couldn't have survived by hunting. I assume he goes on to prove we are more like deers and should be eating grass.
Authoritative studies suggest that man ate relatively little meat, because it was difficult to catch and store. He would, however, have eaten as much meat as he could catch. Had this preacher been an academic he would have explained that before we became farmers we did not have access to the domesticated varieties of seeds, grains, fruits and nuts we have today. Soya beans didn't exist, nor did oats or almonds or any other nuts beyond the wild varieties you might find today required in enormous quantity to provide nutrition.
Humans cannot process all 22 amino acids required to support life, unlike herbivores. Without access to Tescos and a sustainable quantities of the nuts and beans providing the missing amino acids, and no books on nutrition and how to get your daily five, humans didn't have a choice but to eat meat. But why let facts get in the way of "pressing the case" for veganism. The assertion that humans could have survived without eating meat and were not designed to eat the stuff is utter bollox.
By all means, vegans and vegetarians can argue that today we can go to Tesco and get any amount of non-meat protein we need, and so we don't have to eat meat. Just stop there.
By all means argue that less land is utilised to survive off plants compared to animals but please don't try and argue that we have too many animals and can save the planet by getting rid of animals - we have too many humans stupid. This woolly thinking seeks to address the symptoms and not the cause. If we now changed to being 100% plants eaters it would solve nothing, just create different problems and less bio diversity.
Why we shouldn't eat meat is what most of this thread has covered and don't want to get too drawn over old ground.
But - Vegans always trip over when it comes to justifying veganism by reference to feelings of animals. They don't understand what anthropomorphism is (or pretend they don't do it) - the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. It means it's pretending god animals and object can have human characteristics.
We have all been indoctrinated to think animals have human feelings, like all children, from the age they could listen to stories about Peter Rabbit and Jungle Book. Just for the record, cows don't know they are going to die and they can't read the sign that says you are now entering a slaughter house, so they have a contented life, one they would not have enjoyed had they not been bred to be eaten. Many still believe Peter Rabbit talks and became vegan.
I read with amusement the comment about "stealing" honey from bees from someone who has never kept bees and will never experience the pleasure of doing so. I used to keep bees and the fact is that beekeepers today manage their hives in such a way that more colonies of bees are created than in the wild. He doesn't kill them and he doesn't hurt them. He restricts the instinct for bees to swarm which is what they start to do if they sense smoke. It's not "fear", they don't know what a fire is, just that they need to move house. They are just doing what nature programmed them to do, suck up the honey and take it somewhere safe. If you knew anything about bees, apart from seemingly knowing how they feel and that they understand the law of property, you would know that they only store honey for the purpose of feeding themselves through the winter. They need about 80lbs of honey to take them through winter and with the help of the beekeeper they might make about 200lbs. If nature didn't intend bees to share their honey he wouldn't have made them so damn busy. They are free to leave anytime and Bees are less exploited than humans by their employer. So we have a vegan animal lover who does not support the keeping of bees, oblivious of the damage to the environment if no one ate honey and bee keeping disappeared leading to less bees and the plants on which the vegan expects to be fed dying off through lack pollination. It's the woolly not-joined-up thinking that frustrates me.
The bee thing is just proof of the reliance on myths and anthropomorphism to justify what is for many a belief system no different from a religion. I am an animal lover, a game fisherman and a discriminating omnivore outnumbered by vegans and vegetarians in my family, but I don't need to be vegan to do my bit for the environment, wildlife or animal welfare. I see vegetarianism doing more to promote urbanism, a disconnect with nature and reduction in bio diversity, but don't try and convert them to meat eating by pretending we have to eat meat.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
So you watched just 11 minutes of a 1 hour 18 minute video and make a statement that its not an academic lecture by a Doctor who
is the Associate Director of Preventive Medicine with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and co-author of PCRM’s report on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the U.S dietary Guidelines serves as the Race & Nutrition Specialist and Board Adviser for A Well Fed World. WTF!!
Learn to use the quote button.
When I eat nice juicy steak; I'm like 'Boobies PHOWWARR.'
If I eat celery, lettuce and parsnips; I'm more 'meh.' about the opposite sex.
It's high time government scientists looked into this.
They're the equivalent of an online university churning out fake diplomas, or a 'research organisation' set up and funded by the tobacco lobby telling you that fags are good for you
Best sit down with Mrs AUN for a bit of a chat, it seems I have something to tell her.
And who is 5 stone overweight.