Raw milk
#41
ernestus Wrote: 
The way I see it is like this; I go to an indian buffet which has vegan and non-vegan dishes. The big fat guy eats all the chicken, while the slender guy eats the vegetables. The big fat guy is fat because he eats too much meat and dairy. Now he has to eat twice as much to satiate his gluttonous appetite, while the slender guy can eat his normal fill.
I don't think this is a vegan vs non-vegan issue. The big fat guy consuming all the chicken is fat only because he is prone to gluttony.

Quote:The best is to eat raw, organic fruits and vegetables. That is where the nutrients and minerals are at.....Meat and dairy products are acidic. Cancer and disease cannot survive in an alkaline system, but thrive in an acidic one.
 
The problem with this statement is that fruits especially have not always been readily available. In the poineering days, it was a rare thing to be able to have fresh fruit, and fresh vegetables were nearly impossible to come by in the winter. Therefore, the main food staples for much of the year were meat, dairy and grains. Since these people were not dying in droves on such a diet, and cancer was very rare, if not unheard of in those days, this leads me to believe that meat and dairy are not the problem. The real problem is the way the foods are now processed.
Reply
#42
ernestus Wrote:If you're hungry enough it won't matter anyway. When people get to the point of starvation, anything goes.
I have to ask: How does that have anything to do with my statement you quoted? 

Quote: The environmentalist-tree-hugging-animal-rights-activists do have some good statistics which put meat eaters in a quandary.
They are also notorious liars, and fudging statistics is not verboten according to their "moral code".
 
 
Quote:That to me is a very strong argument in favor of being vegan.

Meat is fine.  Do we eat too much of it in the west?  Sure, we eat too much of lots of things, mostly unnatural things.  That is the real problem: unnatural crap, and too much of it.
Reply
#43
Croppyboy Wrote:If you are unfamiliar with the above use of subscribe, I would recommend you consult a good English dictionary.

(for your reference, from the OED – subscribe - 4. v.i. express or feel agreement with an idea, proposal, etc.; hold as an opinion, assent to)

That really isn't necessary. But thank you for teaching me the valuable vocabulary lesson. If you are going to clog up the thread with this kind of insult, I will have to exscuse myself.

Quote:You don’t see why there should be antipathy towards environmental/animal rights groups that resort to violent tactics to further their agenda?

How about the SPCA, or the Humane Society? Do they have an agenda? I don't support either of them. If you are scared that the 'eco-terrorsists' are going to get you for driving an SUV, or wearing a fur coat, you needn't worry.

There are also groups in the pro-life movement who blow up abortion mills and kill abortionists. Does that mean that being pro life is bad? These acts give a bad reputation to the other ones who would never commit such violence. Then you would have to explain to people how you are pro-life, but not connected with the people who do such things.


Quote:These groups equate, nay, elevate the value of life of lower animals above that of humans.

I find that hard to believe, but it wouldn't surprise me if that is the case. I am not a member of any group. Some aspects of being vegan, and shopping in the health food store, is that the store is permeated with new age yoga-mumbo-jumbo. I'm just there for the produce!!


ernestus Wrote:Please tell me what exactly have the 'radical environmental/animal-rights' groups done to you which has affected your personal life? I can only guess absolutely nothing.

Quote:And your point would be what?

It's this: Have any of these so called extremist groups ever done anything to you which directly affects the way you live? In my case, that would be a big zilch.


Quote:I don’t support the modern agro-industry. I eat organic as much as possible and support organic agriculture.

I wonder though, how it is that you do not like environmentalist groups, even though it is by their hand we even have organic farming today. It's those groups which are fighting the giant Monsanto agro companies. But why let a bunch of tree huggers get in the way of progress!

Quote:What was it like when you steamed the life out of those vegetables?

It was horrible! I could hear my brussel sprouts screaming in agony! They were in so much pain that I had to eat them in order to put them out of their misery!

miss_fluffy Wrote:I got alota respect for a guy who kills his own food!

I got even more respect for a guy who grows his own food!
Reply
#44
ernestus Wrote:
miss_fluffy Wrote:I got alota respect for a guy who kills his own food!
I got even more respect for a guy who grows his own food!

I have respect for both, and I do neither. 
 
There is no doubt the greater part of what we eat ought to be fruits and vegetables, raw ones, but there is no need to cut out meat entirely.  If a man wants to do so, that is his choice.  I know there is some good that can sometimes be gained (I have done it periodically myself, and gained from it).  However, what I detest is that attitude that somehow it is immoral to eat meat (or milk, or butter, or eggs, etc).
 
God Himself, under the old law, made the slaying and consumption - the complete consumption - of an animal the central sacrificial act.  If this were in any way harmful, He would never have done this.
 
Meat was not eaten until after the Flood, and it was allowed at that point as a concession to our weakness (which has increased greatly in the post-deluvian age).  As in all things, moderation is the key.
Reply
#45
PaxTecum Wrote:
ernestus Wrote:The acreage used in America for beef cattle is enormous compared to that used for plant farming. It's been said that if we stopped eating meat, and used the land for growing vegetables instead of meat, it would solve the starvation problems in the third-world-countries. That to me is a very strong argument in favor of being vegan.

Balderdash.
 
Our government PAYS farmers NOT to grow crops every year. We have a surplus of grain. It is distribution alone that has third world countries starving.
 
 
 

From what I have heard, the surplus you speak of is that of corn and soy. Those are the US's biggest, and only export crops. The problem is though, these grains are genetically engineered now-a-days, which I wont touch with a ten foot pole. And neither will Europe, or Africa, or any other country. The government is not my source, or guide in these matters. They used to allow hemp farming too, but the good 'ole boys over at DuPont decided that we needed to start using nylon instead. Thus the switch from natural to synthetic.

How much produce at your local grocery store actually comes from inside the US? Everything seems to be coming from South America these days, where the laws regulating the farmers are not good.

All of those bushels of corn which are in surplus, have no nutritional value anymore. The soil is depleted.

Reply
#46
Croppyboy Wrote:What was it like when you steamed the life out of those vegetables?

Now THAT was priceless! ROFL

I don't have problem at all killing animals. I just killed several meeses that managed to get into our home this winter. I've killed and cleaned plenty of fish in my time. I'd love to hunt deer and other animals. Sheesh, Ernestus, how do you think your ancestors survived? It certainly wasn't on lettuce, carrot sticks or tofu.

Reply
#47
gladius_veritatis Wrote:
ernestus Wrote:
miss_fluffy Wrote:I got alota respect for a guy who kills his own food!
I got even more respect for a guy who grows his own food!

I have respect for both, and I do neither. 
 
There is no doubt the greater part of what we eat ought to be fruits and vegetables, raw ones, but there is no need to cut out meat entirely.  If a man wants to do so, that is his choice.  I know there is some good that can sometimes be gained (I have done it periodically myself, and gained from it).  However, what I detest is that attitude that somehow it is immoral to eat meat (or milk, or butter, or eggs, etc).
 
God Himself, under the old law, made the slaying and consumption - the complete consumption - of an animal the central sacrificial act.  If this were in any way harmful, He would never have done this.
 
Meat was not eaten until after the Flood, and it was allowed at that point as a concession to our weakness (which has increased greatly in the post-deluvian age).  As in all things, moderation is the key.

Good point gladius. But we read in Deuteronomy and Leviticus that certain animals were forbiden to eat. I have often wondered why? Was it for health reasons? Or did God just decide that He would give them extra laws for the heck of it?

I also wonder that the animals, pre-flood, if they ate a vegan diet? And what exactly would the animals have eaten on the ark? Did they eat eachother? Or were they all hibernating? And while I'm on the bible: Genesis 1:29 says that the seeds and trees shall be my meat.

I have been very open about my choice to eat a vegan diet. And in none of my posts have I ever even suggested that it's wrong for others to eat meat. I just think the issue gets overdone by statements such as 'being vegan is a bunch of rubbish' 'bunk science'. That is where I would find error.

Just so everyone knows, I have a belt made from leather :) I hope the guys at PETA don't blow up my house!


Reply
#48
ernestus Wrote:And in none of my posts have I ever even suggested that it's wrong for others to eat meat.

I know you have not, my good man.  If I thought you had, I would've castigated you for it directly! [Image: fish.gif] JK
 
As to God's reasons for outlawing some animals, I cannot venture a guess.   I know the fellow who does the Maker's Diet has some decent insights into these matters.
 
As the Church is in dire straits, needing serious help at present, so is the entire natural world.   The soil is depleted, the oxygen content in the air is very low (it used to be twice as high), the water in many places is not fit for human consumption, and we are dropping like flies from the consumption of food not fit for animals, rational or otherwise.  We need big-time help, on all fronts.
Reply
#49
JLeigh Wrote:I don't think this is a vegan vs non-vegan issue. The big fat guy consuming all the chicken is fat only because he prone to gluttony.

It's possible. But I have yet to meet another vegan who was big and fat like the majority of americans are. I know this might sound conspiratorial, but here goes:

These companies like Burger King, TGLEE (fast food, dairy industry) put chemicals into the food which are not listed on the label. They are not listed because it's not required by law. These chemicals do three things:

1. They make you fat.
2. They make you hungry. No matter how much you eat, you still feel hungry afterwards. Since by our first example, it follows then that we have to eat more to satisfy our hunger because we are gaining weight.
3. They make you addicted to their product.
'

Combine these three things, and what you have is a recipe for creating fat people. America is obsessed with fatness. The diet industry alone spends billions every year just to sell you some 'low carb', 'fat-free' junk product.

What I see, is that you end up having people who, no matter what they do, they will not lose weight, but actually gain. It's not their fault. They just don't know what they're putting into their bodies: Chemicals.



Quote:The problem with this statement is that fruits especially have not always been readily available. In the poineering days, it was a rare thing to be able to have fresh fruit, and fresh vegetables were nearly impossible to come by in the winter. Therefore, the main food staples for much of the year were meat, dairy and grains. Since these people were not dying in droves on such a diet, and cancer was very rare, if not unheard of in those days, this leads me to believe that meat and dairy are not the problem. The real problem is the way the foods are now processed.

These are great points. I have also heard though, that because the eskimos eat lard, then so should I. To me that is absurd. But you do have a point about the way food is processed. That word alone 'processed' automatically makes it less nutritious, and maybe even harmful. The further man is removed from the processing of food, the better. If it comes in a can, jar, frozen, etc.. then its 'tainted' sort to speak by man.
Reply
#50
Reese Wrote:Sheesh, Ernestus, how do you think your ancestors survived? It certainly wasn't on lettuce, carrot sticks or tofu.

No, I'm sure they had a continuous supply of beer and brats :)


I dont think they even eat vegetables over there in Europe :lol:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)