Vegan mom gets life in prison for starvation death of 18-month-old son

a reply to: ketsuko

Where is the system? By that logic, any moral stance is a belief system. Against late term abortions, well then you're apart of a belief system?

If thats the definition of a belief system, then sure veganism would be it. I don't see the harm in that as i would be more concerned with anyone who doesnt have a set of moral values.

a reply to: ketsuko

Here is a rebuttle by earthling ed :
m.youtube.com...

I wont personally try to debate this area as its complicated and im not informed enough. And i think animal agriculture is just one small part of things that need to change to better the planet.
I mostly am vegan for ethics and environmentalism is just a side bonus. If it was discovered that cows dont affect anything, it would not change my stance.

Anyway, earthling ed is a pretty good debator if you wish to hear counter arguements.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: tanstaafl
Are you sure?

Yes. I've spoken to many cattle ranchers of both persuasions.

The labelling law requires just 51% of cattle’s life to be spent on grass for your butcher to call it “grass fed” "

If commercially raised cattle spend 75% of their life eating grass it would be labelled 'grass fed beef'.

Many of them do. As to any that don't - go ask them.

Do you have anything to back up what you claim?

Logic - in the form of a question:

Is it cheaper to feed cattle grains that you must purchase, or just let them eat grass that is growing on the ground?

No, what most do is let them eat grass right up until they are close to harvesting time, then they fatten them up on grains for the last few months right before sending them to be slaughtered.

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: tanstaafl

Dude.. you said i better not use vegan websites to back up any claims. So i did not. I used a .gov link.[/quote
So what? You think using a .gov website is automatically any better? I can sometimes find good info on a .gov website, but more often than not, it is crap as a source.

Then you refute it by using a anti-vegan carnivore blogger website.

Ignore the URL - refute the CONTENT.

Hint: you can't so all you can do is crap on the source.

Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

No, I don't.

Enjoy your ignorance.

a reply to: ketsuko
Veganism types should understand that humans dont eat bugs for a reason..
Those who do eat bugs they will lack proper malnutrition.


Same thing with such a Veganism diets.

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: tanstaafl

You're becoming silly. Any studies that show vegan diet to be healthy are fake, minipulated, or propaganda?

No, I'm saying there AREN'T ANY real studies.

A real Study is a randomized double-blinded placebo controlled study. There are NONE about the human diet, vegan. vegetarian or carnivore.

The only kinds of 'studies' you can point to are weak, essentially meaningless observational/epidemiological studies that at best can only show some kind of association, but every single one that I have ever seen uses such a small number of participants, the methods are highly questionable, the measured associations miniscule, and their conclusions completely laughable.

Anti nutrients from plants cause all modern day diseases?

Did I say that? No. There are many other things in plants besides antinutrients that cause all kinds of problems in people. Fiber is a huge problem, and causes most if not all of the major bowel disorders.

There are many organizations (such as the World Health organization) and studies that show the health benifits both short and long term of a vegan diet.

Ok, fine show me one. Just ONE study. A real, actual randomized, double-blinded placebo controlled study.

JUST ONE.

Oh - and NOT ONE of the links you provided were to real, actual studies, they were to simple, extremely poorly designed observational or epidemiological 'studies' that can never show causation, only association.

And these are just a few examples of organizations that say a vegan diet is healthy.

I don't care what anyone SAYS about what is a healthy diet, I care about what the SCIENCE says, and SCIENCE says that we humans are obligate hyper-carnivores, and that any plants that we may have eaten were extremely low carb low starch low sugar fibrous roots and they only ate t hose when they couldn't get real food.

Please provide something of substance if you wish to refute me. Not some carnivore blogger that hates vegans.

Sorry my friend, most carnivores are extremely friendly and very NOT pushy, contrary to most vegans who are radical hate filled douches who threaten the lives of carnivores for daring to tell the truth and demolish their bubble.

So if you wish to continue - provide a real arguement and studycshowing why veganism is unhealthy.

Sorry, as I said, there are no studies showing ANYTHING about the vegan diet either way.

Otherwise, its pointless to argue with carnivore blogger extemist psuedo science.

Especially when it is actually real science that you cannot refute.

a reply to: tanstaafl

There is no point in arguing with you anymore. You said don't use bias sources. So i didnt use any. I posted .gov and health studies that wernt funded by vegan groups. You said those dont count and there are no studies that meet your standards. But then you still posted a link to a website that is plainly bias (its a pro carnivore website) as proof to refute me.

You contradict yourself at every turn. No studies or groups work for you unless its your carnivore blog sits.

Deny ignorance - and stop being so hypocritical. You look incredibly silly mate.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Especially when it is actually real science that you cannot refute.

So the only "real science" are carnivore bloggers and everything else is psuedo science.

Well, how do i argue with that? I think its a waste of time to even try to respond with someone whose thinking on this subject is so backwards.

Maybe just enjoy your meat and stop pretending you want to any sort of real debate.

a reply to: vNex92

Vegans dont eat bugs

a reply to: CptGreenTea

Can't say as I blame 'em!

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: tanstaafl

You contradict yourself at every turn.

Not at all... you just don't comprende...

No studies or groups work for you unless its your carnivore blog sits.

My carnivore blog sits quote real, actual science.

I'm not the one who doesn't understand the difference between observational/epidemiological CRAP 'studies that can be manipulated to show whatever you want and mean ZIP, and a real well designed and executed study that actually proces something.

I'm also not the one who doesn't seem to grasp that THERE ARE NO STUDIES that prove anything one way or another.

NONE. ZIP. NADA. ZILCH.

Kapiche?

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: tanstaafl

So the only "real science" are carnivore bloggers

The carnivore bloggers are simply providing evidence of the real science. It is up to the reader to read with comprehension. I'm sorry you are failing at that basic task.

and everything else is psuedo science.

Everything you have provided so far is absolutely pure pseudo-scientific nonsense that proves absolutely nothing.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You sound so silly man. The carnivore bloggers are "real science" but anything i provide from a .gov , .edu, or website citing studies is "psuedo science".

a reply to: tanstaafl

If you cant understand the pure hypocrisy of "my carnivore blog shows real science that proves my point" and at the same time saying all studies cant prove anything as your response to anything i cite, then im not sure where to go.

Your debating skills have very poor logic. Can you imagine if i only cited a vegan blog as my source and then when you give multiple non-blogger sources i resort by saying "well no studies mean anything anyway!"

Thats how stupid your arguements sound. Hope you see that some time.

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: tanstaafl

You sound so silly man. The carnivore bloggers are "real science"

No, they are providing the evidence of the only real science available that can and does reveal the real, actual truth.

For the record, there are four areas of science that prove the truth of what I've been saying...

1) the science of Stable Isotope Testing
(used to prove beyond reasonable doubt that from 350,000 to 500,000 years ago up until the agricultural 'revolution' 6-10k years ago, homo-sapiens - all of us - were, and still are obligate hyper-carnivore),

2) an honest evaluation of the evidence presented by the branch of science called Anthropology
(that proves the exact same thing going back 3-5 million years),

3) the study of Human Physiology
(that demonstrates precisely how our biological and digestive systems are designed to work: that we are incapable of breaking down/digesting plant matter, and are ideally designed to digest and assimilate the meat and fat from ruminant animals), and last,

4) the study of Plant Biology, which proves that plants - ALL plants - contain

a) naturally occurring carcinogens
(many containing far more than are present from any amount of chemical/man-made pesticides),

b) large amounts of antinutrients
(that interfere with our ability to absorb much of any potential nutrients they may contain),

c) large amounts of other toxic compounds
(like lectins, phytates, gluten, tannins and oxalates)

These are simple, scientifically indisputable facts that actually and fully stand up to close, honest scientific scrutiny.

You are simply choosing to ignore them - to, in fact, deny reality - because it challenges the very core of your per-conceived biases and/or false beliefs.

but anything i provide from a .gov , .edu, or website citing studies is "psuedo science".

No, I'm saying that the studies your sources are providing are not real studies that prove anything, they are 'studies' of the type that are essentially worthless when it comes to showing cause and effect.

If you really want to have a dialog, if you really want to have an honest dialog, then by all means, try to refute the actual evidence presented, without resorting to ridiculing the source and ignoring the actual evidence being presented.

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: tanstaafl

Your debating skills have very poor logic.

No matter how many times you repeat falsehoods, they remain falsehoods.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Highlighting and boldening a word doesn't suddenly make it "real science".

Its pointless wasting anymore time with you. You obviously are very pro meat and work backwards trying to defend it and demonize vegans. Your research is the only truth and all others are lies. Thats enough for me to opt out of this dumb conversation.

"Studies on vegetarians who eat diets high in plant foods containing anti-nutrients do not generally show deficiencies in iron and zinc, so the body may be adapting to the presence of anti-nutrients by increasing the absorption of these minerals in the gut. [3]"

www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Yea.. nothing is proven that anti nutrients block significant absorption to make veggies cause vitamin and mineral defecencies.

And interesting how you provide no links except for carnivore blogs.

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: tanstaafl

Highlighting and boldening a word doesn't suddenly make it "real science".

No, it doesn't... but it does emphasize the important words, that have, you know, meaning beyond just what you want (or don't want) them to mean.

So, you actually have to be willing - and able - to read with comprehension.

apparently you are not.

Its pointless wasting anymore time with you.

Apparently so, since you are unable to refute any of the proofs I have proivided, leaving you with nothing but lame attempts at gaslighting, deflecting or just outright pretending real science doesn't exist.

You obviously are very pro meat

Wrong again. I'm pro TRUTH. I thought te carnivore was nuts the first time I heard about it. But I am a firm believer in the truth beyond all else, and so, when I started looking at the actual evidence - the overwhelming evidence - I was blown away, and corrected my faulty thinking and threw out all of the bad facts I was holding onto.

Try it sometime. It is refreshing.

a reply to: tanstaafl

If you want provide links and qoutes as evidence of your claims ill consider a rebuttle. Until then, you're just claiming things as truth without any back up. And carnivote blog posts are not proper links (as you should agree because you said vegan blogs aren't viable).

Exactly a reply to: ketsuko