Engineering Nutrition

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:27 pm

patrix » December 6th, 2018, 5:22 am wrote:The emotional Vegan propaganda is a Psyop.

Patrix.

Perhaps, many of those who have chosen to not partake of the killing, and torturing, of animals and ingesting the remains, are those who have gone within themselves and found that their own conscience does not allow such actions.

Perhaps, given that, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with what you are calling the Nutwork, and everything to do with each one's own consciousness.

May you find Peace.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby sykkelmannen on Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:12 am

HonestlyNow » December 6th, 2018, 6:27 pm wrote:[quote="
Perhaps, many of those who have chosen to not partake of the killing, and torturing, of animals and ingesting the remains, are those who have gone within themselves and found that their own conscience does not allow such actions.

Well said.
Good news for those hellbent on a healthy diet: with the amount of food waste in the 30-50% range, you too can eat whatever you want at zero cost and not have blood on your hands at the same time. What CF readers might find of added value: no food tax money to the powermongers either!
Go freegan. Starve 'em out.
sykkelmannen
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:16 am

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby patrix on Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:57 am

sykkelmannen » December 7th, 2018, 2:12 am wrote:
HonestlyNow » December 6th, 2018, 6:27 pm wrote:[quote="
Perhaps, many of those who have chosen to not partake of the killing, and torturing, of animals and ingesting the remains, are those who have gone within themselves and found that their own conscience does not allow such actions.

Well said.
Good news for those hellbent on a healthy diet: with the amount of food waste in the 30-50% range, you too can eat whatever you want at zero cost and not have blood on your hands at the same time. What CF readers might find of added value: no food tax money to the powermongers either!
Go freegan. Starve 'em out.


It's interesting that it always boils down to this. Vegans see themselves as morally superior because they don't eat animal products. I don't share that view. Food production without animals is an ecological disaster. How can this be unclear? And how considerate is it to all living things to be a part of destroying the ecosystem?

As I said before I am ok with people being vegans. People should be free to destroy their health in any way they like. What I don't like is that this poor choice of eating is promoted as something healthy and good for the environment (and animals). Because it isn't.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:48 am

HonestlyNow » December 6th, 2018, 11:27 am wrote:
Perhaps, many of those who have chosen to not partake of the killing, and torturing, of animals and ingesting the remains, are those who have gone within themselves and found that their own conscience does not allow such actions.


Well, this is just the kind of hyperbole that tends to throw our own (cyber) ecosystem here at Cluesforum out of balance. Please. . . careful up there on that high horse, okay? ;)

sykkelmannen » December 6th, 2018, 7:12 pm wrote:
Well said.
Good news for those hellbent on a healthy diet: with the amount of food waste in the 30-50% range, you too can eat whatever you want at zero cost and not have blood on your hands at the same time.


No. Not “well said.” Same goes for you here. Please do tell us where this “zero cost” food may be found.

patrix » December 6th, 2018, 8:57 pm wrote:
It's interesting that it always boils down to this. Vegans see themselves as morally superior because they don't eat animal products. I don't share that view. Food production without animals is an ecological disaster. How can this be unclear? And how considerate is it to all living things to be a part of destroying the ecosystem?

. . .

What I don't like is that this poor choice of eating is promoted as something healthy and good for the environment (and animals). Because it isn't.

[Bold inserted by SCS for emphasis]


I too have developed a distaste for the moral superiority claimed in this regard (by some). It matters not to me whether people eat animal meat or not.

Also, I have found the arguments for a balanced ecosystem to be compelling. I think there is enough to go around to sustain each of our members here for the foreseeable future.

Some of us will be healthier than others, and I’m all but certain there are more variables in play than we could possibly reduce to text. :)
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby Kham on Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:02 am

It’s funny. I became a vegan because meats and dairy digestive residues are extremely acidic and take a lot of energy which is needed elsewhere. Removing them from my ingestion improved my health significantly.

Having been off meat and dairy for almost 2 years now, I thought it would be ok to cheat a little with some turkey for Thanksgiving. I unexpectedly felt sad as I was contemplating eating the bird. If you have ever slaughtered an animal, you will find that they are full of anxiety and clearly do not want to be killed. I ignored that fact before but now, since I have had time to reboot my sensitivity, it’s hard to go back with out feeling that I am causing harm. I didn’t expect that.

This has nothing to do with me feeling morally superior, it has all to do with me recognizing the pain and suffering of animals. If you are a true meatavore, then kill and eat your dog. Its distress should not bother you in the slightest.
Kham
Admin
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:56 am

Kham » December 6th, 2018, 10:02 pm wrote:It’s funny. I became a vegan because meats and dairy digestive residues are extremely acidic and take a lot of energy which is needed elsewhere. Removing them from my ingestion improved my health significantly.

Having been off meat and dairy for almost 2 years now, I thought it would be ok to cheat a little with some turkey for Thanksgiving. I unexpectedly felt sad as I was contemplating eating the bird. If you have ever slaughtered an animal, you will find that they are full of anxiety and clearly do not want to be killed. I ignored that fact before but now, since I have had time to reboot my sensitivity, it’s hard to go back with out feeling that I am causing harm. I didn’t expect that.

This has nothing to do with me feeling morally superior, it has all to do with me recognizing the pain and suffering of animals. If you are a true meatavore, then kill and eat your dog. Its distress should not bother you in the slightest.


To be clear, I’m not suggesting that all vegans claim this “superiority.” Far from it. I think we all have different reasons for our diets based on numerous factors. And that’s fine.

I’ve experimented with a number of “diets,” and when the dust settles, I find that the old expression “nothing too much” is one that resonates with me physically. So I’m pretty much an “eat and let eat” kind of guy.

And I will readily admit that I grew up hunting (until my mid teenage years), but haven’t had a desire to do so since. In fact, the last time I shot a living thing (a rabbit), I was surprised at how badly I felt.

That was roughly 15 years ago, and it had been probably 10 years since I had shot a living thing prior to that (aside from the occasional rattle snake). So, my own sensitivities had in fact changed during that time.

My guess is that a certain (more refined) tenderness developed in me during that intervening time. And it just so happens to coincide with having been married (to a wise and mature wife for whom I am eternally grateful) for the preceding 5 years or so. Now, if the survival of my family depended on me killing a deer (or other wild animal), there’s no doubt I would do it without hesitation.

I’m not claiming these are easy or simple issues. There is probably too much nuance in this topic for me to write anything that would constitute “taking a side.”

It has occurred to me that perhaps each member here (who has voiced a strong opinion on this) may have a good point, and there are places along the spectrum (between any given extreme) for each person that may be ideal for them. That is probably not a proposition that anyone wants to hear- I realize.
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:36 pm

SacredCowSlayer » December 6th, 2018, 10:48 pm wrote:
HonestlyNow » December 6th, 2018, 11:27 am wrote:Perhaps, many of those who have chosen to not partake of the killing, and torturing, of animals and ingesting the remains, are those who have gone within themselves and found that their own conscience does not allow such actions.

Well, this is just the kind of hyperbole that tends to throw our own (cyber) ecosystem here at Cluesforum out of balance. Please. . . careful up there on that high horse, okay?

My post was directed to Patrix's continuing declaration that "[emotional] veganism is a psyop."

I'd like him to explain how he thinks it is a psychological operation, and to what end.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:53 pm

patrix » December 6th, 2018, 9:57 pm wrote:Food production without animals is an ecological disaster. How can this be unclear?

Yes, it is unclear to me how "food production without animals is an ecological disaster." Please explain, and please keep it in the context of the billions of animals that are purposely bred to be used by humans. Thank you.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:48 pm

patrix » December 16th, 2018, 10:28 am wrote:
HonestlyNow » December 16th, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote:-2- How does not having billions of purposefully-bred animals on this Earth wreak havoc on the ecological system?

2. Animals are part of Earth's ecosystem. Before man came to America for example millions of Buffalo's roamed the land. They made the fertile soil during thousands of years that is required to produce the soy milk and veggieburgers that lead to chronical illness if not consumed in moderation. And if this type of agriculture with no animals continue for long it will undoubtedly lead to a global ecological disaster.

-1- You are comparing what happens in nature to what man has purposely brought about through intentional breeding. That's why I asked the question in the manner that I did. Perhaps you could answer my question directly?

-2- Conflating the eating of processed foods with the whole of what is the act of avoiding animal products, is either a misunderstanding on your part, or a purposeful misdirection. Which is it?

Edit to add:
patrix » December 16th, 2018, 10:28 am wrote:
HonestlyNow » December 16th, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote:-3- Are you still of your often-stated opinion that veganism (or "veganism propaganda") is a psychological operation? If so, how is it so, and to what end?

3. Yes, and the purpose is basically to maintain the masses in a sick and stupid state and it seems to be working well.

See point #2 above.
There are five mistakes that man has made through our timeline. 1, Cooking our food, 2, through cooking, it then made it easy to eat dead animal flesh, 3, through cooking, it then made it easy to eat foods that we are not biologically adapted to eat (grains, beans), 4, food processing, and 5, using chemicals for the production of food, as well as in the processing of food. Source of this information is the John Rose YouTube channel.

Removing only one mistake, still leaves the other four mistakes to be addressed.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:45 pm

HonestlyNow » December 16th, 2018, 9:48 am wrote:
patrix » December 16th, 2018, 10:28 am wrote:
HonestlyNow » December 16th, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote:-2- How does not having billions of purposefully-bred animals on this Earth wreak havoc on the ecological system?

2. Animals are part of Earth's ecosystem. Before man came to America for example millions of Buffalo's roamed the land. They made the fertile soil during thousands of years that is required to produce the soy milk and veggieburgers that lead to chronical illness if not consumed in moderation. And if this type of agriculture with no animals continue for long it will undoubtedly lead to a global ecological disaster.

-1- You are comparing what happens in nature to what man has purposely brought about through intentional breeding. That's why I asked the question in the manner that I did. Perhaps you could answer my question directly?

-2- Conflating the eating of processed foods with the whole of what is the act of avoiding animal products, is either a misunderstanding on your part, or a purposeful misdirection. Which is it?

Edit to add:
patrix » December 16th, 2018, 10:28 am wrote:
HonestlyNow » December 16th, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote:-3- Are you still of your often-stated opinion that veganism (or "veganism propaganda") is a psychological operation? If so, how is it so, and to what end?

3. Yes, and the purpose is basically to maintain the masses in a sick and stupid state and it seems to be working well.

See point #2 above.
There are five mistakes that man has made through our timeline. 1, Cooking our food, 2, through cooking, it then made it easy to eat dead animal flesh, 3, through cooking, it then made it easy to eat foods that we are not biologically adapted to eat (grains, beans), 4, food processing, and 5, using chemicals for the production of food, as well as in the processing of food. Source of this information is the John Rose YouTube channel.

Removing only one mistake, still leaves the other four mistakes to be addressed.


Alright, I sincerely wish to hit the “Pause Button” on the aggressive inquisition-style posts. Enough for now. . . please.

I’d rather see the CF virtual-ecosystem balance out rather than devolve, lest an ugly padlock appear on the topic for a time.

Thank you,
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby patrix on Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:15 pm

Tom Naughton on the latest Wikipedia censorship

A few people I follow on Twitter have speculated that Skeptic from Britain is working for Big Food. Maybe. But I have my own two-legged theory: 1) Skeptic from Britain is a disciple of The Church of the Holy Plant-Based Diet, and 2) Wikipedia has been taken over by social-justice warriors.


By gosh, if you tell people meat and eggs are part of a healthy diet, you’re ruining the planet, promoting inequality, and possibly supporting the repressive imperial patriarchy or whatever.


http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/ ... -part-six/
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby Seneca on Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:01 pm

SacredCowSlayer » 16 Dec 2018, 20:45 wrote:
HonestlyNow » December 16th, 2018, 9:48 am wrote:
patrix » December 16th, 2018, 10:28 am wrote:
HonestlyNow » December 16th, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote:-2- How does not having billions of purposefully-bred animals on this Earth wreak havoc on the ecological system?

2. Animals are part of Earth's ecosystem. Before man came to America for example millions of Buffalo's roamed the land. They made the fertile soil during thousands of years that is required to produce the soy milk and veggieburgers that lead to chronical illness if not consumed in moderation. And if this type of agriculture with no animals continue for long it will undoubtedly lead to a global ecological disaster.

-1- You are comparing what happens in nature to what man has purposely brought about through intentional breeding. That's why I asked the question in the manner that I did. Perhaps you could answer my question directly?

I think this Ted talk video is in line with what Patrix is arguing.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Allan Savory is here arguing that desertification in arid regions is not caused by overgrazing. He claims that desertification can even be reversed by increasing the number of livestock and mimicking natural grazing patterns.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby sykkelmannen on Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:48 pm

SacredCowSlayer » December 16th, 2018, 7:45 pm wrote:I’d rather see the CF virtual-ecosystem balance out rather than devolve, lest an ugly padlock appear on the topic for a time.

What if this topic is so crucial that it warrants a storm? What if attempting to solve the issues at hand is worth disturbing the balance? Besides, I find the debate highly civilised.

However, I must say that - at least to me personally - this (domesticated animals) is a question that pertains not to nutrition but rather to morality. Which is, as I understand it, unfortunately OT. To bring in the environment though is just another OT. So either both of them are permissible, or none of them is.

Because you see, when talking veganism, it usually rests on exactly those 3 pillars: morality, environment and nutrition. (I tend to ignore the last two because that knowledge is entirely dependent on scientific authority, and you all know that you can hardly trust anything that comes from that corner).

Patrix said that Veganism is a Psyop; in a way, I cannot but agree. They clearly do push it. They ALWAYS go for Nutrition and Environment to muddy the waters, spamming both sides of the argument. Morality is a bitch though and not subject to 'facts' pulled out of a hat.
sykkelmannen
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:16 am

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:43 pm

Re: Allan Savory talk.
He mentioned our biological need. From the context of the talk, I imagine that he is stuck in the paradigm that man "needs" to consume animals.

He posits that the only solution (to desertification) is to establish herds of grazing animals. I don't see it as the only way. Trees are cooling. Simple solution: plant trees!
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby Seneca on Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:08 pm

HonestlyNow » 18 Dec 2018, 14:43 wrote:Re: Allan Savory talk.
He mentioned our biological need. From the context of the talk, I imagine that he is stuck in the paradigm that man "needs" to consume animals.

He posits that the only solution (to desertification) is to establish herds of grazing animals. I don't see it as the only way. Trees are cooling. Simple solution: plant trees!

You are right. He thinks that is the only realistic solution to desertification. He has considered planting trees, though. In this interview he gives his opinion on Carbon tax and why he thinks planting trees doesn't work:

So, ultimately, corporations will ensure the general population is once more paying the environmental costs of their doing business. And I fear governments will not use those monies wisely, because no government at present has the capability to reverse the desertification that is playing such a major role in climate change over the greatest areas of Earth’s land surface. Planting trees, which usually becomes the promoted way to tackle climate change, doesn’t do what is required over most of the land because rainfall is too low to sustain full soil cover under trees.

Planting trees, which usually becomes the promoted way to tackle climate change, doesn’t do what is required over most of the land because rainfall is too low to sustain full soil cover under trees.

For example, I recently heard about the wonderful results of agro-forestry in Niger at a United Nations conference on desertification. Wonderful work that I truly support. However when I asked the speaker what percentage of Niger has adequate rainfall for what was being demonstrated, it turned out to be 11%. What of the rest? And when a speaker reported on similar wonderful results in Kenya and stated that Kenya was soon expected to mandate 100% of farms will have such practices with 10% tree cover, I asked what percentage of Kenya has high enough rainfall for such farming. The answer was 15%. What of the rest?

At some point we have to get serious about desertification, which means reversing it over our vast grasslands and savannas of low rainfall. Something that can only be done managing grasses, and using livestock that are correctly managed. Being counter-intuitive, and with livestock vilified almost as much as fossil fuels, no government will address this issue till there is massive public education. This is because both institutions and democratic governments never lead new paradigm-shifting scientific insights till public opinion shifts. Research and centuries of experience prove this.


Here he claims:
As we’re learning at Dimbangombe, as soon as we use properly managed livestock to reverse desertification, trees don’t need planting [by humans] since everything begins growing better—trees, shrubs, forbs and grass.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests