Vegetarianism

[ThrobbingEgo]

Sixth sense? PSI powers? Are you kidding me? She's a quack. A quack with a degree is still a quack.

A 'quack' who has PROVEN through study and observation that such abilities exist.

Or are you going to deny science exists now?

Yeah, one "expert" making crazy claims isn't science. Considering there's no evidence or reliable documentation, and there are plenty of alternate explainations, I'm going to post an alternate "documentary."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0672539/

Not one....many

http://www.collegeofpsychicstudies.co.uk/

Yeah, I feel pretty comfortable rejecting the "Collage of Psychic Studies." Do they have any experts on phrenology?

Considering they're offering "healings" on their website... just wow.

This crap isn't accepted in mainstream psychology.

 

[Glerken]

To be fair aren't the vegtables you're eating just plants the were raised to die and be harvested?

True Fact: Plants feel pain too.

Another True Fact: Life can only be sustained by consuming the life of others.

Plants lack a complex nervous system. They do not feel pain in the same sense as a complex being like a human.

 

[bad rider]

Sixth sense? PSI powers? Are you kidding me? She's a quack. A quack with a degree is still a quack.

A 'quack' who has PROVEN through study and observation that such abilities exist.

Or are you going to deny science exists now?

Given all the facts, you can't deny "negative psychic energy" dosen't fill you with a lack of confidence about her.

Edit: Also her test is about them scoring above pure chance. So they could still have just been lucky, or there could be another variable she hasn't taken into account or bias. Can you confirm this using a different source. (A second source so she seems like less of a quack)

I've been trying but all the people searching for MJ's death has google throwing fits.

Worst thing about his death is that I can't use the radio anymore either.

No I don't want to hear thriller again *watches as his beloved DAB radio sales gracefully out the window*

 

[jasoncyrus]

Sixth sense? PSI powers? Are you kidding me? She's a quack. A quack with a degree is still a quack.

A 'quack' who has PROVEN through study and observation that such abilities exist.

Or are you going to deny science exists now?

Given all the facts, you can't deny "negative psychic energy" dosen't fill you with a lack of confidence about her.

Edit: Also her test is about them scoring above pure chance. So they could still have just been lucky, or there could be another variable she hasn't taken into account or bias. Can you confirm this using a different source. (A second source so she seems like less of a quack)

I've been trying but all the people searching for MJ's death has google throwing fits.

Worst thing about his death is that I can't use the radio anymore either.

No I don't want to hear thriller again *watches as his beloved DAB radio sales gracefully out the window*

Indeed, i remember reading about google thinking they were being attacked because of the sheer mass of searches for it, and twitter apparently died for a while due to the sheer mass of people twittering about it. Apparentlyy when it came back online there were over 100k twits with MJ in them per minute.

 

[Lexodus]

*Snip*

Nothing you posted suggested that plant protein was not the "right" kind of protein. I didn't call you any names, I just pointed out that saying "I have a doctorate in nutrition" isn't, by itself, evidence.

Would you mind taking a look at this site, expert? http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm

Firstly, I never said that I have a doctorate in nutrition, only that I have studied it and that it interests me as a subject, so I have taken it further on occasion. Also, you called me 'Mr Appeal to Authority", which, in my book, is a name, albeit a strange one. Refer to me as Mr. Benjamin if you will; however, it doesn't matter.
Also, you provided a link to a site not only created by biased (and presumably hassled) vegetarians, but also that has only one message, and that is that protein is not important. To prove:

"So, in the United States it appears that vegan diets are commonly lower in protein than standard American diets. Remember, though, with protein, more (than the RDA) is not necessarily better. There do not appear to be health advantages to consuming a high protein diet. Diets that are high in protein may even increase the risk of osteoporosis and kidney disease."

We're not saying that you should eat too much protein; in fact, quite the opposite. However, the site only attempts (and fails) to justify itself with a shallow pretext that everyone who complains about vegans and vegetarians not getting enough protein is trying to actually trick them into 'overdosing' on protein until their vital organs explode*.


*Again, this is *humour*. Just so you know, ThrobbingEgo.

 

[AngloDoom]

I have recently started practicing vegetarianism. I still eat fish but will not eat any other type of meat due to them being raised to die. I would like to know if anyone has any advice for me or any warnings that my lifestyle of not eating much meat could have on me.

So long as you have your protein, you should be fine. Although, you're not a vegetarian, you're a pescetarian, a reject of both vegetarians and normal people.

All you'll really lack is the protein, to be honest, and you'll make that up with your precious fish. Also, if you're going to be proper in this, you'll have to start checking a lot of foods and sweets to see if they are vegetarian. If it's been cooked with animal fat, you can't have it. This even means something like the strawberry milkshakes from McDonalds, which use animal fat...the chocolate do not.
Some jelly sweets will be unavailable to you too.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Firstly, I never said that I have a doctorate in nutrition, only that I have studied it and that it interests me as a subject, so I have taken it further on occasion. Also, you called me 'Mr Appeal to Authority", which, in my book, is a name, albeit a strange one. Refer to me as Mr. Benjamin if you will; however, it doesn't matter.
Also, you provided a link to a site not only created by biased (and presumably hassled) vegetarians, but also that has only one message, and that is that protein is not important. To prove:

Wow, "humor" (I'm not sure what you mean by your humor) or not, you're missing the point. It doesn't say protein isn't important. It's a guide to help vegans get protein. Their bias is to ensure that vegans get the protein they need.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Semantic arguments: the cornerstone of an internet debate.

Snap. Also, another point against vegetarianism is that they have a particular word for it (which means that it is against the accepted norm in society, and thus ruling out any Appeal to Nature fallacy calls). You don't have people seriously running around claiming to be flesharians or cowarians, do you?

Actually you do--a lot of people in this thread are claiming to be omnivores.

Yeah, omnivores... meaning they eat everything. Not just meat, or cows, as my examples would signify.

That's not relevant to what you said: you said "they have a particular word for it" and omnivore is a particular word. It might be a word that means you eat everything, but it's still a particular word.

And it doesn't mean you eat everything in the full sense of the word 'everything': you don't have to be a cannibal who eats broccoli to be an omnivore, do you?

Arguing semantics: the cornerstone of an internet debate.

I feel for you, Pavillion.

 

[jasoncyrus]

Yeah, I feel pretty comfortable rejecting the "Collage of Psychic Studies." Do they have any experts on phrenology?

Considering they're offering "healings" on their website... just wow.

This crap isn't accepted in mainstream psychology.

*yawn* fine a'll put effort into it.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=wIhGSrCaEYa7jAeS6ohj&ct=result&q=real+psychic+studies&btnG=Search+Books

Theres a whole WEALTH of psychic studies there for you to realise you are completely screwed in this particular debate. Dating back over a century.

Game, Set, match.

 

[Lexodus]

Firstly, I never said that I have a doctorate in nutrition, only that I have studied it and that it interests me as a subject, so I have taken it further on occasion. Also, you called me 'Mr Appeal to Authority", which, in my book, is a name, albeit a strange one. Refer to me as Mr. Benjamin if you will; however, it doesn't matter.
Also, you provided a link to a site not only created by biased (and presumably hassled) vegetarians, but also that has only one message, and that is that protein is not important. To prove:

Wow, "humor" (I'm not sure what you mean by your humor) or not, you're missing the point. It doesn't say protein isn't important. It's a guide to help vegans get protein. Their bias is to ensure that vegans get the protein they need.

Firstly, I said 'humour', as I am British. So, if you're going to sarcastically quote me, do so correctly.
Secondly, it also justifies not having enough protein in lieu of having too much, which is equally as bad, if not worse.
Thirdly, in answer to a previous question, there are roughly 20 types of proteins, 9 of which need to be ingested. If you ingest less protein, chances are you're going to be missing out on, or at least getting too little of, one or more kinds. The usual answer is protein complementation, but that is not perfect, as most people experiment a little with it and do not have exact, 'user-friendly' charts on the types and amounts of each protein they a) need and b) are getting from particular foods to hand. And don't say the nutritional analysis on the side of packets etc., because this just says 'protein'.

 

[Ares Tyr]

Firstly, I never said that I have a doctorate in nutrition, only that I have studied it and that it interests me as a subject, so I have taken it further on occasion. Also, you called me 'Mr Appeal to Authority", which, in my book, is a name, albeit a strange one. Refer to me as Mr. Benjamin if you will; however, it doesn't matter.
Also, you provided a link to a site not only created by biased (and presumably hassled) vegetarians, but also that has only one message, and that is that protein is not important. To prove:

Wow, "humor" (I'm not sure what you mean by your humor) or not, you're missing the point. It doesn't say protein isn't important. It's a guide to help vegans get protein. Their bias is to ensure that vegans get the protein they need.

Firstly, I said 'humour', as I am British. So, if you're going to sarcastically quote me, do so correctly.
Secondly, it also justifies not having enough protein in lieu of having too much, which is equally as bad, if not worse.
Thirdly, in answer to a previous question, there are roughly 20 types of proteins, 9 of which need to be ingested. If you ingest less protein, chances are you're going to be missing out on, or at least getting too little of, one or more kinds. The usual answer is protein complementation, but that is not perfect, as most people experiment a little with it and do not have exact, 'user-friendly' charts on the types and amounts of each protein they a) need and b) are getting from particular foods to hand. And don't say the nutritional analysis on the side of packets etc., because this just says 'protein'.

Just with these last few posts, both of you came off as douchebags beyond retribution.

lol.

 

[Lexodus]

Snap. Also, another point against vegetarianism is that they have a particular word for it (which means that it is against the accepted norm in society, and thus ruling out any Appeal to Nature fallacy calls). You don't have people seriously running around claiming to be flesharians or cowarians, do you?

Actually you do--a lot of people in this thread are claiming to be omnivores.

Yeah, omnivores... meaning they eat everything. Not just meat, or cows, as my examples would signify.

That's not relevant to what you said: you said "they have a particular word for it" and omnivore is a particular word. It might be a word that means you eat everything, but it's still a particular word.

And it doesn't mean you eat everything in the full sense of the word 'everything': you don't have to be a cannibal who eats broccoli to be an omnivore, do you?

Okay, this is an argument of semantics, but the (semantic) difference is that you don't single yourself out from the majority as an omnivore, and what the hell does your analogy mean? I am stumped. But yes, you would be an omnivore if you were a cannibal that ate broccoli. If that's what you're arguing...

 

[Lexodus]

Firstly, I never said that I have a doctorate in nutrition, only that I have studied it and that it interests me as a subject, so I have taken it further on occasion. Also, you called me 'Mr Appeal to Authority", which, in my book, is a name, albeit a strange one. Refer to me as Mr. Benjamin if you will; however, it doesn't matter.
Also, you provided a link to a site not only created by biased (and presumably hassled) vegetarians, but also that has only one message, and that is that protein is not important. To prove:

Wow, "humor" (I'm not sure what you mean by your humor) or not, you're missing the point. It doesn't say protein isn't important. It's a guide to help vegans get protein. Their bias is to ensure that vegans get the protein they need.

Firstly, I said 'humour', as I am British. So, if you're going to sarcastically quote me, do so correctly.
Secondly, it also justifies not having enough protein in lieu of having too much, which is equally as bad, if not worse.
Thirdly, in answer to a previous question, there are roughly 20 types of proteins, 9 of which need to be ingested. If you ingest less protein, chances are you're going to be missing out on, or at least getting too little of, one or more kinds. The usual answer is protein complementation, but that is not perfect, as most people experiment a little with it and do not have exact, 'user-friendly' charts on the types and amounts of each protein they a) need and b) are getting from particular foods to hand. And don't say the nutritional analysis on the side of packets etc., because this just says 'protein'.

Just with these last few posts, both of you came off as douchebags beyond retribution.
Your point is?

lol.

 

[Abedeus]

1) I wasn't. You can have bad cholesterol whether you eat meat or not. LOOK AT ME! I eat tons of meat, I eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. I don't have cholesterol problems.

2) Uhm. Yes, it is. You say that diet gives you EVERYTHING you need. It doesn't, stop lying it's healthy. If it was healthy and gave everything you need, you wouldn't have to take the pills.

3) Ooooh that was so mature, I feel my backbone is crying in pain and breaking!

1) Sure you don't have cholesterol problems. Yet.
2) I didn't say it gives you everything you need, but it can if you plan it right. Vitimin B12 might give you some problems, but there are ways to get it without using supplements. But, hey, whatever.

http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm#reliable

1) Not every meateater (OOOH a dirty word) has cholesterol problems. Even my dad, 50 years old, has an excellent cholesterol, and he eats meat... oh Jesus, more often than I do.

2) Sorry, vegetarian website. I won't trust it... It's bound to have only informations that prove the domination of vegs.

 

[Lexodus]

Snap. Also, another point against vegetarianism is that they have a particular word for it (which means that it is against the accepted norm in society, and thus ruling out any Appeal to Nature fallacy calls). You don't have people seriously running around claiming to be flesharians or cowarians, do you?

Actually you do--a lot of people in this thread are claiming to be omnivores.

Yeah, omnivores... meaning they eat everything. Not just meat, or cows, as my examples would signify.

That's not relevant to what you said: you said "they have a particular word for it" and omnivore is a particular word. It might be a word that means you eat everything, but it's still a particular word.

And it doesn't mean you eat everything in the full sense of the word 'everything': you don't have to be a cannibal who eats broccoli to be an omnivore, do you?

Okay, this is an argument of semantics,

Forgot to bold 'is'.

but the (semantic) difference is that you don't single yourself out from the majority as an omnivore,

If the majority were vegetarians or carnivores, you would.

Yes, but they're not.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Yeah, I feel pretty comfortable rejecting the "Collage of Psychic Studies." Do they have any experts on phrenology?

Considering they're offering "healings" on their website... just wow.

This crap isn't accepted in mainstream psychology.

*yawn* fine a'll put effort into it.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=wIhGSrCaEYa7jAeS6ohj&ct=result&q=real+psychic+studies&btnG=Search+Books

Theres a whole WEALTH of psychic studies there for you to realise you are completely screwed in this particular debate. Dating back over a century.

Game, Set, match.

So who collects the million dollars from James Randi? Oh, right, no one. Because there are no such thing as psychics.

http://www.skepdic.com/psychic.html

Also, I checked your little book list.

"The new psychic studies in their relation to Christian thought" - Riiight. Moving on.

"The English Woman: Studies in Her Psychic Evolution‎" That's not about psychic powers at all.

"Studies in the Psychology of Sex" Same as above.

There's nothing there that is simultaneously a scientific literature and about psychic powers. What was that you said about the "game?" Can we return to reality, please?

 

[jasoncyrus]

1) Not every meateater (OOOH a dirty word) has cholesterol problems. Even my dad, 50 years old, has an excellent cholesterol, and he eats meat... oh Jesus, more often than I do.

2) Sorry, vegetarian website. I won't trust it... It's bound to have only informations that prove the domination of vegs.

Indeed, I eat meat everysingle day of my life and I have excellent cholesterol.

 

[jasoncyrus]

So who collects the million dollars from James Randi? Oh, right, no one. Because there are no such thing as psychics.

http://www.skepdic.com/psychic.html

Also, I checked your little book list.

"The new psychic studies in their relation to Christian thought" - Riiight. Moving on.

"The English Woman: Studies in Her Psychic Evolution‎" That's not about psychic powers at all.

"Studies in the Psychology of Sex" Same as above.

There's nothing there that is simultaneously a scientific literature and about psychic powers. What was that you said about the "game?"

It involves you looking farther than the first page. But you can't because you arn;t willing to admit it exists. So do us all a favor in die in a fire because I can't be bother arguing this shit with you ingrates any longer.

You may aswell get back on your soapboxes and preach veggieness while the rest of us load up our rifles and start researching where you live. *yawn*

 

[Lexodus]

Snap. Also, another point against vegetarianism is that they have a particular word for it (which means that it is against the accepted norm in society, and thus ruling out any Appeal to Nature fallacy calls). You don't have people seriously running around claiming to be flesharians or cowarians, do you?

Actually you do--a lot of people in this thread are claiming to be omnivores.

Yeah, omnivores... meaning they eat everything. Not just meat, or cows, as my examples would signify.

That's not relevant to what you said

Wait one fucking second... yes it is! I said that nobody runs around claiming to be a 'flesharian' or the like, which, if we follow the word-pattern used to describe those that only eat vegetables or those that only eat fruit, would mean that we don't eat any vegetables or fruit at all. This would ALSO be different to the norm (eating FRUIT AND VEGETABLES AND MEAT, to clarify and to prevent you from attempting to out-dumb my argument), and people would complain, as they wouldn't be getting the nutrients found in plants either. Sure, some people joke about being almost 100% carniverous, but nobody truly only eats meat. Even cannibals eat veggies and fruit sometimes

 

[Abedeus]

2) Sorry, vegetarian website. I won't trust it... It's bound to have only informations that prove the domination of vegs.

Doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. You should check the claims to see if they pop up in non-biased sources.

Sorry, I'm not going to believe a cigarette company that their product has no effects on lungs or throat. I mean, they might have non-biased sources... What would I do then?

If the majority were vegetarians or carnivores, you would.

If human had few chromosomes different, he would be a mouse. If he had few chromosomes altered, he would be a monkey. BUT HE WON'T. Majority of the people IS and always WILL BE omnivores. You know why? Because it has been like this for... wait, I said it before. But you ignored it.