Good point DH.
"The flaw in this is what happens to the disenfranchised offspring. Slaughtered for the most part in our society
There's nothing very nurturing to humanity from a mother whose children have been abducted"
Cow is mother and the Bull is Father. In India where vedic philosophy stems from, the young bulls are also taken care of, and participate in light agricultural work. They are also worshipped. Like the cow as mother the bull is father.
stelios - you are deeply confused, or rather, misinformed. It is only 'margarine' if it says so on the tub. The products you cite and fear are actually 'spreads' not margarines.
There was a period during the release of such dubious items as 'Stork margarine' (stick fats), when they were indeed unhealthy - however you need to catch up on 'modern' products, those that contain omega 3, are low fat, low sodium.
You are labouring under some delusion that we are all sitting here consuming home baked wholewheat toast covered in ICBINB. This is not the case - there are many levels of product and you cite only the worst.
I still await the substantiated research that we have identified the number one cause of cancer as being 'margarine'.
"All the evidence points to a low-fat, high-fiber diet that includes a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and beans, as being the best for cancer prevention. Not surprisingly, vegetarians, whose diets easily meet these requirements, are at the lowest risk for cancer. Vegetarians have about half the cancer risk of meat-eaters"
References
1. Kritchevsky D. Diet, nutrition, and cancer: the role of fiber. Cancer 1986;58:1830-6.
2. Risch HA, Jain M, Choi NW, et al. Dietary factors and the incidence of cancer of the stomach. Am J Epidemiol 1985;122:947-59.
3. Lubin F, Wax Y, Modan B, et al. Role of fat, animal protein and dietary fiber in breast cancer etiology: a case control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1986;77:605-12.
4. Goldin BR, Adlercreutz H, Gorbach SL, et al. Estrogen excretion patterns and plasma levels in vegetarian and omnivorous women. N Engl J Med 1982;307:1542-7.
5. Lan HW, Carpenter JT. Breast cancer: incidence, nutritional concerns, and treatment approaches. J Am Diet Assoc 1987;87:765-9.
6. Minowa M, Bingham S, Cummings JH. Dietary fiber intake in Japan. Human Nutr Appl Nutr 1983;37A:113-9.
7. Wynder EL, Rose DP, Cohen LA. Diet and breast cancer in causation and therapy. Cancer 1986;58:1804-13.
8. Bingham SA. Meat, starch, and non-starch polysaccharides and bowel cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:762-7.
9. Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL. International comparisons of mortality rates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate, and colon, and per capita food consumption. Cancer 1986;58:2363-71.
10. Breslow NE, Enstrom JE. Geographic correlations between cancer mortality rates and alcohol-tobacco consumption in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 1974;53:631-9.
11. Phillips RL. Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of cancer among Seventh-day Adventists. Cancer Res 1975;35(Suppl):3513-22.
12. Malter M. Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other blood components of vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutr and Cancer 1989;12:271-8. _________________ www.freecycle.org www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com http://www.viking-z.org/
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject:
stelios wrote:
meat is for rich people NOT poor people which is why poor people live shorter more unhealthy lives than rich people.
I'm not taking any sides in this debate - I've been vegetarian for many years, then switched back to being an occasional meat eater which I suppose makes me an omnivore now.
However, I was asked by a work colleague to whip up a brochure last year for the local British Legion's 90th anniversary of the Somme exhibition (it's a big thing here, the Ulster Regiments being the principle casualties), and I couldn't help noticing that without exception all the remaining living survivors were Privates.
Not an officer amongst them.
The British Army being as class-ridden as it is, this factoid would seem to me to counter the automatic assertion that the rich necessarily live longer. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
stelios - you are deeply confused, or rather, misinformed. It is only 'margarine' if it says so on the tub. The products you cite and fear are actually 'spreads' not margarines.
In my book anything that is made in a factory using chemicals and is NOT butter is margerine. Look at the dictionary definition of marge
Quote:
There was a period during the release of such dubious items as 'Stork margarine' (stick fats), when they were indeed unhealthy - however you need to catch up on 'modern' products, those that contain omega 3, are low fat, low sodium.
The best source omega 3 is fish oils. You see omega is also found in hemp seed oil but this is SHORT chain fatty acids. The ones found in fish oil and animal fats are LONG chain omega 3-6-9 fatty acids.
I have explained this to you before. When you eat a sunfloyer or soya oil based margerine as most of your so called spreads are they have to ADD omega 3 because there is none naturally present or it has been destroyed by the cooking process.
But lets say you use a hemp seed oil based spread which i am yet to see. Your body has to convert those short chain omega 3s into long chain to be able to use them. Animal fats the animal has already done this for you you so you are ahead.
Another thing is butter contains vitamin A and vitamin D which are both lacking or addedd to most 'spreads' because we need them.
Butter is churned and refridgerated. Most 'spreads' are heated to up to 1000 degress as part of the cooking process.
Now you tell me which is better for you something that has been super heated to world trade centre temperatures and then you eat it - or something that has been kept at 4 degress in a fridge?
As for salt. As you probably can guess i am a salt is good for you advocate.
People used to take salt tablets, especially sportsmen. How many had heart attacks? None. What about lucozade sport, that is salt based.
when you go to hospital what is the first thing they give you? A salt water drip.
Salt kills germs, it allows bodies to sweat and detox. it is in our tears, our blood, ourr tissues and without is we die.
I actually add a few grams of salt to my filtered drinking water.
But ofcourse i am not talking about table salt i am talking about natural sun dried salt.
I recommend all of you who want to be healthy forget this low fat low salt diet. It is killing people. I practice a high fat high salt diet and trust me it works.
Quote:
I still await the substantiated research that we have identified the number one cause of cancer as being 'margarine'.
i assume you didnt read the whole of the essay 'the killer in your fying pan' _________________
LOL, This is an amusing thread.
Should we not make a 9/11 truther recipe site?
We can have a butter section too.
I dont eat meat or eggs and rarely drink milk. Though I do eat cheese now and then.
I am not pregnant.
The expression 'spread' is the industry's not mine - go into any supermarket, look at the packaging, very very few say 'margarine'. The word 'spread' is comparitively new and the dictionary has yet to catch up. A margarine and a spread are different products, I suggest you purchase a new reference book and ditch the old out of date one.
As for salt;
I agree that salt is absolutely necessary for good health - but it is the quantity that people consume that is questionable. The average diet is sodium rich, excessively so. A balanced diet contains enough salt without it being added.
I have taken essential fats for 20 years, currently I take Udos Oil daily.
Your bobbing and weaving highlight your inabiity to tackle subjects directly - the tour de force of semantic chicanery is like watching 27 reruns of Top Gear back to back.
As for 'the killer in your fying pan', anyone who fries with margarine deserves to die early - but this is not 'margarine is the number one cause of cancer' - this is a different topic altogether.
Well done we are finally reaching a point where we agree
Udo's Oil is very good for you but please read ALL the small print
Quote:
Sources of n-3s are flaxseeds and green leafy vegetables. The n-3 derivatives EPA and DHA are found in high fat, cold water fish such as albacore tuna, sardines, Atlantic halibut and salmon, coho, pink and king salmon, Pacific and Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, and lake trout. Small amounts of EPA and DHA n-3s are also found in oysters and other shellfish.
Taken from Udo's Ultimate oil product information
Although Udo's is 100% vegan they confirm exactly what i said.
Quote:
Land animal meats and fish are sources of the n-6 derivative arachidonic acid (AA). The fish listed above are preferred sources of n-3 and n-6 derivatives, because they are the richest sources, and contain both, with more n-3s.
and as for the business about margerines (low fat spreads)
Essential fats are easily damaged by light, air, heat, metals, water, and time. Of all the essential nutrients, essential fats are by far the most abused because they are perishable, chemically unstable foods. Almost all supermarket oils, including the oils used in processed foods, have been damaged by destructive processing techniques, including refining, bleaching, overheating, and/or partial hydrogenation (a process which produces deadly trans fats).
Quote:
More recently (the last 20 years), 'low' fat, 'no' fat, and 'fake' fat diets have been depriving people of both essential fats N-3 and N-6. Deficiency leads to deterioration of every cell, tissue, gland, organ and organ system and, by extension, to symptoms of deficiency that accompany loss of health
Your bobbing and weaving highlight your inabiity to tackle subjects directly - the tour de force of semantic chicanery is like watching 27 reruns of Top Gear back to back.
As for 'the killer in your fying pan', anyone who fries with margarine deserves to die early - but this is not 'margarine is the number one cause of cancer' - this is a different topic altogether.
Bobbing and weaving?
I seem to recall you avoiding answering questions by misquoting me several times.
Pray tell me what am i bobbing and weaving about.
i am surprised that you consider a low fat spread such as say St Ivel Gold or Olivio as healthy. Please tell me how you get a liquid fat such as olive oil or sunflower oil - which have been super heat treated - to emulsify together with water
add salt and colouring and flavouring and preservative
and then because it has no nutritional value add omega 3 vitamin a and vitamin d
and you are honestly hand on your heart telling me that that is healthier than 100% pure natural as god made it butter with a tiny amount of salt added for taste
the graphs i asked you to look at confirmed the facts that cancer rates of all kinds have risen over the last 80 years
i do not have to show you graphs showing you the rise in low fat and fat free diets
and i do not have to show you graphs of the commencement and subsequent increase in margerine consumption
U spoke of stork SB well in the 50's that was the bog standard margerine until very recently flora and mixed butter and margerine 'spreads'
now compare in your mind the thre graphs increase of cancer, increase of margerine consumtion
the graphs are identical mate
please dont take comfort in calling artificial fat emulsified and preserved and flavoured and coloured a 'spread'
just toss it in the bin and dont use anything at all if you cant bring yourself to eat butter
do the easy experiment at home
place your 'spread' outside in the garden and watch how many flies come to eat it and how many insects or cats or whatever come to feast on it
they will not eat it
because they do not recognise it as food they think it is vaseline
try the same experiment with butter, you will see that cats will lick it and eat it, flies will sit on it, ants will crawl on it, meaning they know it is food _________________
do the easy experiment at home
place your 'spread' outside in the garden and watch how many flies come to eat it and how many insects or cats or whatever come to feast on it
they will not eat it
because they do not recognise it as food they think it is vaseline
try the same experiment with butter, you will see that cats will lick it and eat it, flies will sit on it, ants will crawl on it, meaning they know it is food
All four of my cats will lick soya marge off bread or straight from the tub if they get chance. Mind you, they are a mixture of strays, the unwanted and the abandoned, so may have 'issues'. Talula, as seen in my current avatar, happily confirms she regards soya marge as "tasty".
Personally, I way prefer it to churned bovine lactate. I wouldn't suckle a cow's udder, so have no desire to sup the mechanically extracted fluid. I'm too old to drink human lactate, to sup bovine breast milk seems a bit perverse - I'll leave that to the calves it was designed for.
I am not sure cats or flies think anything is vaseline - they tend to have a poor grasp of brand names. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
By the way as our debate has spread over a number of threads.
I want to ask you a straight question.
I asked all of you why none of you were even slightly angry about the treatment of animals by the chinese and all of you ignored that question
So now i am going to ask you another question
Damien Hurst made some 'art' which was a cow sliced in half, he followed this up with other animals such as sharks and all of them preserved i formaldehyde.
I as a person who believes in animal welfare and humane treatment of animals condemns damien hurst and the tate modern gallery.
I also as a person who believes in god finds this treatment of animals a total abomination. It is forbidden to kill animals and make fun of them in this or any other manner.
So now which one of you so called ALF and vegans is going to agree with me.
Or are you still going to carry on telling me about 'eating meat is murder'
and ignoring the real animal cruelty and keep your blinkers firmly in place.
[All four of my cats will lick soya marge off bread or straight from the tub if they get chance.
that is a funny coincidence because i also have 4 cats
as i dont ever buy margerine i cannot concur
but i am glad you are a fellow cat person they really are very nice animals to have around
Quote:
I am not sure cats or flies think anything is vaseline - they tend to have a poor grasp of brand names.
i see we are at the stage where everything i say causes you to disagree with me. Vaseline is a generic term meaning petroleum jelly
please do yourself a favour, soya margerine is the worst one you can possibly have, through it away NOW
Soya spread is usually made using GM soya and is cheaper than other spreads because it uses more chemicals and no buttermilk at all.
You see most of the spreads try and mix in some butter to improve the taste and smell and also add a little bit of goodness in, a soya spread has only badness.
Are you truthfully telling me that you punish your innocent cats by feeding them that poison?
I might have to report you to the RSPCA
although i would need to see a photo to be convinced because my cats avoid anything other than cream, ice cream, cheese, etc as well as meat and fish and chicken. They will smell food and if they dont recognise it they wont even lick it.
cats are very fussy so i do not buy them eating soya margerine
Unless you have some particular reason to use soya spread and it cant be religious nor can it be allergy, because if you are jewish you are allowed to eat butter, and if you are allergic to dairy foods then cure the problem rather than poisoning yourself with soya. Use a tomato or olive oil on your bread instead of soya margerine.
If you dont rrust me look on the internet all the bad things about soya and soya margerine. Even your fellow veggies will tell you its the worst choice. _________________
Hi Stelios,
I agree the Chinese are mistreating their animals but I also think they are mistreating their people. All over the world there is exploitation going on.
Last edited by Emmanuel on Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:17 pm; edited 3 times in total
Better description here:
Taken from a review of the Sensation show in 1997 by John Molyneux
"It consists of a bisected cow and a bisected calf. Each half of the cow is placed in its own glass tank and the tanks are adjacent to one another but with enough space to walk between the tanks and observe close up the insides of the cow. The same is done with the halves of the calf but the two calf halves are placed several yards away from the cow. Of all Hirst's pieces this is the one that seems to have made the biggest impact on the public consciousness and this in itself testifies to the power of its conception.13 However, what is most impressive about it is the way in which it functions as objective correlative for a range of different almost conflicting ideas and emotions. First there is the confrontation with death and dead flesh. Then there is the 'shock' of the violence of the bisection (shock like the shock of Goya, not the Chapmans) and disgust and distaste at the exposure of the innards. But this works in tension with the knowledge that this is how we treat animals and this is what we eat as food. One does not need to be an animal rights supporter or vegetarian to feel the force of this, just as one does not need to be a pacifist to respond to Wilfred Owen: Hirst is merely insisting we face facts. Finally the title (again) and the placing of the cow/mother and calf/child evokes the pathos, despair and separation anxiety of Away from the Flock and Isolated Elements Swimming. Mother and Child Divided has the integration of thought and feeling and the combination of complexity with visual and emotional power that is characteristic of major art. "
But im sure he just saved their bodies for the museum rather than where their flesh would have gone to a slaughterhouse to profit some restaurants. .
you call it being saved?
But surely a living creature cannot be sacrificed for 'art'
Food has a noble honest purpose,
to murder animals for 'art' is bad enough but to then pay someone millions to keep doing it over and over again is just immoral
i find damien hurst's work obscene there is NO justification for it he is not an artist if he was why didnt he paint the cow or make a sculpture
what he did is like you would see in a vincent price horror film
and as expected, none of the vegans has a peep to say against the mutilation and defilement of a living sentient being for the purpose of 'art'[/b] _________________
Two creatures lives were sacrificed to be examined by thousands of people all over the world in an exhibition. People have at least thought differently about the meat industry when looking at this work.
Thats the point the body of the cow was presented as a perfect icon. Not mutilated and garnished as we are used to seeing it.
When someone orders a luxuorious meal of a steak. (I can't think of anything more repulsive) they are not made to think about the life of the cow and the suffering she had to endure before death.
Two other creatures lives will have been sacrificed and I dont know how many meals they would have made. Death is still death.
Children dont even know that meat is from animals, this is miseducation on purpose. When you consume meat you take all the violence and pain with it. Children are naturally empathetic and statistically dont like meat.
Last edited by Emmanuel on Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Could you refrain from taking up to much forum space with these over elaborate highy detailed respones please. _________________ "It's called the American Dream, because you have to be alseep to believe it"
Two creatures lives were sacrificed to be examined by thousands of people all over the world in an exhibition. People have at least thought differently about the meat industry when looking at this work.
Thats the point the body of the cow was presented as a perfect icon. Not mutilated and garnished as we are used to seeing it.
When someone orders a luxuorious meal of a steak. (I can't think of anything more repulsive) they are not made to think about the life of the cow and the suffering she had to endure before death.
Two other creatures lives will have been sacrificed and I dont know how many meals they would have made. Death is still death.
Children dont even know that meat is from animals, this is miseducation on purpose. When you consume meat you take all the violence and pain with it. Children are naturally empathetic and statistically dont like meat.
Nice Post.
Stelios - I agree with the above and I find it peculiar that a solitary beast used as art should be more offensive than literally millions of animals used simply as commodities. Live stock.
In a sense, seeing someone wearing a leather jacket down the pub is not dissimilar - it's the utilisation of an animal skin as a fashion statement - wearing a dead thing to look cool.
Of course China has a terrible track record - many countries do - but then China has a far worse track record on human rights than the UK, but I don't see that as a reason to not focus on the erosion of civil liberties in my native Isle.
In the UK, we eat meat simply for pleasure. We can easily live healthy lives without it. this may be different for others - at the other end of the spectrum, I'd be reluctant to tell a Masai tribesman to stop using the blood and milk of his cattle and open a health food shop. Personally, since I have the choice, I choose not to feed myself with corpses and thus support an unpleasant industry.
The more we treat other life forms as commodities, the closer we get to the mindset that treats other humans as commodities.
BTW, I'm careful to buy non GM marge and eat little of it, though I appreciate your concern for my health.
So you're a 'cat person' - good on you, sir! Cats are amazing creatures. Ironically, if we had evolved from cats, in a Red Dwarf stylee, this entire discussion would be pointless. Cute as they are, cats are simply killing machines - a consideration of their highly specialised killing capabilities demonstrates just how we aren't really designed to kill. I do sometimes think it would be cool to have retractable claws, though. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
I am really disappointed, a guy mutilates an animal and it's offspring and then makes money from the mutilation and you vegans call it art.
How many cows were sacrificed as Hurst tried to get his 'art' just perfect. A cut here and a cut there he probably murdered a dozen to get his display right.
Really it shows me all i need to know about your morals. Using an animal for food is natural, it is noble and it is what humans were created to do.
Using and animal as a rug, or as a work of art, or as a display after being mutilated is not natural is not ethical. It is an abomination.
And you vegans find excuses for it and even pay money to go and see it and tell me that Damien (Saw III) Hurst did a good thing. I could say hypocrites but you did exactly as i predicted you would. _________________
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject:
stelios wrote:
blackcat wrote:
Quote:
which bit of this very detailed article do u disagree with
You just don't get it do you Stelios? When you copy and paste such copious text it deserves to be ridiculed with a single word response. What you yourself think could have been expressed, and a reference to that article given as backup, but do you really expect anyone to read the whole effing thing???!!!!
Look i provided you with my evidence to back up what i was saying and what i myself believe. i dont eat margerine and i dont eat any processed food that contains margerine or vegetable fats.
You seem to be happy tucking into your Utterly Butterly and i cant believe its not butter but i would hope you were truthseekers willing to look at the facts. Either you wont take my word for it so listen to a proper medical study of which their are many.
This is what i find strange about castrated and the rest of you why are your minds so closed to the truth? There is no artificial fat/margerine more healthy than natural fats.
Moving on the the provious subject of the article. The poster Rubber Ritchie made allegations
let me remind you exactly what our flexible friend said
Quote:
Consumption of animal flesh leads to dis-ease in society. It is no coincidence that high crime areas are covered with fried chicken/kebab shops, McDonalds, etc.
The governments' 'health' bodies are always promoting meat and dairy as 'healthy', 'nutritious' or the big lie, 'essential'. Meat and dairy are subsidised by the government. In the past animal products were eaten as a treat which is where the Sunday roast tradition came from. Now people gorge on flesh and dairy and so cancer, heart disease and diabetes are soaring
I notice none of you asked him to back up his statement which i find to be total dogshit(no offence)
I backed up my statement with a medical study carried out by a PHD and i backed up my statement with charts and graphs.
For some reason none of you seem capable of debating any topic you either tell us you toss off regularly or you visit alien abduction sites or you just say you are incapable of making a comment so u say bs.
Just so that i am clear
if you want to be healthy throw away the margerine and use butter instead if you want to be healthy eat more protein preferably animal based protein
please take my advice
I'm with you Stelios: including keeping up the fine tradition of the occasional sunday roast
Something with as many E numbers as the average tub of margarine does NOT inspire food confidence _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
I am really disappointed, a guy mutilates an animal and it's offspring and then makes money from the mutilation and you vegans call it art.
How many cows were sacrificed as Hurst tried to get his 'art' just perfect. A cut here and a cut there he probably murdered a dozen to get his display right.
Really it shows me all i need to know about your morals. Using an animal for food is natural, it is noble and it is what humans were created to do.
Using and animal as a rug, or as a work of art, or as a display after being mutilated is not natural is not ethical. It is an abomination.
And you vegans find excuses for it and even pay money to go and see it and tell me that Damien (Saw III) Hurst did a good thing. I could say hypocrites but you did exactly as i predicted you would.
Nice try! The vast majority of people visiting Damien Hurst's abomination will NOT be vegans simply because the vast majority of the population are not. I doubt many/any vegans approve. Similarly the overwhelming numbers of people using animal parts as rugs or clothing are meat eaters. You have ZERO evidence that vegans approve of Hurst's art. Also vegans do NOT use animal parts for clothing or furnishings. That is what makes them vegans ffs. To say that because you eat the product of grotesque animal suffering therefore you are not a hypocrite is feeble. You are going through hoops to justify what you know to be absolutely wrong and using terms like "noble" to describe humans eating meat is the most profound hypocrisy I have come across.
I have to agree that we were designed to eat meat though, as proven by our talons, our ability to outrun most herbivores and our incredible strength to pull horses, cows, bison, elk, deer etc etc to the ground and suffocate them prior to tearing their flesh with our six inch canines. You're having a laugh aintcha? Go on - admit it!!
I doubt many/any vegans approve. You have ZERO evidence that vegans approve of Hurst's art.
did you not read the vegans posting on this topic?
they approve of damien hurst - read all their comments above
So i have more than zero evidence i have Jacob and Dogsmilk for starters
Quote:
Also vegans do NOT use animal parts for clothing or furnishings.
where did i say this? you are deliberately misquoting me
i said my view is:
Using an animal as a rug, or as a work of art, or as a display after being mutilated is not natural is not ethical. It is an abomination
see this my problem with you, you think that you achieve something by misquoting? you dont because whoever else reads the exchange can see for themselves.
so u have deliberately avoided telling us how you yourself feel about Damien Hurst's mutilated animal displays
i have told you my views without any ambiguity
did you not read the vegans posting on this topic?
they approve of damien hurst - read all their comments above
So i have more than zero evidence i have Jacob and Dogsmilk for starters
Ok - over to Jacob and Dogsmilk. Are you vegans?
Jacob wrote:
I dont eat meat or eggs and rarely drink milk. Though I do eat cheese now and then.
He isn't a little bit pregnant either.
I said "Also vegans do NOT use animal parts for clothing or furnishings. "
you replied
Quote:
where did i say this? you are deliberately misquoting me
Yet you said:-
Quote:
Using and animal as a rug, or as a work of art, or as a display after being mutilated is not natural is not ethical. It is an abomination.
And you vegans find excuses for it
Sorry I must have misread that as "Using and animal as a rug, or as a work of art, or as a display after being mutilated is not natural is not ethical. It is an abomination.
And you vegans find excuses for it "
My mistake.
Quote:
so u have deliberately avoided telling us how you yourself feel about Damien Hurst's mutilated animal displays
i have told you my views without any ambiguity
Firstly I am not a vegan. Secondly I do not see Hurst's "work" as art but rather as an abomination. It is as talented as my unmade bed. It is as disgusting as the halal slaughter of animals for food. Is that clear enough for you?
Black cat said:
" It is as disgusting as the halal slaughter of animals for food."
The point of halal meat is that the animals are blessed before it meets its death. Why is it more disgusting than the carcusses soaked in chemicals that you get in the average supermarket?
Yes I am a strict vegetarian and an artist.
I really would appreciate you watch this please.
The governments' 'health' bodies are always promoting meat and dairy as 'healthy', 'nutritious' or the big lie, 'essential'. Meat and dairy are subsidised by the government. In the past animal products were eaten as a treat which is where the Sunday roast tradition came from. Now people gorge on flesh and dairy and so cancer, heart disease and diabetes are soaring.
my friend let me remind you what the traditional diet was
breakfast - eggs, bacon, liver, kippers
lunch - cornish pasty, meat pie, pork pie, scotch egg,
dinner - meat and 2 veg, eg: stew, hotpot, broth, soup, roasted meat, etc
supper - bread and beef dripping or bread and cheese, or cured meats like tongue,
there was no such thing as margerine and nobody ate pasta or rice
potato and bread were the main starch components
lard, beef dripping and tallow were the main fat sources
please look in any history book or cookbook or ask your grandparents to describe what people used to eat.
And people eating this diet were a lot more healthy than people are today
there was no diabetes, no cancer, and no degenerative diseases such as MS or ME
we are not eating enough protein that is the problema nd we eat too much startch and not enough fat like butter, lard, dripping,
Margerine causes cancer and is the number one cause
Sorry to dig this one up but I'd like to add my two cents (cents hmm)
I'd say soaring health problems are more the lazy unhealthy lifestyle people lead these days! People rarely have to graft or sweat to earn an honest days pay or walk to the shops etc. We probably eat alot better than we did then, we just don't burn off the toxins anywhere near as fast! _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
