RugbyRebels

If the weather is to blame, what are there so many fat people in California?

morepork wrote:Modern processed food is such utter shit that is bad for you in every way. It totally fucks with your body and your brain. People have been turned into cattle that know nothing about how bad the junk that gets pushed in their faces every day is. We missed the boat with reigning in the advertising, lobbying, and squashing academic input into the health question some time ago.

Introduce a sugar tax. Rationing might come in handy?

I stopped eating red and white meat myself 3 years ago primarily for ethical reasons, but I also did some research into what the animals are fed, and it ain't good reading.

Western Europeans and Americans in particular are quite literally consuming the planet. The US constitutes 5% of the global population and it consumes over 25% of the earth's natural resources.

Scary.

Also 30% of the earth's land mass is used for raising livestock.

Worth reading:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:Also 30% of the earth's land mass is used for raising livestock.

Worth reading:

Apparently the future is insects for meat.

Something to look forward to.



In all seriosuness. We can definitely afford to eat less meat, both from a production and a health perspective. I'm not advocating fully veggie as I couldn't do that myself, but reducing meat quanities isn't a bad starter for ten in reducing obesity.

Sandydragon wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:Also 30% of the earth's land mass is used for raising livestock.

Worth reading:

Apparently the future is insects for meat.

Something to look forward to.



In all seriosuness. We can definitely afford to eat less meat, both from a production and a health perspective. I'm not advocating fully veggie as I couldn't do that myself, but reducing meat quanities isn't a bad starter for ten in reducing obesity.

I have no objection to eating meat per se. There is an argument - even Genesis suggests that we were once vegetarians - usually posited by fanatical animal rights campaigners that killing any animal is wrong, but I don't agree; I'd feel no remorse if I killed an animal in the wild for food, because the animal is dying free, and in its natural environment. On the other hand livestock are no better than slaves, and for that and a few other reasons I stopped eating red/white meat. I thought I could never go full vegetarian either, but I've moved off fish too.

Fish mongers in my area invariably sell farmed fish, which as the insightful Mr Pork points out, is full of artificial crap.

Sandydragon wrote:If the weather is to blame, what are there so many fat people in California?

Fair point.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Adder wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:If the weather is to blame, what are there so many fat people in California?

Fair point.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

There's also been a huge increase in the problem of obesity in Oz for a number of years now.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:Also 30% of the earth's land mass is used for raising livestock.

Worth reading:

Apparently the future is insects for meat.

Something to look forward to.



In all seriosuness. We can definitely afford to eat less meat, both from a production and a health perspective. I'm not advocating fully veggie as I couldn't do that myself, but reducing meat quanities isn't a bad starter for ten in reducing obesity.

I have no objection to eating meat per se. There is an argument - even Genesis suggests that we were once vegetarians - usually posited by fanatical animal rights campaigners that killing any animal is wrong, but I don't agree; I'd feel no remorse if I killed an animal in the wild for food, because the animal is dying free, and in its natural environment. On the other hand livestock are no better than slaves, and for that and a few other reasons I stopped eating red/white meat. I thought I could never go full vegetarian either, but I've moved off fish too.

Fish mongers in my area invariably sell farmed fish, which as the insightful Mr Pork points out, is full of artificial crap.

Are you seriously suggesting that the christian bible is an historically accurate record of humankind's pre-historical dietary preferences?

Lizard wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the christian bible is an historically accurate record of humankind's pre-historical dietary preferences?

Sources like the Bible, Odyssey, Aeneid etc... can be used to infer historical tidbits. If you couldn't then there'd be f*ck all sources available.

zer0 wrote:

Lizard wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the christian bible is an historically accurate record of humankind's pre-historical dietary preferences?

Sources like the Bible, Odyssey, Aeneid etc... can be used to infer historical tidbits. If you couldn't then there'd be f*ck all sources available.

Tidbits and generalities may be. But fuck all of the bible is factually accurate in detail (no Adam & Eve, no flood, no exodus, no Roman census in Judea etc etc) And on this particular issue there is direct archaeological evidence that early humans killed animals and butchered them for meat.

Its pretty easy. Stop eating shit. Education is key.

Morepork is also David Wolfe and I claim my cucumber.

Not sure that its all down to education. Read an article about Shettleston in Glasgow, where life expectancy for men is, or used to be, below 60. They had heard all the advice about fruit and veg, stopping smoking, not eating so much processed food etc. They knew what they were doing was going to kill them... their perception was that they had so little else going for them in their lives that they may as well have a drink and a fag and eat what they wanted, as there was literally nothing else for them to get enjoyment from.

Donny osmond wrote:Not sure that its all down to education. Read an article about Shettleston in Glasgow, where life expectancy for men is, or used to be, below 60. They had heard all the advice about fruit and veg, stopping smoking, not eating so much processed food etc. They knew what they were doing was going to kill them... their perception was that they had so little else going for them in their lives that they may as well have a drink and a fag and eat what they wanted, as there was literally nothing else for them to get enjoyment from.

Fair. But is it drilled into kids ruthlessly? Like in the same fashion as kids in NZ when it comes to exploiting overlaps?

If its all you know from day one then its shouldn't be a problem?

Good point though didn't think of it like that.

Donny osmond wrote:Not sure that its all down to education. Read an article about Shettleston in Glasgow, where life expectancy for men is, or used to be, below 60. They had heard all the advice about fruit and veg, stopping smoking, not eating so much processed food etc. They knew what they were doing was going to kill them... their perception was that they had so little else going for them in their lives that they may as well have a drink and a fag and eat what they wanted, as there was literally nothing else for them to get enjoyment from.

Thats a fair point and one I hadn't really considered (other than from a "fuck it it's too late" pov) but I don't see the 2 points as mutually exclusive.

Len wrote:Its pretty easy. Stop eating shit. Education is key.

Morepork is also David Wolfe and I claim my cucumber.

I had to google him, and fuck you. You know what to do with that cucumber.

Lizard wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Apparently the future is insects for meat.

Something to look forward to.



In all seriosuness. We can definitely afford to eat less meat, both from a production and a health perspective. I'm not advocating fully veggie as I couldn't do that myself, but reducing meat quanities isn't a bad starter for ten in reducing obesity.

I have no objection to eating meat per se. There is an argument - even Genesis suggests that we were once vegetarians - usually posited by fanatical animal rights campaigners that killing any animal is wrong, but I don't agree; I'd feel no remorse if I killed an animal in the wild for food, because the animal is dying free, and in its natural environment. On the other hand livestock are no better than slaves, and for that and a few other reasons I stopped eating red/white meat. I thought I could never go full vegetarian either, but I've moved off fish too.

Fish mongers in my area invariably sell farmed fish, which as the insightful Mr Pork points out, is full of artificial crap.

Are you seriously suggesting that the christian bible is an historically accurate record of humankind's pre-historical dietary preferences?

Christian Bible? Genesis existed long before the Christians arrived on the scene. If memory serves, it's the first part of what Judaism refers to as תּוֹרָה. No?

Anthropologists believe that 99% of mankind's history was spent in hunter gather mode. Hunter gatherer's diets were largely vegetarian.

Lizard wrote:

zer0 wrote:

Lizard wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the christian bible is an historically accurate record of humankind's pre-historical dietary preferences?

Sources like the Bible, Odyssey, Aeneid etc... can be used to infer historical tidbits. If you couldn't then there'd be f*ck all sources available.

Tidbits and generalities may be. But fuck all of the bible is factually accurate in detail (no Adam & Eve, no flood, no exodus, no Roman census in Judea etc etc) And on this particular issue there is direct archaeological evidence that early humans killed animals and butchered them for meat.

You ok?

How early you want to go back? There's no doubt that at some point in our history humans began to eat meat. However, there is no conclusive evidence establishing a date. Arguing the historical merits of an implication in Genesis, versus scientific theories is, in this context quite pointless. It appears to have touched a nerve. For touching that nerve I apologise. I didn't intend to offend. An off the cuff remark if you like. Friends?

(There's also evidence that humans engaged in cannibalism. But it was probably very rare.)

The narrators of Genesis don't claim that it's all history (just like they don't claim that the Torah was divinely written, or that YHWH was omniscient). It's possible you're confusing that with later Theological constructs, hence your reference to the "Christian" Bible?

The historicity of the exodus is still disputed.

The census of Quirinius has been recorded by extrabiblical writers (Josephus springs to mind, and he had access to the imperial archive). The Romans were sticklers for taking censuses btw, so it's quite likely they did take a census of Judaea.

This is a glass harmonica. I think you'll like it.

zer0 wrote:

Lizard wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the christian bible is an historically accurate record of humankind's pre-historical dietary preferences?

Sources like the Bible, Odyssey, Aeneid etc... can be used to infer historical tidbits. If you couldn't then there'd be f*ck all sources available.

Aside from Plato's symposium, there's no evidence that Socrates existed (and engaged in pederasty), yet most people accept that he existed.

There's more evidence, including non Biblical evidence that JC existed, and yet people still heatedly dispute his existence!

People readily believe what they fear or desire?

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Lizard wrote:

zer0 wrote:
Sources like the Bible, Odyssey, Aeneid etc... can be used to infer historical tidbits. If you couldn't then there'd be f*ck all sources available.

Tidbits and generalities may be. But fuck all of the bible is factually accurate in detail (no Adam & Eve, no flood, no exodus, no Roman census in Judea etc etc) And on this particular issue there is direct archaeological evidence that early humans killed animals and butchered them for meat.

(There's also evidence that humans engaged in cannibalism. But it was probably very rare.)

Nothing worse than well done human. I only tend to eat vegetarians though. (Len, insert joke about spit roasting here)

No nerves touched, I just like to call out religious nonsense when I see it, even if it's simply a modest cultural reference.

You should have seen my mother in law's face when I referred to the Ark she bought my kids as an "Evolution Boat."

Lizard wrote:No nerves touched, I just like to call out religious nonsense when I see it, even if it's simply a modest cultural reference.

You should have seen my mother in law's face when I referred to the Ark she bought my kids as an "Evolution Boat."

No worries my friend.

We're all God's childr.....oops.

cashead wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Lizard wrote: Tidbits and generalities may be. But fuck all of the bible is factually accurate in detail (no Adam & Eve, no flood, no exodus, no Roman census in Judea etc etc) And on this particular issue there is direct archaeological evidence that early humans killed animals and butchered them for meat.

You ok?

How early you want to go back? There's no doubt that at some point in our history humans began to eat meat. However, there is no conclusive evidence establishing a date. Arguing the historical merits of an implication in Genesis, versus scientific theories is, in this context quite pointless. It appears to have touched a nerve. For touching that nerve I apologise. I didn't intend to offend. An off the cuff remark if you like. Friends?

(There's also evidence that humans engaged in cannibalism. But it was probably very rare.)

The narrators of Genesis don't claim that it's all history (just like they don't claim that the Torah was divinely written, or that YHWH was omniscient). It's possible you're confusing that with later Theological constructs, hence your reference to the "Christian" Bible?

The historicity of the exodus is still disputed.

Considering that you've made three effort posts responding to the guy, basically on the same topic, it's pretty clear that between the two of you, Liz isn't the one that's had a nerve touched.

Also, that's bullshit, mate.

You're wasted on d'interwebs.

With all that hot air, you could be the first man to complete a lunar round trip in a balloon.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Lizard wrote:No nerves touched, I just like to call out religious nonsense when I see it, even if it's simply a modest cultural reference.

You should have seen my mother in law's face when I referred to the Ark she bought my kids as an "Evolution Boat."

No worries my friend.

We're all God's childr.....oops.

No worries taken, but indulge me one more time...

<militant atheism>God's bloody children, eh. Don't get me started on the illogicality of claiming Jebus as god's only begotten son but also being somehow a descendant (through 2 inconsistent genealogies) of the (probably mythical) King David through the cuckold stepfather's line. </militant atheism>

Interestingly Lizard there is some evidence of a Mediterranean flood iirc. Obviously Noah and the ark is nonsense.

As for there being evidence that man was "mainly vegetarian" I understand there's compelling evidence that people have been a little bit pregnant.

ETA There's no controversy about a man called Jesus who some claimed to be the messiah existing. The issue is with the concept of a messiah.

Lizard wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Lizard wrote:No nerves touched, I just like to call out religious nonsense when I see it, even if it's simply a modest cultural reference.

You should have seen my mother in law's face when I referred to the Ark she bought my kids as an "Evolution Boat."

No worries my friend.

We're all God's childr.....oops.

No worries taken, but indulge me one more time...

<militant atheism>God's bloody children, eh. Don't get me started on the illogicality of claiming Jebus as god's only begotten son but also being somehow a descendant (through 2 inconsistent genealogies) of the (probably mythical) King David through the cuckold stepfather's line. </militant atheism>

You appear to be indulging yourself!