A school in Sweden is going completely vegetarian in an effort to positively impact the climate, according to reports.
The Gitarren Preschool in Umeå is testing the new policy during a trial period with a plan to implement it permanently, making it the first school in the municipality to pursue the radical approach.
All food served at the school will be totally meatless, and children will not have a choice to opt out of the program.
"This means that breakfast, lunch and snacks will be completely vegetarian," Fria Tider reports. "And anyone who wants meat will not even be able to apply for it. No exceptions are made - everyone must eat vegetarian."
Teachers claim parents and children are very excited and only positive feedback has been received by the school.
"There have only been positive reactions and many are grateful," teacher Markus Sandström told SVT. "We believe and hope that this can become permanent. So this is the idea, but it felt a bit drastic to go all out with it right away. We must evaluate properly first."
"We want to be clear that there is nothing political about this. This is something we do because we believe it has a positive climate impact."
A dietician will reportedly oversee the new menu's rollout to ensure children are receiving adequate nutrition.
Translated...
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasterbotten/har-ar-forskolan-som-ska-bli-helt-kottfri
Why do Europeans and Liberals and European Liberals force people to do things?
:thumbdown:
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 28, 2019, 08:36:12 PM
Why do Europeans and Liberals and European Liberals force people to do things?
:thumbdown:
Usa maintains a system of penal labour that pushes a large amount of prisoners into forced involuntary labor besides having a high incarceration rate. This has been abolished in Europe.
The US 13th amendment allows slavery in the prison system, so this form of penal labor is also looked at as "legalised slavery".
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 28, 2019, 11:41:19 PM
Usa maintains a system of penal labour that pushes a large amount of prisoners into forced labor besides having a high incarceration rate. This has been abolished in Europe.
If you make your bed, you have to sleep in it. Nobody forced them to commit those crimes. They have to be punished. And, the are only doing certain things. They are not war prisoners building a bridge like in the movie "Bridge Over The River Kwai". Other then that, most of them have more perks than most people have. Some people don't have three meals a day, gym privileges, or cable TV.
They forcing those kids to eat what they say they should eat. They are forcing people to do something. There is no comparison of the two.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 12:10:36 AM
Nobody forced them to commit those crimes. They have to be punished.
That doesn't mean you have to force them to do involuntary labor. It boils down to a form of legalised slavery. :thumbdown:
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 12:10:36 AM
They forcing those kids to eat what they say they should eat. They are forcing people to do something. There is no comparison of the two.
You can't go beyond the idea that parents by the vast majority will force their kids to eat what they decide. The parents pay, take it in mind, the parents also decide what school kiddo goes too. It's the parents choice and they have the legal guardianship.
If kids would be given the liberty to always choose their own food perhaps it would be hamburgers all day any day. That said, again, the kids don't pay for it out of their own pocket, they kinda have to take whatever their parents want to give them and thats perfectly normal human behaviour across the world.
For reference, i wouldn't send my kids to a school that only serves vegetarian. Otoh i think the parents of kids who prefer to be vegetarian think it's an interresting school. Afaik about 30% of the world poppulation is vegetarian, to them meat served up in schools could be an issue too.
I like the idea though, i think ill ask Belgian schoolkids how they look at it, would be cool if they themselves would be completly up for it.
Then don't have them commit the crime. But, you don't care since you Liberals care more about the criminal then the victims.
They used to break rocks in prison. Maybe, we should go back to that because they are not really getting punished as they should. You should leave feeling that you don't want to go back.
They don't serve hamburgers every day (at least when I went to school). They had a couple of options available. Besides, even if they had the burger at school, they would get a real meal at dinner. If you have special diet needs or desires, don't push it on the rest of us.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 12:46:12 AM
Then don't have them commit the crime.
Liberals? Arn't you self describing yourself as "libertarian"? I thought the priciple of a Libertarian was to have as much liberty as for example economicly possible. Then why would you support forced slave labor within a prison system with a notably high incarceration rate? Youre argument doesn't change my previous argument, it's not because you put them in prison that you need to force them to slave labor and neither is it strickly nessecary or impossible to give those prisoners more liberty since prison systems elsewhere work fine aswell withought the slave labor.
Quote
They don't serve hamburgers every day (at least when I went to school). They had a couple of options available. Besides, even if they had the burger at school, they would get a real meal at dinner. If you have special diet needs or desires, don't push it on the rest of us.
It's up to the parents trough their legal guardianship to decide to which school they send their kids, noone is forced to send their kids to a school serving veggie meals. And if the parents force the kids to eat vegetarian, well it's considered perfectly normal in pretty much any culture that parents would have the right to do that, withought that any moral objection must be made.
Even in America there is a fair variety in schools afaik, up to having catholic schools that force a fair amount of indoctrination on their pupils. Do you similarly object to the idea that pupils are forced to go to church in a catholic school?
I support punishing criminals. It has to be so that criminals will not want to commit another crime and return to prison. What do you not understand about that? That is why we say Liberals seem to care more about the criminal than the victim.
Stop changing the subject. We are not talking about prisons. We are not talking about religious schools. If Anything, public schools and universities do the brainwashing.
Let's stick with the subject. Why should we force people's kids to eat what you want them to eat?
We want an answer on that.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 01:18:14 AM
I support punishing criminals. It has to be so that criminals will not want to commit another crime and return to prison. What do you not understand about that?
Why do you not understand that this is completly besides my point. It's not because you have to punish criminals (which i accept) that you MUST force them to slave labor, simple as that.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 01:18:14 AM
Let's stick with the subject. Why should we force people's kids to eat what you want them to eat?
We want an answer on that.
The only ones who can force their kids to eat what they decide is the parents, evne in this case. Noone can force a kid to go to a veggie school specificly.
The same applies to religion then, the only ones who can force their kids to follow the rites of a certain religion are the parents even if schools exist that force religious rites onto their pupils.
As such, the question could be turned around: "why should we force people's kids to follow the rites of a certain religion". Granted imho neither cases amount to force, but it's consistent with the line of youre argumentation. It's eventually parents who decide which school the student goes to and therefore what school rules he has to adhere too, and they have every legal or even normative right to "force" their kids like that.
Again, don't commit the crime. Don't care what they have to do while inside. Since you Liberals care more about the criminal then the victim, we know you would like them to be pampered while inside.
Again, stop comparing apples and oranges. When you go to a Christian academy, it's kinda understood that there is religion involved. It is a choice that people voluntarily choose go if they so wish.
This is not even about diet. They say it is about the environment. It's not the schools job to be environmentalists except for basic recycling, They start with one school (who cares about the students who could go there if it were not for the vegan-fascists). It will spread. Liberalism always spread. It's cancer.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 02:33:06 AM
Again, stop comparing apples and oranges. When you go to a Christian academy, it's kinda understood that there is religion involved. It is a choice that people voluntarily choose go if they so wish.
Same with veggie schools. It's a choice that people voluntarily choose if they wish so. The comparison is apt, the comparison is perfect.
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 04:29:03 AM
Same with veggie schools. It's a choice that people voluntarily choose if they wish so. The comparison is apt, the comparison is perfect.
Yet you fail to recognize the fallacy behind this entire venture. That somehow a handful of kids not eating meat will effect climate?
Do you not see the idiocy in this? Man is not changing the planet, a changing climate is a natural event caused by the sun and the earth itself.
One has to ask one self, what message is this sending to these kids? That somehow farting is evil, that cattle as a specie should be eliminated? Kids aren't stupid, they have an amazing ability for cognitive thought, but if lied to, they come to wrong conclusions leading to bad decisions for their own future.
This is indoctrination, pure and simple, this is evil!!!!
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2019, 04:53:06 AM
Man is not changing the planet, a changing climate is a natural event caused by the sun and the earth itself.
That man has inpact on climate change is the broadly accepted and normative scientific position.
Methane is a greenhouse with afaik 26x the effect on concentration of particles in the atmosphere in comparison to carbondioxide while only lasting 10 years versus 60 years for carbondioxide. And afcourse, a higher concenration of greenhouse parts in the athmosphere increases reflection of sunlight on earth hence creating a greenhouse effect.
Climate also changes because of natural reasons. Earth could kill us aswell, but we certaintly can kill our own climate easily too by the science i read.
A more important thing really to understand in terms of cimate change is "likelyhood" versus origin. For example the USA sits on top of Yellowstone Caldera. If Yellowstone Caldera would erupt it would pretty much make North America uninhabitable. Yellowstone Caldera afaik hasn't eruped for 640.000 years, while nominally it should errupt every 600.000 years. In a sense it's overdue, but that afcourse won't make ayone leave the USA in panic soon afcourse. And the thing is, on a period of 600.000 years a margin of error of 1% for example can easily happen, but thats a margin of 6000 years which is very long. Granted perhaps we have to talk about a margin of error of 10%, in that case Yellowstone caldera would need to erupt somewhere i the next 20.000 years but that would translate into "a 0.5% chance that Yellowtone erupts this century".
Climate chance has similar things, for example the "giant polar fart bomb", there is a lot of methane stored under the polar caps that could release suddently, the chance for giant release is there because of the shrinking north pole and the most potent polar fart bomb possible is enough to fuck over humanity but the chance of this happening isn't nessecairly that high even if essentially human made. You can add it to other natural causes that can fuck over humanity like a big ass asteroid or even a fucking Pulsar. Oh an ice age is theoreticly possible aswell because of some random shit, nature can be a bitch.
Furthermore, it's hard to say what technoligy's might emerge to help us with climate change, it is possible that we make some breaktrough that makes the whole issue moot, so far though that hasn't materialised.
In terms of public health: increased pollution is considered the source of the rising asthma epidemics in the industrial world.
The school administration at my former high school began to push this concept in a news letter I received the other week. Not to say it would go completely vegetarian, but they did mention that they were moving towards a more vegetarian based diet for the students. I don't see what this accomplishes aside from forcing students into particular eating habits. I could see the backlash being pretty forceful. It started with Michelle Obama's crack down on lunches.
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 05:09:17 AM
That man has inpact on climate change is the broadly accepted and normative scientific position.
Methane is a greenhouse with afaik 26x the effect on concentration of particles in the atmosphere in comparison to carbondioxide while only lasting 10 years versus 60 years for carbondioxide. And afcourse, a higher concenration of greenhouse parts in the athmosphere increases reflection of sunlight on earth hence creating a greenhouse effect.
Climate also changes because of natural reasons. Earth could kill us aswell, but we certaintly can kill our own climate easily too by the science i read.
A more important thing really to understand in terms of cimate change is "likelyhood" versus origin. For example the USA sits on top of Yellowstone Caldera. If Yellowstone Caldera would erupt it would pretty much make North America uninhabitable. Yellowstone Caldera afaik hasn't eruped for 640.000 years, while nominally it should errupt every 600.000 years. In a sense it's overdue, but that afcourse won't make ayone leave the USA in panic soon afcourse. And the thing is, on a period of 600.000 years a margin of error of 1% for example can easily happen, but thats a margin of 6000 years which is very long. Granted perhaps we have to talk about a margin of error of 10%, in that case Yellowstone caldera would need to erupt somewhere i the next 20.000 years but that would translate into "a 0.5% chance that Yellowtone erupts this century".
Climate chance has similar things, for example the "giant polar fart bomb", there is a lot of methane stored under the polar caps that could release suddently, the chance for giant release is there because of the shrinking north pole and the most potent polar fart bomb possible is enough to fuck over humanity but the chance of this happening isn't nessecairly that high even if essentially human made. You can add it to other natural causes that can fuck over humanity like a big ass asteroid or even a fucking Pulsar. Oh an ice age is theoreticly possible aswell because of some random shit, nature can be a bitch.
Furthermore, it's hard to say what technoligy's might emerge to help us with climate change, it is possible that we make some breaktrough that makes the whole issue moot, so far though that hasn't materialised.
In terms of public health: increased pollution is considered the source of the rising asthma epidemics in the industrial world.
Not trying to be insulting, fact is, you, like so many other lib kids are gullible fools. This has been a known hoax for decades being pushed by Globalist Marxists.
Case in point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I68pQfeK6N4
But to address your BS about Co2 being a heat trapping gas? I know this will probably go right over your head, but you are more than welcome to disprove his math.
http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 12:10:36 AM
If you make your bed, you have to sleep in it. Nobody forced them to commit those crimes. They have to be punished. And, the are only doing certain things. They are not war prisoners building a bridge like in the movie "Bridge Over The River Kwai". Other then that, most of them have more perks than most people have. Some people don't have three meals a day, gym privileges, or cable TV.
They forcing those kids to eat what they say they should eat. They are forcing people to do something. There is no comparison of the two.
I worked in a County jail environment. Nobody was forced to do any labor. If you wanted to sit on your ass all day that was your choice. If you wanted extra perks or were bored then you could apply to work some jobs. Kitchen worker, clean the module etc. My brother worked he was in charge of building maintenance, in the Kansas prison system. Same idea except they could work actual blue collar jobs if they passed the clearances.
Toy
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2019, 05:54:22 AM
But to address your BS about Co2 being a heat trapping gas? I know this will probably go right over your head, but you are more than welcome to disprove his math.
First of all, this publication doesn't even claim that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas.
What the publication claims is that the molecular density of C02 in the troposphere is too small to do sufficient refraction. Aka he argues that Co2 fails to act as greenhouse gas in his randomly selected part of the troposphere because of the local conditions.
I know enough of thermodynamics to see that his research is incomplete and has various uncertainty's. He used a average molecular density of Co2 in the troposphere as basis, he also used an average value of the density of water vapor, however the atmosphere is not solely made of troposphere afcourse and the heat and pressure difference's between various atmospheric layers affects the molecular density of Co2 and H20 graduatly rather than having atmospheric layers of a given temperature. To quote his conclusion:
At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
Average density ... the extremes are huge especially knowing that water can exist in all 3 "aggregate conditions" (translation from dutch i dunno) within the atmosphere. Basicly liquid (water) solid (ice, or hail more specificly) and gas (water vapor) all exist in the atmosphere and the difference between these states is the molecular density. The % of praticles that will have this "average density" will be minute because these parts will exist at various density's trough the athomspheric layers depending on the (variable) local pressure and temperature conditions. Average density is a silly value imho to use here, or atleast he cannot definitivly conclude that Co2 cannot act as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere if he doesn't look at all the potential extreme values, perfecly logical argument right?
It shows it's issue already in the first equation:
ρCO2 = (12.187 * Molar mass of CO2 * volumetric fraction of CO2) / (276.69 K) = 756 mg/m^3. (Ref. 7)
Where 12.187 is the molar mass of elemental carbon, 44.01 is the molar mass of carbon dioxide, 390 ppmV is the volumetric fraction of CO2 and 276.69 K is its temperature.I mean, can you show me why we should take a random 276.69 Kalvin for the temperature of "the atmosphere"??
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 09:10:18 AM
First of all, this publication doesn't even claim that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Strawman.
QuoteWhat the publication claims is that the molecular density of C02 in the troposphere is too small to do sufficient refraction
I know enough of thermodynamics to see that his research is incomplete and has various uncertainty's. He used a average molecular density of Co2 in the troposphere as basis, he also used an average value of the density of water vapor, however the atmosphere is not solely made of troposphere afcourse and the heat and pressure difference's between various atmospheric layers affects the molecular density of Co2 and H20 graduatly rather than having atmospheric layers of a given temperature. To quote his conclusion:
At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
Average density ... the extremes are huge especially knowing that water can exist in all 3 "aggregate conditions" (translation from dutch i dunno) within the atmosphere. Basicly liquid (water) solid (ice, or hail more specificly) and gas (water vapor) all exist in the atmosphere and the difference between these states is the molecular density.
It shows already i the first equation:
ρCO2 = (12.187 * Molar mass of CO2 * volumetric fraction of CO2) / (276.69 K) = 756 mg/m^3. (Ref. 7)
Where 12.187 is the molar mass of elemental carbon, 44.01 is the molar mass of carbon dioxide, 390 ppmV is the volumetric fraction of CO2 and 276.69 K is its temperature.
I mean, can you show me why we should take a random 276.69 Kalvin for the temperature of "the atmosphere"??
Yet you know next to nothing.
Historical evidence displays more often than not, that Co2 increases followed warming than preceded it. Like I said, you are more than welcome to challenge the math.
By the way, despite all the bogus claims over warming, we're heading into a Maunder Minimum, which begs the question, What is the optimal temperature of the planet?
Personally, I prefer a warmer climate as opposed to what we can expect over the next 50 years.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2019, 09:19:51 AM
Strawman.
Wut? He argues that Co2 fails to act as greenhouse gas in his randomly selected part of the troposphere because of the local conditions, not that Co2 on itself is not a greenhouse gas. Feel free to quote the publication if you can prve otherwise.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2019, 09:19:51 AM
Yet you know next to nothing.
Historical evidence displays more often than not, that Co2 increases followed warming than preceded it. Like I said, you are more than welcome to challenge the math.
I checked his math, he used random constant values that make no sense given the dynamic differences in termperature and pressure all along the troposphere.
Do you even understand what his publication is about???? how is it not obvious that using such constants simply cannot rationally end in the conclusion he made because if you make a excluding claim on the lines of "can not" then you must consider every potential condition rather than some selectivly chosen one.
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 09:29:26 AM
Wut? He argues that Co2 fails to act as greenhouse gas in his randomly selected part of the troposphere because of the local conditions, not that Co2 on itself is not a greenhouse gas. Feel free to quote the publication if you can prve otherwise.
I checked his math, he used random constant values that make no sense given the dynamic differences in termperature and pressure all along the troposphere.
Do you even understand what his publication is about???? how is it not obvious that using such constants simply cannot rationally end in the conclusion he made because if you make a excluding claim on the lines of "can not" then you must consider every potential condition rather than some selectivly chosen one.
The big picture escapes you I see. His point is to show that Co2 is not the reactive gas the warmies claim it is.
There are other examples that show we are actually in a Co2 drought, that the planet needs more to improve life on the planet, which again begs the question, what is the nominal temperature of the planet?
How is it, with all the evidence to the contrary, you've bought the big lie? Look at the kids in this article. They're being indoctrinated into believing they are destroying the planet by eating meat, something man has done since his inception.
How is it you ignore the reality of the Carbon Tax scam, or the lying on temp data in an attempt to fool the masses, or the fact that only Western society is to blame, all the while letting the biggest polluter in the world (China) off the hook?
How do you justify all this evidence that it's a scam, and still carry water for the lie?
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 05:09:17 AM
That man has inpact on climate change is the broadly accepted and normative scientific position.
No it isn't. You just lied.
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 09:29:26 AM
Do you even understand what his publication is about???? how is it not obvious that using such constants simply cannot rationally end in the conclusion he made because if you make a excluding claim on the lines of "can not" then you must consider every potential condition rather than some selectivly chosen one.
Is CO2 a pollutant?
Quote from: taxed on October 29, 2019, 03:46:10 PM
Is CO2 a pollutant?
:lol:
Plants love it, fire hates it. Where's the problem? :biggrin:
This is not really part of the "climate warming" argument, but something made me post it here. I'm going to blame "global change" (did I get those reversed) for posting it. https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-28-climate-alarmists-drop-polar-bear-as-mascot-thriving.html
Has any, even one, of the dire predictions that we have been warned of for the past 50 years come true?
Quote from: s3779m on October 30, 2019, 05:59:02 AM
This is not really part of the "climate warming" argument, but something made me post it here. I'm going to blame "global change" (did I get those reversed) for posting it. https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-28-climate-alarmists-drop-polar-bear-as-mascot-thriving.html
Has any, even one, of the dire predictions that we have been warned of for the past 50 years come true?
So leftist, isn't it? When a pawn is no longer feasible, they create a new one, be it the spotted owl, or a Smelt fish, when the public figures out they're being lied to, they find or create a new victim.
Remember the "Vernal Pool" claims a decade ago, where the EPA was fining farmers for plowing over mud puddles? The left claimed a certain kind of clam was being driven to extinction, when in fact it was a total BS lie. When was the last time you heard the term "Vernal Pool"? :lol:
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 28, 2019, 11:41:19 PM
Usa maintains a system of penal labour that pushes a large amount of prisoners into forced involuntary labor besides having a high incarceration rate. This has been abolished in Europe.
The US 13th amendment allows slavery in the prison system, so this form of penal labor is also looked at as "legalised slavery".
Where in the World did you hear that lie? C'mon man! You been watching too much Cool Hand Luke.
No one Is forced to work in US prisons. Many earn work release status. They work a full time job, and return to the facility to bathe, eat, and sleep.
They can exercise, go to college or get their GED, learn a trade, etc.
13th Amendment? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 1865?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
C'mon Man! Quit believing the Liberal Hype and get real. We are not a primeval cave dwelling community. Your Quality of life would not be where it is, if not for the USA. You'd be speaking either Russian or German, had we not been here.
Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 09:29:26 AM
Wut? He argues that Co2 fails to act as greenhouse gas in his randomly selected part of the troposphere because of the local conditions, not that Co2 on itself is not a greenhouse gas. Feel free to quote the publication if you can prve otherwise.
I checked his math, he used random constant values that make no sense given the dynamic differences in termperature and pressure all along the troposphere.
Do you even understand what his publication is about???? how is it not obvious that using such constants simply cannot rationally end in the conclusion he made because if you make a excluding claim on the lines of "can not" then you must consider every potential condition rather than some selectivly chosen one.
How about we stop with the technical Bafflegag, and get down to Common Sense.
CO2 is what plants breathe. They expel O2 which animals breathe. Have any of you Chicken Little Warmists ever taken note of what is happening in the Forests? They grow faster with the increase in CO2. God, or whatever you substitute for God, must have understood "Stasis" or equilibrium. When trees lack CO@ they don't grow as well. When it is cold, growth is limited.
Warm their surroundings, and increase their available Carbon, via CO2, and they grow. When the trees grow, they give off a great deal of O2. Animals benefit, and get more active, producing more CO2. Been going this way for countless eons. Now, y'all wanna convince us that we'll all be dead, in 12 years.
Oh, just so you know, the hole in the ozone layer that caused the aerosols to be banned, is still there. Seems it was normal. Oh and the Ice Age we were supposed to endure in the 1970s, never happened, and neither did Y2K, or the aligning of the planets.
And since much of the rest of the Solar System is experiencing the same rates of Cooling, and warming, I think it is safe to say that Global Warming and Climate Cooling Change is natural and not associated with our existence. Now I know that must be disconcerting for a lib to try to digest, but just think. The Scientists do not get a grant unless they have some catastrophe to avoid. Follow the Money.
I have studied nutrition.
vegans never live long. I have studied many cases of people who were long-term vegans and they do not live long. The people who live longest, over 100, are meat eaters and also drink wine or some kind of alcohol regularly (drinking 2 excess also shortens life).
Vegans who push this kind of diet on their children have been convicted of child abuse when the child(ren) fail to thrive..
Quote from: cynical1 on November 09, 2019, 01:55:56 PM
I have studied nutrition.
vegans never live long. I have studied many cases of people who were long-term vegans and they do not live long. The people who live longest, over 100, are meat eaters and also drink wine or some kind of alcohol regularly (drinking 2 excess also shortens life).
Vegans who push this kind of diet on their children have been convicted of child abuse when the child(ren) fail to thrive..
Early man had a name for vegans. They called them bad hunters. :biggrin:
Anyone should never be forced to eat veggies. They should try to think of new advocacy instead of turning children into vegan.
Quote from: mrgrtt123 on November 13, 2019, 04:14:00 PM
Anyone should never be forced to eat veggies. They should try to think of new advocacy instead of turning children into vegan.
My kids ate what was on the plate, which came out of the garden or the pasture or went without, momma taught me that trick.
Quote from: mrgrtt123 on November 13, 2019, 04:14:00 PM
Anyone should never be forced to eat veggies. They should try to think of new advocacy instead of turning children into vegan.
This is where I disagree. It should be up to the individual whether or not they make that decision. My sister has been a vegan for years, and I have been able to grow more and more educated on the matter, finding that there are some healthy and actually very good options for vegans.
Quote from: cynical1 on November 09, 2019, 01:55:56 PM
I have studied nutrition.
vegans never live long. I have studied many cases of people who were long-term vegans and they do not live long. The people who live longest, over 100, are meat eaters and also drink wine or some kind of alcohol regularly (drinking 2 excess also shortens life).
Vegans who push this kind of diet on their children have been convicted of child abuse when the child(ren) fail to thrive..
I don't know where you have this evidence that vegans do not live long, but I would certainly love to see it if you do have it. Also, by your logic, my mother should be in jail for supporting my sisters decision to become a vegan, so I would also love to see evidence of those arrests as well.
When I was about 6, I was eating my moms hamburger, and I have to tell you, her cooking truly sucked back then.
I didn't know burgers tasted good till we went to A&W years later. Anyway, this burger, like all her other burgers was burned on the outside and bloody on the inside, unappetizing as Hell.
I said I'm done eating this, I hate meat!!!
I refused to eat anymore of that crap. Well, the next night, more meat, only chicken, dry and tough as usual, so I didn't eat it. This went on all week, but I didn't have to eat the meat, problem was, I was constantly hungry.
I cured my self over the idea of being a vegan, though moms cooking finally improved years later, I kind of became a fan of meatloaf and other dishes that included meat.
I learned early on, man needs meat to survive, and that most vegans have mental issues. Is their a relation because they don't eat meat, or is it they became vegans because they had mental issues in the first place?
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2019, 06:08:47 AM
When I was about 6, I was eating my moms hamburger, and I have to tell you, her cooking truly sucked back then.
I didn't know burgers tasted good till we went to A&W years later. Anyway, this burger, like all her other burgers was burned on the outside and bloody on the inside, unappetizing as Hell.
I said I'm done eating this, I hate meat!!!
I refused to eat anymore of that crap. Well, the next night, more meat, only chicken, dry and tough as usual, so I didn't eat it. This went on all week, but I didn't have to eat the meat, problem was, I was constantly hungry.
I cured my self over the idea of being a vegan, though moms cooking finally improved years later, I kind of became a fan of meatloaf and other dishes that included meat.
I learned early on, man needs meat to survive, and that most vegans have mental issues. Is their a relation because they don't eat meat, or is it they became vegans because they had mental issues in the first place?
This conflation of veganism to mental illness does not sit well with me. I have yet to see any studies of substances that prove veganism is related to mental illness. In knowing plenty of people who choose to go vegan for both health and dietary reasons, I simply do not think this is an appropriate statement to be making.
Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 14, 2019, 06:13:19 AM
This conflation of veganism to mental illness does not sit well with me. I have yet to see any studies of substances that prove veganism is related to mental illness. In knowing plenty of people who choose to go vegan for both health and dietary reasons, I simply do not think this is an appropriate statement to be making.
Think about it for a moment. Why would someone refuse to eat meat? Man exists because of meat, so if one claims moral issues, they have a personal problem.
Sure, there are certain species we don't eat because of culture, like dogs and cats etc, but to refuse all meat means one is grossed out by the fact it was a living being at one time. That's a developed mental issue that was never confronted when it should have been.
All my personal experience in life with vegans proved to me that a strict vegetable diet is unhealthy, even a doctor i had that was vegan said he wasn't healthy, that he should eat meat, but couldn't bring himself to do it. He admitted he wasn't always unhealthy, but his religion didn't allow him to eat meat so he had given it up years earlier.
it's one thing to be a vegetarian, but vegan is not normal on any level.
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2019, 06:58:04 AM
Think about it for a moment. Why would someone refuse to eat meat? Man exists because of meat, so if one claims moral issues, they have a personal problem.
Sure, there are certain species we don't eat because of culture, like dogs and cats etc, but to refuse all meat means one is grossed out by the fact it was a living being at one time. That's a developed mental issue that was never confronted when it should have been.
All my personal experience in life with vegans proved to me that a strict vegetable diet is unhealthy, even a doctor i had that was vegan said he wasn't healthy, that he should eat meat, but couldn't bring himself to do it. He admitted he wasn't always unhealthy, but his religion didn't allow him to eat meat so he had given it up years earlier.
it's one thing to be a vegetarian, but vegan is not normal on any level.
I struggle to understand how this is related to mental illness though. I will admit my bias out front, both my sister and best friend are vegan. Both of them chose to go vegan not because of a fear of eating something that was once living, but because of it health benefits it brings to them. Sure, some people do choose not to eat meat because of what you listed above, and that can and should be examined through the appropriate lenses.
In modern society, veganism is much more accepted as a way of life, and through the advancement of technology in both food and agriculture, vegans are able to achieve their counts for daily nutritional value through other food sources. My sister has dedicated a lot of time to building vegan recopies and sharing them with others who share vegan interests.
YEs, there are radicals, and I am sure that there are vegans who suffer from mental illnesses. But those are a minute percent. To slap the stigma that comes with the term mental illness on it, quite honestly pisses me off. But hey, we can agree to disagree on this one.
Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 14, 2019, 07:06:53 AM
I struggle to understand how this is related to mental illness though. I will admit my bias out front, both my sister and best friend are vegan. Both of them chose to go vegan not because of a fear of eating something that was once living, but because of it health benefits it brings to them. Sure, some people do choose not to eat meat because of what you listed above, and that can and should be examined through the appropriate lenses.
In modern society, veganism is much more accepted as a way of life, and through the advancement of technology in both food and agriculture, vegans are able to achieve their counts for daily nutritional value through other food sources. My sister has dedicated a lot of time to building vegan recopies and sharing them with others who share vegan interests.
YEs, there are radicals, and I am sure that there are vegans who suffer from mental illnesses. But those are a minute percent. To slap the stigma that comes with the term mental illness on it, quite honestly pisses me off. But hey, we can agree to disagree on this one.
Vegan, health benefits? So they bought the leftist lie.
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2019, 07:33:36 AM
Vegan, health benefits? So they bought the leftist lie.
I don't think the issue has anything to do with right or left. The way I see it, its a personal life choice to be made. Not everyone stays a vegan forever, some do it for a short period, others make the decision to go vegan for the rest of their lives. Not to mention, there are alterations and variations of veganism.
Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 14, 2019, 07:06:53 AM
I struggle to understand how this is related to mental illness though. I will admit my bias out front, both my sister and best friend are vegan. Both of them chose to go vegan not because of a fear of eating something that was once living, but because of it health benefits it brings to them. Sure, some people do choose not to eat meat because of what you listed above, and that can and should be examined through the appropriate lenses.
In modern society, veganism is much more accepted as a way of life, and through the advancement of technology in both food and agriculture, vegans are able to achieve their counts for daily nutritional value through other food sources. My sister has dedicated a lot of time to building vegan recopies and sharing them with others who share vegan interests.
YEs, there are radicals, and I am sure that there are vegans who suffer from mental illnesses. But those are a minute percent. To slap the stigma that comes with the term mental illness on it, quite honestly pisses me off. But hey, we can agree to disagree on this one.
I am an amateur Cook. Very Good Cook, according too those who are charged with eating my Creations. Being such, and of course listening to the Gooberment, I tried to eat Low Fat to lose weight, and ended up gaining. So, I became determined to learn about Nutrition. At the Time, I weighed 420. I lost to 308, and went back to the old Way of Eating(WOE), and blew back up to 368. Last Christmas I put a new plan to work. For the Second Time, I went on a Ketogenic WOE. My Sugar was borderline at 125, BP stayed 170/110 most of the time, even with Meds, my Cholesterol was over 200, and I had lymphedema, and was having warning Strokes(TIAs) I wasn't aware of. Add COPD to all that, and I had one foot in the grave.
A couple of weeks into the diet, I fell twice one morning. Checked my BP and I was 69/45. Called the Doctor, and she told me to discontinue my BP Meds. It scared her enough to order bloodwork, and I told he I had a Life Scan scheduled. I went, and here are the results. I weigh 268.
BP is Normal, with only a half dose of Lisonopril 20/25.
My Cholesterol is now 108. HDL is low at 33, but with 108 total, Mr Doctor told me not to worry about the low HDL. LDL Is 49, and Triglycerides are 124. In my mid 60s, I'd say that's pretty good. I do not believe my Doctor has seen a Senior Citizen with 108 TC. Especially not one who cooks BBQ on a weekly basis.
Sugar is 91. No more COPD. No More Lymphedema, Feeling terrific, and my brain is once again healthy. Blood Flow to my feet, is the same rate as blood flow to my hands, and the Plaque in my arteries is virtually non existent.
So, what did I learn that gave me back my health. The Government, as usual, has it completely upside down. YOUR BODY, INCLUDING YOUR BRAIN, NEEDS SATURATED FAT. Butter, Lard, Bacon fat, Avocado Oil, Coconut Oil, and Olive Oil are the only oils I'll use, and have been for over a year. I eat 80% of my calories from Fat. 15% from Protein, and 5% from Carbohydrates. Lost 100 lbs in 10 months, and 152 overall. Fat does no make you fat. Simple sugars and fast carbs make you fat. It is all about Glycemic Response. Vegans have a difficulty ingesting that much fat, so to be a healthy vegan, you must use supplements. Sure, if you are diligent, you can be a healthy vegan, but it has been proven that saturated fats are necessary to stave off Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other forms of Dementia. Low fat is not healthy.
about 20-30 more, and I'll begin a Maintenance schedule, where I get more carbs, in Complex form, a few grains and an occasional starch. Flour and Sugar will excluded from my diet, forever.
Most vegans I knew were fat, paste white and unhealthy.
Quote from: tiny1 on November 14, 2019, 08:06:07 AM
I am an amateur Cook. Very Good Cook, according too those who are charged with eating my Creations. Being such, and of course listening to the Gooberment, I tried to eat Low Fat to lose weight, and ended up gaining. So, I became determined to learn about Nutrition. At the Time, I weighed 420. I lost to 308, and went back to the old Way of Eating(WOE), and blew back up to 368. Last Christmas I put a new plan to work. For the Second Time, I went on a Ketogenic WOE. My Sugar was borderline at 125, BP stayed 170/110 most of the time, even with Meds, my Cholesterol was over 200, and I had lymphedema, and was having warning Strokes(TIAs) I wasn't aware of. Add COPD to all that, and I had one foot in the grave.
A couple of weeks into the diet, I fell twice one morning. Checked my BP and I was 69/45. Called the Doctor, and she told me to discontinue my BP Meds. It scared her enough to order bloodwork, and I told he I had a Life Scan scheduled. I went, and here are the results. I weigh 268.
BP is Normal, with only a half dose of Lisonopril 20/25.
My Cholesterol is now 108. HDL is low at 33, but with 108 total, Mr Doctor told me not to worry about the low HDL. LDL Is 49, and Triglycerides are 124. In my mid 60s, I'd say that's pretty good. I do not believe my Doctor has seen a Senior Citizen with 108 TC. Especially not one who cooks BBQ on a weekly basis.
Sugar is 91. No more COPD. No More Lymphedema, Feeling terrific, and my brain is once again healthy. Blood Flow to my feet, is the same rate as blood flow to my hands, and the Plaque in my arteries is virtually non existent.
So, what did I learn that gave me back my health. The Government, as usual, has it completely upside down. YOUR BODY, INCLUDING YOUR BRAIN, NEEDS SATURATED FAT. Butter, Lard, Bacon fat, Avocado Oil, Coconut Oil, and Olive Oil are the only oils I'll use, and have been for over a year. I eat 80% of my calories from Fat. 15% from Protein, and 5% from Carbohydrates. Lost 100 lbs in 10 months, and 152 overall. Fat does no make you fat. Simple sugars and fast carbs make you fat. It is all about Glycemic Response. Vegans have a difficulty ingesting that much fat, so to be a healthy vegan, you must use supplements. Sure, if you are diligent, you can be a healthy vegan, but it has been proven that saturated fats are necessary to stave off Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other forms of Dementia. Low fat is not healthy.
about 20-30 more, and I'll begin a Maintenance schedule, where I get more carbs, in Complex form, a few grains and an occasional starch. Flour and Sugar will excluded from my diet, forever.
Most vegans I knew were fat, paste white and unhealthy.
First off, I am glad that you are in good heath, and congratulations on the weight loss. As someone who works actively to keep my own weight down, I know it is not an easy task to be had, and I commend you for your work and dedication to it, and I wish you nothing but the best in your future health and weight management.
As for your points on saturated fat as it relates to veganism, yes it is difficult for some vegans to achieve their needed allotment of some nutrients. In reading up more on this article, I can safely say now that there are plenty of replacements to receive your daily allotment of saturated fats from vegan options. Coconut oils and some nuts contain levels of saturated fats. My sister, who cooks vegan meals, gets most of her saturated fats from coconut oil and palm butter.
My sister is a healthy weight and height for her age, and holds and average BMI with no medial history. So while it may be difficult to obtain it, it is not impossible. these solutions will also be solved with advancements in development of new vegan food options.
Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 14, 2019, 07:37:56 AM
I don't think the issue has anything to do with right or left. The way I see it, its a personal life choice to be made. Not everyone stays a vegan forever, some do it for a short period, others make the decision to go vegan for the rest of their lives. Not to mention, there are alterations and variations of veganism.
Yes, there is a solid connection. Think back to when the left attacked the beef industry.
Animal liberation and Marxism ... Can I ask you about veganism? It has been pointed out that meat just happens to be the cheapest, most readily available form of nutrition for working class people. So veganism is a luxury lifestyle in terms of both money and time. How essential is the prefigurative aspect to you?
weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/994/animal-liberation-and-marxism
Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) was a vegetarian, pacifist and Christian anarchist. In On Civil Disobedience he wrote: "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral." Veganism and anarchism
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2019, 09:00:59 AM
Yes, there is a solid connection. Think back to when the left attacked the beef industry.
Animal liberation and Marxism ... Can I ask you about veganism? It has been pointed out that meat just happens to be the cheapest, most readily available form of nutrition for working class people. So veganism is a luxury lifestyle in terms of both money and time. How essential is the prefigurative aspect to you?
weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/994/animal-liberation-and-marxism
Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) was a vegetarian, pacifist and Christian anarchist. In On Civil Disobedience he wrote: "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral." Veganism and anarchism
These are all good points. People do practice veganism on the basis of their politics, but that is not every case. You know I hate Marxists, I agree with you on 99 percent of what is spoke of on this forum. However, I can not help but notice that you seem to be casting a very wide net over all vegans, and equating them to a few percentage of those who are vegans and who promote radial vegan ideas on the basis of political belief. My only point is that not every vegan behaves in (what O believe to be) a stereotype you are feeding into.
I do not think that simply because Tolstoy made a comment about it, it is a vessel of the left and Marxism.
Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 14, 2019, 09:27:11 AM
These are all good points. People do practice veganism on the basis of their politics, but that is not every case. You know I hate Marxists, I agree with you on 99 percent of what is spoke of on this forum. However, I can not help but notice that you seem to be casting a very wide net over all vegans, and equating them to a few percentage of those who are vegans and who promote radial vegan ideas on the basis of political belief. My only point is that not every vegan behaves in (what O believe to be) a stereotype you are feeding into.
I do not think that simply because Tolstoy made a comment about it, it is a vessel of the left and Marxism.
Of course not all vegans are leftists, but I'm willing to bet 90% or better, vote Dim. So the percentages back my claim of the connection.
Quote from: Solar on November 14, 2019, 09:36:30 AM
Of course not all vegans are leftists, but I'm willing to bet 90% or better, vote Dim. So the percentages back my claim of the connection.
I can agree with ninety percent.
Whenever i hear comments on eating vegetarian, I think of a comment Henry David Thoreau made, quoted below. Personally I love all American hot dogs and burgers too much to be vegetarian but to each his own. The children can eat meat at home if their parents feel they need it. Imagine how well our small farmers would do if America did more local produce and ate at Vegetarian MacDonald's. lol We are a fat nation. Why. Everyone I know wants to diet and it is the favorite new year resolution everywhere.
"One farmer says to me, 'You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with;' and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle." Henry David Thoreau, Walden: Or, Life in the Woods