Is Vegetarianism/Veganism The New Religion in N.A.
- Thread starter Cannuck
- Start date
In cows and other ruminants, the carbon going in is converted into volatile fatty acids that can be utilized in the animal as energy. That process breaks down fatty acids to produce sugars (by bacteria, mammals can't use fatty acids for producing sugars) and amino acids. This is accomplished by the methanogenic bacteria, and as part of that metabolic process, the bacteria produce carbon dioxide, and methane. If there were no methanogenic bacteria, then the cows would be exhaling and burping carbon dioxide like we do, and there would be no problem. Well the cows would have a problem, as they would not be able to eat enough grass to fullfill basal metabolic requirements.
Vegetarians are fine. They procuce as much carbon dioxide as you do.
Vegetarians are fine. They procuce as much carbon dioxide as you do.
"Mortality from heart disease was 24% lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians."-
SO THE VEGETARIANS die of something else. What's the difference?
SO THE VEGETARIANS die of something else. What's the difference?
While you may feel quoting a dictionary is "cherry picking", I certainly don't. Some of us realize the world doesn't operate in black and white.
The problem with most of these statistics is that they include those that eat three big macs a day. Of course they are going to be skewed and as a result, are meaningless....except that they allow the high priests of the Church of Vegetarians to trot them out every now and then in some feeble attempt to justify their world view.
The vegan dogma ignores or dismisses the ridiculously low level of cancer in traditional Inuit people. If one was to accept their silly science, the Inuit would have become extinct years ago because most of them would have dropped dead of cancer or heart disease before they reached puberty.
haha he said dogma- if you're being paid to generate posts, cannuck, you are doing a fine job, as you are posting baseless crap that many folks from both sides of your stupid little "black and white" universe would feel the need to address
Since you have the impressive sagacity to understand how things aren't all "black and white", as you are so smart to point out for us plebes, why do you insist on painting your own ridiculous non-issue (vegetarians are blinded by relligious dogma) in two tones??
Just curious- I know you are full of crap and am having fun watching you pull out so many silly tricks to avoid your admitting same
Since you have the impressive sagacity to understand how things aren't all "black and white", as you are so smart to point out for us plebes, why do you insist on painting your own ridiculous non-issue (vegetarians are blinded by relligious dogma) in two tones??
Just curious- I know you are full of crap and am having fun watching you pull out so many silly tricks to avoid your admitting same
As I've said numerous times before, religious people tend to get uppity when their world view is challenged. I've merely asked a question and you have provided the answer...without intending to I'm sure. I do thank you.
And you have proved yourself a fool in the eyes of most of the folks here and for that I thank you, I am not allowed to call another member the things you have effectively proven yourself to be 
\m/
\m/I missed the vote. Do you have a statistical breakdown?
Oops, silly me...statistics and dogma don't go together...my bad.
"The problem with most of these statistics is that they include those that eat three big macs a day. Of course they are going to be skewed and as a result, are meaningless....except that they allow the high priests of the Church of Vegetarians to trot them out every now and then in some feeble attempt to justify their world view."
WELL OF COURSE- if you are going to debate sensibly you have to have a brain.
WELL OF COURSE- if you are going to debate sensibly you have to have a brain.
No, not of course. You haven't made a case for meaningless. You haven't shown how many people eat three Big Macs a day. You haven't shown that they exert a large influence on the subjects in these studies. You haven't analyzed them for Cook's Distance, or any other statistical tool to identify outliers.
Body mass index was accounted for in these comparisons, as was level of exercise. This means they are comparing healthy vegetarians with healthy non-vegetarians, unhealthy vegetarians with unhealthy non-vegetarians. I'm willing to bet you don't know squat about statistics. Again, it's a word you're throwing around without knowing what you're talking about, in an attempt to discredit something you don't understand, and doesn't fit your notions.
Your notion that there is no scientific argument is bull. But you're still fighting it like a good fundamentalist. Preach on Preacher.
By the way, I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian. I just happen to have adverse reactions to bull $hit like you and a few others in here are spouting.
As I've said before, I'm willing to entertain the idea that it exist, just like I will entertain the notion that aliens exist but I won't build a UFO landing site until somebody can give me evidence. Claiming you have doesn't mean you have.
Denying it when it's placed in front of you destroys your entire premise for this thread. You're denying science. You're steadfastly holding to your notions. You're the one acting like a follower. I know you'll deny that too. That's what deniers do.
Denying it when it's placed in front of you destroys your entire premise for this thread. You're denying science. You're steadfastly holding to your notions. You're the one acting like a follower. I know you'll deny that too. That's what deniers do.
The bottom line is figures can lie and liars can figure. Let's suppose that less vegetarians do get heart disease. Now what figures do you have showing how many vegetarians have already died from A.L.S., Chroym's disease, spinal meningitis etc. etc. before they reached the age where they were susceptible to heart disease.
You're an idiot... I claimed that vegetarians have a lower risk of dying from heart disease than non-vegetarians. Why would I even expect that the material I cited in support of my assertion would be addressing those issues? It's not even remotely the same thing.
Ischaemic heart disease is impacted by how much cholesterol is in the diet. As people age, this becomes more problematic. Vegetarians with their low cholesterol diets are at a lower risk. Do you follow this?
Now, why do you have any reason to think that vegetarians would be impacted more by any of those diseases than non-vegetarians, enough so that it would confound the findings? Or is it just a red herring you're throwing up?