If you Google parts of the anti-meat eating letter you will see that it has been published verbatim under a lot of different names by a lot of different papers. It is just a form letter some group is sending out as propaganda.
It also shows that when it comes to science, vegetarian zealots should be taken about as seriously as young earth creationists. The chronic diseases linked to meat consumption and smoking are comparable? In what universe? For a good look at all the bad science that has been applied to nutrition over the years read a copy of "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by science writer Gary Taubes.
Humans evolved eating animals. In fact, research suggest that humans evolved because of eating animals. Brains are made almost entirely of fat and cholesterol. We evolved the big brains that define us by developing tools to kill and eat animals. There aren't any cave paintings of soy beans. The modern chronic "diseases of civilization" like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and Alzhiemer's came later when foods like grains, refined sugars, unfermented soy and vegetable oils entered the human diet.
Finally, in case anyone wants to mention The China Study to bash animal products:
I'm not trying to argue with anyone. But the constant misinformation about firearms being floated around is aggravating. Like the above claim that an AK-47 chambered in 7.62x39 can fire the 7.62 NATO round; anyone familiar with the two rounds knows that is absurd.
All of this isn't just splitting hairs. As Drift Boat pointed out, and one of the main points of the blog post I linked above covered, we have a lot of legislation being recommended or written by people with no actual knowledge of firearms. This leads to laws based on silly cosmetic features. I don't want crazy people carrying around firearms. Feel-good legislation that bans random firearms based on whether or not they "look scary" does nothing to address that problem.
"Do you really think we are stupid? If you had hogs, being a competent farmer, you would have them properly penned."
Obviously you aren't even smart enough to understand what the term "feral hog" means.
Also, you are going to tell another poster "do you know anything about history. Do you ever read up on the stuff that you post" while referring to the AK-47 as firing the 7.62 NATO round the U.S. didn't adopt " because it was invented and made by the soviets, our perceived enemy."
Obviously you don't understand what NATO was either. History refresher: the term specifically referred to our allies. The AK-47 fires 7.62x39. NATO weapons like the American M-14 and European FN FAL used 7.62x51, which is why people began referring to it as the "NATO" round.
If you had a pack of feral hogs destroying your farm land would you feel safe and adequately equipped trying to take them out with a single-shot rifle? Even the most skilled hunters sometimes need a quick follow-up shot to humanely put down an animal. Otherwise they can end up spending hours trying to track a suffering, mortally-wounded animal. The vast majority of hunters have a great deal of respect for their prey and go out of their way to put down game animals as quickly and humanely as possible.
But hunting isn’t the real issue. Unfortunately in trying to make the reasoning behind the Second Amendment crystal clear its authors ended up confusing a lot of people instead. It wasn’t written to give the military the right to own weapons. Of course the military has weapons. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the government.
To rephrase the Second Amendment in modern language: An armed military force is a necessary evil for any free state, therefore individuals shall also have the right to keep and bear arms.
All this talk about the guns involved in shootings, and still very little discussion of the drugs:
Traditional cultures that ate soy always fermented it first because that is the only way to eliminate most of the toxins in it that make it unfit for human consumption. That 90 million metric tons of soy is grown because it is subsidized by the government and fed to animals because we have no better use for it.
We could severely cut down on the use of petrol chemicals and the production of greenhouse gases if all the land we are currently devastating with plows and chemicals to grow monocultures of subsidized crops was used for rotational grazing. Instead of grazing the animals on the land, we use the land to grow crops that were never a part of the animals natural diets, then truck the crops to confined feed lots where the animals are forced to eat them.
Constant feeding of subsidized crops like wheat, corn and soy doesn't just make animals fat and sick. It does the same thing to the humans who are overconsuming these foods because subsidization has created such a needless surplus of them. The overproduction of corn has gotten so bad we are wasting energy converting it into a horribly inefficient fuel that we are forced to burn in our cars just to find a use for it. Consuming excessive grains wrecks havoc on blood sugar and insulin levels, which is why obesity and diabetes rates have gone up steadily along with the consumption of these foods. Also, the toxic oils that are chemically extracted from seed crops like corn, soy and cottonseed are a major contributor to heart disease, but they are pushed by the USDA as "healthy" alternatives to natural fats like butter that have been consumed by humans for thousands of years.
By Chris Davis, Susan Ellis, Toby Sells, and Maya Smith
download this issue
click here to see more »