You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Corbyn to become a vegan?
November 9 2026 4.14pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Corbyn to become a vegan?


Page 7 of 7 << First< 3 4 5 6 7
Ray in Houston Flag Houston 06 Sep 17 4.40pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Why do you subscribe to so much left wing claptrap then?

Because the political opinions to which I adhere are not based on belief or faith, but on review of the arguments and evidence presented?

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Stirlingsays Flag 06 Sep 17 4.48pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Stop being such a dick. There's good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. Beans are a fantastic source of good cholesterol. Chicken, beef, fish, eggs etc. are laced with bad cholesterol.

And if you think that a vegetarian is talking about cans of Heinz when they talk about eating beans, you're ignorant. I don't think you are, you're just deliberately obtuse when facts get in the way of your opinions because being wrong doesn't comport with your self-proclaimed "alpha male" online persona.

[Link]

You are perfectly free to give your opinions on me, because I judge you from your comments as well.

However, I don't really respect your opinions after having debated a while with you.

I am both alpha and beta male. I respect aspects of both and criticise aspects of both.

As for yourself....I notice what I notice.

Beans, include baked beans.....You said beans had no cholesterol...Well, they do...and this is the most common way they are consumed so...basically when it comes to ignorance....that's about the only area I think you know what you are talking about.


Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Sep 2017 4.52pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays Flag 06 Sep 17 4.54pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Because the political opinions to which I adhere are not based on belief or faith, but on review of the arguments and evidence presented?

Oh man....This post was a comedy classic!

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 06 Sep 17 5.00pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


There are no absolutes in science; that what makes science so much better than belief or faith. It's constantly being challenged to prove the current consensus right or wrong and, when it's wrong, they change the consensus. Faith and belief are absolutes that never change and, as such, are far more dangerous.

Well, there are some.

 

Ray in Houston Flag Houston 06 Sep 17 5.02pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

[Link]

You are perfectly free to give your opinions on me, because I judge you from your comments as well.

However, I don't really respect your opinions after having debated a while with you.

I am both alpha and beta male. I respect aspects of both and criticise aspects of both.

As for yourself....I notice what I notice.

Beans, include baked beans.....You said beans had no cholesterol...Well, they do...and this is the most common way they are consumed so...basically when it comes to ignorance....that's about the only area I think you know what you are talking about.


Interesting article. I like especially how it explains how people can lower their cholesterol levels for the good of their health without the use of drugs. But I suspect you didn't think anyone would read that far down (and maybe you didn't either).

As to beans, you know what I meant while you deliberately went out of your way to obfuscate the issue with your comments. I'm sure if I wrote about how radioactive fallout is bad, you'd tell me that we walk around in radiation every day.

Edited by Ray in Houston (06 Sep 2017 5.03pm)

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Ray in Houston Flag Houston 06 Sep 17 5.07pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Well, there are some.

Nope. There are just theories that we have proved and cannot, as yet, disprove. Theories that are correct will never be disproved.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Stirlingsays Flag 06 Sep 17 5.11pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


Interesting article. I like especially how it explains how people can lower their cholesterol levels for the good of their health without the use of drugs. But I suspect you didn't think anyone would read that far down (and maybe you didn't either).

As to beans, you know what I meant while you deliberately went out of your way to obfuscate the issue with your comments. I'm sure if I wrote about how radioactive fallout is bad, you'd tell me that we walk around in radiation every day.

Edited by Ray in Houston (06 Sep 2017 5.03pm)

I wish you would stop saying I'm obfuscating. I can't help it if you want to portray my comments as something else.

Of course I read the article. It says nothing that I have contradicted.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 06 Sep 17 5.24pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Nope. There are just theories that we have proved and cannot, as yet, disprove. Theories that are correct will never be disproved.

If you want to see it that way. I'd say that some things are beyond reasonable dispute if we accept that 'reality' is actually reality.

Your position on scientific absolutes does run contrary to your general attitude that seems to just accept some scientific opinion as fact, as with your diet.

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 06 Sep 17 5.27pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

If you want to see it that way. I'd say that some things are beyond reasonable dispute if we accept that 'reality' is actually reality.

Your position on scientific absolutes does run contrary to your general attitude that seems to just accept some scientific opinion as fact, as with your diet.

If we could objectively establish what reality is, then we'd not need science. Only thing I know, is that the more I learn the less I am able to truly define what is real.

Science is really about constructing models within paradims, than establishing universal concrete proof.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 06 Sep 17 5.35pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

If we could objectively establish what reality is, then we'd not need science. Only thing I know, is that the more I learn the less I am able to truly define what is real.

Science is really about constructing models within paradims, than establishing universal concrete proof.

Agreed. That is not to say however that if you stand on the beach and command the sea to turn back you won't get wet. Real or not, we are bound by rules.

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 06 Sep 17 5.46pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That is just opinion without a shred of scientific basis.
We do not need to cook meat but it does make it easier to break down and therefore more nutritional.

Not really, we cook meat because it kills of harmful bacteria we aren't capable of dealing with. When humans do eat raw meat it tends to need to be a) really fresh b) specific kinds of meat. We also have to refridgerate meat.

Where as most carnivores can eat a kill that's sat in the African shade for days, we'd be s**ting our souls out of our arses if we tried.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

We eat too much of everything because it is available and we have a craving for nutrition rich foods because that is what would keep us from starving in the natural world where food is probably scarce and requires energy consumption to obtain.
The bottom line is that you can eat what you want and what most want is plenty of meat. That is the best evidence for our evolutionary desire to eat it and the reason why we eat too much of it in the modern world of plenty.

I suspect we do have an evolutionary desire for meat, especially white meat, as its a good source of nutrients - and on a primal level, that's a benefit - But our ancestors didn't eat a lot of meat.

You can eat what you want, but you'd be absurd to think that because you can, and evolution has left us with a taste for meat, that means its good for you to do so. Its not. Its not 'smoking bad for you', but eating meat on a daily basis (which I do) isn't healthy. Especially red meat.

Given that our ancestors would have hunted for meat, it wouldn't have been a very common source of food. Humans are poor hunters, and hunting isn't an overly efficient means of gathering food for humans. Plus of course the food isn't the primary reason why humans hunted - it was the skins of animals. The meat is just a bonus. Anthropological studies of primitive tribes generally bear this out. Meat is a treat.

We have a biological drive towards sugar, to the point that its physically addictive, because our ancestors struggled to find sugar and its essential to the function of the human body and brain - That's why sweet things taste so good - But this is a maladaption in the modern age where sugar is so prevalent - to the point that its effectively a slow poison.

Problem of evolution, is that society moves far faster. 40,000 years ago were probably weren't even domesticating animals for food. Now the most prevalent species of animals other than insects on earth exist only a species bred for food.

Of course, in truth, you, me and the healthiest person alive, are all going to die. I like bacon. I know its not good for me, but f**k it, it tastes great.

It can't really be morally defended, its bad for you compared to the alternatives, but I eat it anyhow - because millions of years of evolution where meat is scarce has conditioned us towards finding fat and meat very tasty indeed.

Even if it ends up contributing to our premature death.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 06 Sep 17 5.48pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Agreed. That is not to say however that if you stand on the beach and command the sea to turn back you won't get wet. Real or not, we are bound by rules.

Your command won't do anything, but it doesn't mean you will get wet, if your lucky the tide is on its way out.

The importance of science is that when you do this, and the events play out, that you don't go away thinking you can control the sea by commanding it.

The importance of science isn't that it can tell us what is real or true, but that it can tell us what isn't.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 06 Sep 17 5.51pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Your command won't do anything, but it doesn't mean you will get wet, if your lucky the tide is on its way out.

The importance of science is that when you do this, and the events play out, that you don't go away thinking you can control the sea by commanding it.

The importance of science isn't that it can tell us what is real or true, but that it can tell us what isn't.

Ha ha . Stop it.

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 06 Sep 17 5.54pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


Interesting article. I like especially how it explains how people can lower their cholesterol levels for the good of their health without the use of drugs. But I suspect you didn't think anyone would read that far down (and maybe you didn't either).

As to beans, you know what I meant while you deliberately went out of your way to obfuscate the issue with your comments. I'm sure if I wrote about how radioactive fallout is bad, you'd tell me that we walk around in radiation every day.

Edited by Ray in Houston (06 Sep 2017 5.03pm)

Oddly, on an individual basis, its very hard to determine what is good or healthy for an individual, because of the individual differences. What we do know, is that as a species, certain factors bear out as healthy.

For example, exercise is generally good for you (as a species wide group) but if you have an undiagnosed heart condition, it will likely contribute to your death. Jogging also involves risk to your knees, as well as some environmental risks (jogging for an hour outside exposes you to more pollution, than staying in bed for a few hours, and if you have the 'wrong genes' that could be a cause of cancer).

Its easy to point at things being healthy on an average, but much harder on an individual case for the average person.

Its important to understand paradims in science and how they are utilised to construct the boundaries - Health is usually correlational, and statistically defined against a 'norm'.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 06 Sep 17 6.04pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I suspect we do have an evolutionary desire for meat, especially white meat, as its a good source of nutrients - and on a primal level, that's a benefit - But our ancestors didn't eat a lot of meat.

You can eat what you want, but you'd be absurd to think that because you can, and evolution has left us with a taste for meat, that means its good for you to do so. Its not. Its not 'smoking bad for you', but eating meat on a daily basis (which I do) isn't healthy. Especially red meat.

Given that our ancestors would have hunted for meat, it wouldn't have been a very common source of food. Humans are poor hunters, and hunting isn't an overly efficient means of gathering food for humans. Plus of course the food isn't the primary reason why humans hunted - it was the skins of animals. The meat is just a bonus. Anthropological studies of primitive tribes generally bear this out. Meat is a treat.

We have a biological drive towards sugar, to the point that its physically addictive, because our ancestors struggled to find sugar and its essential to the function of the human body and brain - That's why sweet things taste so good - But this is a maladaption in the modern age where sugar is so prevalent - to the point that its effectively a slow poison.

Problem of evolution, is that society moves far faster. 40,000 years ago were probably weren't even domesticating animals for food. Now the most prevalent species of animals other than insects on earth exist only a species bred for food.

Of course, in truth, you, me and the healthiest person alive, are all going to die. I like bacon. I know its not good for me, but f**k it, it tastes great.

It can't really be morally defended, its bad for you compared to the alternatives, but I eat it anyhow - because millions of years of evolution where meat is scarce has conditioned us towards finding fat and meat very tasty indeed.

Even if it ends up contributing to our premature death.


I'm not sure we can prove why people began to cook meat.
It might have been instinctive and was certainly advantageous when food was scarce.
I suspect that prehistoric man would have been a lot more resistant to bugs than we are since our exposure is more limited.

The question is not whether we should eat meat but how much. Clearly, in a world where food is always available, we will naturally over indulge because our biology is generally designed to make us eat when ever possible and a much as possible. To do otherwise requires a deliberate effort to abstain.
There is no good and bad in this, just balance and amount.
As I have previously said. Eating less and having a balanced diet is probably the best advice rather that fixating about one food stuff.

 

coulsdoneagle Flag London 06 Sep 17 6.15pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


Interesting article. I like especially how it explains how people can lower their cholesterol levels for the good of their health without the use of drugs. But I suspect you didn't think anyone would read that far down (and maybe you didn't either).

As to beans, you know what I meant while you deliberately went out of your way to obfuscate the issue with your comments. I'm sure if I wrote about how radioactive fallout is bad, you'd tell me that we walk around in radiation every day.

Edited by Ray in Houston (06 Sep 2017 5.03pm)

Awesome word. Not heard it before.

 

Stirlingsays Flag 06 Sep 17 6.21pm

Bacon....yum.

Shame...I quite like pigs.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

sitdownstandup Flag 07 Sep 17 10.27pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Bacon....yum.

Shame...I quite like pigs.


you know how pigs are killed right?
They are sent to a gas chamber.
to be honest I'd rather it wasn't true but its considered the most humane method of killing them.

[Link]

 


Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

Page 7 of 7 << First< 3 4 5 6 7

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Corbyn to become a vegan?