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.

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)

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.

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)

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]

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.

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]