Author
|
Topic: Chicken soup for the philosopher. (Read 3047 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #15 on: 2006-12-07 23:17:10 » |
 |
Nutritionally you would be missing a lot. For example, your supplements probably don't contain much in the way of "essential amino acids" (the essential is not a misprint) or fatty acids or a host of other needed chemicals in assimilatable form. For example, you can ingest calcium and iron all day long, but unless you take them with fats (like liver or bone marrow), none of it is going to make it through the stomach wall into the bloodstream where it is needed. Instead you are simply going to shit rusty bricks. Most supplements (other than Vitamins C, D, Iodine which we usually get in absorbable form from salt, and Potassium which we can absorb as a chloride) fall in to these categories. So while you might be taking supplements, you can't necessarily absorb them in that form.
Intellectually, I suggest that you would metaphorically be sitting outside of the branch you would be engaging in sawing off, without even realizing that there were clouds passing beneath your feet. I say this because I don't think you read any of the articles.
Try this one. It is reasonably competent http://chetday.com/vegmyths.htm.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #16 on: 2006-12-09 23:45:00 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2006-12-07 23:17:10
Nutritionally you would be missing a lot. For example, your supplements probably don't contain much in the way of "essential amino acids" (the essential is not a misprint) or fatty acids or a host of other needed chemicals in assimilatable form. For example, you can ingest calcium and iron all day long, but
|
I agree that my multi-vitamin doesn't, but are you claiming that no dietary supplement on the market does?
Quote:
Intellectually, I suggest that you would metaphorically be sitting outside of the branch you would be engaging in sawing off, without even realizing that there were clouds passing beneath your feet. I say this because I don't think you read any of the articles.
Try this one. It is reasonably competent http://chetday.com/vegmyths.htm.
|
OK I read it and it didn't address my question. The closest it came was it says it is a myth that soy is a good substitute. I don't doubt that.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.46
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #17 on: 2006-12-10 00:38:52 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2006-12-09 23:45:00
Quote:
OK I read it and it didn't address my question. The closest it came was it says it is a myth that soy is a good substitute. I don't doubt that.
|
ok..the beginning of that article is bullshit. if vegetariasm leads to 'weakened uterus', how on earth does a sizable chunk of a population that exists solely on vegetarianism manage to contribute to a country that has a billion people.
atho' i have to admit i dont understand people who are against fat, vegetarians or vegans or non vegetarians. eta: yes..i am also refering to those people who breed turkeys with giant flavourless white breast meat and pigs with lesser fat. what is WRONG with these people? fat is FLAVOUR!! the freaky fringe population does not represent the genuine vegetarians of this world. seriously..sheesh!
urad dhal is the house remedy to 'strengthen uterus'..just in case anyone wants to know. i remember gulping down seven seas cod liver oil as a child and an aunt of mine used to take shots of raw eggs(i never understood that..and would never do it) along with b12 injections when she got anemic. as long as i can remember, i remember taking b12 capsules. everyone i know..in my family and friends circle, takes it every single day. if anything, i'd fault the indian vegetarian's habit of taking too much rice after they hit 35...ditto re milk. i think they should cut down on carbs and fat after a certain age to dodge diabetes and such. other than that, vegetarians are going to hang in here for a long..long..long..long fucking time even as non vegetarians polish off meat and poultry every single day..
my personal philosphy runs parallel to what this website advocates> http://www.makefoodnotwar.org/ or rather specifically addressed here > http://www.makefoodnotwar.org/food/food.html
if you want to gnaw on blood and bones of dead animals, i dont care. i might even share if it is tasty enough..but i think people should stop stuffing their opinions on others..be it PETA terrorising chefs because they think foie gras is a 'delicacy of despair'(which i believe it is) or militant meat eaters spoiling vegetarians' daily sustenance by sowing seeds of fear. everyone has the right to live the life they want..even if they prefer to die from malnutrition or because of arteries that cant bear the assault of fat. that's all i have to say. at the end of the day, it's your life and your funeral. it's a personal decision.
eta: a lot of this refers to vegans which is basically an ideological position. vegetarianism(i was raised a vegetarian in india), has evolved over hundreds of years and the modern indian vegetarian is very well aware of the benefits and disadvantages. india did not hve the luxury to be a non vegetarian society...the 'brahmins of lore were possibly meat eaters. as the population grew and cultivable/grazing land decreased, a cow that can give milk is more valuable than a cow that will live until it is slaughtered for it's meat. if a cow dodges it's slaughter, it will give us milk, reproduce..and when it dies, it gives us it's hide. consider a hen that dies after many many months of egg laying and finally giving it's body that provides blessed protein and the chicken of 6 weeks that is slaughtered for it's meat. at the end of the day, the former is more valubale than the latter, hence vegetarianism is embraced with much gusto in india. it is logical and rational position that is essential for the sustainablity/ survival of the indian population.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #18 on: 2006-12-10 16:32:42 » |
|
[Lucifer 16] I agree that my multi-vitamin doesn't, but are you claiming that no dietary supplement on the market does?
[Hermit 18] I'm saying that a multi-vitamin is a supplement. I take supplements too. Partly because my diet is not complete (few diets are), and I don't get enough vitamin C (not enough fruit in my diet) or sun (a mixed blessing affecting most people leading to Vitamin D shortages), but largely because I have strong reasons not to trust the water supply here, and so use a sophisticated R/O filter system to strip practically everything out of the water I drink. Knowing that much of what is removed is really important, in my case, the supplements (carefully selected to be high in minerals) are there mainly to put the stuff we used to get from water back into my system.
[Hermit 18] Unfortunately, we know that many nutritiously needed elements and compounds are not able to survive the stomach acids, and in some cases cannot pass from the stomach into the bloodstream, except in combination with other things, particularly soluble salt forming metals (e.g. Calcium) and lipophilic substances (some amines). This means that unless a supplement begins to approach the food it is replacing in complexity, it isn't going to be available to your system no matter how much of the necessary compound is present in the supplement. By the time the supplement becomes sufficiently complex you are probably better off just eating the food which we have evolved to extract it from, even though that means unknown concentrations and quite possibly unhelpful and even poisonous contaminants. After all, we evolved in this environment and so are much better at avoiding most of the consequences of the nasty stuff in what we eat, than surviving without the needed compounds.
[Lucifer 16] OK I read it and it didn't address my question. The closest it came was it says it is a myth that soy is a good substitute. I don't doubt that.
[Hermit 18] I wasn't trying to address "Soy" as a supplement in Reply #15. For that the articles referenced in Reply #6 would have been much more effective as they show very clearly that Soy, far from being helpful to us, is a rather nasty complex of toxins with many potential horrible negative long term heath effects. I had taken your question to be that of Reply #14, "While I currently have no inclination to become a vegetarian I find Hermit's arguments against it unconvincing. Surely any dietary deficiency can be compensated with appropriate supplements? I bet I already get enough iron and B12 solely from my daily multi-vitamin. Am I missing something?"
[Hermit 18] I thought that the article I recommended in response would provide sufficient information to conclude for yourself that supplements are insufficient to replace animal products. I had concluded that you didn't know how much you didn't know, in a world where this seems altogether too common (e.g. While I agree about the insufficiently well known benefits of cod liver oil*, it seems that some people don't even know that Cod Liver oil is not exactly a vegetable product!) and was hopeful that the article would inspire you to find out more, if not for yourself, then before sharing your opinions with others.
[Hermit 18] I don't have much of an axe to grind, only I dislike seeing decisions made in the absence of evidence, or opinions that might be interpreted as being advice left to stand unopposed when I consider the decisions or opinions being uninformed, wrong or even dangerous; without at least mentioning that there may be disagreement on the issues. Call it a consequence of my clewing to the virtues and attempting to avoid apathy and take it from whence it comes.
Kind Regards
Hermit
*But severely restricting fish intake generally, in an attempt to avoid Mercury and other heavy metals.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #19 on: 2006-12-20 17:30:02 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2006-12-06 09:20:37
((( Thinking of you )))
The mind fog does eventually clear, but it may take a few weeks rather than days.
Be well
|
[Blunderov] Thanks for the support. I think the worst is over now.The funny part is that I had to do it twice. Laughingly I tossed the cigarettes aside thinking that the replacement nicotine gum was a mere detail to take care of later. Har har. Giving up the gum was far worse than giving up the cigarettes. Four days of spasmodic cravings so strong that they sometimes verged on seizure. Over now I'm very glad to say. And my concentration is beginning to show signs of returning.
What a horrible drug.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #20 on: 2006-12-21 03:19:21 » |
|
A horrible drub indeed. According to multiple reports, far, far worse to escape than many of those we have chosen to outlaw.
Which means that a massive "congratulations" would not be out of order. Now write down how nasty the process was before it fades in your memory (and it does). That way you fix the horror in your conscious mind as a dreadful obstacle to the unconscious dragging you back again. Besides it may persuade somebody else not to start - or stop early - if you share the agony. Then go and have your teeth cleaned. Seriously.
Also had I known you were contemplating the gum route I'd have suggested not. I used it once before to break the addiction, the second time I just went cold turkey after switching to pipe and cigars. And the latter was much easier (not to mention cheaper and infinitely less stressful). Ah well, you are done now and what remains is the sometimes surprisingly strong psychological addiction. I found micro mints (Altoids) worked well to substitute without too many calories*.
Kind Regards
Hermit
*And besides it is very "presidential" even if Clinton didn't have time to confirm or put the rumor to rest. From the Starr Report, 1997-11-13:
The President finally joined Ms. Lewinsky in the study, where they were alone for only a minute or two.(708) Ms. Lewinsky gave him an antique paperweight in the shape of the White House.(709) She also showed him an email describing the effect of chewing Altoid mints before performing oral sex. Ms. Lewinsky was chewing Altoids at the time, but the President replied that he did not have enough time for oral sex.(710) They kissed, and the President rushed off for a State Dinner with President Zedillo.(711)
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #21 on: 2006-12-24 13:15:34 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2006-12-21 03:19:21 | ...The President finally joined Ms. Lewinsky... |
[Blunderov] Talking of whom...
Washington Post link.
From Thong to Thesis: Monica Lewinsky Flashes Her Intellect
By Libby Copeland
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 24, 2006; Page D01
There are moments that make you question your fundamental assumptions about the world. One of them took place a few days ago, when news emerged that Monica Lewinsky had just graduated from the London School of Economics.
She did not!!
Lewinsky, 33, is known more for her audacious coquetry than for her intellectual heft, and the notion of her earning a master of science degree in social psychology at the prestigious London university is jarring, akin to finding a rip in the time-space continuum, or discovering that Kim Jong Il is a natural blond.
Even more staggering, the same bubbly gal who once described the act of flashing her thong at the president as a "small, subtle, flirtatious gesture" has now written a lofty-sounding thesis. Its title, according to Reuters: "In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity."
Monica! We hardly knew ye!
A revelation on this order suggests Lewinsky belongs to a fascinating subspecies, dumb-but-smart. Dumb-but-smart folks defy our low expectations. They appear dull or ditzy but possess unpredictable pockets of intelligence.
For example, dumb-but-smart: Ashton Kutcher! Majored in biochemical engineering in college. (Huh?) And: Jessica Simpson, who famously didn't know the difference between tuna and chicken, and posited that buffalo wings are made from buffalo. Simpson's mother once told Vanity Fair that her daughter has "this, like, 160 IQ And, you know, that's, like, a genius level."
Like, no way.
We all know a dumb-but-smart person -- the airheaded clotheshorse who holds an Ivy league PhD; the mulleted townie who grows up to be a Wall Street tycoon. These people are smart in spite of themselves. At high school reunions, the pleasure of looking better than a former flame is completely undone by the mysterious success of the dumb-but-smarts, who seem too stupid even to appreciate their own unlikely journeys.
The dumb-but-smart type is especially common for women in the celebrity realm, where stupidity has historically been as much of an asset for women as double D's. Often it's a put-on -- smart comedians like Lucille Ball and Goldie Hawn have played up their ditsiness for humorous effect. As for men, figures like Flavor Flav, Steven Seagal and Ted Nugent come across as a few sandwiches short of a picnic; they qualify as dumb-but-smart only because we imagine they must possess some business acumen to have gotten as far as they have.
(The celebrity world is so diverse and accepting it also makes room for the just-plain-dumb. We are thinking now of Kevin Federline and Anna Nicole Smith. But that's a whole 'nother picnic.)
The dumb-but-smart type exists in politics, too. Some people might argue that our current president falls into the category of dumb-but-smart. We're going to gently sidestep that argument.
But Dan "potatoe" Quayle is a good example. It is easy to remember his dumb moments, but it's its also worth recalling that Quayle earned a law degree and was the youngest-ever senator from Indiana when he was elected. These are accomplishments that require -- at the very least -- emotional intelligence and some intellectual capacity, if not the genius of, say, Jessica Simpson.
President Clinton, meanwhile, seems more like a smart guy who does stupid things than a stupid guy who does smart things. We'll call this category smart-but-dumb. American history is replete with examples of people like him, bright people prone to idiotic behavior. The invasion of the Bay of Pigs is an example of what happens when smart people make dumb decisions. Also, "Ishtar."
As for Lewinsky, perhaps we should not be surprised by her spanking new degree. After all, she made a name for herself by accomplishing the unexpected. Back in the day, when she skyrocketed to notoriety as a young intern who'd had an affair with the president, people's reactions were the same as they are now.
She did not!!
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #22 on: 2006-12-25 11:46:20 » |
|
[Hermit 18] I'm saying that a multi-vitamin is a supplement. I take supplements too. Partly because my diet is not complete (few diets are), and I don't get enough vitamin C (not enough fruit in my diet) or sun (a mixed blessing affecting most people leading to Vitamin D shortages), but largely because I have strong reasons not to trust the water supply here, and so use a sophisticated R/O filter system to strip practically everything out of the water I drink. Knowing that much of what is removed is really important, in my case, the supplements (carefully selected to be high in minerals) are there mainly to put the stuff we used to get from water back into my system.
[Lucifer] OK, you seem to be shifting your claim from no supplement exists that can replace animal products to a supplement has to be complex in order to replace animal products. You still don't say whether or not they exist. My question was about whether it is possible and you now seem to be agreeing with me, that with sufficient supplements you can be a healthy vegetarian. And no need to speculate further about my ignorance, thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Chicken soup for the philosopher.
« Reply #23 on: 2006-12-25 15:58:45 » |
|
[Lucifer 22] OK, you seem to be shifting your claim from no supplement exists that can replace animal products to a supplement has to be complex in order to replace animal products.
[Hermit 23] I hadn't intended to shift anything, and I think that translating what I said into what you heard requires significant over-interpretation. Let me reiterate.
[Hermit 23] As far as I am aware, this hypothesised wonder-supplement, that "can replace animal products to [Hermit: with?] a supplement" does not exist. Period. Full-stop. End of story.
[Hermit 23] However, I went a step further, because, as I understand it, the reality is, as usual, more complex than the hypothetical.
[Hermit 23] I explained that I have no objection to supplements, and expanded on the fact that I use them myself, for reasons which seem sound, but which my articulation invited you to criticize if you wished.
[Hermit 23] Then, in the light of my agnosticism towards supplements, I explained that even if some wonder supplement "that can replace animal products" were invented, that it wouldn't necessarily be helpful; that the problems are significantly more complex than they first appear.
[Hermit 23] Even a perfect synthesis of amino acids (some of which would have to be delivered separately, as some are not sufficiently stable to withstand straight mixing in an HCl environment), along with needed trace elements (again some having to be kept separate to prevent breakdown, but others having to be kept together for the same reasons) would still not suffice, no matter how perfectly balanced, no matter how perfectly delivered to the stomach, because some of these items are not taken up by the blood, except in certain combinations.
[Lucifer 22] You still don't say whether or not they exist.
[Hermit 23] I'm sorry, I thought I'd explained my understanding of the situation very clearly already. As did, I thought, the article I provided. Is my articulation above sufficiently lucid?
[Lucifer 22] My question was about whether it is possible and you now seem to be agreeing with me, that with sufficient supplements you can be a healthy vegetarian.
[Hermit 23] Is it possible, I don't know. As you are well aware, many things are possible, and, in the absence of concrete examples, establishing probability is generally more useful. Which is what I tried to speak to in addressing what I saw as the more appropriate rhetorical case, "Is it probable that we will invent magical supplements , given the complexity of the situation and difficulty of persuading the body to accept supplements in lieu of the tiny amounts of trace elements which we absolutely require, but only seem to be able to obtain by eating dead things." My answer was, "No, it would make no sense at all."
[Lucifer 22] And no need to speculate further about my ignorance, thank you very much.
[Hermit 23] I don't have any qualifications in this field, but spent my early years hearing about this stuff from somebody who does. So far as I know, you aren't particularly qualified in this field either. So while my memory might be wrong (not often), or my primary source might be wrong (far from impossible, although my reading of reasonably current literature seems to support her positions as I remember them), one of us appears incorrect to me, as our opinions on this issue as articulated, appear to me to be irreconcilable.
[Hermit 23] Granting you intelligence which I respect, and wisdom which I appreciate, it seemed (and seems) likely to me that your position in this field, a field which seems to me to be dominated by emotional investments in unsustainable absolute positions, is possibly, even probably, based in ignorance rather than wrongheadedness on your part, or error on my part, although I would be quite happy to acknowledge the opposite if presented compelling evidence. Nonetheless, I articulated my opinion of why we disagree, which is my opinion and clearly just as likely to be wrong as any other of my opinions, for your consideration (and of course the consideration of others). I will argue that if my opinion is seen as persuasive - and turns out to be faulty, it surely is unlikely to do omnivores with a 4.6 million year history of great partiality, and clear evolutionary adaption, to a significant meat intake, any significant harm. I'm not sure that the same can be said for the opposing view.
[Hermit 23] If you still think that I am wrong, or that my articulation or reasoning is opaque, please feel free to correct me. I promise that I won't take offense.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
