Quote from: Onlypastrana199PETA sucks..there's better ways of getting good results without attacking everyone..

Just out of curiosity, since when is sending letters to congress, business and general people of power saying "hey, that sucks, do this" attacking everone? That was the point of my last post. People talk about PETA, but have no clue what the hell they are saying. PETA consists of a bunch of pencil pushers. The family farmers need to wake up, and consider talking to PETA not simply blame them for their problems.

Quote from: AlphaFire X5Yeah, but good rice is hard to find in the dorm. And when you combine all that with meat and vegetables you've got a variety of flavors, proteins, nutrients, etc... I realize I could get a decent amount of protein, but I'd have to resort to eating tofu. I don't think I could handle that.

The only thing thats in a meat-diet thats not trivial to find in a vegitable diet is B12, which is primarily produced by bacteria in the guts of animals. There are two factors with protein: how easy it is to digest, and how many AA it has. Soy ranks fairly low on both, but is much more protein rich. Keep in mind most protein comparison charts will compare "2oz" of tofu with meat. But, tofu is more than half water (probably way more) so you can eat a lot more of it. What's more important is percentage of calories that are protein.

But with dorm food? Uhm.. good like finding anything you can stomach for more than a month. And I'd get a good vitamin suppliment, since lacking vitamin/minerals can prevent the digestion of protein.

Quote from: PhaedrusPastrami - I think farming the way you do it is fine. I see absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat, but some places (factory farms) are extremely cruel. Farms like yours are the heart of America, though.

The "heart" in only a wishful way. Very, very, very, very little meat that a consumer buys comes from a family farm. A family farm simply can't afford to sell meat for $1 a pound.

Quote from: AlphaFire X5most vegetarians don't eat eggs, too

I wouldn't say most. I'd actually say a minority of "vegetarians". Vegans obviously dont. But most vegetarians are veggy for a few main reasons:

1) Ethical in which case they shouldn't be eating eggs but a good number haven't thought it through that far
2) Health in which case they can, if they limit their chol.
3) Environmental probably shouldn't

While I'm on the subject, one thing that typically annoys the hell out of most veggies* is the whole "I really don't eat much meat" routine. After the four thousandth time you hear it, it make you want to strangle people. Most veggies couldn't care less if you eat meat, its a personal decision.

*This is the opinion of most veggies I've know, what's yours RG?

Yeah those peta bitches show up in front of my work and I have to watch them til they leave.  Get a life you freaks!!!!!

Quote from: dionysus

Quote from: AlphaFire X5Yeah, but good rice is hard to find in the dorm. And when you combine all that with meat and vegetables you've got a variety of flavors, proteins, nutrients, etc... I realize I could get a decent amount of protein, but I'd have to resort to eating tofu. I don't think I could handle that.

The only thing thats in a meat-diet thats not trivial to find in a vegitable diet is B12, which is primarily produced by bacteria in the guts of animals. There are two factors with protein: how easy it is to digest, and how many AA it has. Soy ranks fairly low on both, but is much more protein rich. Keep in mind most protein comparison charts will compare "2oz" of tofu with meat. But, tofu is more than half water (probably way more) so you can eat a lot more of it. What's more important is percentage of calories that are protein.

Soy also has a lot of estrogen, which is not beneficial for a developing teenager. It messes with horomones and can affect your body's chemistry. Young men who take in high amounts of soy can get some serious problems out of it including impotence and other very non-productive things.

:lol:  I love where this thread has ended up. Wouldnt of guessed that in a million years.

-ash

um..what was the original post that started all this?

Quote from: jake42um..what was the original post that started all this?

Some guy complaining about davipu being an @$$hole when he's drunk.

Quote from: AlphaFire X5Soy also has a lot of estrogen, which is not beneficial for a developing teenager. It messes with horomones and can affect your body's chemistry. Young men who take in high amounts of soy can get some serious problems out of it including impotence and other very non-productive things.

Smart ass, no. Soy contains no estrogen. So contains compounds that can be used by the body to create estrogen. They're called isoflavenoids(sp?). This myth is based on the use of soy in dietary suppliments for middle aged women.

There has never been any study linking soy to impotence*, "very non-productive things", blindness and/or hair palms. There are many cultures with soy as a large portion of their diet, there are many, many millions of people that have consumed a large soy diet for their entire life. There's no evidance that its bad, and only very slight evidance that its better than anything else (not everything else, for the logically impaired). If you don't want to eat soy, fine withe me. Just shut your mouth about things you don't know.

Which brings my right back on topic (honest, it does read david's post). I was joking about us PETA freak!! Really, really I was!

*The first time I read that as "incontinence", damn would I be in trouble if that were true.

Quote from: jake42um..what was the original post that started all this?

davipu wrote in another post.
tarzanboy, you sir are a idiot. that is all I am going to say on the subject.


tarzanboy took offense to it, then it went to talk about peta or pita bread or something

And specifically davidpu getting pissed at some asshat talking out of his ass.

Soy has no estrogen.  Plenty of teens have been raised veggie.

My connection sucks, so my ability to search pubmed is very limited.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15212753&query_hl=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12826028&query_hl=1

In fact, it's so shitty that D got to it first.

But even with a good connection, I was too lazy to search (and link) to pubmed.

The first time I heard this was from a lady who latter claimed one brand of water was better because it had "smaller molecules". It may even have been atoms, but I'll give her the benifit of the doubt. No, not trying for a straw man I just thought it was funny as hell.

you were called an idiot....  The way I look at it you got off easier than I did awhile back.

I got called childish, a squid, squidly, and my favorite one was "cap'n fast n' furious".  This was all in one day.  At first it made me mad but hey I opened my mouth and said some stuff too.

Quote from: indestructiblemanaccording to their own filings, PETA's animal shelters killed 86.4% of the animals they took in in 2004.


http://www.thisistrue.com/peta.html

If given the choice between a lifetime of cruelty, disfigurement, and pain beyond comprehension and euthaniasia....I would choose euthanasia.

Depending on the level of disfigurement, I'd have to go with the disfigurement.

Quote from: Onlypastrana199RG...u work in science how many animal studies have you done? Is that any less cruel that "farming" ? I doubt it, I've done research too, I know the kinda crap they do...

Factory farming methods are much worse than the vast majority of research. And, you'll notice PETA also works against abuse in labs. But, compare a few thousand lab animals to tens (if not hundreds) of millions of livestock, and the priorities for PETA are kinda obvious. The type of farming methods PETA wants to stop are things like:

1) starving chickens to force them the into laying eggs
2) cutting the beaks, toes and occasionally feet/face off chickens to keep them from pecking each other, and themselves, to death. This is why peta is trying for another 1/2 square foot per bird so this practice is no longer needed.
3) nailing calves hoofs to the floor to produce veal
4) disposing of "used" egg-laying chickens by chucking them, while still alive, into wood chippers (the starvation prevents them from being useful for food)

Don't many factory farms also put an excessively heavy and short  chain around the neck of a calf so they cannot move so their meat is more tender?

That's pretty frocked up, too. There is no need for cruelty when the same results can be acheived without it, by paying just a little bit more. I'd pay $3 for a cheeseburger instead of $1. Anyone who wouldn't should remember karma.

the article says that the SPCA in PETA's home town finds homes for 73% of the animals taken in.

i've had several animals put down.  i realize it becomes a kindness at some point.  however, i'm skeptical that 86.4% of  the animals they bring in are really in that bad of shape.

Quote from: Blazinjr

Quote from: jake42um..what was the original post that started all this?

davipu wrote in another post.
tarzanboy, you sir are a idiot. that is all I am going to say on the subject.

You sir, are an idiot!

Since we came back around to this, don't people recognize this phrase as an old internet standby. It dates back to pre-web days on usenet etc. It is a ridiculously over the top response to someone you disagree with. I think it may be from Monty Python but not sure.

When someone posts  :nana:  :nana:  :nana:  I hope no one takes that seriously.

Quote from: Phaedrus

Quote from: indestructiblemanaccording to their own filings, PETA's animal shelters killed 86.4% of the animals they took in in 2004.


http://www.thisistrue.com/peta.html

If given the choice between a lifetime of cruelty, disfigurement, and pain beyond comprehension and euthaniasia....I would choose euthanasia.

There's also one other thing to consider. Dogs and cats are horribly over bred, and no one wants to rescue an animal they all want puppies/kittens. This means that the vast majority of resuced animals will never be adopted. So, all animal shelters are given two options, keep the animal in a kennel for the rest of its lives or kill it, and use the saved money/resources to rescue more animals. If you can hold/support 1000 animals, and 80% can't get homes your going to fill up with animals that have no chance of being adopted very, very fast while only 10% will die off each year from natural causes. After the first year, your supporting 800 animals that wont be adopted, thats something like $16k for food each year and 800 animals locked in a kennel.

In this case, almost all animal shelters will kill animals after 6mo to a year in order to free space for an animal that has half a chance of having a decent life. It sounds bad, but its either do a little to help them out or do nothing. Any "no-kill" shelter works by limiting the number of animals to a handful, which live with "foster parents". The only no-kill shelter in Riverside, CA has a whopping 2 dogs right now, and can't handle any more. They had a lot more, but the "foster" part just got dropped, and now those people have a few more dogs.