Joint pain and inflammation

[Podshell]

Doesn't it make you wonder why you have so little to say and explain? I provide reasons for my opinions and explain quite a bit, I don't just have opinions, I also need to know why I have them and whether they are correct, and say why I have them or where they come from. I also notice it is getting repetitious...

Yes and I am asking you about your opinions, I find your philosophy unstable though, it does not pan out across the board, that means you change it to suit.

You said that pills and drugs go through the system without being digested. I said the pills and drugs are designed to be hard to digest... as many are.
And those who take pills, they are sick in so many ways anyway.
But the most important is that no one should be taking pills in the first place... Thus this pill point is of no relevance here. Pills and drugs are not food.

It is not only pills and drugs that can pass through.

you made up your mind based on short-term effects and too little knowledge regarding all this. Plus the dieting you began practicing, it makes later discoveries and realizations very hard to come, because avoiding eating meat creates, among other issues, vitamin B12 deficiency. A vitamin crucial to thinking and effective brain activity. All the experiences that you had later you viewed through those initial conclusions made from too little awareness, accompanied by B12 and other deficiencies. And you're still holding the same opinions years later?

I said earlier that it is possible to supplement with any needed vitamins , regarding the brain we would have to look at studies to see whose brain performs better , is it vegetarians or meat eaters?

Please stop telling me how I come to my conclusions, you don't know you are just guessing and in a confrontational way too.

That you haven't figured it out in fifteen years... Doesn't this make you wonder?

Yes it makes me think that the raw meat may be clouding your judgemental capabilities.

The initial conclusions I have made, and many that came after are in the past, I don't hold many of those anymore, and many others are improved as I've found out more.
I've barely been two years at it, and I know volumes better than you... as has come out.

Oh dear....so that means you may change your mind again in future.So why be so sure you are correct at the present?

I know because I am aware of people who too were for years meat-avoiders. And then, somehow, they noticed something was not right. They began searching for answers and solutions, thus ended up eating meat (and raw meat eventually), and they saw themselves finally getting better and then back to actual health. Based on what they have to say, and what they have found out through personal experience. Then comparing my own experiences with theirs, and testing it out, finding my own.
Reading, learning, experiencing - patterns emerge.

So you are listening to one side from those who tried doing without meat but couldn't, not too wise to just take the data from the side you prefer.

By reading you are learning from others so it means you are not going it alone.

The people and observations you talk about are also, just like yours, based on those initial low awareness and short-term experiences and effects. Then coupled with the meat-avoidance, you get stuck with those initial conclusions because the deficiencies it causes makes it very hard to get out and move on.

Much higher awareness I would vouch, and much longer experience, sometimes many generations.

[Podshell]

Milk has negative side-effects. An adult is not supposed to consume milk. After weaning, changes take place regarding the consumption of milk. Plus, chickens are far easier to keep and their eggs are more nutritious than milk (or overall about the same), without negative side-effects (though some cannot tolerate egg whites, but are okay with yolks). Chicken manure is very potent.

Have a look at the second link I posted and see that milk has many benefits including providing ample B12 for the body, plus you will see that at one time we respected the cow and adults survived quite happily on milk and its products...

Foodstuffs you, a human, are not capable of digesting, are not food for you in the first place. You're not supposed to be consuming them anyway.
Cow's digestive tract is different, they have more than one stomach. They are built to digest grasses and leaves. Humans are not.
But if the cow came closer to its end, or actually died. You wouldn't eat it?

It is not to do with how the cow digests but there relationship to us, it is a symbiotic one...think along the lines of ants with aphids or bees with flowers. Honey is not 'meant' for us but we can help manage the hives and place them near good plants so we take some of the product for ourselves the same with cows and they are happy to do this...see 'A tale of two herds'

You would fish only if you got desperate? On an island? Really? Fish are a very good and nutritious source of food. And you would only use it if you got "desperate"?

Yes I already have plant and a milk supply from contented cattle so why kill the fish?

It is far likelier that you would end up on an island without cows, without even chickens, but there are fish...

depends on the size of the island I suppose, if it was tiny one cow should suffice

Fish and eggs are easy to digest and highly nutritious.

If I kept eating the eggs I would probably run out of chickens

Also, considering that every single human is genetically an omnivore, such a thing as "vegetarian" or "vegan" doesn't really even exist. Those who do not eat meat are simply "meat-avoiders".

You cant prove that we are an omnivore that eats meat, as I cant prove that we once relied on milk and its products.

Factory chickens, sugar plantation worker. Why are you concentrating on those? It is obvious those are very bad practices. But that those are bad does not mean the killing of animals for food is bad, or that growing of plants and thus eating the plants is bad. Most humans need both, there is no choice as to what our bodies need. Yes you can choose not to eat one or the other, but with that you are only hurting yourself.

I dont think most humans need both, but I do see more and more needing both, but that then leaves us with a decision which is either come down hard on the food tamperers or kill more animals, if we carry on killing more and more animals the planets food supply will buckle and we will resort to cannibalism, that is likely the course the ancient civilisations you mentioned took, as I cannot see them jumping from vegetarianism to cannibalism straight off and with no reason.

Ancient people? Inuits, who go back thousands of years. Ancient people. Ate meat at every meal, those who are still living free and right to their ways still do.
Did you live in ancient times? No you didn't. But what is obvious from the little that has been gathered of those ancient times, is that people were living much older than are today and (also because) they knew far better about health and how our bodies are supposed to work. Since they knew even better than today, they knew exactly the importance of meat.
From the information that is available to us, it is also obvious from it that the less poisoned and the more nutritious the food, the less you will need to eat. I also know this from personal experience.

Well at least one of the authorities on ancient systems does not agree with your views on the amount of meat needed, but the idea of long life spans is there.

Cows and bulls are held as "holy" or "sacred" by many peoples. You want to know why? It's not because they didn't want to kill them, it's because they had a highly important role in their societies. For example, the fat of an old cow or bull who lived a whole and very good life, is highly energizing and satisfying. This is why they were so important and so highly regarded, because it was one of their main staples - meat. Even I see how important it is that animals live a good and long life, already from nutritional perspective alone.

The milk producing cows and the labouring cattle would be OK for meat for those who want to eat it, so why not eat those?

The cow is seen as a mother and I suppose the worker bull as an employee so these should not bee killed.

And many things I've refound in these times, then later reading over stories of ancient peoples and their ways, and musing over what I've read, accompanied by my own experiences. It all just makes perfect sense.
Ancient peoples ate meat, and not a little bit. Consider at least 50% of their diet meat.

Those who wanted to advance avoided meat.

You think killing animals for the essential nutrients they contain is not also for survival? Being sick of malnourishment is no way of living a life.

It is not needed as I said earlier milk and its products provide any extra needed
.

Great whites? They live in the ocean...
They take in ocean water all the time - plankton.
They absorb minerals directly from the sea water.
Of course they won't need anywhere near as much through their mouths as do land animals.

We also take in nutrients from sun and air and also minerals from the vegetables.

You said "because of the taste". Thus, of course it is exactly the same thing!

This is different in the main as not everyone likes the taste of all veg, but most people like the taste of meat...not sure about when it is raw though, do you like the taste of raw meat?

[Podshell]

True, but still there are nutrients that are impossible to get in the needed quantities if not for eating meat.

Can you list them?

cut and pasted from net

'Brewers Yeast is a rich source of nutrients, typically used for making beer, but can also be used to make breads and other consumables.There are conflicting reports on how much vitamin B12 brewers yeast provides. The University of Maryland Medical Center states that it provides no B-12. However, the nutrition facts from Now Foods lists a whopping 3 micrograms (50% DV) of vitamin B12 in two tablespoons of brewers yeast. This is way more B12 than what you can get from Marmite or other yeast extracts.So, as ever with nutrition facts, it is best to buy a product where you can consult the label for specific B12 content. One should also be cautious on counting on the yeast as a sole source for vitamin B12.'

(And even if there is none in it we can use marmite or similar that is fortified with B12)

Sure, but this does not mean eating nutrient rich and unpoisoned meat is bad.

It makes me doubt it is needed as often as you suggest.

Sure, you can "survive" not eating meat. But what life is it if that's all you can do - just survive? Our lives are not just about surviving, we need to be able to live and progress and move on to higher existence. We cannot do this if we block the road by omitting ourselves what our bodies need.

But I say our bodies in the main do not need meat, and we need to process some foods, even a little.

One day, if we get high enough, sure, we can not eat meat, not even plants. We won't need any. We'd be killing no one for food. But first we have to get there. And right now, to one day be able to get there, we need meat as w

.

We already had that in the Vedic system..cows milk grains and fruits (and meat for those who needed/wanted it)

Those who'd need what is in the meat of the fellow animal, those would rather kill it than pick an apple or two. An apple does not replace meat, it cannot.

Which I doubt would happen often

True. But I do know and see better than you do. As is evident.

Little speck of bad karma again there nummi

I go after the overlaying, underlaying, or general patterns, the connections, perspective, angles, etc. and use those to determine and see details on my own. In this sense don't really have to know much. Just get the "patterns", and the result is that you begin seeing on your own. Many people bury themselves in learning the details... for years and years, they are wasting their life.

To me this is where your philosophy goes astray, I mean you judge people a certain way, but they may be doing similar to what you are doing and then they could just dismiss your research in the same way if it does not tally with theirs.

Going for "patterns" first requires thinking on ones own, a lot of thinking, and its fun. Going for details first, and patterns never, is merely following and parroting others and it is so boring.

It is wise to parrot once you realise someone is correct, it is like spreading good news.

Though since people are indoctrinated, through schools, etc, to go for details and not look for patterns, so was I. Even in the so-called "alternative" most people still follow, don't think on their or do too little.

But patterns will emerge in others work and philosophies as well as your own.

Yeah... bigger picture cannot fit into a smaller one. And smaller picture cannot see how the bigger one truly works.

We do speculate from what we know, or we approach someone who has a lot of knowledge.

Well if you research being influenced by old opinions that themselves were based on much unawareness and blindness, then new lessons from the researching are limited.

Sometimes because something is labelled 'New' does not mean it is better, progress could mean sticking to tried and tested systems, and not just accepting something because it is new.

No one is supposed to eat them in large quantities in the first place. To cook them just so you could "shovel" them down your throat... is ridiculous.
And just because you don't notice the negative effects as well when cooked, doesn't mean there is none. You would notice the negative effects if you lived 100+, but wait... you won't because you ate them cooked your entire life in large quantities... That's right. Cooking cuts decades off an individual's lifetime. Because of the harm it subjects the body to.

I am early fifties now but if people try to guess my age it is usually at most early forties, and that is with over use of alcohol most my life too.So I think dietwise I am doing something correct.
Q

Our stomachs are designed to digest raw foods only. It's the cooked foods the stomach has to adjust to. And once adjusted to cooked foods since birth onward, and then switch to all raw, there obviously has to be some adjustment, which takes a few months at least, to get back to the correct state it's meant to be in.

If our stomachs were designed do you mean a creator designed them? If so then in the bible for instance they are instructed too cook and offer some stuff...even burnt offerings!

I don't pick and choose what karma is. I've said the same thing about karma here from the beginning since you brought it in.

So what do you think happens when you take the life of an higher animal, what are the consequences of this action?

And now you showed that you really have no idea what karma is.

Another karmic rebound there.

Animals are different from humans in this. In the sense that their spirit is on a collective level. Till they "evolve" one way or another to a point where individual spirits are formed. Many ancient peoples and their successors speak of animals spirits...

That is not an authoritive version, we are all souls in different vehicles.Destroying these vehicles is not so good

Eating an animal who is old and has had a long and happy life. An animal whose time is very near. And the absolute fact that our bodies need meat on this planet in these times in these conditions... What is there not to understand? Obvious is obvious.

I am glad you understand that part.

I've been explaining myself so much... And you haven't really explained yourself much at all, and in fact have ignored so much of what I have explained. Or is the problem that you cannot understand what I have said? You wouldn't be the first to not understand...

It is just that your philosophy does not appear to be very solid.

There is something in meat the body cannot get enough from elsewhere - vitamin B12. It is essential for the brain and nerves. You won't be able to think much or well without enough of it. And thus you won't be able to say much... You have already demonstrated difficulties in thinking. You have B12 deficiency.

You are thinking I am vegan, I am not.

If you don't do much (heavier and physically more demanding) physical exercise, then egg yolks, fish, and animal organs should be the focus, as they contain higher concentrations of vitamins (B12) and minerals the brain needs. Otherwise the protein would be too much, and it would cause issues as the body couldn't use it for anything essential; it would get in the wa

I used to be very physically active, now I only swim and walk mainly (perhaps 2-3hrs a day)

But inthe past and on a veggie diet I was outrunning younger people than me on the football field for many hours a day, plus swimming , running and walking

Just a footnote about the inuits diet


Hunted meats:
Sea mammals such as walrus, seal, and whale. Whale meat from the beluga whale and the bowhead whale. The latter is able to feed an entire community for nearly a year from its meat, blubber, and skin. Inuit hunters most often hunt juvenile whales which, compared to adults, are safer to hunt and have tastier skin. Ringed Seal and Bearded Seal are the most important aspect of an Inuit diet and is often the largest part of an Inuit hunter's diet.[1]
Land mammals such as Caribou, Polar bear, and Muskox
Birds and their eggs
Salt water and freshwater fish including sculpin, Arctic cod, Arctic char, Capelin and lake trout.
While it is not possible to cultivate native plants for food in the Arctic, the Inuit have traditionally gathered those that are naturally available[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] including:
berries including crowberry and cloudberry
Herbaceous plants such as grasses, fireweed
tubers and stems including Mousefood, roots of various tundra plants which are cached by voles in underground burrows.
roots such as Tuberous Spring Beauty and Sweet Vetch
seaweed
Note

and the bowhead whale. The latter is able to feed an entire community for nearly a year from its meat, blubber, and skin.

So even these people do not need to kill much and also have vegetable matter in their diets.

[nummi]

Originally Posted by Podshell

Not time to answer all your points at the moment but do you think farming animals is normal? Do you think preserving meat is natural? on one hand you say you try to do what is normal for the body but I don't know of any related creatures that do this and if they did it on the scale we did then it would look as if they had flipped.

Farming animals is as "normal" as is farming plants.
Preserving meat is as natural as is preserving plants.

I don't try to do what is "normal", I try to do what is best given the present world and conditions I am in.

"Normal" is not a nice word. "Normal" is something according to established ways that are regarded as the correct way, even when from a natural perspective they are anything but correct. Or something is "normal" because so many do it.
It is "normal" to smoke, to lie, to eat toxins, to make oneself ill, to drink excessively, to not question authority, etc. - all those are bad ways. But there are also good "normal" ways.
I try to isolate the good from bad, not take them all as the same. Bad is bad, good is good. Mixing those two - what "normal" is generally about - not so good.
Or rather not good or bad, but what takes onward and what takes backward, or what simply keeps stuck.

you think eating meat at nearly every meal is natural for us , well I don't think hunter gatherers could do that and they still can't, many days could be spent obtaining meat so days would have been spent without, if you want what is normal then you would have to hunt it yourself burn off the calories and go days without.

Hunter gatherers also had food that was/is many times more nutritious, so of course they could seemingly do with less. And of course they could bodily function well for longer periods with seemingly less.

There's no need to live like they do. Many reasons why not. One is that we have the possibility to make sure we have all we need whenever we need them, in contrast to their needing to hunt and search for food. Hunting and searching for food takes long, we can spend that time doing other things, like advancing our own body and mind in other ways. Advancing our collective knowledge of the world. Etc.
I don't keep days in between, but I do keep hours (5-8/8-16/16-24, about so the "breaks"). Generally two meals a day, sometimes one meal, haven't done three meals a day in a while and can't see how I could anymore as it would bog down my body.

The soils I get my food from have been used for many decades. Even as they are (as far as I am aware) toxin free, they are still somewhat mineral deficient.

Originally Posted by Podshell

Oh and if you wish to know what karma is you will need to approach a person who has a much fuller fund of knowledge, for example Srila Prabhupada who is an accepted authority on the vedic literature, can you say you are more authoritive?

Accepted authority? There is no authority over me other than myself. I decide myself what is true or not.

I'm not after the descriptions or details of the world and us. I'm after the patterns, the factors, the variables. In this way you can "know" and see a whole lot without actually knowing much details.
I see a topic, some details. Then I fit that to the overall patterns I am aware of. And there it comes, information is flooding in.
If the detail is a new one, the kind I've not seen before, then I look whether it improves the pattern, or not and is essentially nonsense.

Just because someone, not you or me or essentially the entire world except a few individuals, have decided someone to be "authority" of something, does not mean that that individual actually is authority.

I say yes I possibly am more authoritative, but can't say for certain for I've never met the person.
Can you say I am less authoritative? To say yes you would need to know better than I, obviously; and better than that person, obviously. We both know you don't.

http://quotes.iskcondesiretree.com/s...tion-of-karma/

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/importa...ic_culture.htm

Comes back to my point about everone liking the taste of meat, which I don't think you understand, we can try to ignore karma for taste or sometimes what appears beneficial to be helping the body.

You talk about ancient systems but concoct your own ideas about them, it sums up my point really that there are people who know much more than us

That which meat industry does, that to those who are doing it, does have karmic effects, one way or another. But not one of them will be born as an animal who will get slaughtered the same way. Doesn't work like that.

But that they are doing it wrong, does not mean the act of eating another animal itself is bad, everywhere and in ever case. Because it is not. It's not the act of doing it, it's how it's done and why it is done.

I need meat. Period...
It's not that it appears to be helping, it's that it is essential. If I don't eat meat there will be karmic effects for me, because my body needs meat. If I don't eat meat my body won't work well. I cannot substitute meat on this planet at this time with something else, and I cannot get all that I need from plants only.
Why would I make my body suffer? Why would I deny my body what it needs? If my body cannot function properly, then I cannot do in this world what I am here to do. Making myself unable to do what I am supposed to do here, has severe karmic effects.

Of course there are those who know much more than us. But that doesn't mean we are wrong. It's just that they know in more detail, they are aware of more aspects, more perspectives and angles, more understandings.
You are lacking many understandings to have a fuller view of the world. Just like I lack many understandings to have a fuller view of the world. And they are lacking many understandings to have a fuller view of the world. Who knows better than who? Because all don't know exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Podshell

Fair enough.but the question was regarding how often the body craves for it or desires it , I don't think it would be as often as nummi eats it unless he has a similar health problem.

I feel we (both nummi and yourself) are on similar journeys healthwise as many problems with own bodies and diets in general have been noted...what I find a bit petty about nummis stance is that he sees it as some competition ' I know more than you' type of thing.....confrontational

That'll be the karma from all that meat

I have no health problem such as what you are thinking.

If the body has been denied what it needs for a long time, then it can and will also need it for a longer time in larger amounts.
Those who have gone all raw, emphasis on animals. They have noticed that in the beginning, for a year or a little more they've eaten "more". But then they naturally begin eating less. Because if the body has been damaged over many decades, it takes at least a few years to heal from the major damages. I also used to eat more meat than I do at present.

I don't see it as a competition. And I'm not petty. I merely state the obvious. And I state it because there are such misunderstandings as this one. Your misunderstandings.

You assert that eating meat is bad, that it has bad karmic effects, that those who eat meat will suffer.
You eat plants, they are also alive, then so will you suffer. But so do I eat plants. Difference is I don't deny that I kill, and need to kill, to keep my body working well. You on the other hand seem perfectly fine saying killing animals for food is bad and those who do it will suffer, while at the same time you are okay with killing plants and do it gladly. Life is life, whichever form it has. Killing is killing, whatever form it is you kill.
It is obvious you have issues with rational thinking and understanding of others - qualities that are also created when one denies oneself animals as food (like vit B12, and also animal fats - both essential for good brain functioning). I've seen the same behavior many times with the same type of dieting you hold. I'd say karma, in your case, probably is building up a stand till it finds an opportunity to strike hard. It's the path you got yourself onto. It's a hard path to get off of.

[nummi]

There's really not much left to say. All's been said... really is becoming repetitious.

Originally Posted by Podshell

Yes and I am asking you about your opinions, I find your philosophy unstable though, it does not pan out across the board, that means you change it to suit.

It's not unstable and I don't change it to suit. You see it as such because are lacking access to many understandings equivalent to those I have access to.

So I could describe everything that goes through my mind and everything I am able to see, I would have to write many books worth of words. Obviously I cannot say out everything; have to choose, and let my heart-mind guide me.
I rely on "patterns/understandings/perspective-angles/variables" I improve when I see something that could improve them.

If I look at the general picture of all that I know and can see then that picture sure does look like quite a mess even to myself... There are many angles, many perspectives, many ways of saying the same. And I'm nowhere near done finding what I need to find.

I said earlier that it is possible to supplement with any needed vitamins , regarding the brain we would have to look at studies to see whose brain performs better , is it vegetarians or meat eaters?

Studies? So you need someone else to decide for you what is true and not? I'm not like that, I look myself. I've looked myself, I've observed myself, I've seen myself.
What do you think is better? Going straight to the test-subjects and looking and asking them, or go to some inbetween person that makes decisions based on something that was also decided by someone else, who yet in turn again based his decisions on someone else's opinions, etc.? It's... ludicrous...
I decide myself. If someone says something, I want to know what they are basing it on. I go straight to the source, if there is a source, and if it is accessible somehow. Rational thinking and logic are also good tools, they reveal a lot. Connecting different areas, different perspectives, stories, finding the patterns, etc.

Already from all this here the conclusion is obvious. Vegetarian mind has big issues.

Please stop telling me how I come to my conclusions, you don't know you are just guessing and in a confrontational way too.

I can see what I can see. The conclusions you have made do not accord to those that could come from long-term effects. And so... from short-term effects. From short-term more so that that which you have said exactly accords short-term effects.

This I do know, I see it. I am not guessing. It is obvious.

Yes it makes me think that the raw meat may be clouding your judgemental capabilities.

Really? You base this on what? On all your misunderstandings?
You don't even see that you have misunderstandings...

Oh dear....so that means you may change your mind again in future.So why be so sure you are correct at the present?

???
Really? Well... WOW!

But very good. The obvious is coming out more and more.

Were you born with the knowledge you presently have? Have you not learned new things? Have you not changed your mind ever in your life? Isn't it stupid to even ask these?

Of course I will change my mind somewhere in the future. As I will find out more and more about myself and the world. I don't and won't keep myself stuck with the same mentalities and conclusions and decisions I made 15 years ago if it is obvious, considering the newer information (if the newer information is correct), that I was wrong.
Since overall directions I have are more or less correct, then that which I will change my mind about will be "details". And if some overall directions should prove to be false, then I will correct them.

Won't you change your mind? Considering... You probably won't... While, from overall health perspective, if best achievable health is important, especially that of the brain, you should.

So you are listening to one side from those who tried doing without meat but couldn't, not too wise to just take the data from the side you prefer.

By reading you are learning from others so it means you are not going it alone.

They are the best example because they were for years on the path you are still on and they ended up, after seeing it doesn't work, accepting the truth that it does not work. They accepted their mistake and moved on.

I am going alone my own experience. What I read is that there are those who have similar experiences. In this regard that's all, nothing more. No emotional attachment or anything such.

Much higher awareness I would vouch, and much longer experience, sometimes many generations.

Higher awareness? Yet you are denying, downright not even seeing, a lot that is obvious.
Many generations? You do realize this is a lie? And if it is not a lie then it is about those bodies that can function with such dieting; there are very few who can function well. Very few. Those very few and what they are like and can do, does not apply to all.

Originally Posted by Podshell

Have a look at the second link I posted and see that milk has many benefits including providing ample B12 for the body, plus you will see that at one time we respected the cow and adults survived quite happily on milk and its products...

I have never said it does not provide many benefits. It does, if the body is not getting the most appropriate diet.

Since it has negative effects, it is not a part of a "best" diet. Milk is not an adult food, never has been, never will be. Yes it is possible to consume it. But should we? It's not even needed for adults. Milk is needed only for young children, it's who it is for - children.

Also have to consider that many peoples essentially cannot consume animal milk at all, because it is too harmful. The ones who can best handle it are primarily european (white skin) descent peoples.

It is not to do with how the cow digests but there relationship to us, it is a symbiotic one...think along the lines of ants with aphids or bees with flowers. Honey is not 'meant' for us but we can help manage the hives and place them near good plants so we take some of the product for ourselves the same with cows and they are happy to do this...see 'A tale of two herds'

Wasn't this about giving the cows that which you can't eat? And now you turned this to milking them instead... ??

Yes I already have plant and a milk supply from contented cattle so why kill the fish?

You and alone on an island is how I perceived it... And now you talk about how you already have a supply and then why kill fish...
You don't seem to be aware what you yourself have suggested and said and are talking about...
Am I depleting your vit B12 reserves? It has made me wonder before and now I really do wonder...

depends on the size of the island I suppose, if it was tiny one cow should suffice

Tiny one. A cow needs quite a bit of grasses and such for food... So, how tiny? And... how could you get that cow onto the island? Or it just magically was there?

If I kept eating the eggs I would probably run out of chickens

This makes absolutely no sense at all. Why would you not let new chickens be hatched? Why would you eat all of them? Chickens, on a good diet, lay eggs nearly every day. Chicks from several eggs would be no problem...
Though you would also need a rooster.

You cant prove that we are an omnivore that eats meat, as I cant prove that we once relied on milk and its products.

???
Really?

We, absolutely every human on this planet, is genetically an omnivore. An omnivore is someone who has the ability and bodily need for plants and animals, for best health possible.
Even carnivores eat some plants - like wolves or dogs or cats eat some grass sometimes.
And herbivores eat some animals. Insects that are on the grasses.

I've even seen a cow eat a chick. That was in India, saw it from a video. The cow must have been severely under-nutritioned to be so desperate as to eat a chick.

When I compare your first responses with newer ones, then it is obvious your condition has degraded severely... You can't think straight.
Perhaps karma is doing it's job with you through me? Providing or building toward opportunities to see yourself?

I dont think most humans need both, but I do see more and more needing both, but that then leaves us with a decision which is either come down hard on the food tamperers or kill more animals, if we carry on killing more and more animals the planets food supply will buckle and we will resort to cannibalism, that is likely the course the ancient civilisations you mentioned took, as I cannot see them jumping from vegetarianism to cannibalism straight off and with no reason.

You don't think that most need both? But the fact is that most do need both. Also depends on what life they want, if most want to suffer pointlessly, then yes most don't need both.

No. The ancient civilization did not eat meat for centuries of their time. Till they resorted to ritualistic cannibalism. Avoiding eating meat is what in such a situation leads to cannibalism.
They probably had similar ideas as you do. That killing an animal is bad, it brings bad onto you, that you're not supposed to do it. Then they started killing and eating each other, after centuries of hurting themselves and trying to keep their harmful ways going.
But even cannibalism can go only so far. Because the food-chain becomes poorer and poorer of B12 and all the rest. Till the entire society dies out.
There was plenty of reason to jump from vegetarianism to cannibalism "straight off". It took centuries till the turning point (though probably gradually, more and more, till ritualistic), the people broke themselves too much with vegetarianism.

Planets food supply cannot buckle if things are done right. There's natural circulation, natural recycling. That which comes from dirt, goes to dirt.
It can only buckle if the planet is poisoned and polluted far too much.
Eating meat, killing animals for meat, does not pollute the planet.
I could as well say the growing and killing of plants will make the food supply buckle. The same thing. Both are untrue.
It's how and why it's done.

Well at least one of the authorities on ancient systems does not agree with your views on the amount of meat needed, but the idea of long life spans is there.

I've explained before about the amounts that are needed, and why such amounts are needed or not. There's nothing that disagrees.

The milk producing cows and the labouring cattle would be OK for meat for those who want to eat it, so why not eat those?

Why consume milk if it is not necessary? Adults don't need milk.
Why not instead concentrate that energy into the meat-body of the animal?

The cow is seen as a mother and I suppose the worker bull as an employee so these should not bee killed.

And if they get old and are about to die? Then you eat them, because our bodies need meat anyway.

Those who wanted to advance avoided meat.

You base this on what?

It is not needed as I said earlier milk and its products provide any extra needed.

But this is not true.
I've explained over and over.

Are you aware that you are ignoring nearly everything I am saying?
Same drill as ever with those avoiding meat... and now again. When I'm done answering these, I won't respond again, no further point.

We also take in nutrients from sun and air and also minerals from the vegetables.

Yes, and we also take them from animal meat. But this wasn't about us, this was about other animals, the ones in sea water.

This is different in the main as not everyone likes the taste of all veg, but most people like the taste of meat...not sure about when it is raw though, do you like the taste of raw meat?

Comparing my own memory when I ate cooked meat, raw tastes a lot better.

Best tasting raw meat I've had is one that's room temperature, dry on the surface, soft inside, 2-3 weeks old. Really good tasting.

But why change the point of this... so sudden? Why not admit you were wrong?
What it was about, the thought "Just because you like the taste of meat, your ulterior motive is to find any excuse to eat them."
I added it is the same as saying "Just because you like the taste of bananas, your ulterior motive is to find any excuse to eat them."

Originally Posted by Podshell

Can you list them?

cut and pasted from net

'Brewers Yeast is a rich source of nutrients, typically used for making beer, but can also be used to make breads and other consumables.There are conflicting reports on how much vitamin B12 brewers yeast provides. The University of Maryland Medical Center states that it provides no B-12. However, the nutrition facts from Now Foods lists a whopping 3 micrograms (50% DV) of vitamin B12 in two tablespoons of brewers yeast. This is way more B12 than what you can get from Marmite or other yeast extracts.So, as ever with nutrition facts, it is best to buy a product where you can consult the label for specific B12 content. One should also be cautious on counting on the yeast as a sole source for vitamin B12.'

(And even if there is none in it we can use marmite or similar that is fortified with B12)

And you simply believe without actually researching, thinking, and trying things yourself?

The official daily recommendations are wrong. They are far too low.

You copy-paste this as if it is true while yourself being the evidence that it is not true. Blind trust.

From your responses it is obvious you have brain functioning issues. The more obvious the more you have responded. At first it was about okay, but now... truth is so obvious.
I see. You don't. 'Cause you can't, because your brain ain't working right, because it doesn't have what it needs in the required quantities to work right.

It makes me doubt it is needed as often as you suggest.

I have many times said how much one needs depends on many things. Why are you ignoring them?

But I say our bodies in the main do not need meat, and we need to process some foods, even a little.

But this is wrong. I've explained over and over.
Why are you simply ignoring and avoiding what I've explained, and why are you not giving your own explanations. If you think those worded messes you've given are explanations, then you are yet again wrong.

And sure, even cutting meat with scissors into smaller pieces is processing. It's about what kind of processing. About what occurs, what changes, inside the food.

Little speck of bad karma again there nummi

No. A speck of bad karma for you.
You are trying insert your own lower awareness than mine as higher than mine.
It's on you.

To me this is where your philosophy goes astray, I mean you judge people a certain way, but they may be doing similar to what you are doing and then they could just dismiss your research in the same way if it does not tally with theirs.

I don't judge. I analyze. I describe what I see.
I don't see people in a "certain" way. I see them based on what they are like, how they act, behave, what they say.

Broader and more extensive research and thinking, thus broader and more extensive understanding cannot tally with those who have smaller understanding. Bigger picture cannot fit into a smaller one.

I'm not dismissing. I simply know better. You cannot dismiss, because you simply don't understand as well.

It is wise to parrot once you realise someone is correct, it is like spreading good news.

This is false. Parroting is never good.
Not supposed to parrot. But supposed to make that which is true part of oneself. Thus when you say it, you are not parroting.
If you parrot, you are imitating someone else. If you made the truth part of yourself and say it out, then you are being yourself.

But patterns will emerge in others work and philosophies as well as your own.

Since I go for more and more comprehensive patterns, then the patterns seen in my "works" reflect those comprehensive patterns.
Who have bigger, who have smaller.
But smaller and shallower cannot understand well those bigger and deeper.

We do speculate from what we know, or we approach someone who has a lot of knowledge.

And if what we know are flowing, not solid and unmoving. Flowing over something someone says, revealing the truths and lies and shortcomings with ease.

Sometimes because something is labelled 'New' does not mean it is better, progress could mean sticking to tried and tested systems, and not just accepting something because it is new.

It goes both ways. Old can be bad just as new can be. And old can be good just as new can be.

If our stomachs were designed do you mean a creator designed them? If so then in the bible for instance they are instructed too cook and offer some stuff...even burnt offerings!

Not a creator, but creators. Multiple. And since the first creation there have been further "corrections". Though there are many "sides". Some want us as "cattle", others as free and self-sustainable.

Primary "material" probably some ancient apes. Then from the creators' sides more DNA, including their own.

The bible is corrupt. The "bad side" couldn't corrupt the whole book, since it was already established to some degrees, but they did what they could. It's filled with lies and half-truths, and some truths.
Best to use ones own mind.

Burning invites negative entities. Especially the burning of flesh.

So what do you think happens when you take the life of an higher animal, what are the consequences of this action?

Depends why it was taken.

Another karmic rebound there.

No.

That is not an authoritive version, we are all souls in different vehicles.Destroying these vehicles is not so good

Neither is yours authoritative.
Plants also have etheric and such bodies, probably even spirits on a collective level. Destroying plants isn't then so good either.

I am glad you understand that part.

This isn't the first time I've said essentially the same... So what changed this time?

It is just that your philosophy does not appear to be very solid.

The problem is when it is solid. Needs to be flowing. Mine is more and more flowing.
The world isn't solid, why should any "philosophies" be?

You are thinking I am vegan, I am not.

I've never thought you were vegan. Since you hinted as much from the very beginning.
But you are a meat-avoider.
"Vegans" never would have made it this far. Not even remotely close...

I used to be very physically active, now I only swim and walk mainly (perhaps 2-3hrs a day)

But inthe past and on a veggie diet I was outrunning younger people than me on the football field for many hours a day, plus swimming , running and walking

None of those require much strength. They require endurance.

Just a footnote about the inuits diet


Hunted meats:
Sea mammals such as walrus, seal, and whale. Whale meat from the beluga whale and the bowhead whale. The latter is able to feed an entire community for nearly a year from its meat, blubber, and skin. Inuit hunters most often hunt juvenile whales which, compared to adults, are safer to hunt and have tastier skin. Ringed Seal and Bearded Seal are the most important aspect of an Inuit diet and is often the largest part of an Inuit hunter's diet.[1]
Land mammals such as Caribou, Polar bear, and Muskox
Birds and their eggs
Salt water and freshwater fish including sculpin, Arctic cod, Arctic char, Capelin and lake trout.
While it is not possible to cultivate native plants for food in the Arctic, the Inuit have traditionally gathered those that are naturally available[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] including:
berries including crowberry and cloudberry
Herbaceous plants such as grasses, fireweed
tubers and stems including Mousefood, roots of various tundra plants which are cached by voles in underground burrows.
roots such as Tuberous Spring Beauty and Sweet Vetch
seaweed
Note

and the bowhead whale. The latter is able to feed an entire community for nearly a year from its meat, blubber, and skin.

So even these people do not need to kill much and also have vegetable matter in their diets.

A whale is a big mammal. Of course it would feed an entire community for nearly a year.
One person, from one cow, could live for nearly a year. One bowhead whale is how many cows in mass? Maybe 20?
It's not about how much you kill, it's about how much you need. And then how do you get what you need. If a whale, then a whale, if not a whale then what? Cattle of some sort? Or fish? Eggs and chickens? Insects??

[Light Seeker]

Magnets or Copper ....Apparently... For joint pain that is .

[Podshell]

Will reply to some more of your points later nummi, but in the meantime here is what Srila Prabhupada has to say on the eating of meat and killing of plants.



http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/emmanuel.html


Father Emmanuel: Isn't the eating of plants also killing?
Srila Prabhupada: The Vaisnava philosophy teaches that we should not even kill plants unnecessarily. In the Bhagavad-gita (9.26) Krsna says:

patram puspam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upahrtam
asnami prayatatmanah

"If someone offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or a little water, I will accept it." We offer Krsna only the kind of food He demands, and then we eat the remnants. If offering vegetarian food to Krsna were sinful, then it would be Krsna's sin, not ours. But God is apapa-viddha-sinful reactions are not applicable to Him. He is like the sun, which is so powerful that it can purify even urine-something impossible for us to do. Krsna is also like a king, who may order a murderer to be hanged but who himself is beyond punishment because he is very powerful. Eating food first offered to the Lord is also something like a soldier's killing during wartime. In a war, when the commander orders a man to attack, the obedient soldier who kills the enemy will get a medal. But if the same soldier kills someone on his own, he will be punished. Similarly, when we eat only prasada [the remnants of food offered to Krsna], we do not commit any sin. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (3.13):

yajna-sistasinah santo
mucyante sarva-kilbisaih
bhunjate te tv agham papa
ye pacanty atma-karanat

"The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food that is first offered for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin."
Father Emmanuel: Krsna cannot give permission to eat animals?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes-in the animal kingdom. But the civilized human being, the religious human being, is not meant to kill and eat animals. If you stop killing animals and chant the holy name Christ, everything will be perfect. I have not come to teach you, but only to request you to please chant the name of God. The Bible also demands this of you. So let's kindly cooperate and chant, and if you have a prejudice against chanting the name Krsna, then chant "Christos" or "Krsta"-there is no difference. Sri Caitanya said: namnam akari bahudha nija-sarva-saktih. "God has millions and millions of names, and because there is no difference between God's name and Himself, each one of these names has the same potency as God." Therefore, even if you accept designations like "Hindu," "Christian," or "Muhammadan," if you simply chant the name of God found in your own scriptures, you will attain the spiritual platform. Human life is meant for self-realization-to learn how to love God. That is the actual beauty of man. Whether you discharge this duty as a Hindu, a Christian, or a Muhammadan, it doesn't matter-but discharge it!
Father Emmanuel: I agree.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCdNMDw_U7A

[Podshell]

Oh and regarding 'Parroting' , are you going to stick to your 'B12 problem' mantra or accept official scientific analysis like this one

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?t...2%80%99%20milk

[Podshell]

Farming animals is as "normal" as is farming plants.

For milk it is, but where else would you see animals that controlled other animals which provide milk or other foods suddenly start devouring them? we would assumed they had flipped.

could you imagine if eating honey bees became popular, what a waste that would be, it would also be depriving us of honey producers, probably effect the honey production too.

I don't try to do what is "normal", I try to do what is best given the present world and conditions I am in.

That is fair enough I already said I understand your position except the amount of meat included in your diet, that is what I was questioning.

"Normal" is not a nice word. "Normal" is something according to established ways that are regarded as the correct way, even when from a natural perspective they are anything but correct. Or something is "normal" because so many do it.

I could also use 'natural' instead , but I believe the so called established ways are not the original ways we have moved away from the norm by consuming meat, or rather too much of it.

There's no need to live like they do. Many reasons why not. One is that we have the possibility to make sure we have all we need whenever we need them, in contrast to their needing to hunt and search for food. Hunting and searching for food takes long, we can spend that time doing other things, like advancing our own body and mind in other ways. Advancing our collective knowledge of the world. Etc.

Hunting and foraging is very good for the mind and body, I cannot think of a much better passtime

I don't keep days in between, but I do keep hours (5-8/8-16/16-24, about so the "breaks"). Generally two meals a day, sometimes one meal, haven't done three meals a day in a while and can't see how I could anymore as it would bog down my body.

So you may eventually think you need no meat , maybe you wont need it at some stage, incidentally the body stores B12 for many years, you seem to get one idea for a cause of problems and stick to it, I mean it would be more likely alcohol usage causing any imaginary B vitamin problems, and the problem would more likely be Thiamin rather than B12. But I take these supplements anyway

Accepted authority? There is no authority over me other than myself. I decide myself what is true or not.

There are people with more knowledge than you whether you like it or not, I mean the sun is going to exist no matter what your views.

Just because someone, not you or me or essentially the entire world except a few individuals, have decided someone to be "authority" of something, does not mean that that individual actually is authority.

The idea would be to test them, similar to how you test yourself.

I say yes I possibly am more authoritative, but can't say for certain for I've never met the person.
Can you say I am less authoritative? To say yes you would need to know better than I, obviously; and better than that person, obviously. We both know you don't.

Yes I would say you are less authoritive in some ways, for instance I do not consider myself an authority on alcohol misuse and what it can do to the body, but by personal experience I can say I know certain facts about it, you may not know these.

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by nummi

There's really not much left to say. All's been said... really is becoming repetitious.

Simple solution really ...........Then why continue ? LOL !

neither one of you is going to convince the other one, so why not just agree to disagree and move on ?