Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Best diet, food, or nutrition for power

Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

all animals need animal nutrients, that is an absolute fact”

No they don’t, that’s an absolute fact. See I can do that too, but that’s not at all comvincing, and that’s why I gave and give a consisten logic as well. But of course if your position isn't consistent or rational you can't provide that.


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

and some eat insects in fruit like maggots or their own poop to supplement their diet with key nutrients absent in plants(emphasis is mine)

Like corpse-eating dogs are infamous for?

And are you sure it isn’t actually the other way around?


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

Wikipedia is not the best source for such a complex topic as entropy.

I know wikipedia has serious flaws, see below, but you were arguing ‘entropy’ doesn’t actually mean what the word ‘entropy’ is conceptually reffered to, you were kind of arguing semantics, and for that, even wikipedia is a source good enough.


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

Nuts are seeds, and well, if you eat the whole fruit, yes seeds would be part of the menu”

And seeds are fruits, as I said.

Again for basic semantics even wikipedia is good enough.


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

if you eat the whole fruit, yes seeds would be part of the menu, seeds are specially hard to digest raw and unprocessed and many are very very toxic,”

No, just no, why would you allegedly “need” to ingest toxic seeds when there are countless nontoxic ones – that’s a complete contradiction – having a claimed need for something that your body rejects, so doesn’t at all need nor want. Toxic ones are obviously not human food, digestable ones are, the toxiticy is the deciding factor obviously.


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

some animals are also toxic (not the majority of them)”

Toxic to whom? For humans literally all of them are, to varying degrees of the individual animal, because as demonstrated it can’t be their naturally food they need to thrive, and that’s why the corpses have to be chemically altered (hung, cooked etc.) as well as physically (ground up, meat-mallets, etc.), to be not even more indigestable and harmfull, and they still obviously are to a devastating degree, but I already provided this in great detail.

For humans there isn’t a single nontoxic one.

Do you think someone ever died of food poisoning because they ate a spoiled watermelon? And now compare that toxicity to eating a rotten corpse – if they were even able to ingest that. Well with flavour masking and mixing that's actually possible.


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

In relation to the lenght of our digestive track, there are many hypothesis of why it is longer than other meat eaters”

What it actually shows is yet another obvious reason why humans are demonstratebly not at all natural meat eaters. But even if they were, chemically and physically altered flesh without intestines and fresh blood as well were still a very lacking diet.


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

given you accept wikipedia as a valid source I am pretty sure Wikipedia classify humans as omnivores

That’s a nice observation, because it somewhat could make me look like a hypocryte – even though that would still have nothing to do with the validity of the countless arguments I provided.

But I can easily do the same back on you, you don’t accept wikipedia as a reliable source, so they can’t be natural flesh-eaters.

I personally accept wikipeadia as a very (mainstream) source for basic definitions(!) and concepts f.e. relating to hard physics, especially observable things like entropy; but I’m very aware that there is a lot of deliberately placed garbage as well, that’s why I never shut off my scepticism and critical thinking skills in generall, and judge the content without any appeal to “authority” fallacies.

Though I made quite an effort to not rely on any outside sources in my arguments, so one can be independent to judge the raw facts.

But as you claimed entropy werent actually what the definition of the concept of entropy actually is sematically referred to, well that was the end of that.


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

some kids would kill little birds and other cute animals, and many people are sadist, but those arguments are not key in my mind.”

And some kid somewhere in the history of humans ate a piece of shit and may have not vomited it out immedietly or have even liked for whatever reason, but that doesn’t mean that humans are natural shit-eaters. Of course that’s key to judge whats natural and therefore healthy for humans, because deviating from that multiple times a day for years and years will make you suffer horribly, even if you are a sadist.


Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

but because something is inmoral or disgusting (to most people) it does not mean it can not be healthy or nutritious.”

It actually does because it shows what our natural instincs are and they have strong likes and dislikes for a reason.



OT but important:

Quote from Stef on August 17, 2020, 4:04 am

if there only were one women in the world, and she would not have sex voluntarily, raping her would be a way of saving the human species from extinction I suppose (some would prefer human extinction to rape even in that scenario, and I can respect that.)

Disclaimer: I may have misread you. But if not:


Well phew – I’m glad you would respect that there are people who would refrain from torturing that women!

How noble, even though you seemingly wouldn’t respect the preference of that women to not get fucking raped. And surely you would do it again and again, for years to come if the rape-victim didn’t birth another women to be raped. Isn’t this a history the human species can be proud of – to be the sole product of rape?

This is just blatant “the-ends-justify-the-means”-immorality. And The Human species obviously isn’t an actual sentient entitiy.

Only individual humans (or other sentient animals) are actual entities! And you just stated that you apparently would torture one of those actual humans, probably for years to come, that you claim to like, to serve an actually non-existant entity, that is just a broad, and flawed concept.

Torturing because of actually non-existant entities! Does that remind you of something?

And please tell whom exactly you are “saving” through slightly postponing the extinction of The Human Species you indentify so much with.

Because if humans go extinct, which they definitly will at some point, that is undoubtly true, who exactly would be suffering and lament the nonexistence of humans? Those humans that never come to be and don’t exist? Are "those" that not exist existing and floating bored around in nonexistance-space lamenting that they never have been forced into a human body until they die do not exist again?


And there is another angle to this evil you seemingly just argued for, because The Human Species as you know it, will be actually extinct in just about 100 years, as then all the individuals that are living now will be dead and forgotten.

There likely will be some strangers here, that you will never meet, with which you apparently identify so much, that you would consider rape of actual existing and feeling individual okay.

Honestly that’s so fucking evilthough I definitly appreciate and respect the honesty, but I do not respect serious arguments made in favour of unnecessary torture.

Stef has reacted to this post.

Anon, now i know what I wanted to: you are, I think, a moral extremist (or maybe you are right in your ethics and the world put us in a hard sittuation if we are not really herbivores , for you it is easy because you believe we can be 100% healthy eating only plants, I do not), for you torturing is a complete evil, so for you eating meat is always wrong because almost always it implies to kill an animal ( and there is always some level of torture, pain and suffering before murder), and you preffer the human race to go extinct to the torture of just a single individual (a woman in the rape example), so it is logical you would also preffer the whole human race to go extinct to the torture and murder of a single animal (cause they are also sentient beings).

Hey pal, I can respect that, in the rape example I may choose human race exctinction over rape. (I never stated my own position)

The problem is that I have no way to know if in your Ethical system it is ok to LIE to people to save animals from torture and death, and to save women from rape ( I am not saying it is the same by the way, I dont want to be fighting feminist plus vegans at the same time), I have no clue. Or maybe you DO really believe that humans can be 100% healthy on a fruitarian diet.

By the way I have eated rotten corpses raw several times with no evident ill effect at all, they call it "High" or fermented meat in the hardcore Carnivore comunity.

All the toxicology books needs to be revised, as they put plants higher in the toxic list from " dead animal rotten bloody disgusting corpses"

We may continue this just for other people sake, I dont think you will change your mind or position nor will I mine, so it may be time to agree to disagree...

and all animals need animal nutrients, even the ones who only eat plants need to transfom some of the plant nutrients in the animal version, do you get it? i am not saying all animals needs to eat other animals, but they do need the animal nutrients ( if not in their diets, in their bodies as a result of metabolism, internal transformations, etc)

Also I got the feeling you are kind of engaging in this role as quoted directly from the main blog :

"Moralist: an individual who engages in moralizing and attacks others for not following the moral framework upheld by the moralist.
Moralists often have a self-righteous attitude and seek a judge power position to deliver their attacks.
Some moralists truly believe in the superiority and goodness of their moral standards, but some others are immature individuals oblivious to human nature and their own dark side. Yet some others, of course, are just out for power, manipulation (pro-social feints), or to ruin someone’s reputation."

Just food for though, I suposse some ethical vegans (not all but some) would preffer to be raped in exchange for saving animals lives from torture and  murder in the hands of sadistic evil meat eaters (supposed the sadits makes the vegan choose between his own ass or pussy and the life and well being of 100 cows and 200 cute rabbits). I can RESPECT THAT!

Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 am

and there is always some level of torture, pain and suffering before murder

Just one note on this: not always.

I think there could be a happy middle here, at least in many cases (or at least, a happier middle, someone will still not like the option).

For example, in my area, pigs and pigs' meat are very popular -eating them from nose to tail, as you say-.
In the past, the slaughtering was truly barbarous. The pig was also going to be hung before being killed, sometimes for a long time, so he knew something was off and that only contributed to prolonging the pain.

Today, it's mandated by law that the pig be killed with a special gun. The pig goes from life to death almost instantly, and when done previous to hanging, the pig doesn't even know that he's about to be killed.

And I've also found a video on YouTube (albeit not a "special" gun, but a simple gun):

The pig goes from life to death, without pain at all.
To me, that's what makes all the difference: is there any suffering? If there was no suffering, then it's fair.

In my system of ethics, as the only sentient species in this world that can use -or abuse- all other animals at will, we also have a moral obligation to use that power in ethical ways that limit the harm to said animals.
But I also believe that, if we do so humanly, then it's fair for humans to domesticate and grow other animals for our ultimate consumption. The reason why I believe it's fair, is because the animal can't even fathom the difference between growing in a farm, or in the wild. And if he had the option, the animal would still likely not choose the wilderness (it's different when the animal do would choose freedom, like for example birds in a cage).
And, until its death, we could argue that an animal in a farm might have an easier/more comfortable life than in the wild (does not apply to McDonald style overcrowded farms, probably).

Of course, not all animals are slaughtered and/or treated in human ways that limit or cancel their suffering, so I can definitely see there is a point of contention there.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

yes thats true, also some people will eat only animals that die by natural causes, or accidents like road kill (being 100% scavengers). But I am pretty sure most Ethical Vegans would argue that it is still wrong to kill the animal even if the animal does not suffer, since for them it is murder, and they would said it would be the same as killing someone during his sleep with  no pain, still wrong. Imagine a weapon that give pleasure to the one dying, still many will consider murder wrong with that weapon, and some vegans would argue it is the same in relation to the animal pleasurable death ( still wrong for them).

For many Ethical Vegans only some argument that would justify child murder (or human adult murder and cannibalism) woud suffice to justify killing a pig and eating its flesh.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

In common language usage, "fruit" normally means the fleshy seed-associated structures of a plant that are sweet or sour, and edible in the raw state, such as apples, bananas, grapes, lemons, oranges, and strawberries. On the other hand, in botanical usage, "fruit" includes many structures that are not commonly called "fruits", such as bean pods, corn kernels, tomatoes, and wheat grains. The section of a fungus that produces spores is also called a fruiting body.

The semantical stuff!

i like this post from a Quora Member:

"Everything is toxic to a degree - even water and oxygen! The dose is the poison.

Eating charred meat, too much red meat, etc, can be bad for your health - but you could say the same about pretty much any food. You need to eat a variety of things to be healthy, even if you’re vegetarian/vegan. Most humans eat meat because it’s a lot more efficient as a source of nutrition than just vegetables, nuts and fruit on their own.

Considering the fact that the vast majority of humans have eaten meat for millions of years - and NOT died from it - it’s utterly absurd that anyone would try and claim meat is “toxic” to the human body.

I’ve never heard of anyone going into anaphylactic shock or anything after eating a burger or pork chop, have you?

If meat really were toxic to us, it would have that kind of effect on us."


lives in Great Yarmouth

Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 10:53 am

You need to eat a variety of things to be healthy, even if you’re vegetarian/vegan.


Well some animals in nature seem to have diets that are not varied at all, at least not in obviu ways, blood is enough food to create an animal from zero during pregnancy, and milk can sustaint its life for months as an only food, so the argument of "we need variety" does not convince me. I suspect some people can be healthy on very limited diets given they are nutritionally complete and sufficient.