Maasai do not have heart disease or cholesterol problems attributed to red meat even though they eat almost exclusively cattle. Leading causes of death include pneumonia and diarrhoea, followed by other diseases not diet related issues.

Yes, people who cut out vegetables like Inuit have issues just like those who cut meat without going to extremes to replace what they're lacking, and most don't. You must be joking using them as an example of fish inclusive diets.
People with diets high in fish like Okinawans (1/2 an American sized serving per day isn't little to me, that's every other day having a full fish meal) that include other meat in moderation and is vegetable based are the healthiest in studies, as I indicated.

I've done enough arguing with you in the past to know not to waste my time making a proper response. I know you're not interested in the sources, you just want to nitpick them.

For anyone that's not in the cattle business and gets triggered as fuck like this guy....just google for plant-based diet arthritis, and it's pretty clear it's what helped this diver HE EVEN SAYS IT HIMSELF, and just about everyone else has the same results, being able to switch their arthritis pain on and off like a light switch by adding/removing dairy and meat.

:45..."what can we do about it?
A: Have fewer children.

2:20 "we could nourish an additional 3.5 billion more people if we just ate the stuff we feed to animals"
.....except humans can't eat grasses, the main food source for cattle. Most of what we feed animals is not considered edible by humans. Organic free range chickens eat insects and slugs, is the narrator prepared to live on that to prove his point? I doubt it.

6:13 "burgers are the best food".
This proves this was made by non meat eaters with no knowledge of meat at all. Anyone who would contend a 1/4 pounder s the pinnacle of meat dishes should have their tongue removed so they don't spread more nonsense, they obviously aren't using it to taste food. ;-)

The short answer is "it depends on the circumstances".
(Edit: because you have a legal right to do it doesn't mean it's warranted in every instance.)
The longer answer is "Yes I might if I knew for certain it wasn't someone who should be in my house, and Yes I would for certain if it was multiple unannounced intruders or a single armed intruder."

To be technical, in Texas they taught us someone only had to be unannounced on your property, not in your house (explained as a holdover from when horse and cattle rustling was a problem and a capital offense), so in that sense I would not do what I was taught in Texas. I have no qualms whatsoever about killing a known intruder inside my house....with or without warning.

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.

I'll give you a synopsis:

God established the law because of sin:

Galatians 3:19

Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator

The seed it is talking about is Jesus Christ, referred to by this prophecy in Genesis of the coming of the Messiah:

Genesis 3

14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

Sin came into the world through the transgression of Adam. Because of sin man was separated from God because God is holy and cannot dwell with sin. Because of sin God gave us the law as Paul referred to. Jesus, the new Adam, satisfied all of the moral requirements of the law by living a perfect life. He reestablished the relationship between God and man:

Romans 5

17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous

This is what it means when it says He came to fulfill the law. He brought everything full circle back to the way it was before man first sinned. That is why the law is no longer necessary, because we are made right with God not by obeying the law, but through our faith in Jesus Christ.

When Jesus died on the cross He said "It is finished". It is translated from a greek word "tetelestai", which means paid in full. It something a merchant would stamp on a loan document that was paid up. He said that because He fulfilled the law and paid our sin debt on the cross.

This doesn't mean that there aren't any moral requirements for Christians, but they aren't the same as the ones given to the nation of Israel. We are under a New Covenant and the law of Christ:

Luke 22

19And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

Galatians 6

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Christ gave us commands to obey, one of which you mentioned: love your neighbor as yourself. Also, love one another as I have loved you and many others. All of the 10 commandments were reiterated although there is a deeper meaning and interpretation to some of them now. Do not commit adultery now extends to lusting after a women in your heart. Jesus also said that hating someone is murdering them in your heart.

The civil and ceremonial laws of Israel no longer apply exactly because Jesus did fulfill the law.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.

When Jesus taught us to treat others as we would have them treat us, it has force because He is morally perfect. We are morally imperfect. We tell people to do things we don't do, and tell people not to do things we do do. Can you name a single human being on whose shoulders we could place objective morals? If you can't then you can see the problem, I hope

Btw, here is a great educational site which is completely free

https://vmcontenders.org/all-courses/

I grew up with grilled burgers. A tiny bit of BBQ sauce, mixed with a small amount of diced onions, and lots of black pepper, is gourmet to me.

This deep fried shit seems like just that, though interesting.

American Cheese, isn't. (Cheese, that is).

Pressing your burgers while cooking seems like amateur bullshit that only came about to produce hamburgers faster.

He says that "jacks lunch" in Middletown CT originated the steamed burger, but today "Louis Lunch" at 261 Crown St. in New Haven CT claims to have "Invented the Hamburger" altogether, (and they steam their burgers) so YMMV.

I also prefer to eat my burgers without condiments, because when they're actually cooked well it has the best method for bringing out the flavor of the meat. I couldn't imagine the flavor of a steamed burger being such, but I still hope to try it some day.

In recent memory, perhaps ever, Yarde Tavern in South Hadley MA makes the best burger I've had, to date.

Reference = My family owns a ranch, and I grew up with cattle, so red meat was the diet throughout my youth, and have a lot to say on the subject.

@noims -- My grandfather had about 10 war stories that he rotated through telling, pretty much exclusively after one of my uncles "broke the dam" by asking him to recall things as they were at the Oshkosh air show standing next to a P-47 airplane like he had worked on.

By the time that happened, my grandfather was in his 80's and in very good physical and mental shape (cattle rancher that did daily work manhandling heavy feed bags around, etc.) but had a quirky personality because he was 90%+ deaf. I don't think that was a result of the war, hearing problems seem to run in the family.

Anyway, he frequently used those hearing problems as an excuse for not having to interact with people. He had hearing aids, but he'd turn them off most of the time and just ignore people. I think some of that was being an introvert, and some was probably lingering "shell shock" / PTSD effects. But overall he really adjusted back to civilian life just fine. Got a degree in education on the GI Bill and taught and coached basketball to High School students, then worked as a small-town Postmaster, and eventually retired to work the ranch. I don't think any of us in his family, including his wife and children, thought of him as being "impaired" by the mental effects of the war. But it was clear that some of what he experienced had a very deep, lifelong effect on his outlook.


I wrote out the 3 stories of his above because they seemed to be the ones that had the most emotional impact on him. To me, it was interesting that a lot of stuff outside of combat hit him the hardest. He also had more traditional "war stories" stuff about victories and bravery, like when his unit captured / accepted the surrender of a young German pilot in a Bf-109 who deserted to avoid near certain death from flying too many missions after the handwriting was on the wall that the allies were going to win. But by far, he got more choked up about the other stuff like having to knock that French girl off her bike and seeing starving civilians and being unable to help them much.

Like you said, more banal stuff side-by-side with or against a backdrop of horror. I think it's pretty much impossible to imagine what those sorts of experiences in war are really like and what being in those situations would do to us mentally. And then WW2 in particular just had a massive impact on the entire generation. Basically everybody back home knew multiple people that went away and never came back. Then when some did come back, they were clearly different and yet reluctant to talk about what happened. Pretty messed up time to live through, I guess.

Someone who knows that letting vehicles, cattle, poultry, or objects stop you in a possibly hostile place is putting you into a static kill zone for an ambush or IED.

Yet this probably enrages the regular population too.

So it's lose/lose

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's from here:
This quote is attributed to Nobel laureate Baruch Blumberg. In a late 80s PBS documentary, he said half of all human deaths 'may' have been due to malaria.

While it sounds astounding, it's plausible when you think about it. 93% of all humans ever born are dead. But it's a highly speculative business starting from how many people have ever lived.

Prof Carl Haub has come up with an estimate of 108 billion people since 50,000 BC. And only 6.5% of these are alive today. How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?

So did malaria cause the death of roughly 54 billion people? We can speculate. More than 96 billion of these 108 billion lived between 8000 BC and 1900 AD. For malaria to have caused the death of 54 billion people, it should have kept up a phenomenal rate of 5.4 million deaths per year in the last 10,000 years.

WHO estimates of 650,000 deaths per year now seem wildly off the mark. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded a study to find out how many deaths occur due to malaria in today's day and age. The number was 1.24 million in 2010! http://www.bbc.com/news/health-1...

So it's certainly plausible that malaria could have killed five times as many in an age pre-dating modern medicine when most of the world lived as communes along with their cattle and herds.

Also, the longevity of the parasite plasmodium, which causes malaria. Studies have revealed that it's been around since the time of the dinosaurs. And certainly been around from the beginning of our story. http://www.malaria.com/questions...

Entirely plausible!

https://www.quora.com/The-Human-Race-and-Condition-Is-it-true-that-mosquitoes-have-killed-more-than-half-of-all-the-people-who-have-ever-lived

Is it sad that this is how my wife gets me from out under our car? It's ok, honey, let me go get your collar and leash and then we can go for a walk. It's okay, bae, it's ooookaaayyy.

But the other cars! Scary...

Wait... honey... you say I have a microchip? What does that even mean? You're not my owner?! Babe, I completely forgot before we were married I was sold to an Irishman to fill in for a cattle dog on a ranch in Tulsa. Damn, well, I guess time for my homeward bound moment. Say goodbye to your precious Luna. Bye.

Every social program is taken out of people's checks (unless those checks come from investments or inheritance), that's how they work, otherwise they would be called charities.
Yes, people have paid into those programs, some for a long time, but they want to contribute at 1970's rates and collect at 2016 rates, while defunding the programs. You see the problem, right? They were social insurance programs that now everyone wants to have pay out for them....this type of insurance is for those in need when they need it, not for the rich to use to pay every day expenses, it simply doesn't work when used that way.
Speaking of solar, how did the government programs we tried to keep all solar production from going to China work....not so bad. You can find a few failures, but there were far more successes for a net gain.
Again, if everyone takes from the social safety net as if it had been a savings account, it doesn't work. It's for the poor, there really needs to be a means test to collect, or it's doomed to fail.
In my experience, they like to say that, but then they raise goats for tax breaks, not for any product, and grow corn (or don't) for government handouts, and expect free or near free water at government expense, or use government land without paying (stealing from us all), etc. They are not nearly as reliant as they claim...and I come from Texas where we raised cattle and goats for exactly those reasons, not as livestock but as tax dodges, and that was the norm not the exception. Of course, my family would never in a million years have admitted that that was a handout, but it was.

And the argument is hilarious when paired with the accusations that 'others' that get government assistance are "takers" and welfare queens, but not them, they're just taking back what they think they put in (with interest and inflation added) when in reality they put in far less than they think and take far more than they admit.

Whenever we passed a farm that raised cattle when I was growing up, my father used to tell me the stench was "The smell of money." I can only imagine how hellush that smell of money is in the baking sun. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit!!

This is known as putting the cart before the horse.

We are living in a time of unprecedented propaganda and it really saddens me. Good people can give their blessing to atrocities and their only mistake was listening to major news outlets. I can't get angry at anyone for thinking like this anymore, i just despair that we've allowed ourselves to become intellectual cattle.

I think Rich's shtick is that he speaks and behaves slightly awkwardly, offbeat. So i think part of the joke is him inexpertly/unexpectedly using a cattle herding term, the conceit of which is that Rob can decide to buy him some more biscuits or not as he chooses, because it's his money and Rich isn't about to force him. Obviously analysing it doesn't do it much justice.

That's what i think, but i don't actually find Rich funny so i might be missing the joke myself.

Well, what pisses off me about racism in the States is that we enslaved people for 200+ years, made them live in shacks and treated them like cattle. We pretty much stripped them of dignity and all that is human to the point where many of them believed it, then we said: "Hey, you are free now, so act like us!" What in the funking funk is that kind of logic? Do we expect them to say, "Thanks for the freedom, now I'll just erase the indoctrination and all the memory and I'll magically be jolly jumping ideal citizen like the best examples of your race." What adequate tools did we give them to re-engage in society?

We often expect a tabula rasa from African Americans when in fact we ruined them and should heavily reinvest in them for at least a few decades, if not centuries. Racism based on half-assed logic boils my blood more than pure racism.