I'm hardly the first to draw a comparison between the treatment of animals and the Holocaust [1]. Every year, 150 billion animals are born and slaughtered [2]. I think to compare their plight, which was happening long before the Jewish Holocaust and continues to this day, is offensive and shows a great lack of empathy, or understanding of their situation and present experience.
Just like us, non-human animals are not machines, they are not for the satisfaction of our needs in this world, and they do not belong to us. I therefore advocate a lifestyle that is called ethical veganism [3][4]. It goes well beyond the diet and includes all aspects of life and human and animal interaction.
Only when we look at other animals as individuals, with dignity and respect, can we really know who they are. As long as you cling to euphemisms and degrade sentient creatures to being mere commodities for your personal enjoyment, you will remain ignorant of their individuality, their ability to suffer and their desire to live and be free.
Rather than conjecture, why not educate yourself with free films such as Earthlings (available on YouTube) to learn what the experience of others really is like?
Edit: your assumption that animals' capacity to suffer and experience fear, pain and misery is dissimilar to ours is rooted in ignorance. If it's academic proof you're desperately after, a great jumping off point is by reading The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, signed by a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists gathered at The University of Cambridge in 2012.
You are ignorant or dishonest if you think "killing" a plant and animal is in any way equatable.
Edit: Even supposing plants have the ability to suffer and experience pain in the same way non-human animals do, you should be immediately compelled to stop their abuse, for the raising of livestock "injures" and "kills" many, many more plants than if you had just eaten them for sustenance directly.
Of course, I don't think you're serious; I think you are taking refuge in the plant-killing argument because no other rationalizations are available. That is sad.
No one is "meant" to be tortured and abused. I find you reply to be morally abhorrent and absolutely disgusting.
Right now, at this very moment, on American highways, there are no less than 5,000 concentration camp trucks. Trucks that we’ve constructed. Inside these trucks there are living, terrified, innocent beings (such as) cows, pigs and chickens. These trucks are being driven to concentration camp slaughterhouses that we’ve carefully constructed all across America. When the trucks arrive, the animals are so frightened they won’t even get off the truck. They’re not stupid. They know what’s next. So people go on the trucks with electric prods and force them to walk down the chutes to their own death. Or if the animals are small enough to manhandle, like chickens, we’ll just grab them off the trucks and toss them inside. Inside, these innocent, living beings are hanged upside down, fully conscious. In other words, they go in alive against their will and come out chopped up into hundreds of pieces. I think this type of behavior is inexcusable and unbecoming of a species that claims to understand right from wrong. The animals have not done one single thing to us to deserve the wrath and the cruelty that we hurl on them.
You are depriving yourself of a lot of information by avoiding files based solely on file extension (most academic papers are in PDF format, for example). Avoiding Flash, on the other hand, I completely understand.
Not quite - a 401k could either lower your taxable income now by accepting pre-tax contributions, or offer you tax-free returns on your investment in the case of a Roth. This savings service definitely does neither.
Please read the court document and evaluate PCRM's position on its own merit. Frankly, I find AHA and others' behavior outlined there to be morally abhorrent and worthy of discussion.
It isn't the American Medical Association which I'm referring to, but rather the American Heart Association. From the parent's source:
> The DGAC used the 2013 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) report on lifestyle management to reduce CVD risk for its evaluation of saturated fat intake. The DGAC concurred with the AHA/ACC report that saturated fat intake exceeds current recommendations in the United States and that lower levels of consumption would further reduce the population level risk of CVD.
> The report suggested that cholesterol in foods is not a major danger, contrasting with the Institute of Medicine, which found that cholesterol in foods does indeed raise blood cholesterol levels, especially in people whose diets are modest in cholesterol to start with. On this topic, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee did no original research and instead deferred to a 2014 report by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. However, the American Heart Association receives substantial cash payments for certifying food products, including cholesterol-containing food products as “heart healthy,” creating a financial incentive for discounting the relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol.
The Physicians Committee is concerned that exonerating dietary cholesterol will only confuse an already bewildered public. Most people do not differentiate fat from cholesterol, or dietary cholesterol from blood cholesterol. To suggest that cholesterol in foods is not a problem will lead many to imagine that fatty foods or an elevated blood cholesterol level carry no risk—two potentially disastrous notions.
> Accordingly, the Physicians Committee has petitioned the USDA and DHHS to disregard the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s findings on dietary cholesterol. The reliance on the American Heart Association document does not comply with the spirit of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which sets standards for bias among federal advisory committees.
They have filed a lawsuit against the USDA and Department of Health and Human
Services:
Faster, but less comprehensive. Many web sites serve content and ads off the same domain. Personally, I like uBlock Origin in combination with uMatrix in the browser, with privoxy and dnsmasq in use system-wide.
Citation, please. Not from someone who sells products, either. A low-carb diet makes no sense, because cancer-fighting fruits and vegetables, for example, are mostly carbs, whereas foods typically associated with high-fat eating (namely: meat, dairy) are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a major catalyst of various cancers.
Bottom line: the healthiest diets are those that revolve around whole plant foods.
Yes, of course. The World Health Organization and pretty much every other respectable, not-for-profit medical authority in the world recommends fewer than 10% of calories from protein in a healthy diet. Especially limiting animal protein, and preferring plant-based protein, is important for avoiding cancers.
Cholesterol and triglycerides will always drop in the short-term when weight is lost. 3 months is not a long enough time to make a sound judgement about your diet.
With regards to an Atkins-style diet, you need to read the facts on http://atkinsexposed.org/ and not get your information from an organization with a financial incentive to promote unhealthy foods.
Check out this similar gpg-based password manager, which uses just one encrypted container for improved confidentiality - https://github.com/drduh/pwd.sh
Just like us, non-human animals are not machines, they are not for the satisfaction of our needs in this world, and they do not belong to us. I therefore advocate a lifestyle that is called ethical veganism [3][4]. It goes well beyond the diet and includes all aspects of life and human and animal interaction.
Only when we look at other animals as individuals, with dignity and respect, can we really know who they are. As long as you cling to euphemisms and degrade sentient creatures to being mere commodities for your personal enjoyment, you will remain ignorant of their individuality, their ability to suffer and their desire to live and be free.
1. http://www.amazon.com/Eternal-Treblinka-Treatment-Animals-Ho...
2. http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html
3. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
4. http://johnnytisdale.com/veganism-is-a-scientific-imperative...