Fair enough.

Sorry for the tone, I was having a bad day.

To be fair I still use it and still complain. I guess what I was trying to say is, maybe we should do something about it.

The analogy isn't really perfect because it's obvious that this company receives a lot of tax money and benefits, and therefore you are paying for it. The problem is that this can't be proven, only inferred.

Isn't all meat drained of blood during or shortly after slaughtering? I'm pretty sure it is, otherwise it would be a bloody mess to cut into smaller pieces that can be sold to the consumer.

Why do you want your meat electrically shocked? That can't be healthy or paleo...

I've read somewhere that most halal meat is also stunned anyway. Probably electrically too. It seems the only difference is they must say a prayer to God during slaughter.

Labelling would be good though. As far as government schools and football stadiums (gov sponsored), I couldn't care less. The only problem I really see with this is adapting the whole meat food supply to accomodate the whims of a small minority of immigrants.

I sometimes buy kosher meat when I can find it and if the alternative is to buy conventional because I know that it must either be from a female animal or an intact male, and I believe castrated male meat is very unpaleo and probably unhealthy too, but it is the industry standard as it makes them easier to manage. I didn't notice they avoided the rear half. I'll check next time I see it.

Whatever happened to google's motto "DON'T BE EVIL"?

I think that's only one half of the real motto. It's like using only the first half of "Don't steal. The government hates competition."... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew

This company has been an arm of the State from the beginning, this is no surprise, I'm actually surprised they had not done this already. They'll pull ads and ban anyone who disagrees with their degenerate ultra lefty statist agenda.

Still we all use it to varying degrees. Even this forum uses some of their services I think. If you're still using it, you really have no right to complain. It's like me complaining about Starbucks promoting degeneracy and then going and buying their coffee.

Pure pharma scare with no science to back it up...

How are people "fine" if most people are sick, and not with just one illness, but many illnesses? No, people are not fine.

Back in the 1950's, everybody was smoking, and everybody thought smoking tobacco wasn't a problem because everybody did it and everybody was "fine". But they were not fine, they dried up and died far before their time, they got several types of cancer and other illnesses associated with tobacco smoking, they had reduced pulmonary function, etc etc

Just like with tobacco, most of the health problems are not immediate, so in a society where everybody is doing it, indeed, where it is ILLEGAL not to do it... then you have no idea if people are fine. Especially when clearly they're not fine, but sicker and sicker than ever.

We all eat raw meat here. There are 2 types of disgust. One is psychological. That is, you've been taught that something is disgusting because it's raw. So then it's not really disgusting, you just think it is. Don't think, use your senses. What may happen is that your smell and taste tell you that it's raw, and your brain tells you that raw is disgusting because you've been taught to fear it. That's a psychological problem, and it will go away once your body learns that raw is healthy.

The other kind of disgust, is when the meat you are eating is so low quality, so full of toxins and raised in such poor unhealthy conditions, that it truly is disgusting when eaten raw. And when you cook that, you don't make it any healthier, but you mask the disgusting nature of the smell, taste and texture.

For instance, the other day I tried some factory farmed chicken, raw, just for experiment's sake. It felt like I was eating tasteless snot/goo. Free range organic chicken does not taste like that, but the meat is firm and tasty instead. Chickens bred in slightly better conditions than factory farmed, but not fully organic and free-range will be somewhere in between the two. Also, chicken that's been frozen will become more tasteless and watery too, and I think this one had been frozen.

There are worse things in the world. It's a pity for the baby, but having those parents he was screwed anyway. Bad luck.

I believe that is what I either read or heard from him. regardless he never mentioned at that point hunting.  this is what I mean, you want to believe him So much that you will fill in the blanks so that it makes sense to you. 

I simply said the story was plausible, not that it must be true. And you must be mistaking the part when he couldn't walk years prior, after the chemotherapy and radiation that left him crippled, before even starting to consume any raw foods whatsoever. He said he got a lot better by drinking raw milk and carrot juice, and was eventually able to walk and even bycicle; that's how he even got around to meeting all those tribes, by bycicling around and hopping on trains.

About hunting, again, he didn't say hunting, but he said the coyotes would play and move around him and then they started running and he followed, he ran after them. It's plausible that they were trying to get him to go on a hunt with them, and when he ran after them, that's what they thought he was doing.

I who have eaten raw meat for probably more years than you are old have nothing against his eating all sorts of foods.  Just his bullshit to garner followers like you.

For someone who must be so balanced and healthy from all those years of healthy eating, you sure sound kind of stressed out about this. It's not like he is hurting people or something. He got more people to eat raw meat in modern western societies than probably all other raw meat proponents combined.

Every food loses nutrient availability when frozen. Freezing is similar to cooking, albeit not as drastic. Still, keep in mind you're bursting open every cell at the molecular level in that food source when you freeze it, as water forms crystals and expands when frozen. Any fresh food source that is frozen is partially destroyed nutritionally.

If you can't bear the taste of slightly fermented foods, at least compromise by freezing only the amount that you need to freeze, and keep the rest fresh.

About meats, there are many methods available to slow down the fermentation process besides freezing, all of them make you lose some nutrition, but if the alternative is not to eat at all, they are of course better. For instance, think of how beef is stored in cold rooms for weeks on end by the meat industry without fermenting... The trick is to keep it cold and keep the surface dry, by hanging it so that almost all of its surface is permanenty in contact with cold, dry air. This will dry the meat from the outside in. Here's how sabertooth does it at home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_xEsAK7-dA

About dairy... In the words of AV... "dairy never spoils, it just becomes a variety of cheeses and yoghurts"... So then the question is only if you enjoy a particular taste that a fermentation process gave you or not... This is highly variable according to the particular combination of bacteria and yeasts that grew as that dairy source was fermenting. Hence why many cheesemaking techniques carefully manage these, and inoculate with the kind they want.

As far as AV goes, he only compromised by allowing frozen berries for convenience, and because they're used mostly for detoxing anyway (and not for nutrition), and then also he allowed ice creams as a treat and to get people who need it to consume more fats, but warned to only keep it in the freezer for a maximum of 24hs. He did say that white meat such as fish tolerates a bit cooler temperatures than red meat without losing as much nutrients (but then again, most commercially bought fish (and often chicken, too) is kept at these lower temperatures by the time you buy it). Regarding dairy, if it was up to him, no dairy would ever be refrigerated. He did say that milk lost some nutritional properties by simple refrigeration, and if he got never-refrigerated milk, he would keep it that way. If he got already refrigerated milk, he would keep it refrigerated for convenience, but take it out to reach room temperature or even slightly warmer before drinking for optimal digestion.

At the end of the day though... The most important thing is that you keep eating healthy foods, and if compromises have to be made for convenience or taste, they can be endured.

you had blockages?

I had pain in my heart that suggested blockages. It got worse around the times of a meal or exercise.

The pain was significantly reduced once I started including more (cooked) carbs and stopped exercising.

It took years on a raw diet to reverse the damage. And I'm not sure it's completely reversed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp8-rYqCAnM

(This thread should have gone to the hot topic section)

Thank you for posting this. I hadn't realized it had already gotten to this point. There is probably less time left than even I thought we had. Notice this came out after I made all previous posts in this thread.

It honestly looks like what could be the beginning of a real zombie apocalypse.

The naivety of most posters here (and of most people in general) when seeing such a level of violence from an insane group of people who spread their mental virus at an accelerating rate, reminds of the now cliche "first they came for the factory farmers, and I didn't say anything because I'm not a factory farmer, and I don't like them anyway" thing.

It's only a matter of time before they start targeting organic, healthy farms too, and then eventually all meat sellers and eventually all meat eaters. Why? Because of this bizarre, crazy and anti-human idea that there is such a thing as "animal rights", which most here and most people in general support. The ones you see in the video are the extremists yes, but they are simply taking this crazy idea to its natural conclusion, and increasingly more people will fall victims to the same insanity, as long as there isn't anyone shining a light and showing them the way, and simply saying: No, animals don't have rights. Animals are property.

I believe you can advocate for animal rights and still eat meat....just as you can advocate for justice and work at the top floor of the justice Department... Humans have the wonderfully convenient capacity for hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and diabolical duplicity.

Well, of course you can do whatever you want. But if your own tenets that you profess and recommend to others are bound to get you killed once taken to their obvious conclusions, then there's something wrong with your system of ethics.

Joking aside, "rights" can mean anything to anyone. For the most part even our most cherished human rights are more guidelines than absolutes.

Just like some people can believe the Earth is flat when it is round, or some can believe chemical toxins are beneficial to our health, so too can plenty of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are, or what rights are correct. Remember that referring to "rights" is also a way of saying "what is right". There's only one set of rights that is correct for humans under a strictly hunter-gatherer, communal system of production, and only one, strictly opposite set of rights that is correct for humans living under an agricultural, individualistic, trade-based system of production. There can be minor disagreements as regards the specifics of how to apply those rights in very particular circumstances, but the tenets are set in stone, and they can be derived logically, using nothing other than our own understanding of what it means to be human.

From the perspective of a mindful meat eater "animal rights"  means good animal husbandry. Insuring a quality standard of life for the animals raised for meat, while they live, and giving them a quick death without prolonged and cruel suffering, when they are harvested.

The problem here is that you're using a term that means something for humans, and using it to mean something completely different for animals, all while attempting to reconcile the two in some way. This is bound to get you in trouble, as the contradictions abound and "rebels" who think they have everything figured out start killing meat eating humans in an attempt to "defend animal rights"... This is coming, and we should recognize it as possibly the biggest threat to humanity in the coming decades, or perhaps even centuries. As long as these rebels are treated as the terrorists they are, life will continue to be bearable, but once these rebels get a hold of the oppressive, criminal arm of the State, there will be dark times for many of us.

There is also a more eastern perspective to consider that denies the separation from the self and the outside world, so to kill and consume life, is to kill and devour a part of your self....This view goes way beyond the limited  notions of individual rights, and chooses to focus more on respecting the interconnectedness between self and other, human/animal, or predator/prey. Violation of our food animals basic "humane" living standards will give rise to negative Karma in the flesh, and will have to be payed for with future negative Karma, by those who blindly feed upon their own cruelty...

These religions are a part of the problem, too. They have some fundamentally anti-human tenets within their teachings. However, they have managed to keep those tenets in check for millenia, whereas the more virulent radical veganism ideology continues to prove itself more dangerous every day.

For me Humane is a subjective term, in which the individual uses human judgement to decide what conditions are conducive for maximum health and minimal suffering, of another being. Being humane in regards to livestock is to put yourself in the animals position?? For example... If you were a Sheep in a shepherd's flock, you wouldn't have any  of these high falutin thoughts, or agony over injustice.... so what would be considered human to Ewe would be much different from what is humane to me.

If I were a sheep that was going to be eventually slaughtered and eaten... I would hope that I was given good pasture to eat, fresh water, protection from wild beast, the ability to move free...to spend what short time I have without suffering or trama....spending a good many beautiful days grazing, breeding, ruminating and bleeting as sheep do...blissfully unaware of the hungry reapers watch.

Just like the hunters of old put themselves in their prey's position only to figure out how to predict its movements in order to best achieve a kill so they can eat their flesh, so too animal husbandry should concern itself with putting oneself in the animals' position only insofar as it refers to maintaining optimal health and optimal use of resources for those animals, so that their flesh is more abundant and more nourishing to us.

Again, animals should be kept in healthy conditions for the benefit of the meat and the health of the meat eating humans, not for the benefit of the animals in and of themselves.

Life is a struggle for survival and reproduction. Every animal wants to win. It's not possible for the farmer to guarantee each of its rams will be able to survive and reproduce, as inherently some will be able to mate more than the others. By selecting those rams that will make offspring that is able to produce more quantity of more nourishing meat in a shorter amount of time and with a smaller amount of food input, and also selecting for docility which will make his flock more manageable, he is doing something good for humans, but you could argue he is doing something "bad" for the sheep. That's not a problem, because our only ultimate concern should be about human health and wellbeing.

Rights have nothing to do with nutrition.

Animals can't simultaneously have "rights" and be slaughtered for food.

You can be an animal rights advocate, or you can be a regular meat eater. You can't be both. Choose.