Ain't it a bit late by that point?It doesn't make me healthy it makes something else grow
Ain't it a bit late by that point?It doesn't make me healthy it makes something else grow
You can just buy the hemp hearts, I make around 6+ gallons of hemp milk with a 2lb pack. Don't have to buy pre made milk when it's really easy to make. Look up some recipes, basically just water, hemp hearts and any sweet fruit or sugar you like.
dont drink milk cause its a COWspiracy....
Sorry but the "appeal to nature" is a fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_natureIt goes directly against our nature as a species - we're omnivores who evolved to eat cooked food, plants *and* meat alike, that's why we have enzymes that allow us to do so. If you're human and you don't follow a balanced, omnivore diet, unless you have a medical condition that restricts your diet, you are going directly against tens of thousands of years of evolution. If your diet has more in common with a gorilla than with a human, I have the right to consider that diet inferior and it's a perfectly valid reason for me to think less of you. As you've said, a plant-based diet is entirely a decision based on one's moral values, and I find that particular choice primitive and unsophisticated because in my grim world of egocentrism and mild psychopathy, animals have only one right - to be delicious. I'm also exaggerating for comedic effect, but there is a kernel of truth in there nonetheless. Have you ever noticed how the amount of bullshit people spout about their diet is inversely proportional to the amount of meat they eat and directly proportional to how big of an asshole they are? I have.
Since the OP I already was able to tell that this was a lame stupid excuse to promote his channel and gain money from the views.I knew it. Clickbait advert.
Please ban this troll.
Broccoli.Okay, assuming it's all factual, what's a better source of calcium?
First of all, Appeal to Nature is a rhetorical tactic, not a formal fallacy - there are many instances when you can reasonably state that something that's "natural" is, indeed, good for you. For instance, let's make things go full circle and head straight into milk - newborn babies naturally crave mother's milk, it's natural for them to drink it, thus we can reasonably conclude that it's good for them - mammals drink mother's milk by design. RationalWiki lists it as an Informal Fallacy (a formally-valid argument with a *potentially* unsound premise) which is different from a Formal Fallacy and Wikipedia doesn't even call it one, so you're on a slippery slope here. That's all besides the point though.Sorry but the "appeal to nature" is a fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Here in Italy, it's currently used by fundamentalist catholics when they argue against gay civil unions - yeah we're so behind in comparison to other countries - when they say that straight marriage is "natural".
The problem with this (as that article explains) is that there's no clear definition of "nature" and "natural". We might say it's opposed to "artificial"="man made", but even then it's not that clear-cut. And mostly everything we use and base our lives on is "artificial": right now, we're doing something "unnatural" by talking from such a great distance on our "unnatural" computers. Is everything that we do that we biologically couldn't do "unnatural"?
The only proper definition of "natural" is "everything that abides by the laws of nature" (laws of physics, etc.). An human being with two heads, or traveling beyond the speed of light are unnatural (as far as we know). Because they don't exist. All that exists is "natural". Having a vegan or vegetarian diet is also "natural", as it's possible to do (you have to supplement a vegan diet, but that's "natural" too).
The hemp plant, including it’s seeds, offer a powerful punch when it comes to nutrition. In a single 8-ounce glass of hemp milk you can find the following nutrients.
From that stacked list we can see that hemp milk is a great source of nutritious protein and is capable of delivering the tough to find amino acid, GLA. Hemp milk is rich in protein and contains omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, vitamins A, E, B-12 and folic acid, and is rich in magnesium, potassium, iron and magnesium. All essential nutrients for a healthy diet and immune system.
- 900mg Omega-3 Fatty Acid
- 2800mg Omega-6 Fatty Acid
- All 10 Essential Amino Acids
- 4 grams of Digestible Protein
- 46% of RDA of Calcium
- 0% Cholesterol
- Potassium
- Phosphorous
- Riboflavin
- Vitamin A
- Vitamin E
- Vitamin B12
- Folic Acid
- Vitamin D
- Magnesium
- Iron
- Zinc
- And more…
Notable Benefits
You are welcome lol way better than cow milk and without thc
- Strengthened Immune System
- Clear, Healthy Skin, Hair and Nails
- Strong, Healthy Heart
- Increased Mental Capacity
- Hemp has anti-inflammatory agents and improves circulation
Just because "appealing to nature" rationally works at times doesn't mean it does in your case though.First of all, Appeal to Nature is a rhetorical tactic, not a formal fallacy - there are many instances when you can reasonably state that something that's "natural" is, indeed, good for you. For instance, let's make things go full circle and head straight into milk - newborn babies naturally crave mother's milk, it's natural for them to drink it, thus we can reasonably conclude that it's good for them - mammals drink mother's milk by design. RationalWiki lists it as an Informal Fallacy (a formally-valid argument with a *potentially* unsound premise) which is different from a Formal Fallacy and Wikipedia doesn't even call it one, so you're on a slippery slope here. That's all besides the point though.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
You're confusing two different meanings of the word "nature" - you're thinking of "nature" as the collective phenomena of the world, I'm thinking of basic, inherent features. If I were to say that something is "not of nature/doesn't belong in nature", I would probably use the word "unnatural". Nothing in the natural world marries eachother, it's a social construct that we created, it doesn't occur "naturally", so the premise is false, along with the rest of the argument. If I have a mischivous nature, but briefly level with someone to explain something rather than cause more havoc as I normally do, I do that against my nature.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nature
The difference is minute, but it's there. There is a number of thinigs that are "in our nature" as a species, for instance curiosity. Us being omnivores is an inherent characteristic of the species, it is *unquestionably* natural for us to eat food of all food groups. It is also *unquestionable* that meat is good for us - meat is what made us evolve (among other things), our ancestors preferred meat due to how nutritionally rich it was etc. It is also unquestionable that I'm exaggerating and don't really give a f*ck about what others eat as long as they don't evangelize me with their diet.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution - we are social because of our nature, not in spite of it. We became social through evolution because co-operation is a trait conducive to the survival of the species. We didn't "choose" to be social - we just became social because it was beneficial to us, we're stronger when we're together. Survival of the fittest is only one mechanism of evolution - being social is another conduit through which evolution can occur. You don't have to look for evidence far - it's in nature. Most animals operate in packs, herds or swarms - that's a primitive version of society.Just because "appealing to nature" rationally works at times doesn't mean it does in your case though.
We also usually crave sugary foods, but it doesn't mean that eating as much sugar as we would like is actually good for us.
As another example, as a species, other than having altruism and empathy we're also intrinsically violent and egoists (both are useful in an evolutionary perspective). However, we decided that violence is "wrong".
Yes, it's true that as a species we're omnivores. We can eat and digest food derived from both vegetables and animals, and this has helped us in the past. However, this doesn't imply that today we *must* follow an omnivore diet. It's a non-sequitur. Yeah, meat is good (like many other foods) if the recommended amounts are respected. But following an equally adequate vegetarian or vegan diet is also possible for us today (thanks to technology): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
Finally, you're correct about marriage, but no such thing as a "natural world" exists: for us (who are a social species) culture can't be clearly separated from biology (the two very often intertwine). So while marriage is of course a purely cultural construct, there's no "natural world" for humans
I agree with the rest of your post.
Yeah, what I meant was that in our "nature" there are both altruism and empathy, and egoism and violence.That's a fundamental misundetstanding of evolution - we are social because of our nature, not in spite of it. We became social through evolution because co-operation is a trait conducive to thr survival of the species. Survival of the fittest is only one mechanism of evolution - being social is another conduit through which evolution can occur. You don't have to look for evidence far - it's in nature. Most animals operate in packs, herds or swarms - that's a primitive version of society.
As for sugary foods, we crave them because, in a way, they are beneficial to us. We eat food to acquire nutrients and energy, and there's no larger source of energy than sugars. In fact, our bodies operate on glucose (from conversion or direct ingestion) and ketons (from meat) - we like sugar because it is in fact beneficial. What you're touching upon is moderation - you feel "ill" when you've eaten too much - that's your body telling you that you've eaten one too many gummy bears.
I never claimed that. I just don't feel kinship with cows because I'm not a cow - I'm empathetic towards them, but they're still food.Yeah, what I meant was that in our "nature" there are both altruism and empathy, and egoism and violence.
Not that we're just egoist and violent
That was in response to the fact that we should always follow our "nature". I never claimed that you "should" be empathetic towards cows (that would even be hypocritical, as I'm not myself XD)I never claimed that. I just don't feel kinship with cows because I'm not a cow - I'm empathetic towards them, but they're still food.
If you want to follow the route of misplaced empathy, you should eat meat. There are millions of animals killed every year during the growth and harvest of crops, from simple insects to mice, snakes and deer. Billions of microorganisms are killed as we spray crops to protect them from parasites, weeds and varmint. The argument that limiting meat consumption is limiting suffering only works if you're a speciest and assume that the life of a cow is more valuable than the life of a weed, an insect, a mouse or a snake. It's short-sighted, myopic and hypocritical - you can empathize with a cow easily because it has a "face" and cute cow eyes, you can't empathize with a grasshopper because it's different to you and alien. The moral argument of vegetarianism is flawed at the core. Meat-eaters are speciests too, but they're not hypocrites - they eat cows because they treat them as food.That was in response to the fact that we should always follow our "nature". I never claimed that you "should" be empathetic towards cows (that would even be hypocritical, as I'm not myself XD)
I think it's not that easy because we also grow a lot of plant-based food to feed cows (if I'm not mistaken, it's a significant percent on the total).If you want to follow the route of misplaced empathy, you should eat meat. There are millions of animals killed every year during the growth and harvest of crops, from simple insects to mice, snakes and deer. Billions of microorganisms are killed as we spray crops to protect them from parasites, weeds and varmint. The argument that limiting meat consumption is limiting suffering only works if you're a speciest and assume that the life of a cow is more valuable than the life of a weed, an insect, a mouse or a snake. It's short-sighted, myopic and hypocritical - you can empathize with a cow easily because it has a "face" and cute cow eyes, you can't empathize with a grasshopper because it's different to you and alien. The moral argument of vegetarianism is flawed at the core. Meat-eaters are speciests too, but they're not hypocrites - they eat cows because they treat them as food.