Gary Yourofsky's lecture - review article

Written by A. Elinson

The article was translated. If you have found grammar mistakes, please write your correction
to the - Email

 Gary Yourofsky, gives a lecture about animals and vegetarianism, which had a great view.

The lecture attracts attention: it has images from the Holocaust, comparing eating meat to murder, There is horror movies with jolly music , lecturer previously funded by PETA, former prisoner, man who uneducated in the field wich he talk about, and he compares himself to Jesus and Martin Luther King and repeats that motive also towards the end of the lecture, the lecturer Speaks with great self-assuredness, moving much during the lecture, addressing to the crowd emotion, offers the public to buy brands (states hr had no profit), occasionally rattling and displays nonsense as facts, like "the egg is period of The chicken or the human are grass eater. There is a show "good", and attached It is usually a title "Best Speech You Will Ever hear." But it is not the best, this is demagoguery, techniques of Cult leader, or brainwashed.

Rationally, the main deficiencies in lecture:

1. Long inaccuracies biological facts.

2. Ethical and ecological approach inadequate.

3. Lecturer who lies and distorts openly, with great aplomb, without guilt, and with a history of prison and charm - it's not good. May be a psychopathic disorder direction. Yes. There are notable people like that who where vegetarians (Adolf. .. ).
Please note that this is not an innocent man who make mistake in a casual conversation on the street. This is a man who was preparing for Lectures, received responses from the audience, and in other ways like e-mail - This can not be accidental that are so many errors and failures, Without it being on purpose.

If you did not find any problems on his speeching, you are in a bad state, because it is very easy to deceive you. There are lots of Inaccuracies things. The audience finds it difficult to face Gary's distortion, although many of them are very easy to detect, For example, he tells them that herbal products has the taste of meat, but we all tast all tasted that schnitzel - soy , and we know that's not true. sometime it nearly fit when it comes to a highly processed food "Meat analogue" like sausages, and that also need a blind taste test to determine if people Distinguish taste or not. But Gary is not interest in studies. He goes on to say that cooking of avocado together with potato - creates egg taste. No one stood up to tell him it was not true. Everyone mesmerized.

Well - the taste is not central issue on the issue, so we will refer to more major things.

Is all advertising and brainwashing?

 Gary says (beging in 9 minutes nine and 28 seconds) "The propaganda from the animal abusers is enormous ... HAVE SOME MORE MEAT! HAVE SOME MORE CHEESE "... And later (from minute 10 and 12 again) "

And then what do you see interspersed between those advertisements? Not feeling so well? Need to see a cancer specialist? How about a heart doctor?

He then "lectures" about biology to show us what "Our real nature" It says according Gary , for example, that we are all "grass eaters" - Herbivore s. So let's start the same, only with skepticism Examination was brief and casual, not random - Google chooses Banners combination of what advertisers Want, with the words on the site. This site, as you may have noticed a lot of times words appear in meat and Milk. Probably if Google has advertisements offer from animal food industry, Google put it noe on the Site, as well as commercials vegetarianism, if any, for these words appear much also. Here Is testing Occasional, and not random, since chances for advertisement on meat and dairy products are more possible in a site who talking about. You are welcome to test on the following framework. I did test several times (it is rotating ads), and there were no such advertisements.

We shall return to the subject adverts below, this test is not enough, but I hope it helped arouse skepticism. Currently it seems that Gary biologists trying to convince us that they H"nconim " And "they are our nature." His inaccuracies so many, should have a long article from a few to go Everyone. Focus on several main

  Biological facts and basic scientific

A. He argues that man is Herbivore (eat grass). This is not true. Scientific consensus is that the person He Omnivore (all food). Science is the source of this argument for example - Phylogenesis and nutrition .

Person is not considered a creature eats grass like a cow: teeth are partly similar (untrained eye) to those of herbivores and some are like predators, is Can not digest cellulose, and if it is vegan, so he needed to complete nutritional B12, ie, He Can not get everything from plants, but on the other hand, there are vital substances He can only get from plants such as vitamin C. 's Stomach Human digestive enzymes are produced elastin (elastin), which is Type of protein found only in vivo. Humans, like mice and rats which are also Omnivore s, Common in many parts of the world, where there are very large differences existing food supply nearby. Because he can all he could live with many types of foods, and adapt to, Despite the differences.

  In any case to decide the issue, there Ask a specialist in biology / zoology / nutrition, lack of education and lecturer in the field. Lecturer demagogue, not even bothering to tell the public that personal opinion is completely contrary to an agreement Very broad scientific world.

 Gary brings false evidence, logically unacceptable and scientifically to prove that the person is Herbivore. Dog - man sweating and Panting with your tongue - my answer - it's not a nutritional claim, nor claim is true biologically. Cat Home And crocodile for example, carnivore s, meat eaters, and they do not Mlhitim. Vision wrong Another of the "returns" reply (minute 28 and 22 seconds) he says: "

No claws on the human hand, claws are a trademark of the carnivore and the omnivore

'
How ignorant can a person be? (And he came to lecture in it) - Have you ever seen a dolphin With claws? Snake with claws?  Seal? And Many more examples, not require anything more without being completely ignorant about animals. If you learn a little more, then learn an important feature of Primate Is the existence of nails. It's one of the things common to this series, including the Primate "gay Sapiens ".

 
There are vegetarian primates, primates have predators, omnivorous primates have. Everyone has claws. This is one of the characteristics of a series of primates. Picture On the right side Gorilla, vegetarian.
The picture on the left T arsier. The T arsier are carnivore, carnivores!  They have no claws, but Nail (carnivore source of this small monkey:Value Tarsier Wikipedia in English , based on the Encyclopedia Mammals).
(Images from Http://commons.wikimedia.org ). Photo Kok Leng Yeo small monkey, gorilla photo Raul654)

 Gary says: "claws are a hallmark of the carnivore s and the Omnivore ".  Gary is one thing and reality another. Image: a young rat snake predator, the picture only see the tail of the Rat sticking out. Guess predator claws do not see that there.
In general, if also consider non-mammalian creatures, but feed on animal food, so Diversity of physique and long hunting methods: chameleon for example side with the tongue, for example spider weaves Happen to capture prey and has a sting, birds of prey their own techniques ... And there is another nature A lot of variety.

Please note the following argument (starting from the minute 27 and 19 seconds):

The length of our intestines are somewhere between 7 to 13 times the length of our torso, our trunk. That's the same length of all herbivore animal intestines on this planet. They're very long. But the length of the intestines on real meat eaters, hyenas, coyotes, bears, tigers and lions, only 3 to 6 times the length of their torso. They have a short intestinal tract, so they can push through quickly, decaying and rotting animal flesh. Animal protein, cholesterol, saturated fat, trans-fatty acids, which is why it is impossible. I'll repeat, impossible, for any genuine meat eater toever, clog their arteries. Never happens to a real meat eater.  

Claim without a source ("Why should a source of expert if he himself expert" ...).  Not sure everything there is accurate, for example, a short search on Google and find sites that veterinarians Dogs with artery-clogging.

"D ecayingand rotting animal flesh "- What does he meant?maybe he know.

With This is the best charlatan and pseudo facts correct there, mixed with wrong, and text Sounds scientific and complicated, so there are those who draws it must be true, especially if it was said at the university, By the "professor" and with great aplomb. Explain. What is more or less true - true Sltorafim have shorter intestinal significantly in relation to man. As Sltorafim much less Likely to clog arteries. What logical fallacy? - This is a classic example that someone invents Incorrect theory (one is Herbivore) gathers only data we assume they are correct, and ignores Others, then says "here I am right." Example for failure otherwise S"tocih "person He does eat meat - invent a person is carnivore (meat eater) - looks like  Gary Eaters Herb cope better with Plant Food - for example, can digest grass, they have a Digestion much better for that (like as Gary charlatan data can throw numbers, and say "Watrous" - Save me from this part) - and tell - is right, there is a difference, then a sign that a person is Meat. In both cases, invent a theory, and taking data so that it'll do, and ignore Other data.
So what is true without demagoguery - without demagogy, so that data we ignored them Itsdro - it accepted scientific theory - that person is Omnivore - all food.  Gary Not equal to any food, but compared predator. No one claims that science is not a person is a predator like lions And tigers, so the differences scammer pointed them do not contradict any accepted scientific theory.
Example of demagoguery I have given is correct that person does not have a digestive system that can handle such So good with Plant Food as Herbivore, but that does not mean that a person can not eat a nice dish And vegetable daily.
The example that Gary gave correct that person does not have a digestive system that can handle such as meat carnivore, but it does not mean that the person should not eat daily dose of handsome and animal food.
Knivurim specialized eating meat, and have a good digestive system especially for this purpose.
Herbivore s specialized in eating the vegetation, and have a good digestive system especially for this purpose.
 Omnivore s (omnivores) Specialized in eating a wide variety of food, and they can deal with a better than Herbivore carnivore s and s, and it comes at the expense of better expertise in a more narrow. It has Disadvantage, such as that Gary (more or less) said: If we eat too much animal food - has We have a much higher chance than artery clogging predators, so health agencies warn Behavior was invited up, and recommend balanced behavior. Although no formal scientific body says we Should like lions and tigers eat only raw meat. There are also disadvantages to being Omnivore without Practice so much as the others, for example, even when The grass around us in abundance, we can not eat it. But it has an advantage that one can To adapt to different environments and forms very different diet. People have lived and survived "or less More "environment with little animal food, and other people who lived nearby as Siberia, where during the snow was a little plant food, but if one side or large animal found in the snow, Like death, it provided much food a whole tribe, and is well preserved in the snow for a long period. Also survived "More or less."
More problems than a demagogue;
* Comparison of animal series Predators, a person who is a series of primates.
* There is no fixed relationship between the length of torso intestines, which determine who is a predator. Assuming that the data that Gary Said right with H"fi 3 to 6 times "This difference of 100% relative creatures nearby.

Such as the squirrel - Gary tells the audience to prove it is not designed to eat meat - none The audience can not go out and catch one of the squirrels in the area as a predator, and eat it all Like a predator. Is willing to reward those who succeed do so. This example also problematic. You can walk Similar logic, and tell the audience seems you go out and eat grass like a goat. If you do not Can - then the conclusion is that you do not Herbivore sea herbivores. If you want further explanation - the process Development of man he learned to create tools, and discovered the fire and learned to cook. Any animal There is no such ability, and man unlike other animals could adopt foods without developing Systems without which the body can not digest food like this. Example - the food we eat most Grains (wheat, rice, et al) - non-digestible without processing such as cooking and marinating. It Does not mean it is not food for man, it may say that the process was not necessary Hgabolotzih opened Dental and other digestive system having to deal with such food. Discovery of fire and the ability to produce Tools gave man a great advantage by being able to eat many types of food that I had not Were edible. Most of our food we eat like animals in the wild.
* Similar demagogic experiment: Take a seal, put it on campus, and see if he can hunt Squirrels. If not, they're not a predator, it eats grass.

* Experiment rabbit and apple - Gary H"mdan "We try to offer next two years old An apple and a rabbit crib and see who the child will eat. The sound of laughter the audience he says: If the child Eats the rabbit and plays with the apple ... He promises to give attendees the audience a new car and eat Stick them with cheese and sausage.
OK, Gary's a good show, and about the biological facts? Does this prove that the person Considered "eat grass"? Maybe he "eats grass + cooked meat", so baby will not eat the rabbit ? What experiment cooked meat + apple? (Or give the child a rabbit cooked and cooked apple), what with the trial of the world's most popular vegetable food Corn / rice / wheat - and not only grain, but any plant like Herbivore - Is the child eats it ? I assume that most children prefer the meat, not the Vegetable food. What does a rabbit natural attraction? - It actually has a study found that children Continue to live even more Mltzatzoaim. Is this behavior strengthens the hypothesis of the nature of Man eat grass?
 

Similar demagoguery - "Gary method" can also offer other experiments.
1. Take a small child Lmkdolnd's. Suggest a Choose between one. Bun with a hamburger. 2. Salad.
Look what he chooses. We know what to choose children when they come to McDonald's right? Almost always choose Salad. There are other facts of reality. Does this mean that one carnivore (meat eater), or planned Experiment that will lead to the opposite conclusion than Gary?
2. Another suggestion experiment "Gary style" - take a puppy at roughly corresponds old baby Two years (still not going as an adult, I can not solid food as an adult) and take a kitten at Similar developmental and put them together. If the puppy does not chase the kitten or not eating it - according to the logic Gary - a. Dogs are naturally not chase cats. B. Dogs are Herbivore s (which puppy is not Prey). C. Even a cat Herbivore.

* Predatory creatures too, need to learn how to shuffle. It is expressed as pet breeders Prey capture all of life, without conditions similar to nature - usually if they release an animal nature, is Be incompetent to manage, he could not hunt and die.
* When giving a child two years old holding a live hand - even animal the size of a rabbit's Too large. If you give a toddler holding a chick in hand, a lot of times the child will hold him tight, And mash him even death. No bad intentions, but because fine motor skills have not Developed enough in hand, and because of a lack of understanding of his actions. Those who work with pets and children properly - Aware of it, and allows the child to have that. Experience shows that it is difficult to conclude that the child behave On the natural relationship of man and animal general, certainly not conclusive things like that Gary is trying to show.

* Biology, beware Mlsoog animals by their adjustments to the environment. If the Live like other animals, that does not mean the origin and its Nature. " Example: much like a whale Things fish, due to the adjustment to the environment. Demagogue like Gary was able to come and say this is not true Leviathan should rise above the waterfront to breathe.
Whale would say demagogue, he Fish: no legs, has fins, no fur or feathers, it uses its tail swimming, Like a fish has no claws and is not saline, Like a fish also is not able to catch a squirrel in the campus, he lives in a waterfront and can not live on land, therefore preach demagogue, a whale is a fish, he Does not need to breathe the air above the waterfront.
This style of Gary's claims. Be careful with them from falling into the trap.
* Similarly: some bugs, most birds, and bats can fly using wings. It Does not mean they have the same family and similar nutritional properties.
* Kangaroo jerboa and advanced frog by jumping on the Hindquarters. That does not mean they have the same family and Features Similar nutritional.

Another suggestion experiment - whether Krinbor? - Apparently they do not "swallow the frog". Probably will not eat as Izza the vegetation around, but will return home for a meal

Where there is less computer and TV, but more natural, many children Times "catch", "catching", pets game or curiosity.
You might have done similar things by watching TV and playing computer.

Offer experiment, whether the child Herbivore

Born in the Amazon with the hunt.
No meat, no hunting, the tribe will not survive by eating leaves, roots and only seasonal fruits available Jungle. For "Vegetarian is murder." No hunter dies every tribe minimal nutritional herd.

The relationship between man and animals is complex far beyond relations predator - prey (photo Kind of judge).

Herbivore director - standing and eating grass lawn Ma'ale Tzvia

B. Health - he claims that eating meat is not healthy, and animal products are the main cause disease. Is not the number of scientific consensus is lean meat case - it is very healthy. He also claims that milk Is a good source of calcium. It is also not accepted approach the latest science today. Lean meat is healthier: a good source of complete protein, uptake Iron it and very good quantity, it has important minerals.

Dairy products are a good source of calcium and other important materials. Those sensitive to lactose can Dairy products in which lactose is low.
 Gary mentions various additives take meat eaters, like calcium .... Come on ... Vegetarians And vegans do not take supplements like calcium and B12 and iron?
 Gary says that cholesterol is harmful, but if that's what the body produces. This is not true. Not all Cholesterol is a different animal produces cholesterol in the body, not the amount of cholesterol in food Harmful. Some fat animal is healthy. Also iron absorption and a number of important materials Others are better absorbed than meat plant.

Gary's words may or general discussion about vegetarianism, may be a false impression that whoever Not a vegetarian eats almost only meat. Meat or milk are not supposed to be the main component A healthy menu, but are part of a proper and desirable.

Later Gary offers us a variety of brands of processed soybean products. The products are not clear What processing is done to them, what parts including soy has a name, and what does not, and what effects's Health. Many types of meat was investigated. Products that he recommends. There is public confusion The soy itself, and the last soybean processing very long as brands that Gary displays. Didn't I? A soy powder with some spices - a very long processing very complex processes.

C. He argues that agriculture plant does not cause any harm to animals. This mistaken the Foundation. For agriculture taking herbal natural area, destroy it the flora and fauna, and towers What the farmer wants while preventing the natural flora and fauna instead of going back and regenerate. This is manslaughter Deliberately in great suffering of the animals with sensing, such as mice and rats poisoned Deaths.

53 minutes and 10 seconds. Lies, facial expressions and Nifnofim immediate affect mob More logic and test data, most of which will not do. Left picture - Following sentence, three seconds later.

D. He recommends the replacement of meat and claims that they no chemicals while raising his hands to the sky (53 minutes and 10 seconds). He was lying, I'm sorry I have no other words.

Taking only the first product he brings as an example.  The name Smart Bacon, List Its components from the website of the company which produces it There . Among the components contains potassium chloride - Potassium chloride - is not that Chemical? And in any case the whole product Smart Bacon is processed Most level you can not do in the home. It's not something "natural," Absolutely not. All this does not mean that the product is harmful or harmless. What this means is that if the explanation of the  Gary Somehow pulls you buy these products or similar, so his explanation is not true.

e. He tries to disgust the audience eating eggs, and claims egg it's a hen's period   (55 minutes and 51 seconds). Ngaltm? Credentials? - This is a biological fact fundamentally wrong by "logic", you could tell predicted Chicken, it's the "tits of Htnrngolt." It is breast, and breast J . But this logic is not good, that the different systems. Hen there is no "tits" is not the Department Mammals, and is not nursing and fields in milk.

(Picture for 55 min, and 50-55 s'

Seriously explain for those who need.
Period in a woman is a process in which the endometrial secreted when there is no fertilization. Chicken is not Department of mammals, she has no uterus, and therefore also no provision of the endometrium as a result - fertilization. There is no room Compare, a different breeding systems.You can try Compared by the logic of Gary - say Tell your experience on egg incubation corresponding to a pregnancy in a woman (because then the fetus develops). But how can a woman be pregnant after period? The period is a sure sign for a woman Who began pregnancy, while by Gary incubation begins after period ...

J Child: Mom - how chicks come into the world? Mother (following a lecture by Gary): Father and mother duck duck meet, Dad Mother duck duck exceeds, then Duck period and so there are chicks ever.

Using associative connection of food and body organs can function Other directions (Thinkstock photo).

* A person who keeps a few chickens in the yard (not familiar with this article), use the argument seriously Period was towards an increase chickens. He explained to me: no problem raising chickens, it is not Suffering. The egg is a total period of chicken, so what's the problem to her.
I mean, anyone can skew the argument because he wanted to.

* By the way, some that know the difference between a man a chicken? Some of you, for example, know what The chicken's blood color?

Is this honey vomit? - Gary exciting the crowd:

And what about vomit? ...C'mon you guys love vomit, you adore it all over your food. Better give this one a pretty name, though Nobody's going to buy and eat vomit ".  Here he make a break to let the lie work, and continue: "Unless we call it honey instead. Honey comes directly from a bee stomach "

To the audience does not get confused, he points to His own abdomen, where precisely the intestines or even colon is, not the "stomach" which Food ejected from the case of vomiting.

Min 56 and 18-20 S '

 Expert Version "speaks confidently that even Professor of Medicine. Expert Version "demonstrates with his hand which place him vomit out, but what to do - Stomach is not there. If you move the video to a few seconds back, look at his hand looks uncertain planning Any move. The next image - continues to explain the Yids, and try to give a sense of scientific "Ask any naturalist."

Secondly if if this honey vomit, just as Gary says, so what does that mean?

By Gary also vomit of a person is very sweet, with a texture is stored without refrigeration for a long time as Honey?
When a person vomits a lot, it means he is sick. So the bees sick by it that they "throw up"? If so, then that Gary fruit food, flowers are fertilized by bees and transformed fruit. If Sand bees, how to "guard animal rights" what can let that happen. It is not Moral. Maybe it also puts diseases.
Bible several times on Israel "L and flowing with milk and honey "- until now we thought that the intention of this is something Better. So even mean something bad? Milk and vomit? J

This is compared with like "wings of the bee's hands," or "sting that ass Bee "or" sting is like a tail bone here. " There is a little imagination and a huge practical difference.

Serious tone, right, honey bees collect the honey part of the body called stomach Honey. Stomach is not equivalent to that of man. Honey stomach is a separate part of the digestive system Bee, it has a valve which prevents nectar beyond normal digestion on to diet, which means it Not like a person eats, digests, and then for some reason, usually below, vomiting. Bee collects nectar body to bring it somewhere else And to serve him with honey. She has organs to do so. Adam No collection of food in the stomach to bring it somewhere else, certainly not routinely. His vomiting mechanism is designed for cases Exceptions, which is required to emit the contrary normal food (not for preservation). In addition, the bees make processes more Honey processing, not parallel to digest food in a person.

If so, there are many differences, of course, There are very large differences in health or chemical from a person's vomit and honey.

If you are not convinced you can demonstrate a similar demagoguery, and say that you saw their products Gary Recommend them? How are they packaged? - Plastic, plastic, ink and paints everything with it. You Know how many chemicals in it? You know some of them are made from petroleum? What you put in the Your food materials derived from petroleum? You know some studies have These substances are carcinogenic and factories to pollute the environment? And why? There are many measures More natural as a bee collects the food in her stomach. Have you ever heard of anyone who got it Cancer? Have you ever heard the bees do environmental pollution? Environmental pollution in Haifa Bay is Establishments, or bees? Bees are the ones that violate the Flowers. Without them would be unimaginable damage to nature .... So you say I'm nasty? I do not Ecological?

J Child - Mother - in life than I do not eat cows, not even seeds like soybeans.
Mom - why, what happened?
Child - that teacher taught us desertification violate the flowers that make fruits and seeds, And a lecture by Gary Sands Deborah taught us all the time throwing up. I do not want to eat I have a sick and diseased animals. Get me saved.
And who are we to Onabid us the bees. How Gary said, "There is nothing like slavery Humane? ".

Picture Hives (H"kofsaot white ") at the Field zucchini. Near field strewn zucchini, Scnah not just the size or quality that the market wants. The surplus is not going to the poor. Without bees Violate the zucchini flowers, there will be no fruit, which we eat.

Field zucchini. Successful because of the bees. The bees work for it. But by Gary - what Suddenly they should - "has a humane slavery?"

F. Why eat meat - Gary tells us we kill a huge number of animals.  Why? He says it is not To health, survival, sustenance or self-defense. Why do it? - He says people eat meat cheese and eggs of four Reasons, here he raises his hand to - on and count them on his fingers with great aplomb: "Habit, tradition, convenience, taste ".
Many incorrect generalizations have here:
Not for survival? - First of all industrialized society is not usually no way to provide Food will satisfy all needs no animal products at all. Take a nature in your area, and in a few Places, and see that there is enough food for even one person for a month. Most of the plants you do not Can eat, but if you grow up where grazing animals, they will eat the plants, and you You can eat in due course the animals.Industrial society, one without meat, as you can also No soy schnitzel. So what? So do not have to eat soy schnitzel because it did not survive ... More Yes - Meat is an important food and healthy, it is important to our survival to have food like this.
Habit, tradition, convenience, taste - do not eat meat because of these reasons, but also Because it's healthy, relatively inexpensive synthetic substitutes that Gary recommends a lecture, and if grown in Ecosystem - an environmentally preferable animal agriculture that raise these alternatives. If No ecological agriculture, then the solution to transfer her to be ecological rather than Go vegan.

G  Gary claims that meat is unhealthy, and You do not need a medical study to show me what people are dying of ', "he says. Credentials? So what? You live with me in the same star? You think that science has not discovered anything? Accepted scientific approach is not to study?  Gary is wrong here the most basic mistake. Research Medical science discovered many reasons for death, and for many reasons statue once thought they were healthy, but They are not. Examples? Previously it was thought that cigarettes is good. Who discovered that?  Gary or have access Like his? - Of course not. Look for some articles about the scientific revolution, if you need information More.

 Gary talks about his relatives who were, and by that we need to think they ate meat, so they Occurred. You get the point? - So you do not understand the minimum requirements for research and conclusions, Is some What: We need to compare those that Gary chose a control group selected under the same conditions - that  Gary has done (audience, probably placed on the basis of Nothing that among vegetarians were not disease), Gary did not tell us what actually ate, Gary did not even tell Other factors that can cause diseases such as older age (what to do in old age patients More and more dead), smoking, genetics, Gary never mentioned drawbacks enrolled using this ". By the way its not possible to reach any conclusion, and that is precisely why there is a need medical scientific research.
 Gary also sins that on the one hand claims they have science, on the other hand brings data from science - only those Serve his purpose, and these will lead to understanding the truth.
* According to the logic of Gary, one can also say that a person must not be a vegetarian, "fact", all people Patients I know, everyone ate vegetarian food such as bread, vegetables, fruits And sugary drinks ...

You can reach more far-reaching conclusions - all sick people also drank water.

Puzzle - by Gary - say bring research is clear, good and reliable meat is healthy. Why all It would not be valid?

Answer (the answer because Every study you can produce showing that humans need meat, cheese, milk and eggs, he produce two that say theopposite

Need to explain? - First of all theoretically possible to collect all the studies in the field, and see whether Ratio of 2:1.  Gary showed no such figure. Second, the comparison between studies should compare the quality. Dog study done A large group for a long time, by a reputable institution in comparison to a control group, good from research Done on a small group for a short time, by a dubious, without comparison to a control group. For such things must sit professionals, read the studies from start to finish and get Conclusions. Whoever did this, came to different conclusions, and I gave earlier List sources .

J Cartoon- Neighbor says to the other: You know, veganism causes baldness, funds, delinquency And visual disturbances. Fact! Today I saw a YouTube vegan, Gary Yourofsky name, and ice, A liar, a criminal with glasses, and he says that no science can reach such conclusions. J

False information on studies

37 m 5 s'

He is just a liar!

- Who book, Gary?

- Sorry, Mr. Expert, with all due respect, maybe bring me one study that shows as you say: Meat, eggs and dairy products are responsible for any major illness. One study, it???

- Does anyone still really can think that meat and milk are responsible for All diseases, and to neglect his health, and do other important things like keeping health Fitness and healthy weight.

- Admit it scares such meeting, a vote for you, and talk about these diseases. However, you can Relax, it's a total liar demagogue meeting with YouTube, throwing things into the air without hesitation, without Sources.

Fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products are healthy lean by studies. There is no dispute about among the bodies that govern (Do not send me linksform YouTube - look at the research or what the formal institution are saying. Some departments From Gary science, but that Gary does not understand science to determine, and is not an honest person, so do not His words will prevail.

- Bringing science research, details and findings. Child to a tea science "bring, but use the concepts Scientific-looking "ratio of two to one," detail and the result - "All major illness", and of course Show self-confidence. I do not think there is a professor of medicine with the Nobel Prize for showing that Confidence.

- Theoretically, if this research go to the store of food additives, and decide on your own people there They say people who consume dairy products and lack of calcium - whether it's for him to study - so really all Can be, but can also be a healthy cholesterol and cigarettes, because I know a lot consumed Animal fat and smoked, and lived in good health until after age 80. If he means things like So he's lying, that he gives the impression he meant real science.

I guess Scdmgog and professional liar he prefers to pose and say such scary things Not lead sources, I can only guess what he might have meant - things often vegetarian Say - usually they bring or the "China Study", which meet the criteria he says (If he had mentioned it, I would Specification why) or find a study that found a statistically Between chicken and fish health, and processed meat like sausages showed a statistically disease if Consumed in large amounts. Even then statistical correlation does not show a causal connection like that Gary says, and then Vegetarian refer only unhealthy, and ignore health. This is not science. Every food group has Consume the finest things. Also plant some things are generally not as healthy as Margarine, that does not mean eating plants.

If the intent is accepted in the scientific research - one published in a scientific journal, which has criticized Colleagues, and also shows a causal relationship, not just statistically - Gary's things completely Not true. If he would bring sources - I refer to them.

Dairy products and calcium absorption - how Gary "proves" we milk is problematic and is not Good source of calcium? 1. He says we eat a lot of dairy products and it is in almost all foods, in that case how General have osteoporosis and how there are so many calcium supplements for sale? 2. He says something about Animal protein makes the blood acidic. 3. He mocks the H"grgrnot "dairy products, which is to So that even people who are lactose intolerant and drink a glass of milk - even if they will not give up on pizza With cheese, because of his lack of understanding on the subject, he thinks it's absurd, and displays it that way.

What's the problem?

A.   Gary displays the things that they think that if there is osteoporosis, it is only because of lack of Calcium, and makes the audience think that the U.S. consume a lot of calcium through dairy products - hence - a sign Milk did not contribute even hurt. What practice? First he would have to show that really consume Enough in the U.S., do not just say things in general there are many advertisements, and dairy products everywhere, Opinion. Second, osteoporosis - calcium intake is also associated, but also in a long list of factors And including Genetics, and vitamin D intake, exercise, Is associated with age (much more common in old age) and depends not only on whether it was food calcium, but If calcium was a good option to be absorbed. For example, coffee, cocoa and cola damage absorption of calcium And there are many factors for the disease.

B. Lack of understanding of the problem of lactose intolerance - to show how many people do not remain on the dairy products he says (from minute 41 and 8 Second):

"Even lactose intolerant people eat cheese ... they might avoid straight up cows milk, But slap a double cheese pepperoni pizza down in front of a lactose intolerant person - no hesitation, rightdown the hatch. "

 "Even lactose-intolerant people eat cheese ... They may refrain from cow's milk clean, But let's double tray pepperoni pizza with cheese before a person sensitive to lactose - free Hesitation straight into your mouth. "
 

What needs to be explained here and Gary did not say that milk has more lactose than cheese Yellow, roughly 22.5 or in other words, with one tool with 100 grams of milk, have the same Amount of lactose as 22 vessels with 100 grams of cheese each, and you will remain50 g of cheese to eat to get Llachcmot lactose in milk which one. Therefore quite possible that whoever lactose intolerance suffer from drinking a glass of milk, but not suffer from eating cheese Yellow on the pizza, and he eats wisely.

C. Protein makes the blood acidic - it's just part of the truth - what Gary said about? - He says (from minute 42 and 15 seconds, the first sentence says sarcastically): "I thought we Get calcium from animal products - it's what the meat industry and the dairy say. Get news: you do not. Animal protein does not allow it. Animal protein makes your blood Acids, so your body takes the calcium and phosphorus from the bones. Phosphorus is used to neutralize PH and calcium excreted in the urine. " These Gary's words, reality more complicated, I'll try to explain it quite simply, And thank Ziv (food engineer) helped in drafting it and attached sources. Link to the letter, attached Down some of the responses.

If so this is a process that Gary explained only the convenience of his erroneous theory. Nutrition Rich in animal and plant proteins can cause a process that at the beginning there is a loss of Calcium, but calcium is absorbed after more than left. This is not a unique process of animal protein. Also Grains such as quinoa and wheat-based products that factors which initially process Blood pH rises, and as has loss of calcium, but this effect is neutralized by the continuation Increasing calcium absorption by proteins. Protein helps to absorb calcium from food have been Digestive system, it even before being lost in the urine, so already there is compensation for the loss, at least Partial and by eating potassium which is meat, milk and green vegetables. If the diet contains Adequate amounts of potassium, it helps maintain blood acidity. As outlined, potassium Is also found in animal products. If so end up eating animal protein - absorbed more Calcium than out. "
Is two things scientific sources:
1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/1107.full
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469289

 

Calcium absorption problem is only a very large amount of protein. What is "big Very "and how healthy and recommended? - Second article above described" a lot "about 120 grams of protein a protein Per day. This is really high number. Equal to the amount of protein in 4 cans of tuna, or 600 grams Meat ... They are of course exaggerated because they wanted to see an article influential extreme case of intake loads Animal protein and less vegetable. It's a healthy amount to 0.9 grams for every kilogram of body weight, so they really Gone far to prove a point. It is also important not to eat too little protein and too dependent on the amount Amount of physical activity you do, age and more generally is around - 0.8 grams of protein per Pound body.

D. A very large study called EPIC-Oxford is Sltbaonim not consume milk has 30% More risk of fracture in relation to: 1. Milk and meat eaters; 2. About vegetarians who avoid meat but Eat dairy products and eggs. It turns out to science, and it also gives an answer to what the opinion of the Formal bodies such as the Ministry of Health is that dairy products are a good source of calcium ..A study published in the American Journal of Nutrition found Sltbaonim low bone density in 5% felt free - vegan (details:Vegan diet Leads to less dense bones ).

This is not only vegan stigma more fragile. It is also backed by research. 30% More risk of fracture Vegan regarding non - vegetarian and respect for vegetarians who consume dairy and eggs.

Much nonsense - lots of talk nonsense, nonsense and incorrect scary Of cholesterol, but the threats of data on the percentage of incorrect cancer, link not true of cancer Nutrition and much more. If you've come this far, I guess you with some criticism and you will find Alone. Dessert The last part of the biological nonsense.

The crook put his hand on his heart and say nonsens   31 m '30 s')

Gary also setting he stated: This vegan who does not eat anything of animal origin, including milk, And is in the picture - Gary says we are born like that.

No Gary, we are not born vegan, but mammals milk when we babies. Who consumed milk Not vegan.

Even kid, veal, lamb not born vegan. Veganism is an invention of a group of people. We are not born vegan.
(Do not send me letters like, "No ... When he said he meant white black ... ").

Were parents who thought their child was born vegan, and gave him such a menu. The child died.  Is a link, http://jacksonville.com/apnews/stories/050207/D8OSG0281.shtml . at http://jacksonville.com/apnews/stories/050207/D8OSG0281.shtml (English) tells We the parents accused by the jury of murder and abuse.

Gary also think we each are born vegan. "

***

Before undergoing some moral and ecological, we already have a problem. If it was accurate to date Facts, and now there is a debate on how to interpret them morally and ecologically, okay. Abel The facts are not true.

Moral and ecological concept also deficient. First moral - that is deliberately lying scientific facts. If You rely necessarily on moral figure liar you have a problem. By the way, if he is right, then why is Should present scientific facts wrong ... They're not right, and distortions needed to Look like.

Second, the moral concept is based on a so if you eat meat, it's at the expense of killing animals, which supposedly Murder. But if you want to reduce the killing of animals, so vegetarianism is not the best solution. For example, I bull pasture, will give us hundreds of pounds of meat, with the death of one animal. In contrast to Produce the same amount of food, for example soy, poisoning and killing many more animals in the fields Vegetarians.  Gary displays it improperly, contrary to reality.

Please note - clearly both meaty foods and growing food plants have many problems in terms Environmental, ethical and health.  Gary discusses the problems in raising meat food, some problems Correct, and ignoring the problems of food plant, which does not come to the correct conclusions.

 Gary opens his lecture on "Today we are going to talk about the world's forgotten victims: Aninals ", is the only Forget the victims who die for his vegetable food, while there alternatives which the dead Fewer animals. The problem of non-seeing damage to living creatures there was about him and his attitude.

The comparison he makes between tumors problematic. He, for example, tells us that at Amount of land, you can grow a lot more tons of tomatoes, carrots and more, and he pulls numbers Remember by heart, without saying what source they are taken. There are also differences in the types of meat. For Rise ounce - a chicken consumes significantly less food fruitful. What else is the problem? - Even If the numbers are correct:
A. There are nutritional differences between tomatoes and carrots and meat. There are differences in the amount of protein and remains, iron, And vitamin B12 And more. This is not a dietary substitutes.
B. Ecologically controlled grazing animals are growth builds the ground, for example just talk trash It, the garbage also spread the seeds of plants that germinate better with fertilizers and more. By contrast, when Do greenhouses or agricultural areas tomatoes and carrots - it is customary to plow up the ground, use a lot Fertilizers and pesticides more, destroy more animals. He does not mention it, and the public is missing Education in confusing numbers.

Instead of facts that he presents match reality, is trying to distort the reality that Distortions fit his.

Delinquency - Gary talks his talk very openly about his illegal activities and The detention before trial. Even I, as a viewer I talk fast enough before going psychopath - I did not feel angry Him when he talked about how illegally released mink were destined to be killed to "Make them fur." I believe that the audience did not see it appropriate criminal shame.
For myself saying, this is my feelings, nothing more. I heard Gary's side in which he Wanted to tell, I have not heard the side of the law, not the victims, or heard about his other crimes. Does not seem reasonable to think that the best He moral sitting in the hall, and I'm at the computer, and all the bad guys sit institutions of law and acted Number of countries against Gary, and if he does a psychopath - psychopaths often use charm Personal charisma, and convinced many others have no charity. Sometimes an entire (almost) as well Followed. We all can happen we fall under the spell of Psychopath, and if you have not noticed his deficiencies - you have a higher chance it will happen You.
Trailer lecture, see Gary considered illegal activities, and see it says about himself:

"Breaking laws, from Jesus Christ to Nelson Mandela, from Rosa Parks to Martin Luther King, laws have always been broken to facilitate substantive change. '

This he compares himself to these people ... And is it related to a psychopath or not - Leave for Mental Health to determine. But you, basic logic and basic knowledge, you Tzrichm Know that great men he mentioned not intentionally lied like him, and another thing in common - They advocated non-violent struggle, while Yourofsky called several times a real violent struggle (details Parts along with sources about 'Gary Yourofsky "Wikipedia Hebrew and English ). Jesus said

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"

 And Yourofsky?

- This is not similar cases, it is not in the form of a similar struggle.
However, it is certainly possible to find similar cases to compare Yourofsky famous people, for example, the enemy Adolf - even in prison, the flag of a violent struggle, also held theory is wrong, also addressed the Excite and lied deliberately, also had a large faithful, and in both cases there are arguments Stronger say that a vegetarian like animals.

 Gary talks about morality. I suppose that if people of all transfers made, even those caught Them and those who do not - certainly would think he had done immoral acts.

Humane slaughter and rape and Holocaust comparisons - demagogue ask rhetorical questions:

"Do you really think there is such a thing as "humane slaughter ...And if you think there is such a thing as "humane slaughter", I'm curious, do you also think there is such a thing as "humane" rape? "?

And he brings more comparisons like slavery, or he asks whether there is such a

"Humane" holocaust "
Well, I answered. Yes, there is such thing as humane slaughter - it is, for example, when people prior to slaughter Think how to do it with the least suffering - for example, firing a nail head causing instant death Without suffering, or electric shock that causes it. Think and do.

Question in relation to animals "humane" holocaust "? - Answer: if killing a lot of animals While in the cab, but Little suffering, it is relatively humane. If the vegetarian food for Gary poisoning animals (eg Put poison in the soy they eat instead of meat) and the dead in mass, systematic and intentional suffering threat - It is less humane than what happens in slaughterhouses minded death within a short suffering. Transition Does not necessarily vegetarian animal death more humane. Slaughterhouses think how To humane slaughter. Fields do not think. Put poison in what will be - will be.
 

Another example - nature has mass death, predation animals daily.  Gary tells us about Frightened animals when they come to the slaughterhouse. The crowd shocked. This is farm animals. Nature Animal meets H"soht his "on a daily basis and on a few times a day. Rabbit With a "killer" Eagle / Make / wolf, zebra with a "killer" lion / lioness etc.. In person only once. Which is better? This encounter. What about the manner of death? -  In nature, some animals were wrecked, begin to be eaten alive. Slaughter in slaughterhouses more Humane.  Gary tells us about the cow cries at the sight of the golden calf, her son was taken from her. Nature not only Calf of buffalo, or bison, for example taken from the mother by lions or wolves, it is also eaten in front Mother. There are also cases reversed - mother crazy eyes Son. This part at least spared the slaughter in Slaughterhouse, or isolation barn.  Gary says the animals at slaughterhouses know Waist expected. I do not know if this is true, and even if it happens to them once in a lifetime, while countless nature Times. Against predation in nature has also often chase and struggle. Want personification? - Is - Is the murderer chasing after you? What would you say if it was happening several times a day, and you Exposed to the killing of people selling it and their families almost every day? - This is what happens, for example Herd of zebras / GNU / deer / bison and many other wild. In livestock, slaughter has More humane, no chase and daily exposure. Reasonable person does not make it "like a wild animal."

Holocaust comparison - often lecture compares the demagogue who is living Raised for food - the Holocaust of Jews to concentration camps, etc.. The audience hears this and shudder. I guess many in the audience believe that, if systematically killing and suffering of animals, so it's like Holocaust.
Even if we assume that a person can take to live as equals him (in my opinion, it is not practical), a method that Gary Preach it - eating vegetarian food - dead animal mass, systematic and deliberate and suffering Toxins terrible cruel and terrible traps that destroy their natural area to To a field or orchard. I guess just for the food that Gary could all life will die more than six Million living organisms.

* Moment of Hebrew - a mistake of the Ten Commandments - the beginning, he says in Striking the biblical commandment: Thou shalt not kill. It makes a lot of impact,Even the non-religious. But he cites the commandment as Sometimes say in English: "Thou shalt not kill."  English Word KILL - refers to the killing of a person and also the animal. But There is also another version in English for that commandment:

You shall not murder

 But speaking Hebrew, know the Bible says "lo tirṣaḥ". Word tirṣaḥ Bible always refers to humans. Animals have words. That commandment does not apply to animals, and the Bible Himself refers to killing animals as equivalent to murder people. This is clarified in many places. For example, in the Binding of Isaac. Killing son Isaac - is forbidden, and the angel prevents Abraham. But instead he slays deer. Ethics for different animals. To Gary it does not matter. No matter a pervert.
 Gary, said the court, making the audience a look preacher, and goes on to say about The commandment You shall not murder, it was "the most important rule - but At the same time it is ignored largest in religious education. " Demagogue turn excite Religious audience. But what to do, not what religion Says. English-speaking audience may not know the differences in translation, but know that according to the Bible And the New Testament may eat meat, animals may be used for work, know

Miracle of the loaves and fishes

When Jesus give many fishes to the crowd 

. If you think - it would be clear that Gary twister. But it looks like His reasoning ability disappeared from the face of the charismatic leader standing in front of him. Even during the question, One audience did not comment on these things.

If people in the audience were thinking more, they also realize that there is no connection between the denial of killing animals Living and vegetarianism, the vegetarian food for many animals killed by spraying, pest And the destruction of their natural territory. Large country like Australia, where a lot of pasture, dead by 25 Animals to grow wheat, attributed the same amount of food growing bulls and cows in the pasture, so recently calculated professor of biology.  Gary did not Buy from meat - it has more blood on his hands. Article someone sat calculate it .  Gary did not Did so.
 Gary did not tell the public the truth. He did not say no possible situation in which there will be no mass death Of animals and mass suffering, and he did not say those are also vegetarian agriculture, and that the Main narrow it is not beyond vegetarianism, but beyond agriculture as possible harms Around like sheep and cattle grazing controlled.

Advertisements - Gary tells us that we are influenced publish. It creates the impression that almost all Advertisements are for food alive. The audience seemed to believe him. He has another "proof" claims - when Last time you saw an advertisement fungi Shitki "? Alfalfa sprouts? Raspberry? Quinoa  ?  He asks the audience, and the audience does not remember Seen. It apparently strengthens the argument that you lied to Gary.
Also you believed?
All advertisements for meat and dairy products? No more advertisements cell phones, candy, Sweetened beverages, banks, insurance companies, washing machines, feminine hygiene products, cars And lotteries?

I think Gary's twisted logic, but if you think not, you can go with it and say to Similar current advertisements mind you: Drink more Coke (vegan), another Sprite, etc. Chocolate, more coffee, more junk food, even sweets more cereal, more chips, Pringles, even Bissell - barbecue - also vegan, all vegan, and not only that, after you bought these things What else do you say? Put ketchup on it, put mustard, even Oil Zeit - more vegan And even vegan. Last time you saw a commercial egg hard? Omelet? Goat? Sheep? UHT milk? Kishke? Carp?

Dishonest behavior requires to fetch data, and manipulate the audience to accept impression True.

* Lately I see a lot of advertisements on the Internet, trying to get me to see the Gary's lecture. When did you last see an advertisement so Antancibi lecturer who convinces eat meat?

The first horror movie - video presents a collection of cases, not all clear just what Happening and how this is relevant to our lives. For example there are a few scenes with the dolphin, for one has Subtitle it in Japan, others have no explanation, it is not known how it is related Us, then we do not eat dolphin for lunch. Some of the pictures are of animals Already dead. Hard to see, we're not used to it, but in a practical, no longer animals Suffer because they are dead. That is why it is related? Allegations of abuse? After all, if they wanted to abuse You could first start cutting the animal, without slaughter. There are also pictures of male chicks And says they are crushed lives, unexplained Is it a very quick death or not, there are also images of slaughter. Again, this is hard to watch, however - a quick killing (chicks), slaughter, is Rather a weak spot vegetarian theory that while many industrial economies do not care Welfare of animals, slaughter actually have no idea to do it with the least suffering. Wildlife death He many times with great suffering much (serious illness with a slow death, predation in animal alive Bite, etc.). Even people die many times greater suffering. Rope. There is of course to improve Economies, but should not be a demagogue. Regarding the method of slaughter we addressed at length above, in response to Gary's rhetorical questions.

The last horror movie - the last horror film Gary shows the camera exposure Hidden in which a sadistic abuse cows. Abuse to the abuse. Example: working dairy farm gives Punches round face. The pictures are hard, and at the end of the video Gary tells the audience that it was not just a name. He Trying to create the impression that it happens a lot, so it should be vegetarians.

Be clear: this is the exception that proves the rule. Farm owner just did not want to harm animals His life, as shown in the film. It's not worth it financially, except that most people are not Sadists, and if that is the impression that Gary was trying to do, so this wild incitement done by a crime.

* Demagoguery similar, with the opposite conclusion: show cows grazing in a meadow with joy, saying, "It is not Single case ", and hence to the conclusion that eating meat.

 Gary uses his lecture on her face to the emotions, shock the audience, I was afraid, boiling. There is a It's a few problems:
A. If you're right rationally what you are facing particularly excite ? If it had been a while, so no problem, but for Gary it very much.
B. This boiling of me Does not mean you're right. Shock the audience in all kinds of movies and manipulation creates a false impression that if they Eating meat is the only thing that will happen, and no other option. Demagogues use it much, And contrast - even poets often turn emotion.
C. If use Legitimate emotion, so you can use it also to encourage eating meat ("Eat - it is healthy", "must Eat meat, "" already cooked "," If you do not eat it just sprinkled into the trash, shame "..."All eat It '..."If you do not eat meat - you will not have the power" ... "If Finish eating the chicken nice plate - I'll buy you a present ... "). How do we decide what is right? Do Who is affected more by the emotion?

Pseudoscience - science, if you want to reduce animal suffering, or death to animals or Food is ecological - determine criteria for what makes it and what not. Approach  Gary Decide in advance Vegetarian doing it, even when not, ignore, cite studies only if they Appropriate use of scientific terms like Herbivore, Omnivore, carnivore, and create an impression of science. This is not science - it Pseudoscience - ie "if Science ".

The logic of this is like a guessing cards, astrology and the like. Woman, who decides cards That left a card or set of cards randomly sure that predicts the future. Astrologer decides which Arrangement of stars as they understood it before you can know what will be the future, and a good way. Vegetarians A la 

 Gary a nd his suppotrted sites

(Claim this talk is very good), decided only by that Know whether a particular food has animal component, you clearly know about ecology, health, Who died and suffered far more animals with food plants.

Summary - rational thought with Gary's style of thinking or sites Vegetarian recommend

Science - How so? - This article mainly business audit. Said mostly what is not true By Gary. In this section we try to say how it? What rational person wants to look into the Need to do? Or if Gary was rationally how he should look.

First one must wonder what criteria he thought they were right. What is it If it exists, then it fits. It may sound simple, but most people do not know really Answer, what are the implications of what they answer.

Suppose the criteria are as few animals die, the less suffering to live, food to be Healthy

and Sustainab le .

After that criteria, need to find ways based on facts to check them. An example of a scientist who examined some of the animals died, Brought above Professor Biology reviewing the issue on mainland Australia . He was just looking for data, and compare them. This is a good example. Another example, take a number of plots, some of them randomly, try them Several methods to increase and test the actual data. You can also try to stop farming methods And see what happens. What would happen if we stopped grazing in a certain area? What would happen if we stopped farming Industrialized certain place?

To check if a particular food is an increase Sustainab le , Have set conditions, for example, local food is better food grown far away (because the fuel Rabbi properly Transferable) minimal processing (processing of fuels, has decreased, transfer Other materials processing facility participants in the process, the work of people + travel, etc.), and of course the environment from which the food has taken itself, ie She did not need external resources (ideally) or almost never, and if it is needed, then some Fewer resources are not sustainable, as fertilizers salt water goes to.
If you set it that way, the next step says to check what meets these criteria. Notice! Stick to the criteria, not just when a vegetarian then note these facts.
Now look at what the season as possible to these terms. If for example you grow parsley in a pot - It meets the criterion of local growth. Goat was grazing in your area - eating while Composted - well suited, orange grove near fit for sacrifice. Otherwise - should Check where it comes from fertilizers and spraying .... Indeed examination difficult, how do you know where they came from all Fertilizer materials, and what process was to the maker? Here and there Fear of failure that makes us decide according to the information available, and according to the information that really Need, and a lot of other problems which are not specified. What to do - that is the truth, and that is hard work, requiring a lot of trial Data.

If you do not, they fall biases are, for example, belief in the just explains everything - justThat are easy to see. Much easier to notice the difference between meat food vegetarian food. Much More difficult to check all the complexity. But that it's easy, does not mean it from you the truth. It May even be misleading.

There are also invalidate claims irrelevant. Take, for example, the argument is swamp chicken regulator ", the If this is true or not - what's with that? Health? Sustainability? Dead animals or their suffering? Of course not. Such a claim must therefore be rejected. No weight in determining opinion. So if a person claims saline or not, if a person can catch a squirrel in the mouth or not, quotes Incorrect numbers of religion, and in fact most of the claims of Gary - just not relevant criteria. Note also without a source of bizarre claims and disqualify them as long as they are without foundation. For example, Gary's claim that all research in favor of meat has two against (Who said?  Gary? It reliable?). Another example, Gary's claim that food plants did not cause any deaths of animals - again claimed without Source, and no basis in reality - a figure that should not be taken into account if it is shown that, because he Is not reliable.

And another tip - a person who brings so many things like that - not a worthy person.  Gary is not a guru.

The Pseudoscience damage

Damage: a theory are unhealthy, immoral, economically, not ecologically, and in the endIn the end what counts, not what is most true, but who was able to lie as well. Who wants to live In such a world?. There are also people that never occurred to any failure / False Gary's lecture, despite Almost entirely false. Consider the significance of the gathering of people without such a liar judgment Psychopath, what does this do not understand precisely what's wrong?.

Uniquely lecture - Gary introduces himself knows, while he did not know things Very basic. I wrote a few people who read the review and realized. They wrote: Yes, you're right, I did bull Indeed pasture will give about 500 kg of meat + related products (leather, gelatin derived from bones, etc.) and It costs one animal died and almost suffered. In contrast 500 pounds "imitation meat" really involves the most damage, and more Dead animals. But where did we get it, you know where they sell it?.

I do not know of anywhere in the country that sells it to the masses, which is an example of pseudo science damage. If there were a lot of people who understand it and want it, the market was delivering the goods. In practice, even meat-eaters, vegetarians and really did not look How many animals die and suffer, or what ecological, therefore there is no one that produces a sufficiently by Market conditions, at least Not in the country. In the U.S. it has a wider market, and gave the Australian study, which addressed some of the points.

Vegans, for example, are willing to pay 3 times for buying soy milk instead of cow milk. It may be possible to raise dairy cows in the pasture, and it is ecological and with little suffering. It also may Cost 3 times the milk produced in mass today, but without proper understanding, people Pay 3 times the wrong milk. What was the correct understanding, were farmers who are willing  Do the work if they believe it will pay.

Because of incorrect information incorrect theories develop, although other possible, some people Hurt their relatives, for example, forcing the child to eat unhealthy food, because lectures Demagogic, developing all kinds of conspiracy theories and spend the time they absorb knowledge not True (because they were told it was "the best lecture") as you can pass the time in a good way More.

If they do that some House meeting among themselves - so be it, but they also Go to schools and universities, bringing the non-rational thinking their and influence The politicians. Child or student who learns that the road to health, ecology and animal welfare is Veganism and this solution also learning not to think ahead and find a solution. Think of a Solomon, who goes by the principles illogical, incorrect, and they believe they are righteous.

There are those who think the wrong way should impose its measures of violence and beyond. Ask Gary.

Quote

form some of t his suppotrted sites

Try to find what is the pseudoscience here

- Page with Gary's lecture video

the suppotrted sites

Write a great headline: "Best Speech You Will Ever Hear." Why is it pseudoscience?

(Try to answer alone ... Then keep).

Answer - Well this question is quite easy.
the suppotrted sites present here with great confidence and a great title "fact" done deal, and complete all your life: This is the Best Speech You Will Ever Hear. Seemingly Science - based work, users also reference to "lecture" or a term that usually belongs University lectures, or 'the talk' about Pseudoscience like astrology. This is not a lesson, meeting Or conference - but Lecture. As for the "best" - how do they know which lectures see? - What are the Dealers divination? Are they still had one success in predicting the future they can say About something? By what criteria decided? ... I guess not name Criteria of reliability, knowledge-date, engaging in a recognized body and is responsible, objective survey of  My audience lectures, and furthermore - even if they did, it was no more than might be concerned Present, and touches on 100% of the audience, as their title says.
Is Anonymous or Libi team was known on the island - many inaccuracies lecture? If not Was known, how can they afford to establish such a fact with so little knowledge. If Also known yet written, so they recommended intentionally false Lecture. Also, is there any validity to this promise? I saw the lecture, and since I've seen more lectures, And I think the others were much better. If so, can I sue for violation Anonymous Written assurance written?
If this is not fortune telling, and criteria for evaluating professional lectures, then what is it?
In my opinion, a liar, who could not lie so much alone, so they used a liar Senior Abroad, Gary, and peppered it their own deliberate lie.

J If This is the Best Speech You Will Ever Hear, how will be the others ....

General practice question: is the quote from the lecture of Gary - Try to find three distortions - quote from the lecture of  Gary:

"You can have the same smell, taste and texture of meat, cheese and milk, without it! Nobody has to suffer and die for your dinner anymore, including you!

(Try to find out for yourself what distortions ... Then keep reading)

Reply
Alter one - not taste the same.
Distortion 2 - is not true that nobody died for plant food. There is mass death and the owners of the Plant life in the food industry using pesticides, poisoning, destruction of the natural surface.
Distortion 3. "Including you" - hinted satire that you will die and suffer from food animal sources. But what to do - The conventional wisdom and the latest in science today and if lean meat, milk and eggs is very healthy.