gary yourofsky criticism and lies

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 plant eaters. 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.

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.

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 "plant 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. Let's continue, look at the "biological-information" which Gary attempts to convince us that he is correct, and that this is "our real nature" His inaccuracies are so many, that we should have much more longer article to see them all. We will focus on some main points.

A. He saysthat man is Herbivore (plant eatrer). This is not true. Scientific consensus is that the human being are Omnivore (all-eater). Here is a science source for this argument - Phylogenesis and nutrition .

A human being is not considered to be a plant-eater creature like a cow: some of his teeth are partly similar ( in an untrained eye) to those of herbivores and some other are like predators, he can not digest cellulose, and if he is vegan, then he needed to complete nutritional B12, i.e., he can not get everything from plants, but on the other hand, there are vital substances he can mostly get from plants such as vitamin C. The human stomach produced digestive enzymes to digest elastin, which is type of protein that found only in animal-product. Human, like mice and rats which are also omnivores, are common in many parts of the world, where there are very large differences of the existing food supply nearby. Because he is a all-eater, he could live with many types of foods, and adapt to it, despite the differences.

In any case to decide in that issue, we have to ask a specialist in biology / zoology / nutrition, and not asking uneducated lecturer in that field. The lecturer, the demagogue, not even bothering to tell the public that this is his personal opinion, which is completely contrary to an very broad scientific agreement.

Gary brings false evidence, logically and scientifically to "prove" that a person is Herbivore. For example - he said that man sweating and panting with his tongue - my answer - it's not a nutritional claim. Domestic-cat or crocodile for example, are carnivores - meat eaters, and they do not pant. Other wrong claim of gary (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 teach it...) - Have you ever seen a dolphin With claws? Snake with claws? Seal? And Many more examples, not require anything, except being completely ignorant about animals. If you learn a little more, then learn that an important feature of Primate Is the existence of nails. It's one of the things common to the Primate-Order, including the Primate "Homo sapiens".

There are vegetarian primates, predators primates and omnivorous primates. Everyone of them have nails. This is one of the primates-order characteristics. On the left side Gorilla, vegetarian.
On the right picture of a Tarsier. The Tarsiers are carnivores, predators! They have no claws, but Nails ( source: Tarsier - Wikipedia , based on Encyclopedia of Mammals).
(Images from Http://commons.wikimedia.org ). The picture of the tarsier - by Kok Leng Yeo, picture of the gorilla - by Raul654)

Gary says: "claws are a trademark of the carnivore and the omnivore". One thing is what Gary says, and one thing is the reality. At the image above : snake swallow young rat - you can see only the tail of the rat sticking out, but you can't see "snake-claws" because non of the snake has.
I

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

The length of our intestines - here Gary's claim (at 27m' 19s') "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 he give a source of expert, if he himself the expert" ...). It is not sure that everything there is accurate, for example, a short search on Google and you'll find veterinarians sites which tell you about dogs with artery-clogging.

What is "Decaying and rotting animal flesh" ? - it is unclear... you may ask Gary.

Nevertheless as usual in pseudoscience facts - the correct is mixed with wrong, and text sounds scientific and complicated, so there are those who draws it must be true, especially as it was said at the university, By "lecturer" and with great self confident. Explain. What is more or less true - true predators have shorter intestinal relatively to a human . It is also true that predators are much less Likely to clog their arteries.What is the fallacy? - This is a classic example that someone invents Incorrect theory (that a human is Herbivore) gathers only data that assume it is correct, and ignores other data, then says "here I am right." Here is example for use that fallacy to show that a human is meat-eater - we will invent that a human is carnivore (meat eater) - thenwe show like Gary that Plant-eaters cope better with Plant Food - for example, can digest grass, they have much better digestive system for that (like as the charlatan Gary, we can throw data and numbers, like "torso" - Save me that part) - and then saying - here i', right, there is a difference, so it's mean that a human is a meat-eater. In both cases, we invent a theory, and than we are looking just on data which support us and ignore unsupported data.
So what is the true without demagoguery - without demagogy, and without ignoring unwanted data - is the regular scientific theory - that person is Omnivore - all-eater. Gary does not to all-eater. In science there is no claims that person is a predator like lions And tigers, that why the differences that the crook pointed, does not contradict any accepted scientific theory.

The Example of demagoguery which I have given is correct in the fact that person does not have a digestive system that can handle such good with Plant Food as Herbivore, but that does not mean that a person can not eat a nice dish of vegetable daily.
The example that Gary gave is half-correct that person does not have a digestive system that can handle such as carnivore, but it does not mean that the person should not eat daily dose of animal product.
Carnivores are specialized in eating meat, and have a good digestive system especially for that purpose.
Herbivores are specialized in eating the vegetation, and have a good digestive system especially for that purpose.
Omnivores (all-eaters) are specialized in eating a wide variety of food, and they can deal with better than herbivores and carnivores. It has Disadvantage, such as that Gary (more or less) said: If we eat too much animal food - We have a much higher chance to get artery clogging than predators, so health agencies warn us from eating too much and recommend balanced behavior. Moreover, ther is no formal scientific body, wich says we should eat only raw meat like lions and tigers. There are also disadvantage to being Omnivore without specialization as the others, for example, even when The grass around us in abundance, we can not eat it. But it has an advantage that a human can adapt to different environments and different diet.
More problems in the demagogue concept:;
* Comparison of the Predators-order, to a person who is a Primates order.
* There is no fixed relationship between the length of torso and the intestines, which determine who is a predator. Assuming that the data that Gary Said is right "3 to 6 times" - It is 100% difference in a relative creatures.

The case of 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 use the same similar logic, and tell the audience to go out and eat grass like a goat. If they can't - then the conclusion is that they are not herbivore. If you want further explanation - in the development process of the mankind he learned to create tools, and discovered the fire and learned to cook. No animal can do so - and they need somthing in their bodey. The mankind can use tools. For example - the food we eat most - grains (wheat, rice, et al) - is non-digestible for humman without processing such as cooking and marinating. It does not mean that it isn't food for human, it may say that that in the evolutionary process, it wasn't necessary to develop teeth and digestive system to deal with such food. The discovery of fire and the ability to produce tools gave man a great advantage by being able to eat many types of food, that can cot be edible otherwise. Most of our food does not eaten like an animals in the wild.
* Similar demagogic experiment: Take a seal, put it on campus, and see if he can hunt a squirrels. If not, it is mean that a seal isn't predator, but it a plant-eater.

Experiment: rabbit and apple - Gary "the scientist" advuse us to meke an experimant: "find a 2 year old child, place the child in a crib, in the crib put 2 things, a live bunny rabbit and an apple". To the sound of laughter of audience he says: "If the child eats the bunny rabbit and plays with the apple ..." He promises to give the audience a new car and "eat a steak sandwich in front of everybody".
OK, Gary made a good show; and what about the biological facts? Does this prove that the person Considered a "plant eater"? Maybe he "eats plants + cooked meat", and that why the baby will not eat the uncook rabbit ? What about that experiment: cooked meat + apple? (Or giving the child a cooked rabbit and a cooked apple), what about a trial of the world's most popular plant food - corn / rice / wheat - and not only grain from that plants - giving all the plant like to a real herbivore - Is the child eats it ?.

Similar demagoguery - according to "Gary method" we can also offer other experiments.
1. Take a small child to Mcdonald's . Ask him to Choose between 1. Hamburger. 2. Salad.
What will he chooses ?. We know what the children choose when they come to McDonald's, don't we? Almost never a salad. Does this mean that one carnivore (meat eater), or that I planned an experiment that will lead to the opposite conclusion than Gary?
2. Another experiment suggestion in "Gary style" - take a puppy at about the age that corresponds to a Two years old baby (still not walk as an adult, and stiil not eat solid food as an adult) and take a kitten at similar developmental age and put them together. If the puppy does not chase the kitten or not eating it - according to Gary's logic - A. Dogs are not chase cats naturally . B. Dogs are Herbivore s (that why the puppy does't try to prey). C. The cat is a herbivore even.

* Even a predatorys, are need to learn how to prey. You may see it when a predator lives his life in a capture all of life, without similar condition as in the nature - usually if it release to the wild, it will be incompetent to manage, he could not hunt and die.
* When giving a two years old child to hold an aninal in his hand - even at a rabbit size, it is too large for him. If you give a toddler to hold a chick in his hand, lot of times the child will hold him too tight, and smash him even to death. It is not because bad intentions, but because motor-skills that have not developed enough in hands, and because of a lack of understanding of his actions. Those who work with pets and children properly are aware of it, and allows the child to have that. Things like this shows that it is difficult to conclude from watching small children behave on the natural relationship of man and animal in general, certainly not conclusive things like that Gary is trying to show.

* In biology, it is important to beware of classifying animals by their adjustments features to the environment. If one creature is similar to other creature, that is not a sure sign that could give us information about its origin and its nature. Example: a whale is similar to a fish, due to the adjustment to the environment. Demagogue like Gary was able to come and says that this is not true that a whale should rise above the water to breathe. A whale, would say demagogue, is a fish: it has 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 it is not able to catch a squirrel in the campus, he lives in a water and can not live on land, therefore, preach demagogue, a whale is a fish, and as a fish, it does not need to breathe air above the water.
These are the style of Gary's claims. Be careful to fall into the trap.
* Similarly: some bugs, most birds, and bats can fly by using wings. It does not mean that they are the same family, and has similar nutritional properties.
* Kangaroo, jerboa and frog are going forward by jumping on the back leg. That does not mean they are the same family, and has similar nutritional properties.

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

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

Native in the Amazon with the hunting.
Without meat, without hunting, the tribe will not survive - just by eating leaves, roots and seasonal fruits available Jungle. For them "Vegetarianism is a murder." without the hunting, the tribe will die due to lack of essential food elements .

The relationship between man and animals is complex far beyond relations between predator - prey.

B. Health - he claims that eating meat is unhealthy, 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.

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 ...

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?

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.

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."

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 ...

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

- 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.

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.

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.

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 ... ").

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

- 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? "?

"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:

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

. 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.

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

(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

Rational thought

Gary style of thinking

and his suppotrted sites

Understand that particular problem.

Vigorous reference And to the point.

Focus question that want to test.

Understand that particular problem.

Quick action Or equivalent, a lot of times Hysterical (because it's "murder", "holocaust", blood, horror Or that a demagogue frightened them that they and all her family were sick) or Another voice response due to peer pressure, fashion, feeling disgust.

Without checking a lot Decide what the answer is to talk - veganism.

Purpose - to investigate The subject

Determine Criteria by which states what is right and wrong.

First look Facts, after that if you can base this theory.

Checking facts Existing research literature, or do research. Ratio objective data.

If the domain Interesting and intriguing you you might enjoy. May be a boring parts And tedious.
Perfectly legitimate to skip the long and tedious steps, decide on answers Experts, if not understand everything. Highlight - experts which are based on facts, while Detection bias awareness and use of mechanisms that reduce them (eg, audit Colleagues, double-blind).
Do not feel enlightened, but know more, do not know everything.

Purpose - to justify The vegan.
No need to research that has been selected in the previous step solution - veganism.

First decide What is the theory, then looking for facts Shiitaimo her (or interpret them that way) And ignoring other facts.
Interpret reality to fit a predetermined solution.

Subjective interpretation.
Dog: If I saw a lot of people buy vitamins and supplements, sure it's because Eating animal products, and sure buyers do not vegans (Gary style).
Dog: Bringing Web site only articles supporting a predetermined attitude, or They present them to partially interpret the articles so that readers. Articles Serious people say that eating meat healthy - for them "do not exist" (Style suppotrted sites.

* In some cases, - As a schoolboy mistake he knows the right answer and say It in front of the whole class out loud with joy and great pride - so they feel, And a longer period or for life, without a teacher to tell them immediately that they had Wrong. Feel "light", "righteous", "know better from the Ministry of Health" Feel energies into action, for example "to reform the infidels."

If We fail to learn from the data we collected, so no conclusion.

Base a conclusion based on facts.

Trying to find a better way Favor.

{0} ({/0} {1} None {/1} {0} ){/0} Anything like that conclusion. She then fixed in advance.

Strong belief in illusions.

Facts Support the faith, so to make things still work out, they invent Things and lying.

Dog: "We are all born vegan" (Gary).

Dog: "The best lecture ever hear" (suppotrted sites)

upon Based on the facts found in the most correct conclusion is reached can the meantime, know that it does not have to be something finite, it is not Religion, but the best information, based on the facts we were able to find so far.

Will Further studied, openness and an objective that may in the future become aware of other facts, Accordingly, we adapt the approach.

{0} ({/0} {1} None {/1} {0} ){/0} Wish other information that the first stage sure there is an answer. {0} ({/0} {1} None {/1} {0} ){/0} Correct conclusion in reality, only a predetermined odd idea without checking the facts. Random thing that becomes a kind of religion. New information does not change it, anyone who thinks otherwise Considered an "infidel", often react emotionally: insult and aggression.

Approach is not compatible The facts on the ground, but not able to change the attitude - like a religion, and there is pressure to return to distort The facts so that it will be possible to believe something is not true, and live with it Peace and to add new members.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

Summary of the major comments (without details Identifiers)

Number of comments came on the article.Is the gist:

* Many responses was usually a sentence like "I do not agree with Gary Many things, but ... "

* Also said there is another serious ethical problem with the approach of Gary is that he is willing to harm human beings to not harm animals.
I guess whoever wrote this is right, but this article was written mainly based on lecture His popular, and such direct preaching was not in it. She occasionally came indirectly, for example, Complaining about the injustice done him, in his opinion, by the legal system when released Mink cages, causing significant financial loss to the tower, and close the farm.

* Many vegetarians caught B12 actually held to commemorate the article. I do not agree with the arguments on the issue, but in any case this minor point. Suppose there was Mentioned in the article B12 - So? - Gary gentle twister Science, Bible Ecology, ethics erroneous conclusions and is not moral character.
People who are dodged the truth.

* Others picked what was written "Thou shalt not kill," and wrote things like "Why should go By religion "," religion has many problems. " Answer: I am not religious, and I do reading Team rabbis. Gary is the one who raised the religious argument, and I say, if raised a religious Need to upload it correctly.

* Others mentioned not bold enough paper damages the meat industry.
Please note - not loaded industry of the flesh "as it is today - a whole ecosystem or not caused Her suffering. Certainly it is not. Argued that if we want to limit Death of animals to be more ecological, so you need to check the criteria Ecology and the number of dead animals, and not according to what a vegetarian. Sample was taken for this purpose Australia. Although a small continent, but still continent. Gary is not interested - interested in vegetarianism, and is down The data that has come out false assumption.

We will explain this in another way:
The ecological portion of meat industry can be divided as follows:

A. There are cases with damages.

B. There are cases with damage, but you can turn were less, for example Reform made in the dairy industry in the country.

C. In some cases it is more ecological products from plants. I Examples, such as domestic livestock grazing and controlled.

Against Section A should make vigorous actions against.

Section B - should be encouraged that will change.

Section C should be encouraged.

Gary and his ilk against A, B, C.

They So extreme that they even against C, thereby causing damage Large and clear, the things they believe.

* Some argued that it was okay that he distorts, and it serves as a counterweight opposite distortions of Supporters meat. It makes people "moral adjustment", so I just wrote one. My answer - all Distortion is not good. Encourage truth, to encourage distortions. Some good things have happened to you or Someone you know in life because viewing hour and a half of lies, distortions and errors of logic without being Were aware of it?

There flattered: Good for you had bothered to watch such nonsense to talk The end ... Someone else wrote: I watched 10 minutes, and then I look and how I came to review the article Yours. Thank you I did not waste time to see to the end ...
* "Do not understand how so many people get what it says without running some Criticism, as he charismatic, but, we all have gray cells. "
* Gary's lecture is Demagoguery crazy innocent people and causes them to be vegan not by choice and understanding, But by manipulation. Description "The best lecture Ever you see "is not valid. To say the least.
That alone lie that has been doing the distributors of the lecture.
* Gary Yourofsky mixes a number of truths, with many Guesses, and with little to no errors and distortions.
* Good for The article detailed and luxurious. I got the link to the video of Gary who said to me that "ignorance Is approved "and we prefer to be ignorant and did not see the reality around us. I Your article after the video of Gary and told him that 'knowledge is power' and wish him all the knowledge So many issues on which he speaks and presents facts "absolutely false. Well done, good Very well be people like you who can address such a terrible amount of ignorance and lies that people Innocents drink a day without noticing.
* First of all - thank you. For almost a year I struggle with myself. On the one hand like animals, on the other One seized the new trend of veganism and vegetarianism which fell most of the best friends Mine. Some are more extreme ("and animals"), and some say they do not impose anything The other person but it seems they have a legitimate middle Pride Parade will be Vegan "on the road". I struggled with myself, I watched a lecture by Gary and as someone with a background I instructed - I could identify what attracts so many people to change their way of life because Guy.Until I watched the video of his did not. And I watched I felt uncomfortable not only Because what was shown there - but because of the fact that no one could understand what lay behind Person. I felt I was watching Guru: one who preaches on the life of austerity and enter it into the Find an LCD TV, and walls There. He preached of brainwashing done to us, and I found myself answering a computer screen Almost automatically - and 'what do you do exactly? " And maybe there was my need to Google "against Veganism "(Despite this I felt extreme) and found this article that shows Thinking And real criticism of businesses animals. To read the full letter .

* I do not usually write people connected articles I read online, and to tell the truth I do not usually read articles online. Gary's lecture I saw only because a good friend My I did not expect from such a move, we will be Vegan followed. During most of the lecture Gary mainly Irritated me and made me the impression of a charlatan heavy. My reaction after watching the lecture was It was cheap and manipulative and uses extreme examples and \ or ridiculous (such as comparison Holocaust and concentration camps, such as baby and rabbit test) and even though you have no scientific knowledge A lot of it would seem to me exaggerated and invented. I believed many of his statements that the land level I do not have the knowledge needed to counteract it and really it sounds reliable, in particular Lecture. Frustrated receives broad support lecture and intolerable amount of people Only following this lecture are meaningful decision as to become vegans looking for Reactions and got your article. Beyond that article enriched my knowledge in all subjects Gary concerned that lecture and I personally do not understand them, have a talk power that it does Everything that Gary does not - look at things scientifically and provides sources for all claims. Personal attack on Gary I think is justified, because in the end he succeeds reliability To make himself is to convince the people. Take him to the reliability and left him Nothing. I hope your article will reach more people and I'll do what I can To distribute it. People with judgment from a lot of good will and people like these Sent you the angry responses and petitions curses advance not have a chance.
All the best,
***
TeIn only thing that encourages me about the environment I'm in is broad support I got when I wrote on Facebook (still 23 Facebook era) saw the lecture And it has not changed my life and I'm going to inch hamburger.

* Aggressive response: "I can slowly refute anything retarded article noted But it's your terrible waste of time ...You do not hope you crap so I will not waste my time But you'll be glad to deal with you have presented false front of all your will be exposed to deception prevails. "
Note that he writes with great confidence, spiced with insults. Were more. Rationalized What is wrong, did not have. I told him, that if he found a mistake is corrected, and then what interest I have not mend? Later he wrote me a letter with claims as has China Study (my answer I Can not be taken as a reliable source because it is not recognized scientific research, not published in any written Scientific journal, even a professional / scientific conclusions not received), said he had hundreds of links Milk and meat harmful (my answer - so what decide in the opinion of the very best, not According links he wanted to, and ignoring other connections, other than that we have not seen Them), and did the mixing of claims Miscellaneous (eg bringing humane slaughter answer rape (My answer: I wrote about it Asked by Gary "There humane rape"). I can not change things, based on Problematic data and mixing arguments, and style with curses does not add (if you have complaints Logically, why curse, just bring them). Responder aggressor added "At the same time I published the Your nonsense some savvy and we are working on a reaction against the much more detailed. " My answer - I hope what I wrote will help you in formulating the response.

* Curses - some other cursing, and just two letters were curses, curses And best wishes for death, without Content. Yes, there are some vegans.

* Look the truth is that I fell in a sliver of Gary ...He sweeps and raises interest
At the end of the lecture I thought maybe I should do something, and that the campaign "prey" My world ....
But it is very hard, I can compare it to a person who weighs 160 pounds and want to start Diet - is broken from the beginning!!
So I thought about it after I put the thoughts of suffering and a desire to make Vegan Deep down in my head ...
Also, I spoke with a good friend about that he said to me: "Listen No doubt he sweeps And a pleasure to the viewer, but it is full of manipulations and say inaccurate things .... "
In short I can only say thank you for making that clear also see the other side of the Things and hiding the Gary important for me to note that I'm going to really see what correct words And do not try to make the words
I'll approach if I did not know so I do not have to change (just as a matter of religion Me)
Thank you very much enjoyed reading your article and thank you also Lmltshim helped you .....

* Four reasons listed by Gary to why we eat meat, not units. Reason Another major (and himself due to various reasons) that eating meat in Western society It's just cheaper. Economy as of today, that's no reason to be sniffed at her. Maybe Argument here is that we need to reduce costs, but this is another topic altogether.

***

* Hitler comparison? - Different users picked what they thought The comparison to Hitler is an example of the letter:
"As soon as uploaded this point you have lost my interest.
What is the connection that it was or was not a Vegetarian?
Stalin loved meat, it means eat meat are psychopaths?
By the way no matter what I read Hitler was a Vegetarian partly because he had stomach problems and is not Was such a lover of animals, except for his dogs, which he did no law about it .... "
My answer:
First, if the comparisons people have a problem for you, then you would certainly abandon the lecture Gary at the outset when he makes his comparison of culprit Jesus and Martin Luther King.
Second, the Good people and issues, calling the article before its publication, offered me some friendly advice, Download Hitler article. They warned that some people take care of such minor point in the article, Make it a major issue, they lie to themselves how they were able to disprove, what do they care Truth, what do they care other claims. They want to stay in a lie.
Indeed, who prophesied to address the marginal point, justice, and moreover not enough being picked on her, Also present it in a different way, like I said it's the same thing, more comfortable for them to attack The claim, After presenting the other way, they attack the version invented so they thought they Are right.
I decided to leave anyway, because in any case you can always find some minor point. You can also Find a spelling error, and then say "He can not even write."
This way ridicule the comparison of Gary Christ. This is a ridiculous comparison, and more comparisons Two died, Hitler has more imagination. Not identical.
So who picks on that minor point, I reply - so your right to decide, I was just trying to wake you How do you test things, and want to check if you are working in other fields, decide not to True and harm yourself.

About the style of the article - Someone concluded his remarks as follows:
While I can not speak for everyone but I think if instead of attacking the person was Ignore him and refutes the idea that he represents so:
A. The article was more concise and to the point.
B. The article was getting light and more respectable science.
C. As a B. He was also a more compelling and ultimately more people landslide.
Answer - I have, at least for a certain portion of the readers of your stuff Correct. If anyone do editing, or write a different style, he is invited to join Mission. I do not have the power to write and edit all over again. Who is going to make such edits - Welcome. Two articles will be online, and users choose what they want to read.
* Also - if anyone is willing to help translate the article into English - is welcome to contact Email .

Difference between man and animal in the Bible - was the one who claimed that Made clear enough what is the difference between man and animal in the Bible. Although there is a big difference, but it is not enough Elucidated from mother
Answer - I did not go too much because I did not want to enter the lecture topics are not.
The Bible is definitely not a book vegetarianism, or "ideology of PETA, only the language Old. "
Many instances in the Bible that show the difference between man and animal. You can do it List Long.

The China Study - I'd love to hear referenceResearch China - is also wrong, and what?
Answer - The China Study - It's not just the name of research, but the name of the book, one chapter Only it deals Statistical adjustments to China.
The author chose these statistical matches what he's comfortable - is a link with more information On - http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

Enrolled ", if you can even call it that, was not peer-reviewed, nor published in any written Scientific journals, and the author ignored important conclusions from the results of relevant studies. Perhaps the idea Make a book was after that magazine would not publish it, not because of a conspiracy, but Because it is not good.

Another problem - the author concluded that based on the statistical adjustments Things Opinion indicate reason.
All known research - statistical correlation does not mean causation. For example, if you find that many people Oils have drinks a Diet - it does not mean a Diet drinks cause obesity. So that Examine causal relationship, he first had to drink a Diet to a segment, then see if It really makes obesity or not in relation to a control group, and that the only difference between the groups. This is the basic rule of inference Research.
If so, this book is not something you can base anything on it in a scientific manner, which is why Scientific establishment did not accept the conclusions.
Gary also claimed two words with H"fi "milk, meat and eggs are responsible for ... That is us Causal. Statistical adjustments presented in the book are those that determine a causal relationship.

Respect, love, freedom, opportunities, equality - Vegan One wrote an essay long letter in which he breaks down the teachings. He himself concludes the Words like:
In summary: - Please pray for: As I said, I think as long as we stay healthy vegan diet and not hurt Ourselves why we should be vegan. We are people who stand for dignity, love, freedom, Providing opportunities and equality. These are all central and significant part of our lives. Whether we Go to elections or whether a person refers to his mother with respect and not just reject the opinion that it A woman. Whether you are studying in the same class as equals with people of different cultures and whether we Helping the elderly and not abuse them and kill them because they are weak we are. Equality And freedom to wrap us in every direction. Just not when talking about animals. I think we Accommodate this principle to everyone, including the animals. You can not ignore consciously This inner contradiction. We owe it to ourselves, our personal integrity, continue by This logic and have it all. In addition, we want to be good to others after Thing, and want peace. Pain and suffering is something that no one wants "
Answer - veganism is not related to peace Honor, love, freedom and so on. After each field Vegetarian brutally killing animals without Drop of pity. Farmer who sends his cow slaughter, he sends her to a place where doing so Suffering much less than do mice fields. Only at which you eat the lettuce today, Mice may be killed million last year, and suffering a slow and long. There was here no access Of equality, providing opportunities. About love you talking about? If you really cared about things These have been looking for the food production system best to do so. You did not. Return And read the section "pseudo-science" article, and the claim amount of dead animals "per I can 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 more animals Fields vegetarians. Gary displays it improperly, contrary to reality. "

Article Professor Mike Archer says that for Vegetarian die more - The article you wrote insightful and in-depth, WithI wanted to wake Australian's article quoted that is pretty crap. I read the article in English and Australian Like Gary also it seems that the writer was Conclusion before checking The data, and the Journal is not scientific, but popular science. I am a PhD student to *** and I saw some articles in biology in life, and it does not look like Original article but more like an opinion column in Ha'aretz (not to mention news (.
Without digging too much, you're right, note that in addition to that Vegetarians / Vegans Hold the view This without counting the number of Dead animals, the majority of the carnivore s really not doing such consideration or any consideration Similar but simply Dining at anything. Maybe it stems partly justified sense of vegans situation is Catastrophic and that Place 'trigger' the people and speak in the tone of a prophet (his city by the way).
Answer - I knew you could raise a goat or a cow and give her grass and some scraps Environment like bread left, I raised it myself. In this way I also know the number of animals Dead, because I know who did not die for vegetable food, and know that the animal went well meat Died. Although it seems obvious to me, there are many who do not, and they tell me "Get source". Somehow that does not seem to have a bull that eats grass and slaughtered then it Only one animal died and provided hundreds of pounds of food with quality protein, iron and B12 Better. So I got cold. Clear that this article is incomplete, he checks every increase of meat compared For growth of all plants, but focuses on something small smallest continent, he also examines the All dead animals (only Mice). Clearly there is room for further research and data collection. Important part in Mainly, I think, This way of thinking. If you want to die as animals, so I just have to go into the field and count, or Rely on existing data. I do not know anyone else who did this simple thing, and that I see the importance of the article. Gary and anonymous ( egAnonymous spokesperson of the article enclosed in a "for further reading "), talking about the possibility Move food that an animal was hurt in its production. They of course did not indicate the source, in addition they do not do the simple thing of counting, Or look at someone else's data book, and killing the industry there is vegetarian Enormous. That they do not see - it's nothing very surprising. Want a source? So here it is. As a preliminary article, far from answering all the questions. At least he raises them.
* In my personal opinion, meat - do not consider murder, so no matter if a particular area fruit growers Or smaller animals like goats, and finally kill them. But since there is a different opinion than mine, and they say It's hysterical "Holocaust," "murder" - should be clear argument Vegetarian irrelevant, because you can grow food much less animals than you suggest.

Another response to the article by Prof. Archer - Say it right, but we are going Stores in the country, has something herding? Or something comparison of Professor Archer Actual Israel?
Answer - start with the question: perhaps only field in which grew the cucumber ate today Killed a thousand animals? A million? How do you know how much death there on your plate?. {0} ({/0} {1} None {/1} {0} ){/0} Our data.
To my knowledge most of the meat in no herding. The exceptions are beef cattle, by the age of Certain overgrown pasture, and see many like them traveling north. At some point pass These cows feedlot, meaning to dense and concentrated with food centered. Even abroad visit Pasture many times in the first stage the size of the pasture, and some of the meat in the country is imported. Dairy cattle are Barn without grazing. There are always exceptions, such as the Bedouin who raise sheep pasture, perhaps here and there Jews of Judea and Samaria, and makes it feel like Moses, Abraham and King David, but it is not Something common to buy a typical supermarket.
* By the way, if Gary is a reliable source to you, he mentions first fattening animals Pasture. He did not mention it positively. Why? To Gary answers. Quote from minute 31 and 57 Seconds: "" You Aware that people eat animals after the animals were fed ground? People Eat fruit after cows ate the grass and some soil growth then we are the leading Same feeding facilities where feed them most corn, wheat, oats, and soybeans Our ".

Professor Archer counts how many dead animals in a specific place than a certain growth. We have Data in each tumor, anywhere. Basic logic, If you compare a hamburger lettuce, then it seems clear that growth in industrial, spend less resources Increase in pounds of lettuce, about a pound of meat. But if you compare a vegetarian diet that replaced the meat Gary advised that products, with a diet of eating meat - so not about replacing meat with lettuce (It does not substitute for the habit and taste and nutritionally and health), but replacing Gary recommendations, products that require Multi-processing using much energy and debris, the product consists of many components in Interesting price of substitute pork meat high in most times (if using less Resources like Gary and sites "Skrnimos" assert, then why was not it reflected in the price?) ... Add to that also need supplements Like B12 Or iron. In this case there is no certainty that the ecological menu more or less have died for Life or healthier. If you care to what ecological or what healthy, you should check Ecological and what healthy, and if in the end after the death and destruction operations many, what You have left on this plate meat or vegetarian food.
From time to time to see if someone raised ecological arguments for vegetarianism, really Ecology mind, I ask him if he is doing the simplest thing - come shopping with Bags from home. It's a simple thing for next to nothing that anyone can do. If he does not do It's probably not the length of care.
Look at Gary's lecture, how long the projector transparencies on, no he does use it. If he cared about ecology, was putting it out. I can not remember where I lecture And projector transparencies stays on, without having done using transparencies, other than Gary.
Environmental solution, I think, is a voluntary simplicity, frugality, by choice, and what is clear He better ecosystem - use it. Dog If you have a reasonable public transport - preferred It, even if you have enough money private car.

Depth conversations - with some commenters that there was a general attitude in favor Gary, a discussion of several letters. Common Them, I believe, is three biases that lead them to erroneous conclusions. 1. Claim wording 'So what's wrong with Gary - his vegetarian theory is correct - my answer - Theory Which is based on so many mistakes - place trap. You want to use a professional Some talking and doing a lot of self confidence that things are based on so many mistakes ? 2. ENTANGLEMENT figure easy to find and to base the theory. 3. Bring only arguments that justify their claim, and ignore from those who - outstanding example The cost by the reactants is safe animals spend more resources, because they Also eat food to grow, so it's a waste more than that the man eat the plant Directly. My answer - As easy to notice it, and as there are sources claim it, but The reality is more complex. For example, there are several types of animal tumors, some more Wasteful some are not. Grazing animals, for example, the food, but also garbage, even manure distributor Seeds and more plants are increasing, the seed sprouted in manure provides quality food at first, the animal also prevents trees Develop (that he eats them) and maintains that the sun will compete for resources with grass, a Animal eating grass, it allows more solar energy to be caught by the plants low Thus there is more energy and more calories to ... And that's just a few examples. System Much more complex than it seems. Plant agriculture is also very complex. There are more Ecologically, and less, for example soy is soy schnitzel growing at a remote one, is Processed instead Then, the energy transport and large processing, fertilizer from another country bread crumbs expected land Otherwise, the fertilization from another country ... This required a lot of fuel, increase in the area was destroyed in the local flora and fauna than Cows in the pasture ... This again some examples.
Depth talks, nobody took into account these examples, and when I turned my attention Him that - has not changed his opinion, and my answer, if so many things are not taken into account when You have established your theory - so it has many problems, and is not correct.

More striking depth conversations with vegetarians, finally, after many calls, Eventually come to the conclusion that meat, "eating corpses," disgusting them. It is not Interest in health, scientific, ecological, but emotional. It just disgusts them and they do not Able.