News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book by E6300 on Saturday March 25, 2017 @03:40AM (#13954516)
> Big Pharm and meat-based diet do a lot more harm to the entire biosphere and individuals than Ayurvedic medicine and yoga.

Cars kill more people per year than heroin, therefore heroin is healthier than cars.

Let's wait until pseudo-scientific treatments become multi-billion dollar industries and then we'll talk about what does more harm to what.

Re:Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book by good_vibes on Saturday March 25, 2017 @04:04AM (#13954568)
I'm not talking about pseudo-scientific anything dude.

1.) A meat-based diet is directly linked to higher cancer rates.

"The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters."

http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/fact...

2.) A meat-based diet is directly linked to clearing wild habitat for more farm animals.

"Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

The major threat to future survival and to US natural resources is rapid population growth. The US population of 285 million is projected to double to 570 million in the next 70 y, which will place greater stress on the already-limited supply of energy, land, and water resources. These vital resources will have to be divided among ever greater numbers of people."

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

3.) U.S. eats more meat than any nation on Earth and also has the most expensive health care in the world too, 20% of the GPD. We have a society whose delusions cause diseases and destruction around the world. If I was wrong, there wouldn't be so many brilliant scientists, doctors, artists, and entrepreneurs on this same train of thought.

4.) Yoga, meditation, plant-based diet have all played a major part in creating the modern world including computers and the internet. If people don't have discernment to know true from false, that is their shortcoming and not Dharma. ;)

Re:Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book by E6300 on Saturday March 25, 2017 @04:51AM (#13954677)
You have not addressed my counter-argument. I'm not interested in defending "meat-based diets". I'm simply attacking your pseudo-medicine.

> We have a society whose delusions cause diseases and destruction around the world. If I was wrong, there wouldn't be so many brilliant scientists, doctors, artists, and entrepreneurs on this same train of thought.

Argumentum ad populum.

> Yoga, meditation, plant-based diet have all played a major part in creating [...] computers and the internet.

This is probably the most absurd statement I've read all week.

[dead]
Re:Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book by E6300 on Saturday March 25, 2017 @09:18AM (#13955471)
"Your" as in "the one you brought up".

What does history or the Bay Area have to do with this discussion?

Re:Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book by good_vibes on Saturday March 25, 2017 @12:31PM (#13956346)
What did I bring up again? I'm confused what this about at this point. I feel like you are trying to create cognitive dissonance where there is none.

Read these: https://www.amazon.com/What-Dormouse-Said-Counterculture-Per...

https://www.amazon.com/Counterculture-Cyberculture-Stewart-N...

Re:Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book by E6300 on Saturday March 25, 2017 @10:56PM (#13958842)
I'm talking about Ayurveda. To recap: you claimed that meat-based diets and pharmaceuticals cause more harm (in absolute terms) than Ayurveda, and I countered that the comparison is invalid because Ayurveda is practiced at a scale that's simply incomparable.
Re:Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book by jsmthrowaway on Saturday March 25, 2017 @02:07PM (#13956808)
> 4.) Yoga, meditation, plant-based diet have all played a major part in creating the modern world including computers and the internet. If people don't have discernment to know true from false, that is their shortcoming and not Dharma. ;)

I was interested in your argument about meat and then I got to this, which immediately unraveled any point you had for me.

Investments in military technology played a major part in creating the modern world including computers and the Internet. That hippies were so intimately involved at a few important points is more a reflection of the time period and culture than causality, more an observation of the type of people drawn to the work for a season. Stating that we have the existence we have in large part because of yoga and meditation and not eating meat is so revisionist and misguided that I don't even know how to dispute it. I'm sorry, but that's just blatantly ridiculous because it's such a complete inversion of the actual truth.

That you take it further and imply someone is defective and invoke Dharma for believing otherwise is quite something. You should really bring it down a bit if you want your point to make sense, because you're coming across as far more arrogant than I think you intend.

Re:Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book by good_vibes on Saturday March 25, 2017 @02:41PM (#13956952)
Your missing the forest for the trees. I find many of the comments to my original comment to be very reductionist and misguided.

Semantics. What I typed, how he reacted, how I reacted, and now your reaction. We are so far from my original thought that I don't know how to respond. In fact, I think I'm going to stop here because I am wasting time talking about nothing of consequence.