I feel...
...like Oasis is some online, strictly glbt version of Degrassi or something. We have reoccurring characters that eventually get old and leave, and this constant influx of new characters. And drama. We have drama.
And sometimes people will respond to a really old forum topic, and once you click it, you are presented with all these people from 2003. It really shouldn't, but it blows my mind. I mean, Oasis was around when I was in elementary school. It's crazy.
Man, this is one classy journal entry. I just compared something to Degrassi, and I'm writing like an eight year old.
In other news, why does PETA exist? Has it been commandeered by some poultry company to discredit vegetarian claims? I'm confused.
By the way, it's vegan awareness month. We must all be very aware that vegans exist.
If you are not getting confirmation e-mails from Oasis to complete your membership, don't hesitate to e-mail jeff at oasismag dot com. Be sure to include your username.
Recent articles
Recent journal entries
Active forum topics
- The Curse of Reparative Therapy
- First Book: 'Keeping You A Secret' By Julie Anne Peters
- A Kids Reaction To A Gay Couple
- The Importance Of Giving Feedback
- Can you envisage an any more pointless existence?
- Advice?
- Will Portman - Son of Ohio's Senator Portman: His Column on Coming Out
- Can you imagine the vitriol unleashed by Republicans…
- coming out
- Islam and Homosexuality
Comments
Actually...
Oasis will turn 16 years old on December 1...
---
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)
Yep!
http://www.peta.org/
But you are not required to be a subservient adherent to the faith.
There is much to commend a vegan diet... however, one should know whether strict adherence is followed because of reasons associated with morality, personal health or religious faith.
Personal health is my first priority; morality comes second, and religious faith doesn't even register.
Vegans contend that all required nutrients for our (i.e., man's) health can be obtained by shunning all animal products. Many nutritionists, however, are not so sanguine on this issue.
For myself, I'm not fully convinced: I keep thinking... the humanity that has survived to this era had to have had progenitors who subsisted on a diet that allowed them to reproduce. I'd like to think that our predecessors survived largely thanks to a diet that allowed them not to die before producing the next generation.
One thing we know: a source of water is imperative. Early man had to have lived where a supply of fresh water (rain water... or, more likely, a nearby river) could be relied upon --- not sea (salty) water. Non-salty water is also necessary for vegetation (e.g., fruit, berries).
But... it would seem highly likely that early man also took advantage of the fish that existed in the fresh-water streams.
Has early man's access to fish and other similar life from the streams been a factor in our survival as a species?.
Dunno... but it strikes me as highly plausible that our early evolutionary history (i.e., survivability long enough to reproduce) involved many successive generations where animal products from the streams became increasingly essential for early-man's health and longevity.
This is not a hard-and-fast argument... but my intellect says that it makes sense. Consequently, fish (and related water-dwelling life) seems like a no-brainer... for me.
This line of reasoning can be extended to include animal life living on land... which in our evolution may also have contributed to our inventory of essential nutrients.
Vegans --- probably rightly so --- contend that all of the essential nutrients for good health of modern man can be obtained from other sources (grains, nuts, vegetables) without direct access to animal life. But history has repeatedly shown that when substitutes are made... we later find that "something" may have been missed.
So... I have to compromise a bit on the morality issue... and, at least try to eat meat (largely seafood) from animal life that "appears" to possess an intelligence far removed from that of man. Of course...fruit, vegetables, grains, and nuts as well...
Do... what satisfies you (for good health maintenance); it's not a religion for me! But... I absolutely reject any notion that meat is injurious to anyone other than the animal from which it came!
Yeah,
I agree; it's much easier to eat well if you include fish and other meats. I'm not saying it's not possible be vegan and healthy, but there's a tendency to replace holes in your diet with more unhealthy food.
But in the journal I was mainly thinking of the insane advertisements PETA has been running, which seem ridiculous and ineffective.
Well...
As a vegan, holes in my diet are filled with the usual cookies and bullshit that even meat-eaters enjoy. That said, I don't even think of meat and such as food anymore, so there is no need to replace them.
As for PETA, I think people mistake their mission, unless I'm completely off about it. I think PETA, like the GOP, realizes that a rational, well-balanced campaign has no chance of getting attention. So, they create Super Bowl ads that will NEVER run on the Super Bowl where they would have to pay for it to be seen once, but instead the ad runs on every talk show and are discussed the week leading up to the game.
All of their stunts are not meant to represent the change they desire, they are things people can talk about and have discussions about, and that is where the real change will occur. So, they do outlandish things to spark discussion, and that discussion is what wouldn't be happening if they didn't exist, they didn't up the crazy level so high, or if they had run an informative, rational campaign that would be easy to dismiss.
---
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)
Actually...
You're missing the other bit, which is that animal protein (as opposed to vegetable/soy proteins) have been proven to promote cancer growth. All of that details is in T. Colin Campbell's book, The China Study, which is one of the largest and longest-lasting studies of its kind.
The healthy part of fish isn't you eating them. It is them eating seaweed (or them eating other fish that eat seaweed). So, it is basically you getting the health benefits of them having eaten something healthy. And, of course, it is nothing you couldn't eat directly (kale, spinach, flax seed, etc.)
I'm not sure what history on substitutions leading to something being missed that you're referring to, sounds like you're working back from a conclusion here. ;-)
The upside is this debate is becoming moot. We've overfished to the point where in 40 years time, most fish people enjoy will be extinct or not harvested. And any benefit of eating meat now only lives in the grass-fed, organic stuff that people think costs too much at Whole Foods, etc.
Breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, etc., are all related to a high consumption of animal products, and are all among the top ten causes of early death. So, your conclusion is only true for people who are in the minority who somehow avoid these things by complete random chance, or enough healthy intake to tip the odds despite their unhealthy intake.
---
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)
Spoken as a "true believer"
I fully support (as you seemingly do, as well) those food products that are at a lower level on the food chain. Your observation, however, that fish subsist on lower forms leads me to no useful conclusion. But, I am concerned about the propensity for fish to concentrate heavy metals, particularly mercury (the culprit here being our waste products that have been quite carelessly allowed to pollute the rivers).
And, I agree that not all animal products are good choices... particularly if consumed frequently. The stand-out "no-no" would be red meat (fatty beef, in particular). (I consume red meat only as a guest in someone's home!)
It appears that we both treat diets as we would religious dogma... fortunately, any test to the efficacy of these faiths is subject to the laws of science. The problem is that much remains to be learned...
Whatever... I'll be having roast turkey this Thursday... complemented with multiple vegetables (especially yams, brussels sprouts, and cranberries)... and at least 3 different wines (one red; two white)!
the point being...
Fish are marketed as having health benefit, and the only benefit is that the fish more than likely ate dark green vegetables, or ate a fish that ate dark green vegetables. Aside from the omega 3s that the fish obtained through its diet, there is nothing else healthy about it. And dark green vegetables are readily available, so easy to cut out the middleman.
Sort of how "red wine is healthy" is tossed around, and it is just because of the color, which is from the grape skin, so nothing is more healthy about wine than its concentration of the antioxidant property that can be obtained from eating grapes.
I'm very glad that nearly every vegan person I follow started as a non-vegan, and let the evidence guide their decisions. Campbell started doing scientific research to see how to make cows larger for consumption, and the cancer stuff just came up in his research, and he went down that path. I don't follow any vegans working back from a conclusion.
---
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)
I'd understand that allusion if I'd watch Degrassi.
But I never will. I don't think many people here do, since this is the first time I've seen it mentioned on Oasis.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJqnnIpP0o
Degrassi
Degrassi is a super cheesy Canadian TV show about high school. All you need to know to understand this allusion is:
1) It's a super old franchise; it started in the late 70's and still runs new episodes today.
2) The cast routinely changes; they get new characters every season and old cast members leave the show.
3) It's about high school, and features actors who are supposedly our age.