March To Destroy Civilization Continues

The New York Times doesn’t want you to work, leave your home, travel, or eat. They also don’t want you to hear accurate or sensible information on any topic.

Opinion | The Coronavirus and a World Without Meat – The New York Times

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to March To Destroy Civilization Continues

  1. Vegieman says:

    How about we stop acting like animals (or more accurately beasts). Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US as recorded for living breathing walking humanity, but right on its heels at over 600,000 per year (trending down from 1.4 M in 1990), unborn children are butchered under the watch and care of the likes of Jonathan Safran.

    • DCA says:

      Can you produce any evidence that eating meat (as opposed to just overeating in general) causes heart disease?

      • Hank says:

        Ever hear of the Keto Diet? I once weighed over 300 lbs. I am now down to 228 lbs and falling. I used to take 200 units of insulin per day, but now my doctor told me that I am no longer diabetic. It is NOT the fats and meats that are our problem. It is all the starches and carbohydrates that give us heart disease and every other chronic illness you can think of up to and including fungus on your toenails.

      • Vegieman says:

        Sorry, I didn’t intend to make a connection between eating meat and heart disease. Oh, maybe because of my name, some might think I’m a vegetarian trying to make converts. Absolutely not. I do grow a bit of produce for local sale, but our table isn’t complete if it didn’t have some of our free ranged chicken, pork or beef.

        I merely called out the leading cause of death in the US as compared to the nearly equal mortality rate for a category of humanity that evidently doesn’t make the cut when tallying causes of death.

        My point is that people like the cited author claim a concern for humanity, yet their real interest is in depopulating the earth of humanity to save something other than people. It certainly isn’t a mission out of a concern for their fellow man. The liberal preference for animal life over human life is dark.

      • Tyrannosaurus Rex says:

        Don’t pay attention to him. He probably reads “Natural” News.

    • spike55 says:

      stick your psuedo-meat plant substitutes…

      .. just pretend they are real.

    • spike55 says:

      By the way, A cow cannot put out more carbon than it takes in.

      Meat is CARBON NEUTRAL.

      Not that it matters, as CO2 does not affect anything except plant growth.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Beware, y’all. Especially with the posting delays.

    • Virginia Silcox says:

      If BLM is so worried about the welfare of Blacks, why aren’t they protesting Planned Parenthood, that aborts 5 times more Black babies than any other race?

  2. G W Smith says:

    The power of guilt and shame when even common sense abandons you.

  3. Gator says:

    I would suggest that they just stop eating altogether. Problem solved.

  4. Anon says:

    Hi All,

    This might help explain what we are seeing with the Lock-down Controversy (as well as many aspects of Climate Alarmism)

    Imagine you have a gun and are in an commercial airplane and see a horrendous crime being committed. Do you shoot the gun to stop the attacker?

    The Science Explaining Why Liberals and Conservatives Can’t Understand Each Other

    But Haidt’s second major discovery is far more consequential: the concept of “the conservative advantage.” Based on painstaking cross-cultural social-psychological experimentation, Haidt establishes that the moral foundations of liberals and conservatives are not just different, they are dramatically unequal.

    The liberal moral matrix rests essentially entirely on the left-most foundations; the conservative moral foundation—though slanted to the right—rests upon all six.

    This is a stunning finding with enormous implications. The first is that conservatives can relate to the moral thinking of liberals, but the converse is not true at all. Haidt, who is liberal himself, elegantly explains how and why conservatives will view liberals as merely misguided while liberals tend to view conservatives as incomprehensible, insane, immoral, etc.

    “The results were clear and consistent,” remarks Haidt. “In all analyses, conservatives were more accurate than liberals.”

    Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse.

    Rather, they seemed to put moral ideas into the mouths of conservatives that they don’t hold.

    To put it bluntly, Haidt and his colleagues found that progressives don’t understand conservatives the way conservatives understand progressives.

    This he calls the ‘conservative advantage,’ and it goes a long way in explaining the different ways each side deals with opinions unlike their own. People get angry at what they don’t understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don’t understand.

    Short video on it here:

    TED Talk: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives – Jonathan Haidt

    I just thought this was very interesting… and explained so much, so I hope others also find it just as interesting.

    • arn says:

      Isn’t it strange that those lefties are the one
      now starting to (miss)use the term empathy on an inflationary bases
      though empathy is needed to know what someone else,with an opposite point of view,may feel(and,as in this case, answer as result of the feeling)
      And empathising(&understanding) the point of view of other people
      is the fundament of tolerance.
      And the left pretend to have a monopole on tolerance.

  5. Simon Conway-Smith says:

    The NYT doesn’t seem to comprehend that with a good economy, everyone is better off, and able to afford meat. It also doesn’t seem to comprehend the simple concept of ‘supply and demand’.

  6. Geoff Arden says:

    and the climate alarmists are getting back into gear with their unceasing propaganda

    “These findings are based on a predicted global temperature increase of 2 degrees which climate scientists expect to happen in the next 30 years in some scenarios and take into account current carbon emissions.” bla, bla, bla, bla, …….

  7. Hank says:

    Despite all the crying about global warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide, we now have a new glacier growing in a very unexpected place:

  8. KevinPaul says:

    They want people to become so deranged and sick from cobalt deficiency that they can pull the wool over their eyes, and fleece them of everything.

    The real killer is fructose, not ingested cholesterol. Fructose, and plain sugar, which is 50% fructose, isolated and concentrated from the fibre is toxic to the liver, it has to metabolize it just like alcohol, and yes it leads to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, along with a myriad of other chronic life extinguishing disease.

    I find it amazing how money has corrupted science everywhere you look.

    If you’re interested to know more about how you have been deceived, this is a good video to watch
    and a follow up

  9. Peter Carroll says:

    Aw Gee! I always thought that Vegan, was just an old Indian word, meaning bad hunter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.