Green Xenon

Life is full of compromises. I'd choose the aforementioned hypothetical product -- and it's drawbacks -- over obesity and it's associated illnesses. Acid reflux is improbable because the product will cause a rational amount of chlorine* deficiency, and hydrogen ion deficiency. In the new thread I started -- http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58644-when-can-i-expect-to-live-off-this-extremely-healthy-product/ , you will see that hydronium ions are also removed. Let me add that the hydroniums are not directly filtered out but are deprotonated into H20 molecules and the resulting free-protons are removed. This will likely cause the body to compensate by signaling the stomach to stop producing HCl as an emergency measure to prevent the the body from losing too much acidity and chlorine*. *Chlorine exists in the body in the form of chloride ions which are necessary in trace amounts for certain body functions.

I don't have enough money.

Hi: I recent posted something similar in the "Morbid obesity, causes" thread. However, someone suggested to me that I start a new thread. I currently daydream of a hypothetical diet product to cure my own state of obesity that I desperately would like to live off of -- without eating anything else. This product that is vegan-friendly and has all the nutrients of vegetables, fruits, herbs, algae, seaweed, and other non-animal organisms that are necessary/beneficial for human health. It also contains beneficial and essential microbes [such as probiotics and the Red Star T-6635+ yeast which is a vegan-friendly source of B12]. All the aforementioned are in amounts optimum for human health. This product is completely organic and free of any pesticides, synthetic ethylene and other man-made substances that compromise the heath of foods and their human consumers. In addition, no organisms used in the product are genetically-engineered or irradiated. Equally important is the environment used to grow these organisms is healthy, organic, and free of pollutants. This product may be extremely healthy to live off of. However, it will likely taste bad. To make this product consumable, an orogastric tube made of health-friendly, eco-friendly, non-abrasive material -- is included. An orogastric tube coats the entire mouth and throat all the way down to the stomach. This tube directly and safely transports the product into the consumer's stomach and can even do so in the complete absence of peristalsis. Prior to the making of this product, all proteins & fats are pre-digested completely, and the following substances are completely removed from the plants: 1. Any carbohydrate that raises blood sugar. These carbohydrates are bad for health. Soluble fibers [such as inulin] are not removed at all as they don't count as net carbs. Simple sugars and digestible starches are completely removed. Insoluble fibers [such as cellulose] are also completely removed as they don't offer much benefit other than to add bulk to the stools. 2. Glycerol [which is unnecessary calories and can be produced by the body] 3. Saturated fatty acids [which contribute to atherosclerosis] 4. Trans fatty acids [which are far worse for health than saturated fatty acids] 5. Hydronium and hydrogen ions [to decrease acidity/increase alkalinity of the product] 6. Any other substance that is known not to be beneficial or necessary for health -- such as the caffeine in coffee/teas All organisms used in this product -- excluding tomatoes -- are raw. Tomatoes are boiled to bring out the lycopenes. To make the product healthier, bad minerals [such as lead and thallium] are completely removed [assuming any of them happen to somehow be in the product]. To decrease blood pressure, sodium and chloride are decreased [but not completely removed]. The sodium is decreased as much as can be without leading to symptoms of sodium deficiency. The chloride is decreased as much as possible without causing any serious symptoms of chloride deficiency -- the consumer should still be able to safely perform tasks taken for granted -- such as driving or operating machinery. The decrease in chloride will help balance out the acidity caused by ketosis. To help prevent kidney stones during ketosis, extra potassium ions are added to the product. The potassium is also alkaline and will further assist the body in keeping itself non-acidic during ketosis. In addition, the extra potassium is added because the body responds to chlorine deficiency by making the kidney excrete potassium. So more potassium must be consumed to make up for this loss. The product has drinking water added to it to make it easier to drink. This product is in small health-friendly, eco-friendly bottles. Five bottles per day should be consumed. The bottles are in a package and are of different sizes. The biggest bottle should be consumed in the morning. The smallest should be consumed in the evening. In between, are bottles of different sizes. Earlier in the day, the bigger bottles should be consumed and as the day progresses the smaller bottles should be consumed. This routine follows the saying eat breakfast link a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper -- except the food is divided into 5 smaller meals instead of 3 bigger meals. This is an extra benefit to diabetes patients. It is important to understand that this product will initially not satiate it's users. However, once ketosis kicks in, appetite will decrease and consumers will no longer feel the urge to eat. To summarize, the substances in the product are chopped and ground as finely as possible [tomatoes are boiled prior to this]. Second, the proteins/fats are pre-digested all the way down to their monomers [amino acids in the case of proteins, fatty acids & glycerol in the case of fats]. Third, the undesirable substances are removed. Fourth, good microbes, potassium ions, and drinking water are added. Finally, all the substances are blended together. There still will be fat in this product, it's just that they will be broken down to fatty acids [and the glycerol portions removed] prior to bottling. Many fatty acids are necessary and/or beneficial for health. They also assist in the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If this product did exist it would greatly benefit obese patients. I just wish someone would start a company, get the company to make this theoretical product, and sell it to the general public at a reasonable price. Here is my question. I would like to live off this product and eat it in the aforementioned manner. Is there any hope? All I ask is to experience a complete healthy life that is totally free of any physical disability -- such as stroke, heart-attack, blindness, paralysis, etc. Please tell me I'm not asking for too much. Thanks, GX

Quote from http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm : "The requirement for vitamin B12 is very low. Non-animal sources include Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula or T-6635+ nutritional yeast (a little less than 1 Tablespoon supplies the adult RDA), and vitamin B12 fortified soymilk." So let's add the nutritional yeast to the product -- this would classify as one of the "beneficial or essential microbes".

It's fact. So to be fair, a girl shouldn't hit a boy even if he hits first because she can damage him more than he can damage her. Just like a man shouldn't hit a woman even if she hits first. I believe that differential-treatment should be provided based on the age, behavior, strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and disabilities of the person -- gender may or may not be a factor depending on the age of the concerned persons. For example if an much older kid and a much younger kid get into a fight, I'd be more sympathetic to the younger child -- even if the younger one instigated, this is because the older child is not only stronger but has a better understanding of right vs. wrong. Reasonable discrimination is good.

At the age of 10, most girls are stronger than boys because girls physically-develop faster than boys. That is why I suggested in a previous post that boy-children should be taught to treat adult women [18 or above] differently from adult men -- from the time a boy is old enough to learn. However, boys should never be taught to treat girl-children differently from other boy-children. This can cause a boy to develop a passionate hatred for girl-children and the society that supports them. Absolutely not. There is a difference between an adult woman and a girl-child. Teach little boys to treat adult women differently from adult men but don't dare risk teaching a boy to treat girls differently from other boys. The former is rational and fair. The latter is sickening and cold-hearted. The latter is just begging the boy to grow up with a hazardous dislike for girl-children.

Personally, I don't think pre-adolescent children should be treated in the above gender-segregate manner. I believe: 1. A male -- of any age -- should be allowed to treat a pre-adolescent girl in the same way he is allowed to treat a pre-adolescent boy of the same age as the girl. 2. A male -- of any age -- should be allowed to treat a pre-adolescent girl in the same way a female -- of his age -- is allowed to treat her. 3. A male -- of any age -- should be allowed to treat a pre-adolescent girl in the same way a female -- of his age -- is allowed to treat a pre-adolescent boy of the same age as the girl. Fair is fair.

UK and US are both western. Russia, India, China, Japan, Middle East, and Africa are "non western". The native "Indian" cultures of the Americas are also "non western". Latino cultures are also "non western". Pro-girl sexism is the mildest in modern, western, upper-class, hi-tech cultures of USA. Pro-girl sexism is the most intense in primitive, impoverished, native cultures of southeastern Africa [no racism intended].

The anti-boy sexism I'm referring it is usually limited to society forcing *males* of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children in a public place. Females in general tend not to be forced by society to treat one gender of children better than the other -- in public or private. However, in cases of African clitoridectomy [obviously perpetrated only by females] there is anti-boy sexism because so many males [in all age groups] are falsely-accused -- by society -- of somehow being involved in the practice and/or interfering with female-only activities, these men/boys are then tortured to death. Males are *not* allowed to rescue girls from these evil women, however, if a male doesn't rescue the girl, he is socially-condemned for *allowing* the abuse to take place. If he *does* rescue the girl, he is socially-condemned for *interfering* with female-only activities. Either way, the males don't win and suffer the same fate -- it's a Catch-22 situation. So there you go, this female-to-female violence never gets it actual perpetrator punished but instead society conveniently blames it on any male who happens to be around the area where such abuse was taking place. That's how it *is* anti-boy sexism. Pro-girl definitely. I'd rather be a physically-healthy uneducated individual who spends time at home being taken care of by the men of society, than someone who is forced from the time of conception to be strong, macho, pain-tolerant, dirt-tolerant, and independent. Girls often experience the former, while boys usually experience the latter. Of course, as a girl, I'd face other challenges but those would be from women and other girls. Clitoridectomy is only one example of the heinous abuses girls face from women and other girls. As a boy, I'd fear mistreatment from both genders [e.g. macho adult men, adolescent male bullies, and young girls -- girls can be very nasty during their growth spurts when aged 10 to 13. This is the age range in which girls are usually stronger, bigger, more aggressive, and more mischievous than boys of the same age]. As a girl, I'd fear mistreatment only from other stronger females. If a male of any age mistreats a girl, he is viciously-condemned by society. Being a girl is no bed of roses, however, it is preferable to the horrors of boyhood.

Sadly yes, women are allowed to physically-punish girls in many non-western cultures, I thought I already discussed this in the previous thread. Not only are women allowed to corporally-punish girls. In many non-western cultures -- such as Africa -- women have a free pass to sexually-torture little girls. This is very common in Southeastern Africa. A gang of women will randomly approach a young pre-adolescent girl and then remove her clitoris -- very nasty procedure. These evil female pedophiles claim that a clitoridectomy will keep the girl "modest". Again, this is done only by women and all witnessing the procedure are women. Males of any age are not allowed to even remotely be involved in this practice. Sadly, this means that males are not allowed to rescue the poor little girl from those nasty perverted women. This also goes to show that, in terms of child abuse, same-gender molestation is just as prevalent -- if not more common than -- opposite-gender molestation The laws maybe gender-neutral in some parts of the world. However, the society isn't. Society still wants males of all ages to avoid physical contact with girl-children as much as possible. It's not the legal system that's at fault. It's the societal system. This pro-girl sexism that I've been describing dates back 1,000s of years. As humans formed a society, they made irrational rules. This is one of them. Also true is that non-western cultures are *far* more intense in their anti-boy sexism than the west. My ancestors are from India but I still admit western cultures are far more gender-neutral [in terms of childcare] than non-western cultures. That is why I respect the west. In addition, the further back you go in the history of human cultures, the more intense the anti-boy sexism. Equally important, is that the poorer the area you are in, the more intense the pro-girl sexism. So the modern upper-class western cultures [such as Diamond Bar of Southern California in USA] have the least intense anti-boy sexism, while the primitive impoverished tribes of Southeastern Africa have the most intense anti-boy sexism. This pro-girl sexism is one entity that separates the humans' society from non-human societies. Non-human societies -- depending of the species -- may or may not treat adult females better than adult males, however, none of them force their males to treat the girl-children better than the boy-children. This pro-girl sexism is not innate, natural, or instinctive. It's a product of society. At heart, no one wants to perpetrate pro-girl sexism. However, in order to maintain social standing, they are forced to. Here is how pro-girl sexism started: It most likely started more than thousands of years ago with a small gang of strong men [the only male homo-sapien humans existing at the time] who decided that they would treat girls better than boys. The gang singled out male individuals and forced them to follow and enforce this rule -- they left the females alone. These male individuals joined the gang and -- out of extreme fear -- began following and enforcing the gang's pro-girl, anti-boy rules. More and more male individuals began joining this gang -- out fear for their own safety -- and submitting to their oppressive anti-boy regime. This is how the anti-boy, pro-girl gang got bigger. Members of this gang began teaching their boy-children -- likely through extreme corporal punishments -- to follow these sexist rules and pass these rules onto the next generation of children. Fathers who didn't teach their boy-children to follow this sexism were singled out by the gang [which was now big enough to be considered a society] and horrifyingly mistreated along with their helpless sons. This is my theory as to why anti-boy sexism exists. It exists for the same reason many other irrational, un-natural societal norms exists -- they are followed and enforced out of fear of facing social condemnation. This historical gang of humans I describe pretty much had similar rules of most of today's street gangs. If they want you, they force you to join, and if you try to leave, they torture and kill you. If they see you and don't want you, they torture and kill you regardless of your actions.

I'm against patriarchy. I prefer matriarchy, because it is less likely to force it's males to treat girls better than boys. I am feminist. For example, in fundamentalist cultures [clearly patriarchal] -- boys are penalized by being made sexually-available to men. This is common in the northwestern frontier of Pakistan. They view encourage the sexual abuse of boys as a matter of pride. It is seen as high-class of an adult man to have a harem of pre-adolescent boys. I'm not racist, I'm just stating the facts. Sorry if anyone is offended. Very similar situations occur in Papua New Guinea and the indigenous tribes of Southeastern Africa. In the former, little boys are forced -- by cultural norms -- to submit to the perverse desires of grown men and older adolescent boys. Their culture claims that a boy needs to be raped by men in order to cleanse him of "maternal pollution". What a bunch of nonsense. Sadly, in many non-western cultures if a boy is raped by men -- regardless of his age, he will face social condemnation and legal action for practicing sodomy, even though he is the victim. It is common in Pakistan, for police to arrest and jail young boys who they know/suspect to be victims of pederasty. Just imagine the public outrage is this crude "blame the victim" mentality was perpetrated against girls instead of boys. Not that it's right when it happens to anyone. I never said that. Well, as said before, in Singapore and Malaysia -- and likely many cultures of human society -- men are not allowed to corporally-punish girls. However, anything other than a man punishing a girl is allowed. Not that I support corporal-punishment of anyone by anyone. I'll give you another example. In Taekwondo -- and other martial-arts -- female instructors are allowed to make physical contact with kids of both genders. Male instructors are only allowed to make physical contact with boys. If a male instructors does make physical contact with a girl, then society will falsely-accuse him of "sexual harassment". Don't you think this is illogical? Both cases are examples of society forcing males to treat girl-children better than boy-children.

Why not make punishment of children gender-neutral and non-corporal regardless of who in providing the punishment? Equally important why should gender-specific restrictions exist as to how a male teacher may discipline a girl? It makes no sense. There is stigma regardless of gender. However, girl victims of pedophilia are given more sympathy than boys -- especially if the perpetrator is male. Girls who are molested by men are enjoy a lot of sympathy from the male members of the public. Boys who are molested by men, are instead, seen as "girly", "effeminate", or "sissy". These boys are scrutinized for not being able to fight off their assailants. Society thinks of these boys as having lost their manhood. This is another example of society forcing males of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children.

1. Yes, we're talking about pre-adolescent kids 2. You're right, boys are more likely to face corporal punishment than girls IF the professor is male. Women tend to treat kids in a gender-neutral manner. It's the men -- who are forced by societal norms -- to avoid making physical contact with girls. For example, Singapore and Malaysia banned the caning of girls. In those nations, girls readily exploit this anti-boy bias and are often very cruel to boys because they know only the boy will be physically-disciplined. This is a recipe for disaster because at some point a boy victim will explode and likely pull of a Columbine-like attack on the girls. 3. Prior to adolescence, boys are just as likely to be sexually abused as girls. However, boys who report such abuse often face opposition from their peers [in the form of homophobic and transphobic bullying] which is why a boy is likely to keep such tragedies a secret. As a result, the statistics are skewed and give the false idea that sex abuse affects girls more than boys.

1. We're not talking about adult women vs. adult men 2. We *are* discussing boy-child vs. girl-child 3. The average girl-child is no more innocent, weak, vulnerable, sensitive, better-behaved, or delicate than the average boy-child of the same age -- so it is illogical and unfair for society to force a male of any age to treat her favorably over him 4. I never said adult women and adult men should be treated identically I think the title of the thread should be changed to "Are *girls* [not women] really treated preferentially?" since that is the scope of this topic.

Sure the law may mandate gender equality, but society doesn't always obey the law and often times this law isn't enforced. For example, in martial arts classes, female instructors often treat children equally in terms of gender. However, male instructors are required -- by society's irrational norms -- to be easier and make less physical contact with girls than boys. If a man is as physical with a girl as most men are with boys, society will cry "abuse" and the male instructor will be falsely-accused of sexual harassment. This is just one of the many examples of how society forces males of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children. Seriously, this pro-girl sexism is counterproductive because it causes boys to hate girls and society. A boy who is severely-victimized by this pro-girl bias, may go insane and end up with suicidal and homicidal thoughts. He may end up doing what the Columbine kids did. What if this pro-girl discrimination drives the boy psycho to the point where he commits suicide? What if he commits suicide in such a manner that he takes a *large* number of minor girls with him? It's best to prevent such a tragedy from happening. The best way to prevent such from happening, is for society to stop forcing a male of any age to treat a girl-child better than a boy-child. A boy's perception of society and it's girls are key to preventing the boy from growing up with harmful intentions against minor girls and hatred for society's irrational gender stereotypes. In the above suicide-murder scenario, the girls maybe innocent, however, the boy's aim is to punish the macho men of society. Macho men really care for the well-being of young girls. Nothing upsets macho men more than if a male of any age attacks a young girl -- they have a rule "don't hit girls". So, in his attempt to punish machismo, the boy would likely pull off the above scenario if he is a victim of extreme gender-biased childhood abuse and bullying. How does this topic relate to the thread? Well, the aforementioned victimized boy would have the mentality of an anger-retaliation rapist. I.E. hating society and it's minor girls. Anger-retaliation rapists are hot-hearted and want justice for the wrongs society has perpetrated against them. Anger-retaliation rapists can be cured of their rape-causing indignation, but first, society needs to stop the aforementioned pro-girl bias.

A truly civilized society would treat it's persons differently only if based on age, strengths, weaknesses, sensitivity, vulnerability, abilities, and disabilities. Males of all ages would still treat adult women more gently and give them more space than adult men, because adult women usually are physically-weaker, softer, and more sensitive to personal space than adult men. However, a truly civilized society would never force a male of any age to treat a girl-child better than a boy-child. This is because that society would understand and respect the fact that the average minor girl is no more weak, delicate, sensitive, vulnerable, or innocent that the average minor boy of the same age.

This again has to do with society forcing males of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children. If a girl kisses a boy, no one cares. If one kid kisses another kid of the same gender, no one cares [though if they're male they make face homophobic teasing from peers]. However, if a boy kisses a girl, he is shamed to the core by society.

The processing does not involved the addition of any substances other than drinking water, potassium ions, and beneficial/essential microbes.

It is extremely logical to make this product and sell it [at a reasonable price] to health-conscious consumers -- like me. This product is the best food for combating obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension.

Athena, I never said that child sex abuse is limited to India. It happens all around the world. However, it must be understood that the gender-discrimination I was describing is far more intense in non-western cultures than in the west. In western cultures, we tend to be very protective [and rightfully so] of children, regardless of gender. Outside of the western society, the gender-discrimination against boys is very obvious and out in the open. For example, in China, the laws against child molestation only protect girls from men, they make no mention of the molestation of boys. This means, that a man could easily get away with raping a boy and not face any legal or social consequences. Similar situation in many non-western societies.

Hi: If the heart beats too slowly [even with strong and complete relaxations and contractions], the brain will starve of circulation and cause some neurological symptoms, some of these symptoms would be dissociation, delirium, and psychedelia. There would also be out-of-body and near-death experience. Let's say -- hypothetically -- I want to experience the above hallucinatory states by slowing my heart rate. Let's assume that I'm the average 27-year-old male. Let's also assume that my heartbeat and pulse are as strong as they could possibly be [heart muscles' contractions and relaxations are complete]. How slow would my heart rate need to be in order to cause the aforementioned symptoms? Is 20 beats-per-minute slow enough? The goal here to experience bradycardia-induced hallucinations for a long enough time to enjoy such altered states. Once time is up, the bradycardia should subside before any death or permanent damage to any part of the body occurs. Thanks, GX P.S. I don't actually plan to do this because the side effects could be hazardous. I'm just in it for the science.

Sadly, society does perpetrate such sexism. Males of all ages are forced by society to treat minor girls favorably over minor boys. By "favorable treatment", I mean one or more of the following: 1. More compassion 2. More sympathy 3. More respect 4. More gentleness 5. More easiness 6. More empathy 7. More cleanliness 8. More protection 9. More luxury 10. More personal space 11. More privacy 12. More security 13. More freedom 14. More modesty 15. More decency Society strongly enforces this pro-girl sexism despite scientific proof that the average girl is no more weak, innocent, well-behaved, delicate, vulnerable, or sensitive than the average boy of the same age. In addition, this sexism is not at all innate or natural. It's simply a product of society. This sexism is worse in non-western cultures than in the west. Also, this sexism was historically more intense than it is now. This pro-girl sexism is least intense in the upper-class modern western cultures -- such as the city of Diamond Bar in Southern California. This sexism is the most intense in southeastern Africa where things hardly appropriate for discussion happen to children. I was born and raised in USA. However, my parents are from India. After knowing about the horrors of anti-boy sexism in India, I thank my good fortune that my childhood was in America. India is no place for children. On average, the adult woman: 1. Is physically weaker than the adult man 2. Is more emotional than the adult man 3. Is better behaved than the adult man 4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man 5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't 6. Is physically more delicate than the adult man Also, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man -- this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals -- such as bison --, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females. I therefore understand that: 1. Women need - and should be provided with - more protection against men, than visa versa 2. Women need - and should be provided with - more protection against men, than adults of the same gender from each other However, the same does not apply to boy-child vs. girl-child. If society got anything right, it's that the age of adulthood is 18 years. This is the magic age in which a child turns into an adult. I believe males of all ages should be taught to be gentle and polite to adult women and to give adult women more space than adult men. This will give men/boys a respect for adult women and will help prevent these males from perpetrating domestic violence against their wives and girlfriends. However, males -- of any age -- should never be taught to treat girl-children better than boy-children because this will cause boys to develop an intense and life-long hatred for young girls and a hatred for the macho men who teach these boys to defer to girls. This sexism against boy children will likely cause boys to also despise society and what they perceive as irrational norms.

I'm positive that once society stops forcing males of all ages to treat girls preferentially over boys, that anger-retaliation rape will become close to non-existent. Sadly, gender does play a strong role in cases of child sex abuse. Just imagine the public outrage if those priests were abusing girls instead of boys. Remember the Michael Jackson child molestation case, where the accuser got beaten by his peers? The schoolyard bullies continuously pestered him with homophobic and transphobic taunts because they believed "that's the kid who got raped by Michael Jackson". If that kid were a girl, she wouldn't be bullied as much and the response to her accusation would be more sympathetic. Many boy victims of child rape face what this boy faced. Not to scare anyone but I wouldn't at all be surprised if MJ's accuser turns out to be an anger-retaliatory rapist to punish the macho bullies who ruined his adolescence. Those same bullies are very protective of girls and have a soft spot for girls.

Boy victims of child rape are often stigmatized in this manner. Girl victims aren't as much. This "blame the victim" mentality is often perpetrated by macho men against the boy victims. A boy suffering such discrimination thinks that the same men who ruined his life [by schoolyard bullying] are the same men who really care about girls. He feels the only way to punish these men is to attack girls. This is what causes the boy to grow-up to be an anger-retaliation type of rapist. A boy being raped will itself not cause him to repeat the cycle of abuse. Stigmatization from society, however, increases his chances of going psycho and raping/killing a bunch of girls to in an attempt to take revenge against the macho culture. No surprise here. In anger-retaliation rape, the only desire is to punish society to the core. Sadly, innocent girls are often injured or die in the process. Once society stops favoring girls over boys, the prevalence of anger-retaliation rape [and the murders frequently that follow] will decrease significantly. Remember, an anger-retaliatory rapist is like the boys who pulled-off the Columbine tragedy in '99. These boys were bullied by society. They were cruelly-mistreated by their peers. The then began to plan out their suicide. Realizing, that they had nothing to lose, these boys then punished the bullies. Anger-retaliation rapists works very similarly. Anger-retaliatory rapists feel like victims of oppression. Ultimately they reach a point where their anger against society overrides fear of social condemnation. As a result, they act on their anger.

Fiber content isn't of much relevance, I just have an aversion to most vegetables. This smell and mouth feel are so atrocious that they make me gag.