Vegetarianism/Veganism - Why or Why Not?

[Bill the Cat]

Good (seriously) for the author of this paper and the three people he thanks for helping him prepare and review this paper. Why good ? Because they do not endorse keeping livestock in deplorable conditions.

They get that beating dogs to death with a club is cruel. In S. Korea they eventually did too. It's been illegal since 2007. I wonder how this author and his helpers feel about cages ? Dogs, he uses as the example to illustrate his 15th myth. Good point. But he also knows well that dogs are Western companion animals. Many dogs are raised only to be eaten in not only populous China, but also in Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

With God as my witness it took me just 15 seconds to find these two pictures below in a google image search using the keywords "Korea" "eat" "dogs" Compare and contrast. A pig is just as intelligent and teachable as any dog, pet or not someone's pet.

Does this man have anything else to say about why this is a myth ? This is it ? He would 'respect my sentiments' to be a vegetarian for humane reasons but insists factory farming is humane. WT.. ? What a wordy and willfully ignorant man, because *in all his research* he never looked into the factory farming WAY THAT WE GET ALL OUR MEAT in the WEST. How terribly negligent a researcher here on a key issue. Hell, Yes, "it is possible to raise livestock humanely." No kidding, Mr. Byrnes. But it is not being done in our Concentrated (Confinement) Animal Feeding Operations (industrial factory farms) here in the West and it NEVER WILL CHANGE.




My PC is stalling up: i'll have to reboot it.

That's why he said "Our recommendations for animal foods consumption most definitely do not endorse such practices".

[gharfish]

Ok (?) Then all he'd have left then are the volumes of health problems for people - the arguments against choosing a vegetarian diet (avoiding meat).


>

[Bill the Cat]

Ok (?) Then all he'd have left then are the volumes of health problems for people - the arguments against choosing a vegetarian diet (avoiding meat).


>

Exactly. There is no one size fits all diet for everyone. Certian people groups fare better with more meat than others. But there is no compelling reason outside of a moral one to forego meat. And in fact, health would be the main reason to NOT forego meat (freerange meat being the best).

[gharfish]

Forgoing the consumption of meat is not bad for one's health. And that article is what Jesse said it was: biased as hell.

(Hey, what about heart disease risks from red meat; an American favorite ?) Anyway, all the necessary healthful nutrients one can get in meats can be found in other foods. But you gotta think and try. This isn't drive-through window dining.

Dang this thread. I should have gotten out as soon as I answered the 3 or 4 so-called plant's rights people who started to show-up to throw a wrench into the works; their response to me just a disingenuous redirection to my post on page one that factory farming methods were MY reason for being a vegetarian. Hey, look. Cruelty to plants, ghar...look at this research I found. Absurb.

I didn't appreciate you simply flying in all that mountain of text, and with not a word added from you personally, and as if that was legitimate debate behavior, in what you had to have known by then was a thread that had been about nothing else but moral concerns for 5 pages straight. NO ONE SAID THAT HEALTH WAS THE REASON THEY DIDN'T EAT MEAT. Not me, and not the only other ONE person who gave animal welfare as their reason too.






>

[Bill the Cat]

Forgoing the consumption of meat is not bad for one's health.

Sure it is. The article listed the reasons.

And that article is what Jesse said it was: biased as hell.

Yet, all I've seen is an ad hominem attack, and no rebuttal of the actual studies cited.

(Hey, what about heart disease risks from red meat; an American favorite ?)

He addressed that too. Mormons do not suffer from an increase in heart disease, yet there is no hint that they eat less red meat than the average American. Additionally, Harvard released a study this past year that stated:

Harvard.edu

In contrast, eating unprocessed red meat was not associated with risk of developing heart disease or diabetes

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pre...-diabetes.html

© source where applicable

Anyway, all the necessary healthful nutrients one can get in meats can be found in other foods.

Addressed in the article as well

But you gotta think and try. This isn't drive-through window dining.

True.

Dang this thread. I should have gotten out as soon as I answered the 3 or 4 so-called plant's rights people who started to show-up to throw a wrench into the works; their response to me just a disingenuous redirection to my post on page one that factory farming methods were MY reason for being a vegetarian.

I agree that factory farming methods are terrible, and I also agree with your right to become a vegetarian. The article I posted was in relation to the question asked in the thread title, not your decision.

I didn't appreciate you simply flying in all that mountain of text, and with not a word added from you personally, and as if that was legitimate debate behavior, in what you had to have known by then was a thread that had been about nothing else but moral concerns for 5 pages straight.

I frequently answer the OP after pages of debate has occurred between others. The article addresses several myths that vegetarians bring forth, and I thought it pertinent to the thread.

NO ONE SAID THAT HEALTH WAS THE REASON THEY DIDN'T EAT MEAT. Not me, and not the only other ONE person who gave animal welfare as their reason too.

And? Is that the only answer that has ever been offered on this question in its history?

[lao tzu]

Yet, all I've seen is an ad hominem attack, and no rebuttal of the actual studies cited.

Which only goes to show how little you looked, and how willing you are to swallow nonsense that suits your biases. I mean, really! Look at this stuff ..

Along with the unjustified and unscientific saturated fat and cholesterol scares of the past several decades ...

Saturated fats/Cardiovascular disease

Consumption of saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in the view of the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation,[8] the American Heart Association,[9] the British Heart Foundation,[10] the National Heart Foundation of Australia,[11] the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand [12] and the World Heart Federation.[13]

It's obviously some bizarre kind of propaganda piece. You can find detailed rebuttals on the net if you're interested, but I know where to file anything that starts out telling us how cholesterol and saturated fat health risks are unscientific. You should too. It's not worth my time to rebut this.

As ever, Jesse

[Bill the Cat]

Which only goes to show how little you looked, and how willing you are to swallow nonsense that suits your biases. I mean, really! Look at this stuff ..



Saturated fats/Cardiovascular disease

Consumption of saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in the view of the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation,[8] the American Heart Association,[9] the British Heart Foundation,[10] the National Heart Foundation of Australia,[11] the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand [12] and the World Heart Federation.[13]

It's obviously some bizarre kind of propaganda piece. You can find detailed rebuttals on the net if you're interested, but I know where to file anything that starts out telling us how cholesterol and saturated fat health risks are unscientific. You should too. It's not worth my time to rebut this.

As ever, Jesse

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61341020100204

Study fails to link saturated fat, heart disease

But in the new analysis, which combined the results of 21 previous studies, researchers found no clear evidence that higher saturated fat intakes led to higher risks of heart disease or stroke.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...roke-mortality

Low saturated fat intake associated with higher stroke mortality

Very low intakes of saturated fats may be just as bad for you as very high intakes, and could lead to an increased risk of death from stroke - according to new Japanese research.

The study, published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggests that a very low dietary intake of saturated fatty acids (SFA) is associated with an increased risk of stroke.

I'm looking at recent studies. You are quoting Wikipedia.

[gharfish]

I agree that factory farming methods are terrible, and I also agree with your right to become a vegetarian. The article I posted was in relation to the question asked in the thread title, not your decision.

Right. So after five pages of nothing but people going back and forth on the ethics of factory farming you thought the time was ripe for you letting another man speak for you on vegetarianism being a health risk and an environmental hazard.

You agree that the methods of factory farming are terrible ? Are they bad enough that you'd consider just a cutting back on (that's it) the numbers of animals you'd eat that were put through them ?

Is publishing a paper of that length in keeping with tweb rules ? Just wondering.

I frequently answer the OP after pages of debate has occurred between others. The article addresses several myths that vegetarians bring forth, and I thought it pertinent to the thread.

None of those myths applied here to the subject that the thread had taken - taken from the start, except the one about eating animals was inhumane. Your source wasn't aware, somehow, of factory farming. He quickly and conveniently fudged that myth.

The thread was had not been about anything else but animal welfare concerns right up until you came and didn't debate, but republished this guy. Why didn't you say anything about the man's myth 15 ? That would have been so very appropriate at that time.

And? Is that the only answer that has ever been offered on this question in its history?

In it's history. Oh, please.


You loaded the thread with answers given. Back at you with what asks for your thoughts. Let's look at the tamer side (I don't want to get modded for gore and the disturbing) of that vegetarian myth 15, coming up next.....


>

[gharfish]

btc, you ought not respond to me responding to you! It'd be better.


(Note: egg-laying hens suffer very badly.)

[lao tzu]

I'm looking at recent studies. You are quoting Wikipedia.

You're looking at news articles, not studies, and cherry picking what you want to read from them.

[Bent Radar]

I try to minimize the amount of meat that I eat, because I don't like to support factory farming. It's hard to argue against that position.

We need government regulation, because corporations are just going to do what brings in the money.

[Bill the Cat]

I try to minimize the amount of meat that I eat, because I don't like to support factory farming. It's hard to argue against that position.

I'll take your portions then.

We need government regulation, because corporations are just going to do what brings in the money.

We have regulations.

[Cybelle Hawke]

We need government regulation, because corporations are just going to do what brings in the money.

No!
The only language corporations understand is severe penalizing. The actual penalizing rates for going against regulations is peanuts and is implemented as integral part of their costprice already. So not only do consumers pay for this calculated risk every time they buy, the corporation also profits each time they are not penalized.

[Bill the Cat]

No!
The only language corporations understand is severe penalizing. The actual penalizing rates for going against regulations is peanuts and is implemented as integral part of their costprice already. So not only do consumers pay for this calculated risk every time they buy, the corporation also profits each time they are not penalized.

Unfortunately, even heavy fines don't work. Look at what the cigarette industry did in reaction to their lawsuit losses. They raised the price of their product by 100-150%. Companies pass on costs to the consumers who buy their product, and in the case of cigarettes, even increase their profits in the process. The only thing they understand is shutting down a plant until discrepancies are cleared up.

[Sparko]

Unfortunately, even heavy fines don't work. Look at what the cigarette industry did in reaction to their lawsuit losses. They raised the price of their product by 100-150%. Companies pass on costs to the consumers who buy their product, and in the case of cigarettes, even increase their profits in the process. The only thing they understand is shutting down a plant until discrepancies are cleared up.

In the case of cigarettes, a large part of the cost is government imposed taxes. In other words, the government is making a profit right along side of the company on the sales.