Vegetarianism

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Diogenes Sorry Lostinlife but your lengthy post not only did not counter my post/s but it could have been boiled down to one line...I'll save you the trouble and condense your entire post for you...

Actually it seems to me that you either can't refute my responses or that you've just become completely lazy at trying. These were the same arguments that Mike posted a page back, and guess what... you didn't respond to him either.

condensed post: it's immoral to hurt animals that seems to be the gist of everything you tried to say...sorry again but nature doesn't bear witness to that line of thinking.

Naturalistic fallacy... again. Your circular logic will not win you a debate here. Nature is an amoral system where slaughtering, rape, and theft is found, so seeing as they occur in said nature it should be acceptable for all humans to do them right? Give me a break, we have NEVER saught moral guidance based on what occurs in nature. Please don't make me repeat it again.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Lostinlife ... we have NEVER saught moral guidance based on what occurs in nature. Please don't make me repeat it again.

True, not all mothers in nature nurture their young. Some even eat their young. You may never have sought moral guidance based on what occurs in nature, but a blanket statement covering everybody?

[Diogenes]

Actually it seems to me that you either can't refute my responses or that you've just become completely lazy at trying. These were the same arguments that Mike posted a page back, and guess what... you didn't respond to him either.

I not only answered but refuted.

Naturalistic fallacy... again. Your circular logic will not win you a debate here. Nature is an amoral system where slaughtering, rape, and theft is found, so seeing as they occur in said nature it should be acceptable for all humans to do them right? Give me a break, we have NEVER saught moral guidance based on what occurs in nature. Please don't make me repeat it again.

The assumptions are running rampant...didn't you ever learn the ole' adage when you assume you make an ass out of you and me...I was referring to human nature...duh

and just to repeat what I've said before:

...it is also a grand leap of faith to assume that in a non-meat eating world we would be healthier overall...as the vast majority of people would still not follow a healthy diet regardless...and many would still eat cakes, cookies, candy, Kraft Dinner, etc...
it is a huge leap to even think that just because most of the present veggies are health nuts that that would translate to an entire population...

it wouldn't.

You're dreaming if you think it would.

Even in a non-meat eating world the vast majority of people would not follow a healthy diet or life-style. Pass the potato chips and beer please.

[Diogenes]

Out of all the posts I've read...the only argument that even makes any sense in any respect is the argument that we in the first world nations don't have to eat meat...

then the question becomes why shouldn't we...

and the usual response has been it is morally wrong to hurt animals...

then the question becomes based upon whose morality...

or perhaps you are of the opinion that your sense of morality is better than another's...who is to say whose morality is right...maybe we should be cutting off the hands of thieves and castrating rapists and pedophiles...


to even begin to lay this down as a moral issue you'd first have to prove a universal moral law even exists that applies to everyone regardless of who they are, what time they live in, or where they live...and that morality isn't just a subjective code that changes over time and from one social group to another.

[CarnalRage]

Study Links Red Meat To Cancer, Heart Disease : NPR

Cheese linked to risk in testicular cancer

BBC NEWS | Health | Red meat 'cancer threat'
Here's three studies showing the dangers of eating meat.


Study Shows A Vegan Diet And Exercise Fights Aging | ChattahBox News Blog

Studies Confirm Vegetarian Diet Takes Pounds Off

New study explodes myth about vegetarian diet
For people battling overweight and heart disease, a vegetarian diet can be a life-saving prescription," says Neal D. Barnard, M. D., lead author of the article and president of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Vegan Diet May Treat Diabetes - CBS News

Eating less red meat can prevent cancer, heart attacks and global warming

Well here's a couple of studies which prove red meat causes a variety of cancers and some studies that prove that vegetarians are healthier.

[Diogenes]

Well here's a couple of studies which prove red meat causes a variety of cancers and some studies that prove that vegetarians are healthier.

You should read my post on the other page...where I ask if any long term studies have been made over several generations to see if a non-meat diet is actually healthier...

so far all anyone has supplied is short term comparisons...heavily based upon the ' assumption ' that a non-meat eating world is even viable, that it would not eventually result in other health problems, and that if even a non-meat eating world would even follow a healthier diet...

I contend that a non-meat eating world would not be healthier, and the vast majority of people would still not follow a healthy diet regardless.

eg. pass the beer and potato chips.

The ' assumption ' people here seem to want to convey is a non-meat eating world would result in people following a healthy diet...that everyone would adhere to the strict regime of your typical veggie health nut...

balderdash.

The health issue goes far beyond whether someone eats meat or veggies...

pass the twinkies and the chocolate cake, and don't forget the root beer and the ice cream sundaes.

It's extreme narrow-mindedness to ' assume ' a non-meat eating world would be healthy...or that people would conform to a healthy diet even if meat was no longer available....or even that a strict non-meat diet would result over several generations any more healthy than we are now.

[CarnalRage]

I don't know if you even bothered to read through these studies but I'm guessing you didn't.

New study explodes myth about vegetarian diet

This study demonstrates peoples willingness to switch over to a vegetarian diet.

Also, I don't preach a vegetarian diet with ice cream sundaes and potato chips, I preach a completely vegan diet. So don't pass the ice cream sundaes blah blah blah. You seem quite proud of yourself for that little saying.

Also, the inevitability in your argument towards people eating junk makes me think you may be overweight. I hope you don't mind me asking but are you overweight?

You ask us to produce a generational study that proves the merits of a vegan diet over a meat eating diet. I showed you the largest most extensive nutritional study ever conducted in history with the China Study. I don't believe any study exists studying people over generations.

Do you have any studies that prove that meat is more healthy over several generations?

Since we know that red meat causes cancer (see last post) and if you read the study in this post you will see that many of the health detriments caused by your meat can be reversed by eating a vegan/vegetarian diet. This is significant proof in favour of vegetarianism against meat.

Red meat, cheese and sundaes cause the diabetes, cancer and so on and so forth. A vegan diet cures it.

I contend that a non-meat eating world would not be healthier, and the vast majority of people would still not follow a healthy diet regardless.

Well you have no proof or evidence to back up your contension so it might as well say:

I contend that if I ate enough carrots I'd turn into a rabbit.

How about you prove short term, in any study, that eating meat is more healthy than eating a vegan diet? Show me one study. Just one. We've shown you many short term studies and your big contension is that we haven't shown you a generational study. That's because the longest nutritional study in history is the China Study and you don't believe it to be reputable. That's perfectly fair.

So, let's see your study. Short, long, medium term, I don't care. Just one study that says that meat will extend your life.

[Diogenes]

Oh, please...you're little rant isn't even worth more than this response...edit: oh, goody, you got rid of all the copy n' paste garbage.

Aw well..might as well...

Also, I don't preach a vegetarian diet with ice cream sundaes and potato chips, I preach a completely vegan diet.

You missed my point entirely...we weren't talking about you...but about what most people would do.

I hope you don't mind me asking but are you overweight?

No I am not...but it doesn't surprise me that you'd stoop.

most extensive nutritional study ever conducted in history with the China Study

I've already answered regarding China and meat.

Well you have no proof or evidence to back up your contension so it might as well say:

I don't need any...I'm not the one saying a non-meat diet is healthier...the burden of proof is on you to show the long term results of such a diet, and how you'd implement it.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think that even in a non-meat world that most people would follow your advice and your diet...if in fact you do follow a non-meat diet, and it works for you.

I think you need to re-read my posts in the context they were written...because you missed the boat entirely.

This isn't about you or your diet...it's about the bigger picture.

[CarnalRage]

Why? Because it begs a question you don't want to answer?
Fine fatty. If you want to stay fat than ignore the truth but don't come on here pretending to debate when all you want to do is pretend your way of life is the best. The China Study is the longest nutritional study in history. You ask for something that doesn't exist. It's the corner stone of your argument. You sit there proudly gloating that no one has managed to find a multi-generational study. Well duh, it doesn't exist. Get off debate forums, you have the intellect of a 10 year old. Don't ask a question and then pout and refuse to play when you get an answer.

The fact is your the same thing as a smoker; A huge tax on the health system, a health liability and an idiot ignoring common knowledge available to everyone.

[minorwork]

Quote by: CarnalRage Why? Because it begs a question you don't want to answer? Fine fatty. If you want to stay fat than ignore the truth but don't come on here pretending to debate when all you want to do is pretend your way of life is the best. The China Study is the longest nutritional study in history. You ask for something that doesn't exist. It's the corner stone of your argument. You sit there proudly gloating that no one has managed to find a multi-generational study. Well duh, it doesn't exist. Get off debate forums, you have the intellect of a 10 year old. Don't ask a question and then pout and refuse to play when you get an answer. The fact is your the same thing as a smoker; A huge tax on the health system, a health liability and an idiot ignoring common knowledge available to everyone.

WOW! Another psychic.

I've the China Study. This is the best study I've seen, but I mined coal for 31 years and the subject was not exactly high priority. Do you have some secret to ridding oneself of cravings? Discipline. Any others? Constant sex. More????
My anorexia has been soundly defeated. Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness

[Diogenes]

Fine fatty. If you want to stay fat than ignore the truth but don't come on here pretending to debate when all you want to do is pretend your way of life is the best.

Get off debate forums, you have the intellect of a 10 year old. Don't ask a question and then pout and refuse to play when you get an answer.

The fact is your the same thing as a smoker; A huge tax on the health system, a health liability and an idiot ignoring common knowledge available to everyone.

I'll let your words speak for themselves.

[CarnalRage]

You missed my point entirely...we weren't talking about you...but about what most people would do.

That's an assumption and assumptions have no place in any debate ever.
Plus, this study disagrees with your assumption.
New study explodes myth about vegetarian diet

No I am not...but it doesn't surprise me that you'd stoop.

I'm sure your overweight.

I've already answered regarding China and meat.

Yes you pulled together some shady evidence that at one point China ate meat but you aren't addressing the fact that you ask for a study that doesn't exist. When i mention the China Study it's not to refute your point that China eats meat today it's to refute your rediculous request for a multi-generational study. China Study was the longest one. So that makes no sense.

I don't need any...I'm not the one saying a non-meat diet is healthier...the burden of proof is on you to show the long term results of such a diet, and how you'd implement it.

It's pretty simple. Long term results: drastic drop in heart disease, colon cancer, diabetes and breast cancer.
Implementation: everyone eats a wide variety of fresh whole foods like vegetables, legumes, nuts and fruits designed to give you the variety of nutrients you need to survive.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think that even in a non-meat world that most people would follow your advice and your diet...if in fact you do follow a non-meat diet, and it works for you.

Again, this is purely speculation. It seems like the majority of your ideas are absolute speculation and you clearly haven't understood the meaning of support for your arguments. You're in a fantasy world if you think you can predict how an entire country of people would act when educated a certain way. I, unlike you, depend on empirical evidence. (see above)

I think you need to re-read my posts in the context they were written...because you missed the boat entirely. This isn't about you or your diet...it's about the bigger picture.

See this is where you are right. It is about the bigger picture. I can understand that I may be coming across as across, even rude, however, you are doing more harm then you may know.

You are on the internet talking about vegetarianism, saying that you "...contend that a non-meat eating world would not be healthier, and the vast majority of people would still not follow a healthy diet regardless."

You don't know this. You have no proof. I showed proof. So now if someone is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and they go online to try to find out how they can reverse this, the vegan diet, which is proven to reverse the effects of type 2 diabetes, is slandered by you.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I'll let your words speak for themselves.

Yes, because you have nothing to say back. You have nothing to support your argument except for your personal preference. You are the worst kind of pseudo-intellect. You think you're smart (god knows why) and you think because you're smart you need to share you're information with everyone online. Wrong! Don't post your opinions on the internet. Don't. Please for the lives of all the fat people in the United States do not post your ideas against vegetarianism on here as you are condemning them to death. They will not know how to get themselves out of the shape they eat themselves into and they will all die. You may think you are just defending your ways in some innocent fun online but you are doing so much more than that. You are cutting off the most proven diet from the people who need it most.

I have a personal story for you. This is to demonstrate my intense dislike of our animal-product oriented culture.

My granny is 64 years old. One christmas she was 2 hours late and we were wondering why when we got a call. She had a heart attack. So, we went down to see her. Her heart almost stopped 7 times that night. Now it is more than a year and a half later and she is on the brink as a heart patient and a diabetic. She's not fat, she's actually quite slim but she has heart disease non the less. Imagine my disgust upon arriving at the hospital to see her dinner. This is a HOSPITAL mind you in the intensive care unit. They had served by diabetic, heart disease ridden granny a plate of roast beef with a side of macaroni and cheese as well as a small plastic bottle of juice with 32 grams of sugar!

She's dying because of those foods and at the same time it's what she is being given to eat in the hospital.

I don't want you on here spreading your filthy, unsubstantiated lies so that the farce continues on that cheese and meat are somehow considered good for you. They kill. That's all there is to it.

[Diogenes]

That's an assumption and assumptions have no place in any debate ever. Plus, this study disagrees with your assumption. New study explodes myth about vegetarian diet

I'm assuming you are aware that Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a lobby group which the American Council on Science and Health has openly been critical of for their nutritional policies, which emphasize and exaggerate the reliability of certain research, to further an animal rights agenda.
Also The American Physiological Society. has also been critical of the group.

Hardly a reliable source.

Don't post your opinions on the internet. Don't. Please for the lives of all the fat people in the United States do not post your ideas against vegetarianism on here as you are condemning them to death.

Now i see why you used Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as a link...you are a radical militant veggie....just like them...

arguing with you is like arguing with a devout theist...

a waste of my time.

By the way I recommend everyone have a nice juicy steak for breakfast...medium rare, with a side order of BBQ pork spare-ribs and chicken wings.

[CarnalRage]

I actually didn't know about their negative reputation. Still doesn't cloud anything. So many studies still support what I said. Just remember this thread when you're in ICU

[CarnalRage]

By the way I recommend everyone have a nice juicy steak for breakfast...medium rare, with a side order of BBQ pork spare-ribs and chicken wings.

Do it. It'll weed out the stupid ones (the ones like you). Remember this post when you're having triple bypass.

[Diogenes]

I actually didn't know about their negative reputation. Still doesn't cloud anything. So many studies still support what I said. Just remember this thread when you're in ICU

They not only have a reputation they are also misleading in name...only 5% of their entire membership are Physicians...all from the radical militant wing.

....................

Now if you want to discuss this rationally without the implied insults and temper tantrums...I'm not saying that a non-meat diet isn't healthier...

what I'm saying is we do not know what the long term effects of such a diet would entail...would our present diseases just adapt...or would new ones be created...possibly you are right...but we don't know that for a fact.

Secondly...even if we were to force the world to go veggie...that in itself would not turn everyone into health nuts...most people would, as they are now, continue to lead unhealthy lifestyles...it is narrow-minded to blame everything on the consumption of meat...as if removing meat would solve the problem...

it wouldn't.

Edit:

it'll weed out the stupid ones (the ones like you).

The only thing you show by continuing in this line is your lack of character.

[Lostinlife]

Okay Dio, slightly long post ahead, please try and read the whole thing, and think hard on your answer.

Quote by: minorwork True, not all mothers in nature nurture their young. Some even eat their young. You may never have sought moral guidance based on what occurs in nature, but a blanket statement covering everybody?

Sure, but not much can be gained by basing our behaviors off an inhearently amoral system such as nature.

Quote by: Diogenes I not only answered but refuted.

Refutation of post #2132 - Non-existent

The assumptions are running rampant...didn't you ever learn the ole' adage when you assume you make an ass out of you and me...I was referring to human nature...duh

Human nature... I'm sure you feel you've just explained things. What exactly is "human nature", because it sounds awfully subjective. Humans are natural hunter/gatherers are they not?

Failing to repress certain "natural behaviors" however would create an uncivilized society. Consider this: It would be an expression of natural behavior to hunt anything that moves (e.g., my neighbor's dogs or horses) and to gather anything I desire (e.g., my employer's money or furniture). It would even be natural behavior to indulge in unrestrained sexual appetites, defecate in the street, or to injure a person in a fit of rage or jealousy.

In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by two codes: the written law of the land, and the unwritten law of morality.

Many would question the supposition that humans are natural hunters/predators. In many societies, the people live quite happily without hunting. In our own society, the majority do not hunt, not because they are repressing their nature--they simply have no desire to do so. Those that do hunt often show internal conflicts about it, as evidenced by the myths and rituals that serve to legitimize hunting, cleanse the hunter, etc.

This suggests that hunting is not natural, but actually goes against a deeper part of our nature, a desire not to do harm.

In addition to relying on tradition, some characterize our use of animals as “natural” and then declare it to be morally acceptable. Again, to describe something as natural does not in itself say anything about the morality of the practice.

In the first place, just about every form of discrimination ever practiced has been described as natural as well as traditional. The two notions are often used interchangeably. We have justified human slavery as representing a natural hierarchy of slave owners and slaves. We have justified sexism as representing the natural superiority of men over women.

Moreover, it is a bit strange to describe our modern commodification of animals as natural in any sense of the word. We have created completely unnatural environments and agricultural procedures in order to maximize profits. We do bizarre experiments in which we transplant genes and organs from animals into humans and vice versa. We are now cloning animals. None of this can be described as natural.

Labels such as “natural” and “traditional” are just that: labels. They are not reasons. If people defend the imposition of pain and suffering on an animal based on what is natural or traditional, it usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.

Out of all the posts I've read...the only argument that even makes any sense in any respect is the argument that we in the first world nations don't have to eat meat... then the question becomes why shouldn't we... and the usual response has been it is morally wrong to hurt animals... then the question becomes based upon whose morality... or perhaps you are of the opinion that your sense of morality is better than another's...who is to say whose morality is right...maybe we should be cutting off the hands of thieves and castrating rapists and pedophiles... to even begin to lay this down as a moral issue you'd first have to prove a universal moral law even exists that applies to everyone regardless of who they are, what time they live in, or where they live...and that morality isn't just a subjective code that changes over time and from one social group to another.

Morals have evolved overtime with our abilities to empathize and reason, and to suggest that our morals would perhaps suddenly find it universeally acceptable to kill some random person we meet on the street is irrational (short of a nuclear apocalypse). Despite what some people say, our universal morals have been moving towards the least what is least harmful to each other such as less painful death penalties. How it stands, the typical reasons we use to protect humans from harm can also apply to animals. This is the direction that morality is moving- animal rights.

Animal rights are no more a matter of opinion than is any other moral matter. This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from asking whether the morality of human slavery is a matter of opinion. We have decided that slavery is morally reprehensible not as a matter of mere opinion, but because slavery treats humans exclusively as the resources of others and degrades humans to the status of things, thus depriving them of moral significance.

On another level, your taking the position that all morality is relative, a matter of convention or convenience or tradition, with no valid claim to objective truth. If this were the case, then the morality of genocide or human slavery or child molestation would be no more than matters of opinion.

Although it is certainly true that moral propositions cannot be proved in the way that mathematical propositions can, this does not mean that “anything goes.” Some moral views are supported by better reasons than others, and some moral views have a better “fit” with other views that we hold.

The view that we can treat animals as things simply because we are human and they are not is speciesism pure and simple. The view that we ought not to treat animals as things is consistent with our general notion that animals have morally significant interests. We do not treat any humans exclusively as the resources of others; we have abolished the institution of human property. We have seen that there is no morally sound reason to treat animals differently for purposes of the one right not to be treated as a thing, and that the animal rights position does not mean that we cannot prefer the human over the animal in situations of true emergency or conflict where we have not manufactured that conflict in the first place by violating the principle of equal consideration.

[Aussie]

Quote by: CarnalRage Do it. It'll weed out the stupid ones (the ones like you). Remember this post when you're having triple bypass.

Oh great, another Vegan telling us all how better they are than the majority of humans on this planet. Way to garner support for your cause, that's if you can hear us all the way from that massive soapbox.

Dio makes a valid point. The population of USA and Australia is reaching epedimic proportions of obesity. But guess what isn't new to the diet of humans during the last century - meat. There goes that argument.

[Lostinlife]

Like I said the health aspect is irrelevant, and it would be wise not to dread on it, when the primary concern here is our treatment of animals as objects, commodities as means to our end.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Lostinlife Sure, but not much can be gained by basing our behaviors off an inherently amoral system such as nature.

Glad you chose amoral over immoral. Does modern man deny human nature in order to define and pursue morality, which you acknowledge has no basis in nature? You are separating mankind from his historical place in nature. Why? Just because you can? Where is the necessity? If there is a necessity it is based in empathy, a recognition that another is capable of experiencing emotions and feelings similar to my/our own.

Of necessity, then, there is consideration, reasoned out, of justifying those actions (pursuit of satiety) taken in response to those empathic appetites. There is no hard fast formula for deciding that. A personal decision that, out of respect for the person, must be allowed its free demonstration whether the action is seen as helping or hurting.