Thinking of going veggie, need some advice??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 12 2007, 08:38 PM) [snapback]422325[/snapback]</div>

Well I got it, even if I didn't get the episode name right the first time. IT'S A COOKBOOK!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 11 2007, 01:29 PM) [snapback]421607[/snapback]</div>

I understand the point here to be that it's hypocritical to eat meat of other animals on the one hand because we can but on the other hand not want to be eaten by intelligent aliens that might show up.

But I don't agree it's hypocritical and here's why. If we were to develop the technology to reach another planet and find intelligent aliens who had inferior technology, would we consider it OK to eat them? No. I think that would be the overwhelming answer of humans. Their intelligence would be enough for us to consider them worth of being treated as having the same rights as humans.

So it's not just the fact that animals are a different species from us that makes us feel it's OK to treat them differently. It's not just the fact that we have better technology than them. It's the fact that they're not intelligent.

 

"Unless you have a demonstrated correlation between dietary sat fat intake and exceptionally high blood lipid profile (hyperlipidemic) or you are eating a very high-carbohydrate diet, especially one full of refined carbohydrates, the answer is "no", it's an entirely unnecessary restriction. The only fats that need restricting are all those that involve manufacturing and processing including transfats and canola oil and the like."

Complete and utter nonsense.
Read this link
http://mypyramid.gov/guidelines/index.html
courtesy of of the USDA, itself following the recommendations of the NIH, AHA, AAC ...

I am curious though: where DO you drum up this stuff ?
I know by now that pseudoscience is all you are interested in, but here is a little biochemistry for those interested: All animal products contain cholesterol. It is absolutely superflous to the human diet, as it can be synthesized from *any* foodstuff. otoh, the body has NO mechanism to safely dispose of excess exogenous cholesterol, and stores it unhappily in one's arteries, leading to the general condition known as atherosclerosis, and specific complications such stroke, heart attacks, limb loss from PVD, and mesenteric ischemic vascular disease.

For an adult, the average cholesterol requirement is 300 mg per day, but internal synthesis cannot be turned off completely, so a reasonable exogenous allowance is 150 - 200 mg/day. An egg has 200 mg, 3 oz of red meat contains about 75 mg, milk about 14 mg/100 ml.

No one in their informed mind would consider animal product consumption as a major part of a daily meal an 'ideal' diet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 12 2007, 09:54 PM) [snapback]422331[/snapback]</div>

Uh huh.

So, how intelligent does a species have to be ? How is intelligence measured ? What about individual members of the species ? Is a severely mentally retarded human a fair meal ? Is a communicating dolphin exempt from your species judgement ? I presume you have some average human metric you go by in judging other species. If the alien species is that much and more intelligent than you, I take it you accept your place on the plate, as property with no ethical or moral rights; no recourse from pain, suffering or torture ?

Or is this just a case of humans and above ? Why do you think the alien species would start at the human level ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 11 2007, 10:24 PM) [snapback]421881[/snapback]</div>

You're right. It's been a long time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 12 2007, 10:03 PM) [snapback]422365[/snapback]</div>

Have you ever heard of survival of the fittest? You fight the good fight, and if you lose, you're meat. A "Godless" liberal like you should be familiar with that basic concept.. the best of the best survive.. darwinism.. etc etc..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 12 2007, 08:03 PM) [snapback]422365[/snapback]</div>

Those are legitimate questions. It requires subjective judgment. But just because there are subjective judgments to be made doesn't mean, in my opinion, that we have to give up on making them and just declare every animal equal to a human.

It would be even harder if every animal that had ever lived were still alive, because then we'd have all the subtle gradations in development of human ancestors. But we'd have to draw the line somewhere, or include every single cell as equal to a human being.

Fortunately, there's a big difference between the cognitive capability of humans and every other living thing on this planet. So drawing a line at human being or not human being works out rather well. As much as dolphins, dogs, and especially other primates like chimps can do some rudimentary communication, they really lack the built-in neural circuitry for higher-order communication, grammar, symbolic thinking, and reasoning.

It possible aliens would come along and consider it OK to eat us because they were even more intelligent. There's nothing we can do about that. But it doesn't invalidate our ethical system. It doesn't mean we have to consider it ethical just because they do.

And as to a mentally handicapped human, I would still afford that person full human rights, as would most people in our society. But a 1-week old fetus I would not, because it clearly has no human mind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jesart @ Apr 8 2007, 11:06 AM) [snapback]419865[/snapback]</div>

I have been a vegan for many years ..... I changed to this way of eating for my health...... I eat about 80% raw fruits and veggies and fresh raw juices, the other 20% is legumes, nuts, grains and seeds.... Since I changed my eating, my arthritis and tumors that I had are totally gone. I have much more energy, my vision improved, sleep great and my skin is clear and has wonderful color. I don't eat heavily processed foods..... as far as the protien argument goes..... the fact is there is more "useable" protien in a serving of broccoli than in a steak.... I get plenty of protien in my food....... If you want to read some "real" facts" about health and how we should be eating, a good book that is about the largest study ever done on diet and health and not funded by the meat and dairy industry is "The China Study" by Colin Campbell. It will answer alot of your questions. By the way, I am in the medical industry myself and I learned very little about nutrition in Med school...... and most of what is taught out there is funded by the meat, dairy and pharmaceutical industries.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(writergal @ Apr 12 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]422436[/snapback]</div>

T. Colin Campbell's conclusions in "The China Study" are not widely accepted by the scientific community. Campbell attributes that to a conspiracy by the meat and dairy industry.

The truth is that figuring out cause and effect relationships between diet and health is incredibly difficult. There have been many correlation studies done, and they have reached many different, often contradictory conclusions. The problem with a correlation study is that it just looks to see if the same people who eat certain things also tend to have more or less of certain health problems. But that doesn't prove cause and effect. Both could be results of the same cause. "The China Study" is an analysis of correlation studies.

To really get useful information, a randomized study is needed. That is, you need to take a sample of people, randomly divide them into two groups, then change the diet of one of the groups compared to the other. It's very costly and difficult to do, and it takes a long time. But recently the US government funded such a study. It's considered the gold standard of dietary studies. It was called the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial.

The goal of this trial was to confirm a link that had been suggested in correlation studies between dietary fat intake and heart disease, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. The surprising result was negative. Monitoring 49,000 women for 8 years, the study told one group to reduce its dietary fat intake while it did not tell the other group to do so. And the study confirmed that the group told to reduce its dietary fat did have significantly lower dietary fat intake than the other group. But there was no statistically significant difference in rates of heart disease, breast cancer, or colorectal cancer.

This doesn't disprove that dietary fat has any effect on health. It's possible that more care needs to be taken in terms of which fats are changed. It's possible it affects health in some other way. But it's notable that what was tested in this study was what was thought to be the most likely health effects from dietary fat. And it failed to find the expected effects.

This study was most certainly not funded by the meat and dairy industries. It was funded directly by the US Federal government and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/low_fat.html

In the future, there may be new evidence, but until then, this is the best evidence we have.

By all means go vegetarian or even vegan for reasons of personal preference or personal ethics. But if you're doing it for health reasons, you're deluding yourself because you want to believe you can make yourself healthier this way. You're not doing it based on the best scientific evidence available.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 12 2007, 09:45 PM) [snapback]422356[/snapback]</div>

Well, when I look for nutritional advice, I can assure you, the last place I'm going to look is the USDA which is deep in the pockets of big agribusiness or the AHA which is likewise, but also deep into the pockets of the big pharmabusiness in this country. The food pyramid is and always has been bunk paid for by grain profits.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 12 2007, 09:45 PM) [snapback]422356[/snapback]</div>

The above statement coming from someone who believes that all of one's vitamin needs for an entire week can be supplied by one or two bowls of cereal (type not specified...how about some Froot Loops or Lucky Charms?) OR one egg OR a couple glasses of milk AND claims to be a PHYSICIAN!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 12 2007, 09:45 PM) [snapback]422356[/snapback]</div>

I only agree with you regarding the superfluous nature of dietary cholesterol, as I've already stated. The question isn't how much cholesterol is in the diet, but WHY the liver over produces it. I've already thoroughly addressed that. Cholesterol buildup in arterial walls is as repair matter from damages caused by free radicals, chronically high blood glucose levels and chronically high insulin levels.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 12 2007, 09:45 PM) [snapback]422356[/snapback]</div>

Why then, even forgetting how much meat and saturated fats from coconut oil I consume on a daily basis, that the minimum of 4 eggs per day I eat actually keeps my total cholesterol levels in the low 170's. Only when nearly excluded egg consumption drop for a time, did I get a test in the 190's?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 13 2007, 01:06 AM) [snapback]422411[/snapback]</div>

Not subjective judgement I'm afraid, but arbitrary judgements that lead to logical fallacies.

As a physician, I see old demented people every day who have less cognitive function than the average dog, let alone a smart primate or a dolphin. Ripe for the plate, in your opinion ? No doubt most people would not care to eat the demented elderly, but by your value system, there should be no reason not to. And by extension, these people become someone's property, with no rights *at all*.

No, it means you should consider them ethical because they are playing by your rulebook.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 13 2007, 12:44 AM) [snapback]422401[/snapback]</div>

Ignorance of Darwin, mixed wiith christian religous hypocrisy makes for very silly statements.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(writergal @ Apr 13 2007, 01:22 AM) [snapback]422436[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: I'd like to see you back this up with some scientific evidence.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(writergal @ Apr 13 2007, 01:22 AM) [snapback]422436[/snapback]</div>

The meat and dairy industries do not fund med school curricullum, at least nowhere near to the extent that grain and pharma interests do. And you're right, med school doesn't require nutrition courses. Good reason enough to not look to a doctor for advice about what to eat.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 13 2007, 02:12 AM) [snapback]422452[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the de-bunk of the China Study. You saved me the trouble and did a far more elloquent job of it than I would have.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 13 2007, 06:16 AM) [snapback]422528[/snapback]</div>

Well, it's always easier to believe that someone else's ethical system is internally inconsistent and based on faulty logic. It gives that warm sense of security that one's own ethical system is superior. The one true ethical system.

I don't see the world that way. I think my ethical system comes from within me and yours comes from within you and neither one is somehow intrinsically more logical or intrinsically superior. Mine is simply mine and yours is simply yours.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 13 2007, 06:16 AM) [snapback]422528[/snapback]</div>

As I've said in several ways now, no. My value system does not put a mental acuity test on people, it gives them all full weight.

What you are doing is called using a straw man argument. You are using a caricature of what I say, not what I actually say. And it is not very persuasive to do that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 13 2007, 06:16 AM) [snapback]422528[/snapback]</div>

And that's just more straw man argument, from what you pretend I'm saying instead of what I'm saying.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 13 2007, 06:16 AM) [snapback]422528[/snapback]</div>

No, they are not playing by my rulebook. They are playing by your caricature of my rulebook.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 12 2007, 09:44 PM) [snapback]422401[/snapback]</div>

You don't seem to understand the evolutionary process. You seem to be thinking in terms of combat where the strongest organism wins. It is not like that at all. Try to think of it in terms of rock, paper, scissors. The rock is no better than the scissors but depending on the context the rock may "win" and continue on.

"Survival of the fittest" is not used in biology and is terrible inadequate for explaining the evolutionary process. Natural selection is a better term and eve that is only part of the story.

In fact the most sucessful evolutionary strategy has been cooperation and symbiosis. Not combat.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 12 2007, 06:36 PM) [snapback]422323[/snapback]</div>

If I thought you were serious I'd go into the whole ecology speach. Instead I'll restate that all organisms are equally important.

Now spit out the fobidden fruit and stop playing god.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 13 2007, 07:32 AM) [snapback]422572[/snapback]</div>

Well, I think saying cooperation and symbiosis are successful and combat is unsuccessful overstates the case. It seems to me that it depends on the circumstances. In some circumstances, cooperation and symbiosis are the most successful and they win out. In other circumstances, combat is the most successful.

Regardless, it's a misconception that those of us who believe in Darwinism feel that it should be the basis of our moral system. That makes no more sense than saying that those who believe in gravity should make gravity the basis of their moral system.

Evolution got us to where we are today. And that happens to have included creating minds for us with a moral sense and logical reasoning capability. It is up to us what we do with that moral sense and logical reasoning capability. Our minds are not bound to slavery to the genes that created us. We've been let loose by those genes and we can do as we please.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 13 2007, 07:43 AM) [snapback]422585[/snapback]</div>

OK, I wasn't really serious about wiping out all the animals.

But I asked because I really am honestly confused by what you mean by all organisms being equally important. On its surface, saying that all organisms are equally important to you strikes me as having the consequence that a single yeast spore has the same value as your mother's life. Two yeast spores are more valuable than your mother's life, so you'd kill your mother for two yeast spores. Clearly, I'm misunderstanding, so tell me what I'm missing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 12 2007, 05:23 PM) [snapback]422278[/snapback]</div>

Despite being too lazy to want to support everything in my post, I can't resist doing it for one point. I said a diet low in saturated fat was beneficial. You say that keeping saturated fat low is unnecessary. If you are right, how do you explain the massive campaign of deception that exists. Do you believe it to be a massive conspiracy - propagated by the veggie lobby? It must be, since evidence of this conspiracy can be found easily just by googling the words, "saturated fat recommendations". Let me know how many hits you find that support your argument. Good luck!

And if you are only for small farms with grass fed livestock it would be good to know how much meat in North America is raised that way. Do you know the percentage?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 13 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]422587[/snapback]</div>

I think my explaination was sufficient. I did state that context was the deciding factor between which trait will continue on. Since symbiosis is the basis for most animal and plant cells I feel it is one of the most successful strategies yet.

I think you are getting confused because you are assuming we have the ability to know which is more important, a human mother or a yeast spore. We do not and cannot know that. It's as simple as that. However, we can have an opinion on the matter but that does not make it correct. For instance in a particular context where that yeast spore was a critical participant for the sucess of an ecosystem that a human tribe depends on then I would say the mothers life is worth less in that context. Now if the killing of that yeast spore would not effect the health of the ecosystem then the mothers life is then more important. See how it all comes bad to context, relationships and opinion?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 13 2007, 08:02 AM) [snapback]422611[/snapback]</div>

OK, then maybe we're just using different words for the same thing.

I don't disagree that a yeast cell's life can be important if it happens to be critical for saving a bunch of human lives. But I'd say then that it's the value of the human lives, not the value of the yeast cell, that merits saving the yeast cell.

But in most day to day decision making we're in an "all else being equal" situation. We ordinarily don't know if a yeast cell will save a human group. But we have to make decisions nevertheless, so we have rules to guide our trade-offs all else being equal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 13 2007, 08:11 AM) [snapback]422620[/snapback]</div>

I agree.

My personal opinion would be: If the yeast spore was a keystone specie and it's dealth would disrupt the whole ecosystem (no effect on humans) then I would still say the yeast spore is more important since humans are a dime a dozen. Now, making someone choose to kill their own mother or a yeast spore is much tougher. It is easier to distance yourself from such decisions. This is why our president has no trouble sending other peoples children to fight in HIS war. If he had to send his mother to battle in the sandbox then I bet our policies would be different. See, context again. Hahaha