Veggies vs Meat

KimmieBrie

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

I commend anyone with ethics these days. Doing the right thing isn't always easy. What I dislike is someone preaching to me how their diet is superior, and I should change. Just like I have no respect for the Jehova's who knocked on my door and wouldn't leave after I clearly said I was Catholic and not interested - not all Jehova's - Those specifically who would not leave my premise until I had to slam the door in their face. Respect me and I'll respect you. I respect all vegetarians/vegans. That is your choice and I have mine. I never tell anyone they should eat meat or otherwise. My grandma lived till 91 eating meat and all sorts of things... cancer free... happy healthy life till the end. I wish that for everyone. Debates are interesting. Taking a superior attitude is a turn off. I am not saying that's what you specifically are doing, but some do, and it's not an attractive quality.

My grandmother lived to 91 after smoking for most of her life, drinking a bottle of whisky most nights and spending a good few years taking cocaine, but I don't think anyone would advocate those as part of a healthy life style!

Definitely not - and there it is - some people are seemingly lucky while others not so much. Lots of smokers get by unscathed while some who work out and maintain a "healthy" lifestyle get cancer - and I would never say smoking is healthy, it's obviously not and has been proven as such.... just look at a lung of a smoker VS not.

But you can not really narrow down cancer to red meat. The people eating red meat are eating other things as well. A hot dog and fries isn't equal to a lean sirloin and veggies. Unprocessed meats aren't the same as processed and what accompanies the "meat" has to be a factor as well. I'm not telling you to eat meat. That's your choice and I respect it.

tidmutt

Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!

... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.

Look up the definition of carnivore;

A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,

Mainly or exclusively.

Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.

Dogs are only 10K years or so removed from wolves, wolves are carnivores. Everything I've read suggests dogs are carnivores, they are adaptable though to survive on an omnivorous diet fairly well.

tidmutt

@Tidmutt: You impress me as wanting hardcore scientific evidence for vegetarianism: prospective, controlled studies with an adequate 'N' to say once and for all whether a plant-based diet holds any health advantage over any other. That is, afterall, what sparked this discussion. It would only make sense to me that someone with such a sophisticated desire for evidence-based proof would apply the same standard to his own diet. I was expecting you would be citing all sorts of hardcore science to back up paleo. But, then you demured. What's up with that?

In part because I think this debate is centered around the China Study, not veggies vs meat as the thread title claims. Personally I didn't really set out to have a long running debate about various macro nutrient ratios, I was more interested in the debate around the China Study and the impact of assuming correlation implies causality.

Saying that, I've actually included references to quite a few published papers supporting my desire to follow a Primal diet. VeggieRexius and yourself have just kept quoting the China Study. I didn't say anything because honestly I didn't want to get into a Primal vs Veggie diet.

tidmutt

A good site to visit if you are confused by whether we are a carnivore species or a herbivore species:

http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/the-natural-human-diet.aspx

Okay, out of respect, I viewed the page. Seriously though, a page claiming evidence for why we shouldn't eat animal flesh on the PETA website... errr... really? I see no citations as well. Looks like an opinion piece to me.

tidmutt

Okay, I see you have had Stat 101, correlation vs causation. Since you are making this argument, the burden is on you to show that there is no causation. The argument was made, by the way by a Ph.D, Biochemist who not only knows something about statistics, but who, as part of a sophisticated laboratory has a resident statistician available to check correlations. I don't really expect you will be able to do a regression analysis (for simple data, Stat 102), or Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (Stat 103) I would appreciate it, however if you could give me some RATIONAL explanation of why you think there was correlation without causation. Please, not "common sense."

Can you put that into plain simple English for us normal people?

Actually, if you want to pretend to get fancy, we can go there. A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify and independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). If you regress x on y, you can standardize to get the correlation coefficient, or, you can take the square root of the r-squared from the regression. There are a large number of applications for which I would not be particularly inclined to use either technique.

As for not letting correlations rule your life, I'll take reasonable evidence, based on research, even correlational research, over "common sense." Also, there is a fair amount of research in nutrition that uses true experiments, which provide much better evidence for causation than research that is purely correlational in nature.

Of course, science is riddled with examples of things that are common sense that are simply not true. In fact, Quantum Physics completely defies common sense. Point is correlations are useful (and more useful than common sense) but not to assume causality, you need to do more work to prove your hypothesis based on the observed correlation is true.

tidmutt

One would expect a correlation to exist where there is causation. The whole correlation vs. causation issue is that you cannot claim causation based on correlation alone. Now I'm going to run away from this thread before I end up typing out lectures I already have to give in my real life.

Millisant, God bless you!

Right, but you've stated it in the reverse of what The China Study and other similar studies do. You are saying that when there is causation, you would expect correlation, the China Study didn't find causation, it found correlations. A correlation may or may not imply causation but the lack of correlation suggests there is no causation.

VegesaurusRex

Okay, I see you have had Stat 101, correlation vs causation. Since you are making this argument, the burden is on you to show that there is no causation. The argument was made, by the way by a Ph.D, Biochemist who not only knows something about statistics, but who, as part of a sophisticated laboratory has a resident statistician available to check correlations. I don't really expect you will be able to do a regression analysis (for simple data, Stat 102), or Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (Stat 103) I would appreciate it, however if you could give me some RATIONAL explanation of why you think there was correlation without causation. Please, not "common sense."

Can you put that into plain simple English for us normal people?

Actually, if you want to pretend to get fancy, we can go there. A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify and independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). If you regress x on y, you can standardize to get the correlation coefficient, or, you can take the square root of the r-squared from the regression. There are a large number of applications for which I would not be particularly inclined to use either technique.

As for not letting correlations rule your life, I'll take reasonable evidence, based on research, even correlational research, over "common sense." Also, there is a fair amount of research in nutrition that uses true experiments, which provide much better evidence for causation than research that is purely correlational in nature.

Of course, science is riddled with examples of things that are common sense that are simply not true. In fact, Quantum Physics completely defies common sense. Point is correlations are useful (and more useful than common sense) but not to assume causality, you need to do more work to prove your hypothesis based on the observed correlation is true.

Mutt, take a good look at what Millicent said. She obviously knows more about statistics than both of us put together. She certainly cleared up a few things for me, particularly when she said, " A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify an independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). " That is a beautiful, clear explanation. In my version of statistics, I always felt that all seemingly possible independent variables had to be considered before causation could be assumed. That is, you had to show lack of correlation for all other possible explanations. Of course there are always an infinite number of other possible explanations. She is saying, if I understand her correctly, that if you have a reasonable explanation of causality and the data confirms it, you probably have causality. Millicent, if you are hovering around out there please correct me if I am wrong.

Thus, if my understanding of what Millicent said is correct. Case closed. Unless you can come up with a reasonable variable that was not considered we have causation, or more precisely, probable causation. However, I would also note that she said that a controlled experiment is always preferable. Of course I agree, but that is not always possible.

fteale

Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!

... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.

Look up the definition of carnivore;

A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,

Mainly or exclusively.

Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.

Dogs are only 10K years or so removed from wolves, wolves are carnivores. Everything I've read suggests dogs are carnivores, they are adaptable though to survive on an omnivorous diet fairly well.

And everything I have read suggests we humans are herbivores that have adapted to live on an omnivorous diet.

Jovialation

EVERYONE READ ARTICLES TO SUPPORT YOUR OPINION AND COME BACK AND PRESENT IT TO US AS FACT.

Thank you.

Elizabeth_C34

@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.

I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?

I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."

By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.

As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.

With that, I am done here.

tidmutt

Okay, I see you have had Stat 101, correlation vs causation. Since you are making this argument, the burden is on you to show that there is no causation. The argument was made, by the way by a Ph.D, Biochemist who not only knows something about statistics, but who, as part of a sophisticated laboratory has a resident statistician available to check correlations. I don't really expect you will be able to do a regression analysis (for simple data, Stat 102), or Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (Stat 103) I would appreciate it, however if you could give me some RATIONAL explanation of why you think there was correlation without causation. Please, not "common sense."

Can you put that into plain simple English for us normal people?

Actually, if you want to pretend to get fancy, we can go there. A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify and independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). If you regress x on y, you can standardize to get the correlation coefficient, or, you can take the square root of the r-squared from the regression. There are a large number of applications for which I would not be particularly inclined to use either technique.

As for not letting correlations rule your life, I'll take reasonable evidence, based on research, even correlational research, over "common sense." Also, there is a fair amount of research in nutrition that uses true experiments, which provide much better evidence for causation than research that is purely correlational in nature.

Of course, science is riddled with examples of things that are common sense that are simply not true. In fact, Quantum Physics completely defies common sense. Point is correlations are useful (and more useful than common sense) but not to assume causality, you need to do more work to prove your hypothesis based on the observed correlation is true.

Mutt, take a good look at what Millicent said. She obviously knows more about statistics than both of us put together. She certainly cleared up a few things for me, particularly when she said, " A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify an independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). " That is a beautiful, clear explanation. In my version of statistics, I always felt that all seemingly possible independent variables had to be considered before causation could be assumed. That is, you had to show lack of correlation for all other possible explanations. Of course there are always an infinite number of other possible explanations. She is saying, if I understand her correctly, that if you have a reasonable explanation of causality and the data confirms it, you probably have causality. Millicent, if you are hovering around out there please correct me if I am wrong.

Thus, if my understanding of what Millicent said is correct. Case closed. Unless you can come up with a reasonable variable that was not considered we have causation, or more precisely, probable causation. However, I would also note that she said that a controlled experiment is always preferable. Of course I agree, but that is not always possible.

Indeed, I think she knows more about statistics than you, me and a few other people thrown in for good measure. However, you said it, unless you have a reasonable variable that was not considered.... Something as complex as the China Study is riddled with variables that they may not have considered. We cannot know everything, this is why correlations are only useful to a point. The statistical methods are only as good as the data provided. We haven't even touched on selection bias although admittedly Campbell did post his raw data.

tidmutt

Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!

... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.

Look up the definition of carnivore;

A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,

Mainly or exclusively.

Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.

Dogs are only 10K years or so removed from wolves, wolves are carnivores. Everything I've read suggests dogs are carnivores, they are adaptable though to survive on an omnivorous diet fairly well.

And everything I have read suggests we humans are herbivores that have adapted to live on an omnivorous diet.

The fact that you hold that belief is stating the obvious! I'm trying to understand your point. Someone asked are dogs carnivores. Did you think I was saying since dogs are carnivores humans are too?

_VoV

@Elizabeth. No time here, to write a proper response. I didn't accuse you of being incapable of debate. I merely stated that I suspect you may be circling back here because there's something about the discussion which makes you do that--boring or not. When I find myself doing that, sometimes it's worth looking inward as to what may be motivating that.

Really...if you read an insult in what I said, I really wasn't intending to insult you.

tidmutt

@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.

I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?

I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."

By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.

As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.

With that, I am done here.

Good post. I'm not going to say that about the vegetarians on this thread but there was one on the original thread who kept saying they were sick of being put down for pursuing what they considered to be the morally superior way of life. That irked me considerably, it's fine to argue the science but please don't tell me you are morally superior particularly when you know nothing about me.

I do agree that the arguments around correlation vs causation have become somewhat circular. Although it's fun to debate and I've expanded my understanding in some areas perhaps we're not getting anywhere anymore.

fteale

Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!

... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.

Look up the definition of carnivore;

A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,

Mainly or exclusively.

Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.

Dogs are only 10K years or so removed from wolves, wolves are carnivores. Everything I've read suggests dogs are carnivores, they are adaptable though to survive on an omnivorous diet fairly well.

And everything I have read suggests we humans are herbivores that have adapted to live on an omnivorous diet.

The fact that you hold that belief is stating the obvious! I'm trying to understand your point. Someone asked are dogs carnivores. Did you think I was saying since dogs are carnivores humans are too?

It was me that asked if they considered dogs carnivores, as they also eat plants and grains. Just as humans clearly evolved to eat plants, but can eat meat as well. If it's cooked. I don't believe we digest raw meat very well? That to me would be another factor in favour of us being biological herbivores. Carnivorous species digest meat better when it's raw. We mostly have to have it cooked.

VegesaurusRex

@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.

I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?

I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."

By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.

As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.

With that, I am done here.

Elizabeth, thank you for your articulate and informative post. If I have belittled you, I assure you it was unintentional. However, your previous posts seemed to consist only of photos of stakes and steaks and annotated rappers. Pardon me if I didn't understand that you actually do have a brain. You seem to have taken great pains to hide it.

That having been said, let me also assure you that if you felt "cruel or heartless" because of what you eat, I most assuredly did not force you to feel that way. I am stating what I feel about cruelty to animals, which I deplore, and if you feel "cruel and heartless" perhaps you are. For me, and a great number of other people, what you eat IS extremely important, and shows a moral or ethical choice or lack thereof. I am not going to refrain from talking about that for anyone or to spare anyone's feelings. If you felt guilty, perhaps you should examine why. I am not assigning guilt or casting aspersions.

Anyway, if you have a point of view to express, why not do so? Why resort to photos?

VegesaurusRex

@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.

I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?

I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."

By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.

As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.

With that, I am done here.

Good post. I'm not going to say that about the vegetarians on this thread but there was one on the original thread who kept saying they were sick of being put down for pursuing what they considered to be the morally superior way of life. That irked me considerably, it's fine to argue the science but please don't tell me you are morally superior particularly when you know nothing about me.

I do agree that the arguments around correlation vs causation have become somewhat circular. Although it's fun to debate and I've expanded my understanding in some areas perhaps we're not getting anywhere anymore.

Mutt, I would be lying if I didn't say that I consider vegetarianism to be morally superior to meat-eating. Most vegetarians do feel that way, but very few are willing to say it. Having said that, I would never make a statement that I was "morally superior" to you or anyone else, because, 1. as you pointed out, I know nothing about you, and 2. such a statement would be out of place and presumptuous. I certainly consider vegetarianism to be the most moral way of eating, but virtue consists of more than just what you eat. You may or may not know that Hitler was a vegetarian (for health, not ethical reasons), and he was obviously far from moral.

_binary_jester_

@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.

I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?

I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."

By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.

As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.

With that, I am done here.

Good post. I'm not going to say that about the vegetarians on this thread but there was one on the original thread who kept saying they were sick of being put down for pursuing what they considered to be the morally superior way of life. That irked me considerably, it's fine to argue the science but please don't tell me you are morally superior particularly when you know nothing about me.

I do agree that the arguments around correlation vs causation have become somewhat circular. Although it's fun to debate and I've expanded my understanding in some areas perhaps we're not getting anywhere anymore.

Mutt, I would be lying if I didn't say that I consider vegetarianism to be morally superior to meat-eating. Most vegetarians do feel that way, but very few are willing to say it. Having said that, I would never make a statement that I was "morally superior" to you or anyone else, because, 1. as you pointed out, I know nothing about you, and 2. such a statement would be out of place and presumptuous. I certainly consider vegetarianism to be the most moral way of eating, but virtue consists of more than just what you eat. You may or may not know that Hitler was a vegetarian (for health, not ethical reasons), and he was obviously far from moral.

Gasp. A contradiction and a rationalization all in one. You say that vegetarianism is morally superior as an ideal, but not as it to each individually. Actually not really a rationalization. You are saying you feel superior, but don't want to hurt his feelings.
Just say how you feel and everything else will work itself out.

VegesaurusRex

@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.

I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?

I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."

By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.

As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.

With that, I am done here.

Good post. I'm not going to say that about the vegetarians on this thread but there was one on the original thread who kept saying they were sick of being put down for pursuing what they considered to be the morally superior way of life. That irked me considerably, it's fine to argue the science but please don't tell me you are morally superior particularly when you know nothing about me.

I do agree that the arguments around correlation vs causation have become somewhat circular. Although it's fun to debate and I've expanded my understanding in some areas perhaps we're not getting anywhere anymore.

Mutt, I would be lying if I didn't say that I consider vegetarianism to be morally superior to meat-eating. Most vegetarians do feel that way, but very few are willing to say it. Having said that, I would never make a statement that I was "morally superior" to you or anyone else, because, 1. as you pointed out, I know nothing about you, and 2. such a statement would be out of place and presumptuous. I certainly consider vegetarianism to be the most moral way of eating, but virtue consists of more than just what you eat. You may or may not know that Hitler was a vegetarian (for health, not ethical reasons), and he was obviously far from moral.

Gasp. A contradiction and a rationalization all in one. You say that vegetarianism is morally superior as an ideal, but not as it to each individually. Actually not really a rationalization. You are saying you feel superior, but don't want to hurt his feelings.
Just say how you feel and everything else will work itself out.

I said that vegetarianism is the most moral way to eat, but I did not say that all vegetarians are more moral than all non vegetarians. See my Hitler example. That is neither a contradiction nor a rationalization. Even though I am a vegetarian, I would have a hard time claiming to be moral if I sold cocaine to children or was a murderer for hire. I don't think that is so hard to understand. And yes, I do believe in saying what I think.

_binary_jester_

I said that vegetarianism is the most moral way to eat, but I did not say that all vegetarians are more moral than all non vegetarians. See my Hitler example. That is neither a contradiction nor a rationalization. Even though I am a vegetarian, I would have a hard time claiming to be moral if I sold cocaine to children or was a murderer for hire. I don't think that is so hard to understand. And yes, I do believe in saying what I think.

Excluding ANY other aspect of a person's life, do you feel morally superior to someone who eats meat?