Meat eating vs. Vegan debate
Replies
-
I'm with you on pasta and peanut butter being good for the pocketbook, but not so good for the waistline. Lately, instead of pasta, I make myself a dish of chickpeas, topped with roasted veggies and marinara sauce. The nutrition profile is better, and it's actually more filling. That swap of chickpeas for pasta isn't an expensive one, but an example of how I try to maximize the nutrition while keeping costs down.
I'm going to try the chickpeas to replace pasta, I'm not sure if I ever had chickpeas before or what they even look like LOL. I've been thinking of trying zucchini as well to replace it since I'm finding it to be a good filler item when grated up.0 -
I'm with you on pasta and peanut butter being good for the pocketbook, but not so good for the waistline. Lately, instead of pasta, I make myself a dish of chickpeas, topped with roasted veggies and marinara sauce. The nutrition profile is better, and it's actually more filling. That swap of chickpeas for pasta isn't an expensive one, but an example of how I try to maximize the nutrition while keeping costs down.
I'm going to try the chickpeas to replace pasta, I'm not sure if I ever had chickpeas before or what they even look like LOL. I've been thinking of trying zucchini as well to replace it since I'm finding it to be a good filler item when grated up.
The zucchini idea sounds great!! Another idea is to roast onions, garlic, zucchini and peppers in a 400 degree oven with some oil, salt, pepper, basil and oregano. Delicious with sauce and pasta and/or chickpeas.0 -
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......0 -
......
Bytheway, in case you're interested, nobody has claimed that a vegan diet will allow you to live forever. Why don't you come back when you are 69 and we'll talk about how many mountains you have climbed in the last year or so.
Statistics is the science of large numbers, not of predicting any single individual's longevity. Statistically we vegetarians live longer, have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease, and are healthier and more active than similarly aged meat eaters.]Practically every study proves that. Some would-be genius might pick out the name of some vegetarian who died young, but that proves nothing, except that he has knows nothing about statistics.
Can you cite at least one peer reviewed study supporting this assertion?
Here is a position paper that cites dozens of studies:
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/adapaper.htm
Here are others:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5698784/Being-a-vegetarian-can-cut-your-risk-of-cancer-by-a-half-claim-scientists.html
http://vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm
The major studies, the German study the China study, the Framingham study are not cited here. You can google those.
Had a look at several of the citations and saw the word correlation used frequently and we all know that correlation does not prove causation.
Interestingly :
"However, Allen urged caution over the interpretation of the findings. "It is a significant difference, but we should be a bit cautious since it is the first study showing that the risk of cancer of the blood is lower in vegetarians. We need to know what aspect of a fish and vegetarian diet is protecting against cancer. Is it the higher fibre intake, higher intake of fruit and vegetables, is it just meat per se?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk
I'd also be curious to see more information on the socio-economic status of the participants in the British as that has been determined to be a leading indicator or risk of premature death from all causes. We may be witnessing skewed results as the result of selection bias (ie are vegans more likely to avoid other behaviours that have been linked to cancer and heart disease risk?).
I also suspect that this:
"Cancer is not caused by bacteria, faulty diet, inadequate exercise, environmental contaminants, ionizing radiation, tobacco, viruses, nor heredity. "
http://vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm
could be considered a minority opinion. (I wonder if the good doctor smokes? ) and even his conclusions stated "There is a modest negative correlation with these cancers and plant source food consumption."
So, back to my original question, perhaps phrased more precisely. Have there been any peer reviewed papers that prove causality between plant based diets and lower risk of cancer, heart disease etc?
Oh, brother! I know I am dealing with someone who is statistically illiterate when they start out with, "correlation does not equal causation." When a person asks for studies on a certain subject, as you did, that statement should be disallowed. In any event is shows that you never had an advanced statistics course in your life. Sorry, but I cannot help it if you do not understand statistics. Let me put it to you another way. Since you don't like my studies, kindly provide an example of a study that you consider unassailable, ie., one that is statistically perfect and to which the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" cannot be applied. That phrase is like saying "the only truth is a priori," or "it must be tautological to be true."
I am sorry, but I am not going to argue statistics with someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject. Suffice it to say that there have been thousands of studies and 99% of them show a correlation between eating meat and chronic diseases. The one's that don't can be explained (not by saying "correlation does not equal causation.")
I have had this discussion a million times and I know where it is going. Next you will be asking for a study that is controlled for all relevant factors. All I can say to someone at your level of understanding of statistics is, "You provide me with a study (on anything) that you feel is perfect, and to which "correlation does not equal causation" cannot be applied, and one which is controled for "all relevant factors," and I will be happy to provide you with an equivalent study proving my point..0 -
......
Bytheway, in case you're interested, nobody has claimed that a vegan diet will allow you to live forever. Why don't you come back when you are 69 and we'll talk about how many mountains you have climbed in the last year or so.
Statistics is the science of large numbers, not of predicting any single individual's longevity. Statistically we vegetarians live longer, have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease, and are healthier and more active than similarly aged meat eaters.]Practically every study proves that. Some would-be genius might pick out the name of some vegetarian who died young, but that proves nothing, except that he has knows nothing about statistics.
Can you cite at least one peer reviewed study supporting this assertion?
Here is a position paper that cites dozens of studies:
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/adapaper.htm
Here are others:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5698784/Being-a-vegetarian-can-cut-your-risk-of-cancer-by-a-half-claim-scientists.html
http://vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm
The major studies, the German study the China study, the Framingham study are not cited here. You can google those.
Had a look at several of the citations and saw the word correlation used frequently and we all know that correlation does not prove causation.
Interestingly :
"However, Allen urged caution over the interpretation of the findings. "It is a significant difference, but we should be a bit cautious since it is the first study showing that the risk of cancer of the blood is lower in vegetarians. We need to know what aspect of a fish and vegetarian diet is protecting against cancer. Is it the higher fibre intake, higher intake of fruit and vegetables, is it just meat per se?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk
I'd also be curious to see more information on the socio-economic status of the participants in the British as that has been determined to be a leading indicator or risk of premature death from all causes. We may be witnessing skewed results as the result of selection bias (ie are vegans more likely to avoid other behaviours that have been linked to cancer and heart disease risk?).
I also suspect that this:
"Cancer is not caused by bacteria, faulty diet, inadequate exercise, environmental contaminants, ionizing radiation, tobacco, viruses, nor heredity. "
http://vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm
could be considered a minority opinion. (I wonder if the good doctor smokes? ) and even his conclusions stated "There is a modest negative correlation with these cancers and plant source food consumption."
So, back to my original question, perhaps phrased more precisely. Have there been any peer reviewed papers that prove causality between plant based diets and lower risk of cancer, heart disease etc?
Since you obviously took stats 101 at some point in your life, perhaps you know that research is set up to prove the null hypothesis (in essence, there is NO DIFFERENCE between control and test groups). Science is the best chance we have to understand complex truths, but you are naive to think any research can 'prove causality.'
Which means you then agree that his statement "practically every study proves..." to be inaccurate. That's what I'm questioning, he used the word "proves".
I would disagree with the naive bit because I already knew that it's an impossible burden - there are far too many variables involved which leads back to nullifying the assertion that a vegan diet is in any way superior to an omnivorous one. Humans evolved as omnivores, we also developed the intellectual capacity to make choices based on personal values . I have no problem with anyone who chooses not to eat meat, I do have a problem with the faulty assertions that a vegan diet is superior to an omnivorous one.
You know, with your quaint logic, you cannot prove anything, so why to you bother talking? You need to learn to deal with the real world in terms that science and probability theory deal with it. Otherwise you are in the Middle Ages.0 -
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.0 -
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said. Scientific inquiry doesn't *prove* anything directly. But without it, we have nothing to guide us at all. Well...wait....maybe we have something like 'My grandfather lived to be 105 and he had a steak and a shot of whiskey every night.' I could put out my own anecdote as a veg*n woman approaching 60 with blood lipids and blood pressure which is like that of a newborn baby. Would anyone find that convincing? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Is science frustrating? YES. Do studies contradict each other? YES Do some studies end with a recommendation for further research? YES. Can science ever prove that one thing causes another? NO. But does that mean it's useless? NO.
And why is science not useless? Well researchers tend to look at things with suspected relationships, not random things. If they didn't do this sort of inquiry, we would still be saying there's no proof that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for developing lung cancer. It's the best tool we have, unless every person alive wants to live in a lab under controlled conditions. That would give us data for the whole population, not just a sample. We would have no need for statistics at all. But, we would all be prisoners. So, lacking that, we need to look at a body of evidence to determine whether something is apt to be true scientifically, and make our best conclusions based on that.
I do happen to think that a whole foods plant-based diet is superior to one like it, but including animal products. I base this on everything I have read as a health information professional. I am pleased the diet that is kinder to animals, can also be kind to the people who choose to eat this way.0 -
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said. Scientific inquiry doesn't *prove* anything directly. But without it, we have nothing to guide us at all. Well...wait....maybe we have something like 'My grandfather lived to be 105 and he had a steak and a shot of whiskey every night.' I could put out my own anecdote as a veg*n woman approaching 60 with blood lipids and blood pressure which is like that of a newborn baby. Would anyone find that convincing? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Is science frustrating? YES. Do studies contradict each other? YES Do some studies end with a recommendation for further research? YES. Can science ever prove that one thing causes another? NO. But does that mean it's useless? NO.
And why is science not useless? Well researchers tend to look at things with suspected relationships, not random things. If they didn't do this sort of inquiry, we would still be saying there's no proof that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for developing lung cancer. It's the best tool we have, unless every person alive wants to live in a lab under controlled conditions. That would give us data for the whole population, not just a sample. We would have no need for statistics at all. But, we would all be prisoners. So, lacking that, we need to look at a body of evidence to determine whether something is apt to be true scientifically, and make our best conclusions based on that.
I do happen to think that a whole foods plant-based diet is superior to one like it, but including animal products. I base this on everything I have read as a health information professional. I am pleased the diet that is kinder to animals, can also be kind to the people who choose to eat this way.
Well said, VonV. I think that people who play the "correlation does not equal causation" card are effectively saying, "I don't care what scientific studies show, or how conclusively they show it, I am going to do what I want." They would be more honest saying, "I like eating meat, I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."0 -
I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
This is what I have an issue with, not all the studies, not the difficulty with absolutes, causation and correlation. I take issue with blind statements that erroneously attach human emotions and feelings onto a chicken or a cow! Do not mistake me, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to treat animals with kindness and they should be free of abuse, however, this does not mean that a chicken grieves at the loss of her young, you are confusing instinct with emotion. If you FEEL animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans, good for you. But since you seem to like to throw your studies around find me one with a study on this correlation (outside the obvious of animals like dolphins and elephants which are NOT food sources). Animals are not human, you cannot make any correlation to that. This is why so many people screw up their pets is by projecting human emotion and response on to an animal.0 -
I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
This is what I have an issue with, not all the studies, not the difficulty with absolutes, causation and correlation. I take issue with blind statements that erroneously attach human emotions and feelings onto a chicken or a cow! Do not mistake me, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to treat animals with kindness and they should be free of abuse, however, this does not mean that a chicken grieves at the loss of her young, you are confusing instinct with emotion. If you FEEL animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans, good for you. But since you seem to like to throw your studies around find me one with a study on this correlation (outside the obvious of animals like dolphins and elephants which are NOT food sources). Animals are not human, you cannot make any correlation to that. This is why so many people screw up their pets is by projecting human emotion and response on to an animal.
No problem. Animals and humans experience the same emotions.
http://phys.org/news6250.html0 -
It just seems like you are jumping at anything you can get your hands on to justify your lifestyle. Why do you need to justify your lifestyle to others so badly? Are you not happy with it? Be a happy vegan, not an angry vegan. What good is being angry all the time anyway? I don't want to see you end up on the news. "This just in, armed assailant at local grocery store waves a gun at patrons while yelling, 'meat is murder', naked and covered in peanut butter. More at 11."
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said. Scientific inquiry doesn't *prove* anything directly. But without it, we have nothing to guide us at all. Well...wait....maybe we have something like 'My grandfather lived to be 105 and he had a steak and a shot of whiskey every night.' I could put out my own anecdote as a veg*n woman approaching 60 with blood lipids and blood pressure which is like that of a newborn baby. Would anyone find that convincing? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Is science frustrating? YES. Do studies contradict each other? YES Do some studies end with a recommendation for further research? YES. Can science ever prove that one thing causes another? NO. But does that mean it's useless? NO.
And why is science not useless? Well researchers tend to look at things with suspected relationships, not random things. If they didn't do this sort of inquiry, we would still be saying there's no proof that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for developing lung cancer. It's the best tool we have, unless every person alive wants to live in a lab under controlled conditions. That would give us data for the whole population, not just a sample. We would have no need for statistics at all. But, we would all be prisoners. So, lacking that, we need to look at a body of evidence to determine whether something is apt to be true scientifically, and make our best conclusions based on that.
I do happen to think that a whole foods plant-based diet is superior to one like it, but including animal products. I base this on everything I have read as a health information professional. I am pleased the diet that is kinder to animals, can also be kind to the people who choose to eat this way.
Well said, VonV. I think that people who play the "correlation does not equal causation" card are effectively saying, "I don't care what scientific studies show, or how conclusively they show it, I am going to do what I want." They would be more honest saying, "I like eating meat, I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."0 -
I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
This is what I have an issue with, not all the studies, not the difficulty with absolutes, causation and correlation. I take issue with blind statements that erroneously attach human emotions and feelings onto a chicken or a cow! Do not mistake me, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to treat animals with kindness and they should be free of abuse, however, this does not mean that a chicken grieves at the loss of her young, you are confusing instinct with emotion. If you FEEL animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans, good for you. But since you seem to like to throw your studies around find me one with a study on this correlation (outside the obvious of animals like dolphins and elephants which are NOT food sources). Animals are not human, you cannot make any correlation to that. This is why so many people screw up their pets is by projecting human emotion and response on to an animal.
No problem. Animals and humans experience the same emotions.
http://phys.org/news6250.html
He is using apes as an example here........not the same thing as a chicken or a cow, just not. Of course animals react to environment, of course they will develop habits as a coping mechanism when their fight or flight is denied them. Different animals have adapted in different ways. Look, if this is your belief system, I'm totally cool with that. I just do not believe the same as you do and to assert your views on to others in a very derogatory way I feel is wrong. This is the part that mimics religion in this type of discussion and should be left out of it. A vegan diet does appear to have many HEALTH benefits, I choose to eat meat and I like it. There is no "FACT" that animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans. It's not a fact, it's your supposition.0 -
It just seems like you are jumping at anything you can get your hands on to justify your lifestyle. Why do you need to justify your lifestyle to others so badly? Are you not happy with it? Be a happy vegan, not an angry vegan. What good is being angry all the time anyway? I don't want to see you end up on the news. "This just in, armed assailant at local grocery store waves a gun at patrons while yelling, 'meat is murder', naked and covered in peanut butter. More at 11."
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said. Scientific inquiry doesn't *prove* anything directly. But without it, we have nothing to guide us at all. Well...wait....maybe we have something like 'My grandfather lived to be 105 and he had a steak and a shot of whiskey every night.' I could put out my own anecdote as a veg*n woman approaching 60 with blood lipids and blood pressure which is like that of a newborn baby. Would anyone find that convincing? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Is science frustrating? YES. Do studies contradict each other? YES Do some studies end with a recommendation for further research? YES. Can science ever prove that one thing causes another? NO. But does that mean it's useless? NO.
And why is science not useless? Well researchers tend to look at things with suspected relationships, not random things. If they didn't do this sort of inquiry, we would still be saying there's no proof that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for developing lung cancer. It's the best tool we have, unless every person alive wants to live in a lab under controlled conditions. That would give us data for the whole population, not just a sample. We would have no need for statistics at all. But, we would all be prisoners. So, lacking that, we need to look at a body of evidence to determine whether something is apt to be true scientifically, and make our best conclusions based on that.
I do happen to think that a whole foods plant-based diet is superior to one like it, but including animal products. I base this on everything I have read as a health information professional. I am pleased the diet that is kinder to animals, can also be kind to the people who choose to eat this way.
Well said, VonV. I think that people who play the "correlation does not equal causation" card are effectively saying, "I don't care what scientific studies show, or how conclusively they show it, I am going to do what I want." They would be more honest saying, "I like eating meat, I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
That wasn't me, but I would contribute to his defense fund.
I am not jumping at anything. I was challenged to produce an article and I did. As for the veggie vs meat articles I am very familiar with these studies and have been following them for many years. I really BELIEVE in what I am saying. I am PASSIONATE about this subject, and I LOVE to talk about it. I love to argue about it. It is a big part of my life. I met my wife through an ad in Vegetarian Times. I have given lectures at schools on Vegetarianism. I am a member of PETA. Have I left anything out?0 -
I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
This is what I have an issue with, not all the studies, not the difficulty with absolutes, causation and correlation. I take issue with blind statements that erroneously attach human emotions and feelings onto a chicken or a cow! Do not mistake me, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to treat animals with kindness and they should be free of abuse, however, this does not mean that a chicken grieves at the loss of her young, you are confusing instinct with emotion. If you FEEL animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans, good for you. But since you seem to like to throw your studies around find me one with a study on this correlation (outside the obvious of animals like dolphins and elephants which are NOT food sources). Animals are not human, you cannot make any correlation to that. This is why so many people screw up their pets is by projecting human emotion and response on to an animal.
No problem. Animals and humans experience the same emotions.
http://phys.org/news6250.html
He is using apes as an example here........not the same thing as a chicken or a cow, just not. Of course animals react to environment, of course they will develop habits as a coping mechanism when their fight or flight is denied them. Different animals have adapted in different ways. Look, if this is your belief system, I'm totally cool with that. I just do not believe the same as you do and to assert your views on to others in a very derogatory way I feel is wrong. This is the part that mimics religion in this type of discussion and should be left out of it. A vegan diet does appear to have many HEALTH benefits, I choose to eat meat and I like it. There is no "FACT" that animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans. It's not a fact, it's your supposition.
Oh give me a break. First you say no elephants, now nothing that anyone has done a study on. ANIMALS ARE ANIMALS we are all essentially the same. Our emotions are the same. You wanted a study, you got it. If you have ever had a companion animal you know what I am saying is true.0 -
I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
This is what I have an issue with, not all the studies, not the difficulty with absolutes, causation and correlation. I take issue with blind statements that erroneously attach human emotions and feelings onto a chicken or a cow! Do not mistake me, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to treat animals with kindness and they should be free of abuse, however, this does not mean that a chicken grieves at the loss of her young, you are confusing instinct with emotion. If you FEEL animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans, good for you. But since you seem to like to throw your studies around find me one with a study on this correlation (outside the obvious of animals like dolphins and elephants which are NOT food sources). Animals are not human, you cannot make any correlation to that. This is why so many people screw up their pets is by projecting human emotion and response on to an animal.
No problem. Animals and humans experience the same emotions.
http://phys.org/news6250.html
He is using apes as an example here........not the same thing as a chicken or a cow, just not. Of course animals react to environment, of course they will develop habits as a coping mechanism when their fight or flight is denied them. Different animals have adapted in different ways. Look, if this is your belief system, I'm totally cool with that. I just do not believe the same as you do and to assert your views on to others in a very derogatory way I feel is wrong. This is the part that mimics religion in this type of discussion and should be left out of it. A vegan diet does appear to have many HEALTH benefits, I choose to eat meat and I like it. There is no "FACT" that animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans. It's not a fact, it's your supposition.
Just cruious. What is your defintion of an animal. It doesn't include apes, monkeys, elephants and whatever else you said. Are you aware that your definition is unique? Are you aware it is not scientific? Are you aware your defintion seems made up to fit your own religion? Sorry, but animals like cows have the same range of emotions as other animals including humans, monkeys and elephants.0 -
Bytheway, since you insist on a study about cows, here is one. If you were familiar with Google you could find many many more:
http://www.gan.ca/animals/cows.en.html0 -
I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
This is what I have an issue with, not all the studies, not the difficulty with absolutes, causation and correlation. I take issue with blind statements that erroneously attach human emotions and feelings onto a chicken or a cow! Do not mistake me, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to treat animals with kindness and they should be free of abuse, however, this does not mean that a chicken grieves at the loss of her young, you are confusing instinct with emotion. If you FEEL animals have the same feelings and emotions as humans, good for you. But since you seem to like to throw your studies around find me one with a study on this correlation (outside the obvious of animals like dolphins and elephants which are NOT food sources). Animals are not human, you cannot make any correlation to that. This is why so many people screw up their pets is by projecting human emotion and response on to an animal.
I think it's easy to make the case that animals like chickens, pigs and cows feel emotions like fear, and sensations like pain. Temple Grandin--an autistic woman--actually studied cattle carefully and devised a way to lead animals to slaughter without freaking them out. Animals who see, hear and smell slaughter further up in the line feel total fear. Whether they grieve with a deep sense of understanding, I just can't tell you. But, since you can avoid the guilt by eating plants, that seems easier than wondering how humane farming and slaughter is for the animals I would otherwise eat.0 -
Yes, you did leave something out. The most important part. Are you happy?
It just seems like you are jumping at anything you can get your hands on to justify your lifestyle. Why do you need to justify your lifestyle to others so badly? Are you not happy with it? Be a happy vegan, not an angry vegan. What good is being angry all the time anyway? I don't want to see you end up on the news. "This just in, armed assailant at local grocery store waves a gun at patrons while yelling, 'meat is murder', naked and covered in peanut butter. More at 11."
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said. Scientific inquiry doesn't *prove* anything directly. But without it, we have nothing to guide us at all. Well...wait....maybe we have something like 'My grandfather lived to be 105 and he had a steak and a shot of whiskey every night.' I could put out my own anecdote as a veg*n woman approaching 60 with blood lipids and blood pressure which is like that of a newborn baby. Would anyone find that convincing? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Is science frustrating? YES. Do studies contradict each other? YES Do some studies end with a recommendation for further research? YES. Can science ever prove that one thing causes another? NO. But does that mean it's useless? NO.
And why is science not useless? Well researchers tend to look at things with suspected relationships, not random things. If they didn't do this sort of inquiry, we would still be saying there's no proof that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for developing lung cancer. It's the best tool we have, unless every person alive wants to live in a lab under controlled conditions. That would give us data for the whole population, not just a sample. We would have no need for statistics at all. But, we would all be prisoners. So, lacking that, we need to look at a body of evidence to determine whether something is apt to be true scientifically, and make our best conclusions based on that.
I do happen to think that a whole foods plant-based diet is superior to one like it, but including animal products. I base this on everything I have read as a health information professional. I am pleased the diet that is kinder to animals, can also be kind to the people who choose to eat this way.
Well said, VonV. I think that people who play the "correlation does not equal causation" card are effectively saying, "I don't care what scientific studies show, or how conclusively they show it, I am going to do what I want." They would be more honest saying, "I like eating meat, I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
That wasn't me, but I would contribute to his defense fund.
I am not jumping at anything. I was challenged to produce an article and I did. As for the veggie vs meat articles I am very familiar with these studies and have been following them for many years. I really BELIEVE in what I am saying. I am PASSIONATE about this subject, and I LOVE to talk about it. I love to argue about it. It is a big part of my life. I met my wife through an ad in Vegetarian Times. I have given lectures at schools on Vegetarianism. I am a member of PETA. Have I left anything out?0 -
Yes, you did leave something out. The most important part. Are you happy?
Yup. Why wouldn't I be? I am doing what I enjoy doing. I have a great family. I love my job. LIfe is good. I wish the stock market were doing better but you can't have everything.0 -
Alright then, prove it. Come on, bro, you know what I'm talking about. None of that handshake or side-hugs here. Get in here and get you some of these real hugs. You're not getting out of this one. Come on and give us a hug. Don't leave me hangin', bro.Yes, you did leave something out. The most important part. Are you happy?
Yup. Why wouldn't I be? I am doing what I enjoy doing. I have a great family. I love my job. LIfe is good. I wish the stock market were doing better but you can't have everything.0 -
HUG!!!0
-
You see, that wasn't so hard now was it? It's ok to cry, bro. It's alright. Just let it all out. This shoulder has had your name on it.HUG!!!0 -
You see, that wasn't so hard now was it? It's ok to cry, bro. It's alright. Just let it all out. This shoulder has had your name on it.HUG!!!
Gotta love ya, bro!0 -
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said. Scientific inquiry doesn't *prove* anything directly. But without it, we have nothing to guide us at all. Well...wait....maybe we have something like 'My grandfather lived to be 105 and he had a steak and a shot of whiskey every night.' I could put out my own anecdote as a veg*n woman approaching 60 with blood lipids and blood pressure which is like that of a newborn baby. Would anyone find that convincing? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Is science frustrating? YES. Do studies contradict each other? YES Do some studies end with a recommendation for further research? YES. Can science ever prove that one thing causes another? NO. But does that mean it's useless? NO.
And why is science not useless? Well researchers tend to look at things with suspected relationships, not random things. If they didn't do this sort of inquiry, we would still be saying there's no proof that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for developing lung cancer. It's the best tool we have, unless every person alive wants to live in a lab under controlled conditions. That would give us data for the whole population, not just a sample. We would have no need for statistics at all. But, we would all be prisoners. So, lacking that, we need to look at a body of evidence to determine whether something is apt to be true scientifically, and make our best conclusions based on that.
I do happen to think that a whole foods plant-based diet is superior to one like it, but including animal products. I base this on everything I have read as a health information professional. I am pleased the diet that is kinder to animals, can also be kind to the people who choose to eat this way.
Well said, VonV. I think that people who play the "correlation does not equal causation" card are effectively saying, "I don't care what scientific studies show, or how conclusively they show it, I am going to do what I want." They would be more honest saying, "I like eating meat, I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
While PETA has the highest euthanasia rate in their shelter while being one of the richest if not the richest animal rights group.0 -
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said. Scientific inquiry doesn't *prove* anything directly. But without it, we have nothing to guide us at all. Well...wait....maybe we have something like 'My grandfather lived to be 105 and he had a steak and a shot of whiskey every night.' I could put out my own anecdote as a veg*n woman approaching 60 with blood lipids and blood pressure which is like that of a newborn baby. Would anyone find that convincing? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Is science frustrating? YES. Do studies contradict each other? YES Do some studies end with a recommendation for further research? YES. Can science ever prove that one thing causes another? NO. But does that mean it's useless? NO.
And why is science not useless? Well researchers tend to look at things with suspected relationships, not random things. If they didn't do this sort of inquiry, we would still be saying there's no proof that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for developing lung cancer. It's the best tool we have, unless every person alive wants to live in a lab under controlled conditions. That would give us data for the whole population, not just a sample. We would have no need for statistics at all. But, we would all be prisoners. So, lacking that, we need to look at a body of evidence to determine whether something is apt to be true scientifically, and make our best conclusions based on that.
I do happen to think that a whole foods plant-based diet is superior to one like it, but including animal products. I base this on everything I have read as a health information professional. I am pleased the diet that is kinder to animals, can also be kind to the people who choose to eat this way.
Well said, VonV. I think that people who play the "correlation does not equal causation" card are effectively saying, "I don't care what scientific studies show, or how conclusively they show it, I am going to do what I want." They would be more honest saying, "I like eating meat, I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
While PETA has the highest euthanasia rate in their shelter while being one of the richest if not the richest animal rights group.
Really? And I suppose you have some cite for that?0 -
I think the vegan diet is the kindest one around with respect to the treatment of animals. That's enough for me. But, even though research--by its very design--will never *prove* anything, I pay attention to epidemiological/ecological research because sometimes correlation and causation are one and the same, even if it can't be scientifically stated in this way.
And that is a moral/ethical/personal choice that is yours to make and should never be subject to criticism......
And in addition, there are practical, statistically valid reasons to avoid eating meat, health reasons, to avoid chronic illnesses.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said. Scientific inquiry doesn't *prove* anything directly. But without it, we have nothing to guide us at all. Well...wait....maybe we have something like 'My grandfather lived to be 105 and he had a steak and a shot of whiskey every night.' I could put out my own anecdote as a veg*n woman approaching 60 with blood lipids and blood pressure which is like that of a newborn baby. Would anyone find that convincing? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Is science frustrating? YES. Do studies contradict each other? YES Do some studies end with a recommendation for further research? YES. Can science ever prove that one thing causes another? NO. But does that mean it's useless? NO.
And why is science not useless? Well researchers tend to look at things with suspected relationships, not random things. If they didn't do this sort of inquiry, we would still be saying there's no proof that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for developing lung cancer. It's the best tool we have, unless every person alive wants to live in a lab under controlled conditions. That would give us data for the whole population, not just a sample. We would have no need for statistics at all. But, we would all be prisoners. So, lacking that, we need to look at a body of evidence to determine whether something is apt to be true scientifically, and make our best conclusions based on that.
I do happen to think that a whole foods plant-based diet is superior to one like it, but including animal products. I base this on everything I have read as a health information professional. I am pleased the diet that is kinder to animals, can also be kind to the people who choose to eat this way.
Well said, VonV. I think that people who play the "correlation does not equal causation" card are effectively saying, "I don't care what scientific studies show, or how conclusively they show it, I am going to do what I want." They would be more honest saying, "I like eating meat, I don't care about getting chronic diseases, and I don't care about the fact that I am killing animals that have the same emotions and feelings that I do."
While PETA has the highest euthanasia rate in their shelter while being one of the richest if not the richest animal rights group.
Really? And I suppose you have some cite for that?
Its public record0 -
Here's a news story on it, if you're good at searching things on the net you can find it easy. This is one of the reasons why I don't care for PETA.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/09/petas-euthanasia-rates-have-critics-fuming/0 -
Here's a news story on it, if you're good at searching things on the net you can find it easy. This is one of the reasons why I don't care for PETA.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/09/petas-euthanasia-rates-have-critics-fuming/
Wow! If that is true, I am so out of there. I do know how to use the INTERNET and I plan to check this out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions