Vegetarians Vs Paleo

Options
2

Replies

  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    I have seen people thrive on both diet philosophies so far... I don't think either is innately right or wrong... but then I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.

    The biggest thing that burns me about Paleo is the idea that agriculture and farming is what is making us all fat... never mind the fact that farming has been around for some 10,000 years and it's only the last 30? that we have seen our waistlines expand.

    Yes, the philosophy of Paleo has absolutely nothing to do with reality. And certainly from an ethical point of view, Paleo is about the worst possible diet. My objection to it, besides the ethics, is that it hasn't really been around long enough for people to see the long term effects, which I think are indisputably going to be bad.

    Based on your ethics it is the worst possible diet... if you keep up and tout the idea that it's unethical to eat meat you are going to alienate and even anger a ton of people. People have been on high protein/low carb diets for 20 years or better (maybe even longer they just haven't jumped on the bandwagon of popular diets). Some stick to it, others don't. Some see numbers improve, some don't. Some might do well on the twinkie diet, while others won't.... We are all different and require different nutritional needs and we all go to various forms of food to do that.

    The truth often angers people, especially the truth about diets on this board. I can't help that, nor do I particularly want to avoid it. I am not a relativist. I don't believe that truth or falsity is relative to your culture or point of view. Truth is absolute. Digestive processes are absolute. They don't give a hoot for political correctness.

    This is one of those things where the morality of eating animal flesh is solely opinion. Especially, when other peoples moral authority condone the eating of animal flesh. Just because you don't like it doesn't make them wrong and you correct. And no digestive processes are not absolute... otherwise, why is it I can digest wheat just fine but a celiac cannot or I can drink milk, but a person who is lactose intolerant cannot. If I stopped drinking milk then I too could become lactose intolerant. These are not finite absolute systems.. they are systems that depend on genetics and access.

    Morality is never solely someone's opinion. Are you saying that if I believe it's okay to rape and kill, then that is my opinion, and it is as good as anyone else's? This is the moral relativism that has totally screwed up this world. Right or wrong exists independently of what you believe to be right or wrong. Right is usually easy to discover.Use Kant's Categorical Imperative: Universalize the action and see if everyone, including the victims would agree that the action is necessary. Or, if you don't want to wallow in 19th century philosophy, simply use the Golden Rule: Simply do unto others what you would have them do unto you. I am not at all religious, by the way, but moral certitude can be arrived at using reason.

    Digestive processes also are absolute, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a multiplicity of them. Certainly, susceptibility to celiac disease, as you point out is one phenotype. But all digestive processes have certain things in common subject to epigenetic alterations. It is quite true that there are certain populations that can subsist solely on animal products, the Inuit for example. That is why the meat and dairy industry are fond of doing studies that involve only Inuit and Laplanders. The vast majority of the human race, however is different, and the dietary rules for them are different.
  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    To state the point even more clearly, no human has ever developed a chronic disease from eating plants.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/11/all-fruit-diet.aspx

    I think Steve Jobs' fruitarian lifestyle might have given him cancer (or at least, I've been freaking myself out today by googling it). Fruits are plants.

    I don't know who Dr Mercola is, but he is very sparse on citations. He did cite a Cancer Research study that stated that reduction of fructose for cancer patients may interrupt cancer growth. Cancer Research is a good journal and although I haven't read the article I did read the abstract, and if the article is up to their usual quality, the article is probably compelling. However, it does not state or even imply that eating fruit causes cancer. It was very clear that the article referred to people who already had cancer. Once you limit the population in the study so severely, you cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever about causative factors for the cancer in the first place. Stating that being a fruitarian will cause cancer based upon this study would be absurd.
  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    If you eat red meat, you are increasing your risk factors for chronic diseases.

    Your stated conclusion based on this study as the evidence of such is not valid.

    You say that there a many other studies that prove your point but list none. For the purpose of this argument (you did post in debatable debating after all) you have failed to prove this claim.

    Here is a link to a study that directly contradicts your point also. Ironically this study was referenced in the article you posted. Take an L-Carnitine supplement and greatly reduce your risk of heart problems.

    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/webfiles/images/journals/jmcp/jmcp_ft88_4_2.pdf

    And for the record - Avocados, nuts, seeds, beans, rice, and oranges all have L-Carnitine in them, all be it in lower levels than meat.

    I did list one article referring to a study, but since you wish:

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845

    Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, et al. Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(4):1088-1096
    PubMed

    Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2010;121(21):2271-2283
    PubMed

    Zheng W, Lee SA. Well-done meat intake, heterocyclic amine exposure, and cancer risk. Nutr Cancer. 2009;61(4):437-446
    PubMed

    Fraser GE. Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;70(3):(suppl) 532S-538S
    PubMed

    Key TJ, Fraser GE, Thorogood M, et al. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;70(3):(suppl) 516S-524S
    PubMed

    Sinha R, Cross AJ, Graubard BI, Leitzmann MF, Schatzkin A. Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(6):562-571
    PubMed

    van Dam RM, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB. Dietary fat and meat intake in relation to risk of type 2 diabetes in men. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(3):417-424
    PubMed

    Fung TT, Schulze M, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Dietary patterns, meat intake, and the risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(20):2235-2240
    PubMed

    Hu FB, Rimm E, Smith-Warner SA, et al. Reproducibility and validity of dietary patterns assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69(2):243-249
    PubMed

    Salvini S, Hunter DJ, Sampson L, et al. Food-based validation of a dietary questionnaire: the effects of week-to-week variation in food consumption. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18(4):858-867
    PubMed

    Rich-Edwards JW, Corsano KA, Stampfer MJ. Test of the National Death Index and Equifax Nationwide Death Search. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140(11):1016-1019
    PubMed

    Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Rimm E, et al. Dietary fat and coronary heart disease: a comparison of approaches for adjusting for total energy intake and modeling repeated dietary measurements. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(6):531-540
    PubMed

    Qiu W, Rosner B. Measurement error correction for the cumulative average model in the survival analysis of nutritional data: application to Nurses' Health Study. Lifetime Data Anal. 2010;16(1):136-153
    PubMed

    Bernstein AM, Sun Q, Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Willett WC. Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation. 2010;122(9):876-883
    PubMed

    Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E, Wand HC. Point and interval estimates of partial population attributable risks in cohort studies: examples and software. Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18(5):571-579
    PubMed

    Willett WC. Nutritional Epidemiology. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998

    Ascherio A, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ. Dietary iron intake and risk of coronary disease among men. Circulation. 1994;89(3):969-974
    PubMed

    Klipstein-Grobusch K, Grobbee DE, den Breeijen JH, Boeing H, Hofman A, Witteman JC. Dietary iron and risk of myocardial infarction in the Rotterdam Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(5):421-428
    PubMed

    van der A DL, Peeters PH, Grobbee DE, Marx JJ, van der Schouw YT. Dietary haem iron and coronary heart disease in women. Eur Heart J. 2005;26(3):257-262
    PubMed

    Qi L, van Dam RM, Rexrode K, Hu FB. Heme iron from diet as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in women with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(1):101-106
    PubMed

    Menke A, Muntner P, Fernández-Real JM, Guallar E. The association of biomarkers of iron status with mortality in US adults [published online ahead of print February 15, 2011]. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis

    Bibbins-Domingo K, Chertow GM, Coxson PG, et al. Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):590-599
    PubMed

    Smith-Spangler CM, Juusola JL, Enns EA, Owens DK, Garber AM. Population strategies to decrease sodium intake and the burden of cardiovascular disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(8):481-487, W170-W173
    PubMed

    Kleinbongard P, Dejam A, Lauer T, et al. Plasma nitrite concentrations reflect the degree of endothelial dysfunction in humans. Free Radic Biol Med. 2006;40(2):295-302
    PubMed

    Pereira EC, Ferderbar S, Bertolami MC, et al. Biomarkers of oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction in glucose intolerance and diabetes mellitus. Clin Biochem. 2008;41(18):1454-1460
    PubMed

    World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research; 2007

    Hughes R, Cross AJ, Pollock JRA, Bingham S. Dose-dependent effect of dietary meat on endogenous colonic N-nitrosation. Carcinogenesis. 2001;22(1):199-202
    PubMed

    Skog K, Steineck G, Augustsson K, Jägerstad M. Effect of cooking temperature on the formation of heterocyclic amines in fried meat products and pan residues. Carcinogenesis. 1995;16(4):861-867
    PubMed

    Sinha R, Rothman N, Salmon CP, et al. Heterocyclic amine content in beef cooked by different methods to varying degrees of doneness and gravy made from meat drippings. Food Chem Toxicol. 1998;36(4):279-287
    PubMed

    Cross AJ, Sinha R. Meat-related mutagens/carcinogens in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2004;44(1):44-
    PubMed

    Cross AJ, Pollock JR, Bingham SA. Haem, not protein or inorganic iron, is responsible for endogenous intestinal N-nitrosation arising from red meat. Cancer Res. 2003;63(10):2358-2360
    PubMed

    Sesink AL, Termont DS, Kleibeuker JH, Van der Meer R. Red meat and colon cancer: the cytotoxic and hyperproliferative effects of dietary heme. Cancer Res. 1999;59(22):5704-5709
    PubMed

    Huang X. Iron overload and its association with cancer risk in humans: evidence for iron as a carcinogenic metal. Mutat Res. 2003;533(1-2):153-171
    PubMed

    The above are mostly on PubMed and so are relatively easy to access.

    You might also want to see:

    The China Study T. Colin Campbell

    The Framingham Study from the 1940s

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters

    and the following:

    Thorogood M, Mann J, Appleby P, McPherson K. Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters. Br Med J. 1994;308:1667-1670.

    Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R, Eilber U. Mortality patterns of German vegetarians after 11 years of follow-up. Epidemiology. 1992;3:395-401.

    Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R. Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mortality among German vegetarians. Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22:228-236.

    Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL. The medical costs attributable to meat consumption. Prev Med. 1995;24:646-655.

    World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: A global perspective. American Institute of Cancer Research. Washington, DC:2007.

    Skog KI, Johansson MAE, Jagerstad MI. Carcinogenic heterocyclic amines in model systems and cooked foods: a review on formation, occurrence, and intake. Food and Chem Toxicol. 1998;36:879-896.

    Robbana-Barnat S, Rabache M, Rialland E, Fradin J. Heterocyclic amines: occurrence and prevention in cooked food. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:280-288.

    Thiebaud HP, Knize MG, Kuzmicky PA, Hsieh DP, Felton JS. Airborne mutagens produced by frying beef, pork, and a soy-based food. Food Chem Toxicol. 1995;33(10):821-828.

    Sinha R, Rothman N, Brown ED, et al. High concentrations of the carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo-[4,5] pyridine [PhlP] occur in chicken but are dependent on the cooking method. Cancer Res. 1995;55:4516-4519.

    Jagerstad M, Skog K, Grivas S, Olsson K. Formation of heterocyclic amines using model systems. Mutat Res. 1991;259(3-4):219-233.

    Murtaugh MA, Ma KN, Sweeney C, Caan BJ, Slattery ML. Meat Consumption patterns and preparation, genetic variants of metabolic enzymes, and their association with rectal cancer in men and women. J Nutr. 2004;134(4):776-784.

    Norat T, Riboli E. Meat consumption and colorectal cancer: a review of epidemiologic evidence. Nutr Rev. 2001;59(2):37-47.

    Armstrong B, Doll R. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer. 1975;15:617-631.

    Carroll KK, Braden LM. Dietary fat and mammary carcinogenesis. Nutrition and Cancer. 1985;6:254-259.

    Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL. International comparisons of mortality rates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate, and colon, and per capita food consumption. Cancer. 1986;58:2363-2371.

    Lands WEM, Hamazaki T, Yamazaki K, et al. Changing dietary patterns. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:991-993.

    Hirayama T. Epidemiology of breast cancer with special reference to the role of diet. Prev Med. 1978;7:173-195.

    Sang-Ah Lee, Xiao-Ou Shu, Honglan Li, et. al., Adolescent and adult soy food intake and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Women's Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009; 89: 1920-1926.

    Dorgan JF, Hunsberger SA, McMahon RP, et al. Diet and sex hormones in girls: findings from a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:132-141.

    Cho E, Spiegelman D, Hunter DJ, et al. Premenopausal fat intake and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1079-1085.

    Boyd NF, Stone J, Vogt KN, Connelly BS, Martin LJ, Minkin S. Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: a meta-analysis of the published literature. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(9):1672-1685.

    De Stefani E, Ronco A, Mendilaharsu M, Guidobono M, Deneo-Pellegrini H. Meat intake, heterocyclic amines, and risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6(8):573-581.

    Matos EL, Thomas DB, Sobel N, Vuoto D. Breast cancer in Argentina: case-control study with special reference to meat eating habits. Neoplasma. 1991;38(3):357-366.

    Snyderwine EG. Some perspectives on the nutritional aspects of breast cancer research. Food-derived heterocyclic amines as etiologic agents in human mammary cancer. Cancer. 1994;74(3 suppl):1070-1077.

    Singh PN, Fraser GE. Dietary risk factors for colon cancer in a low-risk population. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148(8):761-74.

    Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Ascherio A, Willett WC. Intake of fat, meat, and fiber in relation to risk of colon cancer in men. Cancer Res. 1994;54(9):2390-2397.

    Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Speizer FE. Relation of meat, fat, and fiber intake to the risk of colon cancer in a prospective study among women. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:1664-1672.

    Chao A, Thun MJ, Connell CJ, et al. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:172-82.

    Fraser GE. Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;70(suppl):532S-538S.

    Butler LM, Sinha R, Millikan RC, Martin CF, Newman B, Gammon MD, Ammerman AS, Sandler RS. Heterocyclic amines, meat intake, and association with colon cancer in a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(5):434-445.

    Siegel RL, Jemal A, Ward EM. Increase in incidence of colorectal cancer among young men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:1695-1698.

    Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Sacks FM, Grodstein F, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ. Prospective study of plasma fatty acids and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86(4):281-286.

    Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Ascherio A, Chute CC, Willett WC. A prospective study of dietary fat and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(19):1571-1579.

    Kolonel LN. Nutrition and prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7(1):83-44.

    Ma RW, Chapman K. A systematic review of the effect of diet in prostate cancer prevention and treatment. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2009;22(3):187-1899; quiz 200-202. Epub 2009 Apr 1.

    Dolwick Grieb SM, Theis RP, et al. Food groups and renal cell carcinoma: results from a case-control study. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:656-667.

    Thiébaut ACM, Jia L, Silverman DT, et al. Dietary fatty acids and pancreatic cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1001-1011.

    Key TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, et. al. Cancer incidence in British vegetarians. British Journal of Cancer. 2009;101:192–197.

    Phillips RL. Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of cancer among Seventh-day Adventists. Cancer Res. 19

    If you would like more references, please let me know. there are plenty more.
  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    If you eat red meat, you are increasing your risk factors for chronic diseases.

    Your stated conclusion based on this study as the evidence of such is not valid.

    You say that there a many other studies that prove your point but list none. For the purpose of this argument (you did post in debatable debating after all) you have failed to prove this claim.

    Here is a link to a study that directly contradicts your point also. Ironically this study was referenced in the article you posted. Take an L-Carnitine supplement and greatly reduce your risk of heart problems.

    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/webfiles/images/journals/jmcp/jmcp_ft88_4_2.pdf

    And for the record - Avocados, nuts, seeds, beans, rice, and oranges all have L-Carnitine in them, all be it in lower levels than meat.

    Bytheway, please never apologize for debating a point or disagreeing. As you said this is a debating board, and I did come here to debate, not to pontificate. My experience is that this board is vastly superior to the other boards on this site, in terms of the quality and intelligence of the debaters, and the tone of the debate. The regular boards are mostly for people who do not know how to debate or even understand what a debate is.

    You also pointed out that there was another "study" which contracts the study I referred to. As you also said this "study" was referred to in the article I referred to.

    There are two things wrong with your statement, and this "study" does not contradict anything in the study referred to:

    1. This is not a study but a meta analysis and review of the literature. Yes, that is a picky point, but I thought I needed to point that out.

    2. This mata-analysis has absolutely nothing to do with eating meat or getting L-Carnatine from meat. This study has to do with the use of L-Carnatine as a MEDICINE, administrated in concentrated doses over a short period of time. This is totally different from eating red meat and getting long-term exposure of the microbiome to L-Carnatine. Frequently substances have completely different effects if administered in large or small doses over a long or short period of time. For example, you may know that Arsenic is a poison. Did you also know that taken in low doses Arsenic can be a medicinal treatment for tapeworm or other internal parasites? Again, different uses, different results.

    Finally, you are correct that L-Carnatine is used in some plants for oxidation of fatty acids:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1177855/?page=1

    I was unaware of that. However, the amount in plants is trivial compared to amount in meat:

    http://nutrition.about.com/od/calcium/a/Carnitine.htm

    (Please note: I disagree with the advice given in this article, but cite it only to show that animal sources provide much more carnatine than plant sources.)

    Nutritional advice that I do agree with, along with more cites to articles showing the relationship between meat and chronic diseases are in this article:

    http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cardiovascular-disease-red-meat-gut-bacteria-and-heart-disease.html

    This article also explains why eating red meat over time results in chronic diseases.
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    . . .
  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    Wow! That was a lot of information . I have to admit I didn't and have no intention of reading all of it. But from a quick random sampling I'll fall back to the tried and "true correlation does not equal causation".

    I also have to wonder if you've read any of it. Contain within the second study you sited -
    Subjects who consumed more red meat tended to be married, more likely of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, more likely a current smoker, have a higher body mass index, and have a higher daily intake of energy, total fat, and saturated fat, and they tended to have lower education and physical activity levels and lower fruit, vegetable, fiber, and vitamin supplement intakes.

    In this instance, based on that study, it is just as likely that having a lower education increases your risk of heart disease. Or being married. Or being non-Hispanic white. Or, and to me this one came out of left field, being fat. Seems completely logical to conclude that it's the red meat intake.

    I truly am sorry you invoke the "correlation vs Causation" rebuttal. I am not trying to be offensive, but that is a very weak rebuttal to any longitudinal or epidemiological study. If you are statistically sophisticated, then you already know the answer to your question: longitudinal studies have value, and the more independent variables studied, the more reliable the results. I have cited approximately 80 studies (I certainly have read all of the major ones that I have cited. I even have and have read The China Study in book form where much detail is given.) A variety of factors are looked at from a variety of angles. They all come to approximately the same conclusions even though the independent variables in each study may be different.

    No, it is not just as likely that being non-Hispanic white, fat, smoking with a poor education is a cause of cancer. At least you cannot deduce that from this study. If I understand the study you are referring to correctly, the items that you listed as possible causes were in fact given as correlation in this study. Almost certainly you could find a study of smokers and find that the study would indicate that smoking causes lung cancer, (I.e., it would support the conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer.) However, I don't believe that was the conclusion of this study.

    Now, as to lifestyle.

    Is being uneducated likely to cause cancer?

    I think not. However, uneducated people are likely to do stupid things, like smoke, drink excessively, engage in risky behavior, etc. Are some of the choices that a less sophisticated person makes likely to be bad, such as eating meat excessively, putting on weight, and not exercising? Yes certainly. (I am NOT saying that risky behavior is limited to uneducated people. )

    Is being uneducated likely to result in poorly informed decisions?

    I would say yes. However, even though making bad decisions may include bad decisions with regard to diet, I would consider being uneducated being so attenuated from the actual decisions that result in higher likelihood of chronic disease that the causal connection is distant at best. Uneducated people are more likely to be poor, have fewer options available to them, to be susceptible to advertising, and to not be informed as to what the good dietary choices are.

    But is being uneducated a cause of cancer? I would really not say that. Similarly, being white or Hispanic or married not, in my mind, direct causes of cancer. As I said before, smoking certainly would be a cause of throat or lung cancer, and there is likely a direct causal relationship there.

    Part of understanding what these studies show is just common sense. It may turn out, for example, that neutrinos from the sun may be a cause of cancer. But that can never be studied in a controlled experiment, and even if it were determined to be true, there is not much we could do about it.

    But we can do something about eating meat.
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.

    This is an interesting comment and probably deserves a thread all to itself. Given that what we eat has broad-reaching effects on other humans, other animals, and entire ecosystems, I wholeheartedly disagree.
  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.

    This is an interesting comment and probably deserves a thread all to itself. Given that what we eat has broad-reaching effects on other humans, other animals, and entire ecosystems, I wholeheartedly disagree.

    I agree that it deserves a complete thread in itself. And I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement you quoted as well.
  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    Options
    Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.

    I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.

    At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.
  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.

    I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.

    At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.

    Sorry, but this is a free country and some of us do not subscribe to political correctness. Your comment about the number of cites I gave was totally off-base. First they were requested. Second, your unwillingness to read them is one of the problems with debate on this board. People, like you I assume, believe that uninformed opinion, or an anecdote about your second cousin is as good as a formal study. Well it isn't.

    And finally, what you eat IS my business. You are destroying my planet. I know you don't like to read but here is a link you might want to read:

    http://www.foeeurope.org/new-report-international-Meat-atlas-090113

    Meat eaters are screwing up the environment for the rest of us, besides being cruel to animals. Even the United Nations recognizes that a relatively small population of selfish people is screwing up our planet.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

    Damn right I will say what I think.

    And I will give studies to back it up.
  • MadameLAL
    MadameLAL Posts: 108
    Options
    I believe in free will with respect to food choices, but for plant foods only. Choose broccoli or spinach? Either is fine. Choose corn tortillas or pizza crust? Go for whatever you want. But animal products are different, in my opinion. Your free will to eat meat deprives a sentient animal of its life. Your decision involves animal suffering. Not to mention that animal products are highly subsidized by tax dollars and that they are killing this planet.
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    I believe in free will with respect to food choices, but for plant foods only. Choose broccoli or spinach? Either is fine. Choose corn tortillas or pizza crust? Go for whatever you want. But animal products are different, in my opinion. Your free will to eat meat deprives a sentient animal of its life. Your decision involves animal suffering. Not to mention that animal products are highly subsidized by tax dollars and that they are killing this planet.

    I think the animal/non animal choice is easy to see as a question of ethics, but what about the quality of life of farm workers exposed to pesticides and hazardous working conditions, damage to the environment through irresponsible agriculture, even transportation required in order to provide out of season produce? I think there are a lot of ethical choices we make every time we put our money down -- whether or not we consider the moral ramifications of our financial support is another matter. I certainly don't, not every time.

    Maybe a better term than ethics is value judgement -- someone may value their ability to eat meat over the life of an animal, someone else may value inexpensive goods over the working conditions of those producing them, or the convenience of items at big-box stores over questionable labor practices. I don't think ethics is limited to the vegan/non vegan debate.
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.

    I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.

    At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.

    This is the debating board, so it's a place for people to put forth their position. Would you care to support your statement that diet is not a moral issue? I'm genuinely curious how you see it that way.

    Your example of starving in winter is a little extreme -- how about on a day to day basis where you have the choice of eating a plant-based or an animal-based meal? Do you see that as an ethical choice?

    Questions of ethics often have more than one "right answer", so people that choose to eat factory-farmed animals are simply showing different values than those that don't, but I would argue that they are still making a moral decision.

    You might consider reading The Omnivore's Dilemma -- it is a very good examination of where our food comes from and what is involved in getting it from the ground onto our plate. It is not vegetarian propaganda at all -- the author does not conclude that everyone should avoid animal products. I thought it was a very interesting and balanced book.
  • MadameLAL
    MadameLAL Posts: 108
    Options
    I believe in free will with respect to food choices, but for plant foods only. Choose broccoli or spinach? Either is fine. Choose corn tortillas or pizza crust? Go for whatever you want. But animal products are different, in my opinion. Your free will to eat meat deprives a sentient animal of its life. Your decision involves animal suffering. Not to mention that animal products are highly subsidized by tax dollars and that they are killing this planet.

    I think the animal/non animal choice is easy to see as a question of ethics, but what about the quality of life of farm workers exposed to pesticides and hazardous working conditions, damage to the environment through irresponsible agriculture, even transportation required in order to provide out of season produce? I think there are a lot of ethical choices we make every time we put our money down -- whether or not we consider the moral ramifications of our financial support is another matter. I certainly don't, not every time.

    Maybe a better term than ethics is value judgement -- someone may value their ability to eat meat over the life of an animal, someone else may value inexpensive goods over the working conditions of those producing them, or the convenience of items at big-box stores over questionable labor practices. I don't think ethics is limited to the vegan/non vegan debate.

    I agree that food ethics goes beyond just the animal issues, but I am focusing on that since it seems most germane to the subject of this thread: vegetarians vs paleo. Obviously, buying locally grown organic food which is produced at fair-market prices is second only to growing or foraging your own. I try to do that whenever possible. But, it's important to realize that crops are grown to feed livestock, so plant agriculture enters into the equation whether you eat plants or animal products. Same too with transportation.
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.

    I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.

    At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.

    This is the debating board, so it's a place for people to put forth their position. Would you care to support your statement that diet is not a moral issue? I'm genuinely curious how you see it that way.

    Your example of starving in winter is a little extreme -- how about on a day to day basis where you have the choice of eating a plant-based or an animal-based meal? Do you see that as an ethical choice?

    Questions of ethics often have more than one "right answer", so people that choose to eat factory-farmed animals are simply showing different values than those that don't, but I would argue that they are still making a moral decision.

    You might consider reading The Omnivore's Dilemma -- it is a very good examination of where our food comes from and what is involved in getting it from the ground onto our plate. It is not vegetarian propaganda at all -- the author does not conclude that everyone should avoid animal products. I thought it was a very interesting and balanced book.

    To debate with myself, I could argue that whether something is a moral issue is wholly up to the individual. For instance, many see pre-marital sex as a moral issue, while I do not. Thus my choices on that matter have nothing to do with morality, whereas for someone else they do. Similarly, if someone does not realize the consequences of their actions (for instance if I buy something without realizing that it was made with slave labor), they cannot truly be said to be making a moral choice.

    Which begs the question, who decides what is a moral issue for other people?
  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.

    I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.

    At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.

    This is the debating board, so it's a place for people to put forth their position. Would you care to support your statement that diet is not a moral issue? I'm genuinely curious how you see it that way.

    Your example of starving in winter is a little extreme -- how about on a day to day basis where you have the choice of eating a plant-based or an animal-based meal? Do you see that as an ethical choice?

    Questions of ethics often have more than one "right answer", so people that choose to eat factory-farmed animals are simply showing different values than those that don't, but I would argue that they are still making a moral decision.

    You might consider reading The Omnivore's Dilemma -- it is a very good examination of where our food comes from and what is involved in getting it from the ground onto our plate. It is not vegetarian propaganda at all -- the author does not conclude that everyone should avoid animal products. I thought it was a very interesting and balanced book.

    To debate with myself, I could argue that whether something is a moral issue is wholly up to the individual. For instance, many see pre-marital sex as a moral issue, while I do not. Thus my choices on that matter have nothing to do with morality, whereas for someone else they do. Similarly, if someone does not realize the consequences of their actions (for instance if I buy something without realizing that it was made with slave labor), they cannot truly be said to be making a moral choice.

    Which begs the question, who decides what is a moral issue for other people?

    Morality and moral issues are not relative, but absolute. And no, I am not religious. I believe that morality can be determined by reason. I use Kant's Categorical Imperative. "Universalize the action, and see if everyone affected by the action agrees the action is necessary." (My formulation of the CI.) So as to pre marital sex, the morality depends upon the parties concerned. If they agree that the sex was necessary, then there is no moral issue. If they don't agree, then there could be. Another formulation of the CI is the Golden Rule. If one of the parties to the sex is under a false assumption then the sex could be immoral.Similarly, eating meat. If the victims of the meat eating, the animals, would accept the necessity of being eaten there is no moral issue. Quite frankly, I doubt they would. Since plants aren't sentient and do not think,there is no moral issue eating plants.Stated another way, do unto the animals as you would have them do unto you if the situation were reversed. Only sentient creatures can of course make such judgments.

    Similarly using the CI robbery, murder, theft, slander etc are all immoral. Perhaps surprisingly to some people, this formulation is extremely accurate in picking out what we would normally consider moral turpitude, and in addition, resolves ambiguous matters quite nicely.
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    Morality and moral issues are not relative, but absolute. And no, I am not religious. I believe that morality can be determined by reason. I use Kant's Categorical Imperative. "Universalize the action, and see if everyone affected by the action agrees the action is necessary." (My formulation of the CI.) So as to pre marital sex, the morality depends upon the parties concerned. If they agree that the sex was necessary, then there is no moral issue. If they don't agree, then there could be. Another formulation of the CI is the Golden Rule. If one of the parties to the sex is under a false assumption then the sex could be immoral.Similarly, eating meat. If the victims of the meat eating, the animals, would accept the necessity of being eaten there is no moral issue. Quite frankly, I doubt they would. Since plants aren't sentient and do not think,there is no moral issue eating plants.Stated another way, do unto the animals as you would have them do unto you if the situation were reversed. Only sentient creatures can of course make such judgments.

    Similarly using the CI robbery, murder, theft, slander etc are all immoral. Perhaps surprisingly to some people, this formulation is extremely accurate in picking out what we would normally consider moral turpitude, and in addition, resolves ambiguous matters quite nicely.

    Good answer. To continue the debate...

    You say that moral issues are not relative but absolute, but you also say that they are context-specific (for instance, premarital sex may or may not be a moral issue depending on the perception of the people involved). Does that not make morality relative?

    Also, the CI casts rather a broad net over issues of potential morality. Surely not every case where parties disagree on a course of action is a moral issue. If my workplace's dress code is to wear a white shirt, I wear a red shirt and my boss, co-workers and clients object -- is is immoral for me to wear a red shirt? Is it immoral to defend oneself against violent crime? I'm sure the attacker would not agree to be harmed by his victim.

    Is it immoral to eat vegetables when animals are harmed in their harvesting?

    Maybe the potential for harm to both parties have to be taken into account in the CI. I would not have a problem eating another animal if necessary for my own survival, but since I don't need to, I feel it is a more defensible choice not to harm others. I'd like to hope I would never hurt someone for no reason, but I would hurt someone to defend myself or my family. At what point on the continuum does it become a moral issue?
  • VegesaurusRex
    Options
    Good answer. To continue the debate...

    You say that moral issues are not relative but absolute, but you also say that they are context-specific (for instance, premarital sex may or may not be a moral issue depending on the perception of the people involved). Does that not make morality relative?

    Not at all, any more than laws against murder are relative because there are situational defenses. For example, if you kill someone in self defense, that is generally considered a defense to murder. In other words, to go into the legal analogy a little more, an element of the crime is missing, i.e., mens rhea, guilty mind. You do not have criminal intent when you act in self defense.

    Also, the CI casts rather a broad net over issues of potential morality. Surely not every case where parties disagree on a course of action is a moral issue. If my workplace's dress code is to wear a white shirt, I wear a red shirt and my boss, co-workers and clients object -- is is immoral for me to wear a red shirt? Is it immoral to defend oneself against violent crime? I'm sure the attacker would not agree to be harmed by his victim.

    That is exactly why the CI is formulated on NECESSITY. Does everyone at your office believe it is NECESSARY to wear a white shirt? I rather think not. As for self defense I talked about that above, And yes, the attacker would believe that defending oneself against someone like him would be necessary, if the situation were reversed.

    Is it immoral to eat vegetables when animals are harmed in their harvesting?

    Only if they were intentionally harmed. If harming animals is accidental, the act that causes the harm was not intentional, and is not subject to moral analysis. To explain, if in the process of growing corn to feed myself I accidentally plow up and kill an animal, and my intent was never to hurt the animal in the first place, then there was no intentional act to judge. On the other hand, if I know that in plowing up ten acres, statistically I will kill 15 animals, even though I do not want to, then one has to question whether the killing becomes intentional. Using the CI, I have no intention of harming the animals, and my act was necessary to get food. The animals probably also profit from my planting the crops, so they could agree. This is analogous to walking across the lawn and accidentally stepping on ants. My purpose in walking is not to kill ants but to get from point A to point B. Therefore my intent is not immoral even though some creatures suffer from my walking.

    Maybe the potential for harm to both parties have to be taken into account in the CI. I would not have a problem eating another animal if necessary for my own survival, but since I don't need to, I feel it is a more defensible choice not to harm others. I'd like to hope I would never hurt someone for no reason, but I would hurt someone to defend myself or my family. At what point on the continuum does it become a moral issue?

    I agree with everything you said. It is a question of intent. You cannot be judged immoral for an unintentional consequence of your act. Certain movements and activities are necessary in order to live, and an unintentional consequence of these acts may be the unintentional death of some creatures. I submit that unintentional consequences alone do not make an act immoral.If you believe you know of some exception to that rule, please let me know. But the CI, I believe, is only meant to judge the morality of acts with foreseeable consequences, such as eating meat. It is absolutely impossible to eat meat without killing an animal. Therefore the consequences are foreseen.
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    I think you have a pretty good theory going there, for the most part. I agree intention is an important part of it. It may be hard to know what animals would consider necessary without ascribing a bit of our own bias to them, but I think most people would agree that animals would prefer not to be mistreated, at least (although there is clearly a vast difference of opinion about what constitutes mistreatment).

    I'm still not 100% comfortable with dictating what is and isn't a moral issue to someone who doesn't see it that way, such as the person above who said she does not see eating meat as a moral issue. Say someone were to be completely lacking any sense of morality, due to absence of empathy, for instance -- I think we can only go so far as to say, "this is a moral issue to many people". I guess I'm still hesitant to accept that there is any sort of absolute morality, despite your logical proposition for its basis. To me, absolute would mean coming from outside of us.
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    While an interesting theory, it will remain unconvincing to most simply because they won't accept that cows, gophers, ants, or snakes have the cognitive ability to apply logic to a situation and decided that 15 dead gophers is worth having 15 acres of food at the disposal of the rest of the family. You, as a human being, can put yourself in the gophers place and follow the logical thought process to a decision about whether you'd agree as the victim In the situation or not. The gopher, however, cannot. Neither can the cow, pig, chicken, fish, or any other non thinking food source.