Veggies vs Meat

This thread was created when another thread was hijacked by meat-lovers. THAT thread was started by a woman who was looking for some advice for meatless eating. She wasn't interested in debating this question. I would say that trolls are thread disrupters, not people who are putting it out that they like spirited discussion in an honest way.

But there's nothing spirited about pictures of meat. ::yawn::

Wow, please read her posts again. She specifically mentioned the link between cancer and red meat consumption. People were responding to the OPs words, which is perfectly reasonable.

This thread was created when another thread was hijacked by meat-lovers. THAT thread was started by a woman who was looking for some advice for meatless eating. She wasn't interested in debating this question. I would say that trolls are thread disrupters, not people who are putting it out that they like spirited discussion in an honest way.

But there's nothing spirited about pictures of meat. ::yawn::

Wow, please read her posts again. She specifically mentioned the link between cancer and red meat consumption. People were responding to the OPs words, which is perfectly reasonable.

I strongly disagree with you. Notice she stayed clear of the controversy. That is an indicator to me that debate was not the reason she started that thread.

I like vegetable WITH my meat. :bigsmile:

MMM...me too!!!

Nothing like a huge pile of steamed veggies with a nicely done steak or piece of fresh Mahi!!

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

I've had all those Stats classes, and based off the most important idea in Statistics ("correlation does not imply causation"), wouldn't it be YOUR burden?
Also, you can have correlation without causation. That's Stats 102, I believe.

I rest my case.
[/quote

Oh dear... that's just sexy :-)

Are people not required to have knowledge of current events in the "real world"?

Current events, yes.

Condescending posts that scream "look at me, I can use big words to make other people look uneducated", no.

I remember that original thread this morning. I think the first response was someone saying they were curious as to why the OP would consider giving up meat. Curious myself, I visited THAT person's profile and the first thing that jumped out at me was 'lapband surgery'. Yet she was questioning someone else's mere thought of giving up meat. Wow. I clicked off the thread and got on with something important. Everyone has their own thing and as someone else said, to each his own. I have noticed, however, that meat eaters by and large jump all any discussion of vegetarianism with claws and fangs bared. So maybe they really DO have a taste for blood. :-)

Or a major guilt complex they try to hide by attacking first?

I started looking through the thread but it did not seem to me to answer a really good question! Personally I am an omnivore! Why? Because I like meat, veg etc - a balanced diet. I was semi veggie for 14 years - I still ate poultry and sea food. I went on meat after illness and as long as it is low fat I am fine! That said full fat cheese upsets my system!! I think humans are omnivores. After that however, it is about personal taste, etc. I do have issue with e.g. vegans who wear leather shoes! I think if someone decides to be vegetarian, that is their own personal choice. They should not enforce their rules on others. So we come to the dinner party! I have no problem, if someone is kind enough to invite me to their home to share a meal, to eat whatever is put before me. I am not keen on turnip and swede! I was invited to a dinner once and was served a winter veg stew - containing parsnip, carrot, turnip, swede and potato! I ate the lot! I think ultimately we choose what we want to eat. My 14 years of semi veg were great! I learnt to cook! I put variety into my diet! I think we should be open to new/different ideas! It makes eating so much more enjoyable!

I've had all those Stats classes, and based off the most important idea in Statistics ("correlation does not imply causation"), wouldn't it be YOUR burden?

Actually you would be right 99% of the time. But the person who started this statistical thread did so with a bare claim that "common sense" showed that Campbell's study was flawed in that he found only correlation not causation. Since he made that claim, I think the burden is on him to explain WHY.

So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.

Are people not required to have knowledge of current events in the "real world"?

Current events, yes.

Condescending posts that scream "look at me, I can use big words to make other people look uneducated", no.

I'm not agreeing with being condescending, but if you don't understand it, why don't you look it up? Perhaps there is no other way to express the information.

Everything can be expressed in simpler terms. An inability to simplify the material is more an indication of a lack of understanding of the subject.

As one of my lecturers in college always said; "if you can't explain something in another way, then you don't know what you are actually speaking about".

I think she wins the debate with this one. Veggies with meat is the way to go!

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy


Just in case anyone tries spouting the teeth rubbish again.

Yes, I know this is a website easily found by google, but it comes to the same conclusion I did after studying human evolution for 3 years at university.

So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.

Yup. He is the one claiming the study is flawed. His reason: common sense. If you truly buy that as a legitimate criticism, then you didn't learn much from your statistics course.

Stats can be skewed to favor what you want it to.

Life is to be lived!

Absolutely. By animals as well as by us. That is my entire philosophy.