Veggies vs Meat

Options
13567…13

Replies

  • rrrbecca11
    rrrbecca11 Posts: 477
    Options
    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. :-)
  • Thomasm198
    Thomasm198 Posts: 3,189 Member
    Options

    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.
  • vitafabula
    vitafabula Posts: 6
    Options

    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.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    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?
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    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.
  • Fatbuster205
    Fatbuster205 Posts: 333 Member
    Options
    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!
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    Options

    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.

    For your information, some guy on the old thread (Nine... something or other) kept hounding the OP of that thread for peer-reviewed literature to back up a casual comment she made about meat-eating in relationship to cancer. So, this thread is an attempt to forward that discussion while leaving the other thread to its proper purpose.
  • MFPfriend
    MFPfriend Posts: 1,121 Member
    Options
    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.
  • MaximalLife
    MaximalLife Posts: 2,447 Member
    Options
    Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!
    You presuppose that eating from both food groups is mutually exclusive, and it is not.

    All foods are permissible but in moderation and proper proportion.
    And any science presented that comes close to validating the virtues of exclusive meatless food intake is offset by how fabulous meat tastes on the grill.

    Life is to be lived!
  • Thomasm198
    Thomasm198 Posts: 3,189 Member
    Options

    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".
  • savage22hp
    savage22hp Posts: 278 Member
    Options
    358317592_868aa124e5_z.jpg?zz=1






    YES!
  • RunningFortheGoal
    RunningFortheGoal Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    I think she wins the debate with this one. Veggies with meat is the way to go!
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    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.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    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.
  • tidmutt
    tidmutt Posts: 317
    Options
    Actually, the burden is not on me to disprove causation, I'm not the Ph.D who did the study and made the claims. He found the correlations, formed a hypothesis and should do everything he can to attempt to disprove it. I dare say he formed the hypothesis and then found the proof in his correlations...

    Indeed he did. And he disclosed his methodology in the journal article ( I believe Nature?) If you have a problem with his methodology, AND you are sophisticated enough, then why not state exactly what your problem is? Simply calling it a correlation with nothing further doesn't make it.

    I noticed you mentioned the Ph.D Biochemist. Many of the arguments I've seen for the China Study often include "he's a super scientist with a Ph.D and a squillion credentials". Seriously? That makes him no less subject to bias than any other human being, in fact, it might make him more susceptible.

    I have seen numerous bad studies by Ph.D.s,, but few if any in top journals like Nature.

    I can honestly say I do not have the level of knowledge to challenge his study directly. Who would listen anyway? I don't have a Ph.D. However, I do have a brain and I can think critically and I can read. It doesn't take a Ph.D to understand why relying on univariate correlations is a mistake. It's a complex universe, numerous variables interact in unexpected ways, we cannot know everything. This is why controlled studies are so much more powerful in that at least some variables can be controlled for.

    Although you can pick holes in some aspects of the study like food recall questionnaires there re is probably some very interesting data in there. It's the interpretation that is questionable.

    Edit: Removed a somewhat snippy comment. LOL
  • Scott613
    Scott613 Posts: 2,317 Member
    Options
    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.
  • manderson27
    manderson27 Posts: 3,510 Member
    Options
    I am an omnivore, so please feel free to bash me from both sides:bigsmile:

    Go a few days without any food at all and you won't care what it is as long as it kept you alive. I don't care how devoted a vegatarian you are you would be thankful for an unethically sourced rabbit and I dare say would even kill it and cook it yourself to ward of starvation.

    Being able to choose what we eat or don't eat is a luxury.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options

    Life is to be lived!




    Absolutely. By animals as well as by us. That is my entire philosophy.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options

    Being able to choose what we eat or don't eat is a luxury.


    Yes. Absolutely it is. But given that in the Western world we have that luxury, isn't it better to do less harm and not kill to satisfy our wants?
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    It doesn't take a Ph.D to understand why relying on univariate correlations is a mistake. It's a complex universe, numerous variables interact in unexpected ways, we cannot know everything. This is why controlled studies are so much more powerful in that at least some variables can be controlled for.

    Univariate correlations? The most frequent criticism of the Campbell study that I have seen was that he looked a too many variables, not too few.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories