EPTNo one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat.
Specie-cism and veganism - Page 10
| Blogs > Tony Campolo |
|
lone_hydra
Canada1460 Posts
No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 14 2011 00:40 lone_hydra wrote: I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching. No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat. Why is everyone so insistent in claiming all vegans feel superior and are saying meat is unhealthy? You're basically saying that vegans are only vegan because they want to feel superior, is that what you mean? | ||
|
lone_hydra
Canada1460 Posts
On February 14 2011 00:44 Saechiis wrote: Why is everyone so insistent in claiming all vegans feel superior and are saying meat is unhealthy? You're basically saying that vegans are only vegan because they want to feel superior, is that what you mean? You like feeling morally superior by trying to make me look like a tool by putting insults I did not speak in my mouth vegan? It's everyone against you vegans isn't it? You guys are like, what, the last stand? See I can do it too. I mentioned the word vegan one time in my entire paragraph. What I clearly meant was I am annoyed by vegans who feel superior of it because of that choice and criticize people for eating meat. The main point for everything I said there was meat is fine, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 14 2011 01:08 lone_hydra wrote: You like feeling morally superior by trying to make me look like a tool by putting insults I did not speak in my mouth vegan? "is that what you mean?" is a question. Your behaviour is needlessly agressive. I'm just wondering why everyone keep saying that I'm just playing morally superior when I never implied I am. It seems like people are automatically offended when I mention that I'm a vegan, why is that? User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
lone_hydra
Canada1460 Posts
On February 14 2011 01:14 Saechiis wrote: "is that what you mean?" is a question. Your behaviour is needlessly agressive. I'm just wondering why everyone keep saying that I'm just playing morally superior when I never implied I am. It seems like people are automatically offended when I mention that I'm a vegan, why is that? First, your "is that what you mean?", is basically a question to reinforce your statement similar to "you feeling lucky, punk?" or "are you serious?" Don't try to trick me with, "chill man, its just a question". And once again, you somehow turn everything to yourself and how everyone, when it was just me you were responding to, hates you because you eat vegetables. No sir, YOU, not vegans, annoyed me because you somehow tried to take a few words from my mouth out of context to make me into a vegan hater and you the victim of some random injustice you made up. User was warned for this post | ||
|
agarangu
Chile274 Posts
On February 14 2011 01:14 Saechiis wrote: "is that what you mean?" is a question. Your behaviour is agressive and unprovoked. Dude, forget about it. You still have not made any good argument and have failed to prove us wrong. You are just not making any sense. I've tried to be as objective and non-offensive as I could in this thread, so I'm surprised at the claim that all I do is insult people. And saying that I run away when I lose an argument is just completely unfounded. I'm still here replying aren't I? I think I've even made the most responses in this thread, so if you're still thinking that I'm running away from the argument I'd like to hear a good reason why that is so. You keep posting, but instead of continuing with the discussion of an argument you change the topic, change the focus of attention or make a "witty" comment. Here are some things you could have attempted to refute, instead of making a funny but unsubstantial post. 1. If killing an animal to eat it is wrong, killing a plant to eat it is also wrong. 2. Killing a human being is different from killing an animal. 2.1. Making an analogy between racism and specie-cism is impossible. 2.2.If you have to choose between killing a human and killing an animal, choosing to preserve the life of a human makes a lot more sense. 2.2.1 If you can kill an animal to preserve the life of a human you should. 3. Eating plants only in never as healthy as having an omnivore diet, and is usually bad for your health. Those are just some statements. The arguments that support them have been posted in this thread, and have not yet been answered with an argument. I will not repost them all in quote tags, I'm not that annoying. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On February 13 2011 19:36 Tony Campolo wrote: Why all the 'let's say' presumptions though? Because that was the whole purpose of sharing the experiences of a dairy cow. + Show Spoiler + Undoubtedly there are differences, since humans and animals are not the same in all respects. Granted, these animals do not have all the desires we humans have; granted, they do not comprehend everything we humans comprehend; nevertheless, we and they do have some of the same desires and do comprehend some of the same things. The desires for food and water, shelter and companionship, freedom of movement and avoidance of pain? These desires are shared by nonhuman animals and human beings. As for comprehension: like humans, many nonhuman animals understand the world in which they live and move. Otherwise, they could not survive. So beneath the many differences, there is sameness. I was just trying to suggest that your argument for veganism rests on a lot of assumptions that not everyone necessarily shares. I don't share them, at least. I eat meat, and I think eating meat is morally right. I don't think it's a suspect practice at all. But I do not, for instance, justify my eating beef by thinking that cows do not feel pain or that they are always treated humanely or that they exhibit no form of consciousness. Factors like the capacity for suffering and the capacity for thought are not moral factors for me. So I was wondering if you could elaborate your philosophy a little bit more, and perhaps suggest why I should alter my dietary philosophy around those sorts of factors. I think your reasoning from those principles is sound, but I see no reason to start with those principles in the first place. Does what I'm getting at make sense? | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + The benefits of red meat... Zinc Children and teenagers, particularly girls, have been found to be deficient in zinc - half of all girls in their teens do not have healthy levels of the mineral. Some research has shown that having red meat less than twice a week can result in zinc deficiencies. Zinc is particularly important for healthy skin and a healthy immune system. During the winter months in particular a good supply may help prevent colds and other infections. While other foods such as oysters, milk and lentils contain zinc, red meat is the most efficient way of getting it into your body. Iron Red meat is an essential source of iron - lean beef has 2.7mg of iron per 100g - and is vital to good health, as well as preventing conditions such as anaemia. Up to a quarter of menstruating women are thought to be deficient in iron. Meat contains more iron than most foods, and it is more easily utilised by the body than from vegetable sources. Elderly people, pregnant women, children and those recovering from surgery could all benefit from increased iron intake. Iron helps to generate red blood cells, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues and carbon dioxide back to the lungs. Red meat is also a good source of other vitamins and minerals such as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and selenium. Protein Red meat is a major source of protein, which is needed for muscle and organ health. The protein found in meat is "complete", meaning that it contains all the amino acids that the body cannot make on its own. It is essential for the body's repair and renewal as well as general health. Weight loss Australian scientists have found that people who ate a diet high in protein, based on lean red meat, as well as fruit and vegetables, lost 25 per cent more weight over a fixed period of time than those who ate a low protein, carbohydrate-rich diet that contained the same amount of calories and fat. The scientists concluded that some people might be more successful in losing weight on a high-protein diet because they felt less hungry and could go without food for longer. Those on the high-protein diet also saw levels of their "bad" cholesterol drop. B vitamins Red meat is one of the best sources for these vitamins, which are found only in animal foods, and which help to maintain nerve cells and normal blood formation. It's natural This is a controversial argument, but some experts have said that humans are in fact natural meat-eaters - and that to totally eliminate such a big food-group from our diets could be unhealthy. There is a theory that our guts contain bacteria that help us to digest meat, and that not to eat meat could mean that the bacteria are lying idle, so making it easier for diseases to flourish. Pork, lamb and beef: what's in your meat Cancer-causing, artery-clogging and brain-damaging? Or a rich source of essential vitamins and minerals that we can't do without? The debate over red meat and its impact on health continues to rage, and it hit the headlines again last week when a study suggested that a high intake could double a woman's chances of developing breast cancer. So what is the truth about red meat? In essence, it all comes down to the type of red meat you are talking about - and how you are eating it. * The three official red meats are pork, lamb and beef. Pork is the leanest, lamb the fattiest and beef the most nutritious. * Beef has 2.7mg of iron per 100g, and 4.1mg of zinc. A large proportion of the population, particularly teenage girls and women, are deficient in both minerals. * Pork and lamb also contain zinc and iron, but not in the same quantities. * Red meat is high in saturated fats and "bad" cholesterol, which can lead to clogged arteries and heart disease. * But lean beef is actually fairly healthy; it will provide you with essential vitamins and minerals, but it will not have a high fat content. * The British Dietetic Association says that up to 90g of lean red meat a day (equivalent to a portion of bolognese) is acceptable. * But the Food Standards Agency (FSA) points out that different cuts of meat will have very different nutritional contents. A lean pork leg joint will contain around 5.5g of fat per 100g, of which 1.9g will be saturated fat; compare that with a grilled joint of pork belly, which has 23.4g of fat, of which 8.2g will be saturated. * A lean rump steak, grilled, has 5.9g of fat per 100g, of which 2.5g is saturated. But the same cut of beef, not trimmed of its fat, and fried instead of grilled has 12.7g of fat, of which 4.9g is saturated. The fat content of mince will vary widely, so the advice is always to look at the label and go for the leanest versions. The FSA recommends that you also look at the meat itself; the more white you can see, the more fat it will contain. * Some of the concerns that exist about red meat in America do not apply here; for instance, the US still allows animals to be fed growth hormones (a potential risk factor in cancer), but the practice has been outlawed by the European Union for some years now. The things to avoid are processed meats - these will contain far more additives and fat than a simple cut of beef, pork or lamb. * And, while red meat can have real health benefits, it is important that the food is treated simply as one part of an overall balanced diet. For example, it is a poor source of fibre, which aids digestion; other foods are required to provide that. ...and the risks Bowel cancer A pan-European study of nutrition and cancer found that people who ate more than two 80g portions of red meat a week were 30 per cent more likely to develop bowel cancer than those who ate less than one portion. Scientists are still unsure why there is an increased risk, but there is a theory that the compounds haemoglobin and myoglobin, found in red meat, trigger a process called nitrosation in the gut which in turn leads to the formation of cancer-causing compounds. Processed meats such as sausages may also be risky because the cooking process can create carcinogenic compounds called heterocyclic amines. Alzheimer's disease Research has shown that a Mediterranean diet - low in red meat but rich in plant foods and fish - can reduce the chances of developing Alzheimer's by up to two-thirds. Again, there is no firm theory on this. Researchers University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) suggested last month that red meat could be linked to a build-up of iron in the brain, causing the opposite effect of antioxidants; in effect, the brain rusts. The researchers suggest it may also explain why more men develop Alzheimer's, as men eat more red meat than women. Bones Too much red meat can have an adverse effect on bone health. The digestive process of protein leaves acid residues in the body that need to be neutralised with alkalising minerals - and these may be taken from the bones, leading to a higher risk of osteoporosis and other conditions. While green, leafy vegetables are high in calcium, red meat has a low level and can cause excess acid to form, creating bone problems for the future. Arthritis Eating red meat every day could double your risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Scientists believe that collagen, found in red meat, may trigger an immune system response, which may also affect the joints. Additives contained in processed meats may also play a part in the increased rate of the disease. Cholesterol Red meat is one of the first foods that doctors advise patients to stop eating if they are at risk of heart disease, because it contains high levels of dietary cholesterol. A build-up of cholesterol in the arteries can eventually stop blood flow and trigger heart attacks. However, it depends on the type of meat you are eating; lean red meat is relatively healthy - it is the fatty chops and burgers that are more risky. Red meat is also high in saturated fat, which has been linked to a range of cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure. Food poisoning The Food Standards Agency has launched an investigation into the safety of red meat after research suggested that beef, lamb and pork are the cause of one in six outbreaks of food poisoning. Experts are to test samples to find out the amount of bacteria in them, although the problems are more likely to be linked to poor hygiene in the home than to standards at abattoirs. Breast cancer A study from the Harvard Medical School last week suggested that eating more than 100g of red meat a day could double the risk of a woman developing breast cancer. The risk was associated with young women who had not yet gone through the menopause. Experts said the increased risk may be down to the cancer-causing compounds created by cooking meat, or by excess iron levels. However, the study was among women in the US, where animals are given growth hormones that are banned in the EU; British experts say that women here may not be at such risk. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html Despite all the health risks and benefits - I am willing to bet that many of those arguing that they are eating meat because their body require it for the nutritional value - will be ones that don't eat healthily anyway even if they are on a meat diet (e.g. consuming from fast food joints such as McDonalds). Secondly, in terms of suggesting why one should alter their dietary philosophy around factors such as the capacity of suffering - well obviously you wouldn't hurt a dog if it was unnecessary. It would be sadistic to attack and kill a dog - in fact, if you found a dog on the street and slit its throat, you'd be put in jail for animal cruelty. Yet we do this to livestock animals daily. This is why in the OP I made the argument that we need to show empathy. If not, then it is similar to people being unable to show empathy to black slaves in the past, because they were of a 'different' appearance. And it was only in this last century that we have been able to get our heads around this. The attitudes humans have towards animals today is the same attitude humans had with regards to racism, or the same attitude many fundamentalist Muslims have towards women (e.g. the recent case of a 14 year old girl being stoned to death for adultery, despite the fact that she was raped by a man who was married). Yet they have the same feelings of pain as us. For those arguing that an animal is different from a human - their physical appearance is, but if you slit an animal's throat, it feels the same feeling a human feels when a human has their throat slit. To clarify: What I'm saying is, it's not necessary to kill a dog. It is also unnecessary to kill a cow. There's a wealth of nutritional information out there for vegans. People in this thread keep claiming vegans are unhealthy - I am a perfect example of a healthy vegan, so are many of my vegan friends in the animal rights community. For every unhealthy vegan you point out, I can point out an unhealthy meat eater. So what? The point is if we don't need to kill a cow, and can save it from having its throat slit (because we don't need to eat meat), just as we wouldn't go out and kill a dog (because we don't need to eat a dog), then on an ethical level we ought to. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 14 2011 00:40 lone_hydra wrote: I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching. No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat. If you care to open your mind a bit then take the time to read this article regarding our evolution. + Show Spoiler + The truth is our so-called "canine teeth" are canine in name only. Humans' "canine teeth" are unlike the canine teeth of actual canines, which are really long and really pointed. Our teeth are absolutely not like theirs. In fact, other vegetarian animals (like gorillas, horses, hippos, and chimpanzees) possess the same so-called "canine" teeth, which are often used for defensive purposes rather than for eating. Check out the chimpanzee picture at right, and consider that chimps' diets are up to 99% vegetarian (and what litle non-vegetarian food they eat usually isn't meat, it's termites). And remember that we're most similar to chimps than to any other animal. John A. McDougall, M.D., has a good take on this: Our dentition evolved for processing starches, fruits, and vegetables, not tearing and masticating flesh. Our oft-cited "canine" teeth are not at all comparable to the sharp teeth of true carnivores. I lecture to over 10,000 dentists, dental hygienists, and oral specialists every year, and I always ask them to show me the “canine” teeth in a person’s mouth – those that resemble a cat’s or dog’s teeth – I am still waiting to be shown the first example of a sharply pointed canine tooth. If you have any doubt of the truth of this observation then go look in the mirror right now – you may have learned to call your 4 corner front teeth, “canine teeth” – but in no way do they resemble the sharp, jagged, blades of a true carnivore – your corner teeth are short, blunted, and flat on top (or slightly rounded at most). Nor do they ever function in the manner of true canine teeth. Have you ever observed someone purposely favoring these teeth while tearing off a piece of steak or chewing it? Nor have I. The lower jaw of a meat-eating animal has very little side-to-side motion – it is fixed to open and close, which adds strength and stability to its powerful bite. Like other plant-eating animals our jaw can move forwards and backwards, and side-to-side, as well as open and close, for biting off pieces of plant matter, and then grinding them into smaller pieces with our flat molars. http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html Secondly, your tone is hardly helpful to this conversation. It says a lot about how easily offended you are. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nUiul.jpg) | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4198 Posts
On February 14 2011 05:57 Tony Campolo wrote: Despite all the health risks and benefits - I am willing to bet that many of those arguing that they are eating meat because their body require it for the nutritional value - will be ones that don't eat healthily anyway even if they are on a meat diet (e.g. consuming from fast food joints such as McDonalds). While you may be right that many people who argue pro-meat are the type who eat excessive amounts of fast food, I know that I am not one of them. It is rare for me to eat that type of food more than 2 times per week. And usually it is only once. In fact, I eat red meats only about 2 times a week, and when I do eat it, I make sure its lean. I eat a lot of tuna/salmon/other fish and eggs though. Secondly, in terms of suggesting why one should alter their dietary philosophy around factors such as the capacity of suffering - well obviously you wouldn't hurt a dog if it was unnecessary. It would be sadistic to attack and kill a dog - in fact, if you found a dog on the street and slit its throat, you'd be put in jail for animal cruelty. Yet we do this to livestock animals daily. This is why in the OP I made the argument that we need to show empathy. If not, then it is similar to people being unable to show empathy to black slaves in the past, because they were of a 'different' appearance. And it was only in this last century that we have been able to get our heads around this. The attitudes humans have towards animals today is the same attitude humans had with regards to racism, or the same attitude many fundamentalist Muslims have towards women (e.g. the recent case of a 14 year old girl being stoned to death for adultery, despite the fact that she was raped by a man who was married). Yet they have the same feelings of pain as us. For those arguing that an animal is different from a human - their physical appearance is, but if you slit an animal's throat, it feels the same feeling a human feels when a human has their throat slit. Taken further - what about any "pests" out there? Would you rather we invite rats and termites into our homes? How about leaving pots of water around for mosquitoes to breed in? Maybe you should leave an extra plate of your next dessert out in the open for a colony of ants..... I'm sure you've drawn a line at where it becomes acceptable to kill other living, breathing creatures. Where you draw the line is different than where I draw it. That's all. So, why exactly do you feel the need to compare eating meat with racism, sexism, etc? Overall, our views on killing other creatures are probably very similar, they simply differ in one aspect..... To clarify: What I'm saying is, it's not necessary to kill a dog. It is also unnecessary to kill a cow. There's a wealth of nutritional information out there for vegans. People in this thread keep claiming vegans are unhealthy - I am a perfect example of a healthy vegan, so are many of my vegan friends in the animal rights community. For every unhealthy vegan you point out, I can point out an unhealthy meat eater. So what? The point is if we don't need to kill a cow, and can save it from having its throat slit (because we don't need to eat meat), just as we wouldn't go out and kill a dog (because we don't need to eat a dog), then on an ethical level we ought to. How is it unnecessary? A lot of people benefit from the nutrition it provides..... You may be a perfectly healthy vegan as an example, but what works for you will not work for everyone..... While a lot of people should be eating healthier than they currently do, that is a completely different topic than going completely vegan or vegetarian..... EDIT - and, the graph - lol. You can make just about any statistical information show your point to be 100% correct if you leave out certain pieces of information, such as the fact that humans have incisors, the stomach acid is not as good as most other herbovores, and that our intestinal tract, while longer than carnivores, is still shorter than most herbovores..... There are some pretty distinct differences in other parts of our physiology, such as the distance between our eyes..... So that chart is doing a little bit of misrepresenting..... | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On February 14 2011 05:57 Tony Campolo wrote: Regarding health: + Show Spoiler + The benefits of red meat... Zinc Children and teenagers, particularly girls, have been found to be deficient in zinc - half of all girls in their teens do not have healthy levels of the mineral. Some research has shown that having red meat less than twice a week can result in zinc deficiencies. Zinc is particularly important for healthy skin and a healthy immune system. During the winter months in particular a good supply may help prevent colds and other infections. While other foods such as oysters, milk and lentils contain zinc, red meat is the most efficient way of getting it into your body. Iron Red meat is an essential source of iron - lean beef has 2.7mg of iron per 100g - and is vital to good health, as well as preventing conditions such as anaemia. Up to a quarter of menstruating women are thought to be deficient in iron. Meat contains more iron than most foods, and it is more easily utilised by the body than from vegetable sources. Elderly people, pregnant women, children and those recovering from surgery could all benefit from increased iron intake. Iron helps to generate red blood cells, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues and carbon dioxide back to the lungs. Red meat is also a good source of other vitamins and minerals such as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and selenium. Protein Red meat is a major source of protein, which is needed for muscle and organ health. The protein found in meat is "complete", meaning that it contains all the amino acids that the body cannot make on its own. It is essential for the body's repair and renewal as well as general health. Weight loss Australian scientists have found that people who ate a diet high in protein, based on lean red meat, as well as fruit and vegetables, lost 25 per cent more weight over a fixed period of time than those who ate a low protein, carbohydrate-rich diet that contained the same amount of calories and fat. The scientists concluded that some people might be more successful in losing weight on a high-protein diet because they felt less hungry and could go without food for longer. Those on the high-protein diet also saw levels of their "bad" cholesterol drop. B vitamins Red meat is one of the best sources for these vitamins, which are found only in animal foods, and which help to maintain nerve cells and normal blood formation. It's natural This is a controversial argument, but some experts have said that humans are in fact natural meat-eaters - and that to totally eliminate such a big food-group from our diets could be unhealthy. There is a theory that our guts contain bacteria that help us to digest meat, and that not to eat meat could mean that the bacteria are lying idle, so making it easier for diseases to flourish. Pork, lamb and beef: what's in your meat Cancer-causing, artery-clogging and brain-damaging? Or a rich source of essential vitamins and minerals that we can't do without? The debate over red meat and its impact on health continues to rage, and it hit the headlines again last week when a study suggested that a high intake could double a woman's chances of developing breast cancer. So what is the truth about red meat? In essence, it all comes down to the type of red meat you are talking about - and how you are eating it. * The three official red meats are pork, lamb and beef. Pork is the leanest, lamb the fattiest and beef the most nutritious. * Beef has 2.7mg of iron per 100g, and 4.1mg of zinc. A large proportion of the population, particularly teenage girls and women, are deficient in both minerals. * Pork and lamb also contain zinc and iron, but not in the same quantities. * Red meat is high in saturated fats and "bad" cholesterol, which can lead to clogged arteries and heart disease. * But lean beef is actually fairly healthy; it will provide you with essential vitamins and minerals, but it will not have a high fat content. * The British Dietetic Association says that up to 90g of lean red meat a day (equivalent to a portion of bolognese) is acceptable. * But the Food Standards Agency (FSA) points out that different cuts of meat will have very different nutritional contents. A lean pork leg joint will contain around 5.5g of fat per 100g, of which 1.9g will be saturated fat; compare that with a grilled joint of pork belly, which has 23.4g of fat, of which 8.2g will be saturated. * A lean rump steak, grilled, has 5.9g of fat per 100g, of which 2.5g is saturated. But the same cut of beef, not trimmed of its fat, and fried instead of grilled has 12.7g of fat, of which 4.9g is saturated. The fat content of mince will vary widely, so the advice is always to look at the label and go for the leanest versions. The FSA recommends that you also look at the meat itself; the more white you can see, the more fat it will contain. * Some of the concerns that exist about red meat in America do not apply here; for instance, the US still allows animals to be fed growth hormones (a potential risk factor in cancer), but the practice has been outlawed by the European Union for some years now. The things to avoid are processed meats - these will contain far more additives and fat than a simple cut of beef, pork or lamb. * And, while red meat can have real health benefits, it is important that the food is treated simply as one part of an overall balanced diet. For example, it is a poor source of fibre, which aids digestion; other foods are required to provide that. ...and the risks Bowel cancer A pan-European study of nutrition and cancer found that people who ate more than two 80g portions of red meat a week were 30 per cent more likely to develop bowel cancer than those who ate less than one portion. Scientists are still unsure why there is an increased risk, but there is a theory that the compounds haemoglobin and myoglobin, found in red meat, trigger a process called nitrosation in the gut which in turn leads to the formation of cancer-causing compounds. Processed meats such as sausages may also be risky because the cooking process can create carcinogenic compounds called heterocyclic amines. Alzheimer's disease Research has shown that a Mediterranean diet - low in red meat but rich in plant foods and fish - can reduce the chances of developing Alzheimer's by up to two-thirds. Again, there is no firm theory on this. Researchers University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) suggested last month that red meat could be linked to a build-up of iron in the brain, causing the opposite effect of antioxidants; in effect, the brain rusts. The researchers suggest it may also explain why more men develop Alzheimer's, as men eat more red meat than women. Bones Too much red meat can have an adverse effect on bone health. The digestive process of protein leaves acid residues in the body that need to be neutralised with alkalising minerals - and these may be taken from the bones, leading to a higher risk of osteoporosis and other conditions. While green, leafy vegetables are high in calcium, red meat has a low level and can cause excess acid to form, creating bone problems for the future. Arthritis Eating red meat every day could double your risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Scientists believe that collagen, found in red meat, may trigger an immune system response, which may also affect the joints. Additives contained in processed meats may also play a part in the increased rate of the disease. Cholesterol Red meat is one of the first foods that doctors advise patients to stop eating if they are at risk of heart disease, because it contains high levels of dietary cholesterol. A build-up of cholesterol in the arteries can eventually stop blood flow and trigger heart attacks. However, it depends on the type of meat you are eating; lean red meat is relatively healthy - it is the fatty chops and burgers that are more risky. Red meat is also high in saturated fat, which has been linked to a range of cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure. Food poisoning The Food Standards Agency has launched an investigation into the safety of red meat after research suggested that beef, lamb and pork are the cause of one in six outbreaks of food poisoning. Experts are to test samples to find out the amount of bacteria in them, although the problems are more likely to be linked to poor hygiene in the home than to standards at abattoirs. Breast cancer A study from the Harvard Medical School last week suggested that eating more than 100g of red meat a day could double the risk of a woman developing breast cancer. The risk was associated with young women who had not yet gone through the menopause. Experts said the increased risk may be down to the cancer-causing compounds created by cooking meat, or by excess iron levels. However, the study was among women in the US, where animals are given growth hormones that are banned in the EU; British experts say that women here may not be at such risk. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html Despite all the health risks and benefits - I am willing to bet that many of those arguing that they are eating meat because their body require it for the nutritional value - will be ones that don't eat healthily anyway even if they are on a meat diet (e.g. consuming from fast food joints such as McDonalds). Secondly, in terms of suggesting why one should alter their dietary philosophy around factors such as the capacity of suffering - well obviously you wouldn't hurt a dog if it was unnecessary. It would be sadistic to attack and kill a dog - in fact, if you found a dog on the street and slit its throat, you'd be put in jail for animal cruelty. Yet we do this to livestock animals daily. This is why in the OP I made the argument that we need to show empathy. If not, then it is similar to people being unable to show empathy to black slaves in the past, because they were of a 'different' appearance. And it was only in this last century that we have been able to get our heads around this. The attitudes humans have towards animals today is the same attitude humans had with regards to racism, or the same attitude many fundamentalist Muslims have towards women (e.g. the recent case of a 14 year old girl being stoned to death for adultery, despite the fact that she was raped by a man who was married). Yet they have the same feelings of pain as us. For those arguing that an animal is different from a human - their physical appearance is, but if you slit an animal's throat, it feels the same feeling a human feels when a human has their throat slit. To clarify: What I'm saying is, it's not necessary to kill a dog. It is also unnecessary to kill a cow. There's a wealth of nutritional information out there for vegans. People in this thread keep claiming vegans are unhealthy - I am a perfect example of a healthy vegan, so are many of my vegan friends in the animal rights community. For every unhealthy vegan you point out, I can point out an unhealthy meat eater. So what? The point is if we don't need to kill a cow, and can save it from having its throat slit (because we don't need to eat meat), just as we wouldn't go out and kill a dog (because we don't need to eat a dog), then on an ethical level we ought to. You've never heard me claim that vegans are unhealthy. But I did try to make it clear that I want to discuss whether or not it is morally wrong to eat animals. And I also tried to make it clear that I think health issues are completely irrelevant to questions of morality. If I hadn't made it clear enough before, I hope I have now. Now onto the "you wouldn't kill a dog" question. First of all, I most certainly would kill a dog if I needed and/or wanted to eat it. I have no problem with killing dogs in the abstract any more than I have a problem with killing cows in the abstract. If I were in a country where dogs were on the menu, I can tell you right now I wouldn't avoid those menu items. Furthermore, if I were to live and work in one of those countries, and, if I were to work in a slaughterhouse in one of those countries, I would slit a dogs throat. I don't find that morally suspect at all so I don't find the assertion that I "wouldn't kill a dog" very persuasive at all. I would. I would kill Fido and Poochy and Scrappy Doo if it were in the normal course of my life to do so. No question. So the next item to deal with is your argument that we should avoid causing "unnecessary" suffering. That's a loaded term if I have ever heard one. In practice, "avoiding causing unnecessary suffering" always boils down to "avoiding causing suffering to the exact same extent I do" I would have to agree with you on what unnecessary means before I ever agreed with you on whether or not I should let that word weigh in my moral calculus. And I guarantee you that you and I don't agree on what is or is not unnecessary. In fact, I think "unnecessary" is a meaningless term in moral contexts exactly because there is no such thing as a necessity. It is not necessary for me to wake up in the morning. It is not necessary for me to eat. It is not necessary for me to not starve myself to death. It is not necessary that I survive. It is not necessary that I don't steal, murder, rape. It's not necessary that I don't extort or blackmail or cheat. It's not necessary that I don't fling myself out of a window. That's what I think about necessity. What, in your view, makes something necessary? So let's move on to the final item, the old eating-meat-is-like-owning-slaves argument. I'll simply point out two things: 1. Understanding factory farming in those terms already assumes that I think animals are entitled to the same rights as a human. The only possible way that I could accept that argument is if I were on your side already. The only possible audience that you could preach that to would be the choir. As far as persuasion, it's a terrible strategy. It's offensive, alienating to your intended converts, and frankly ridiculous sounding to anyone who's not already a committed vegan. 2. The "animals are people too" argument has all sorts of fun and unintended consequences. A couple: We humans (back in the old days when we were all unenlightened and immoral) used to look down in interracial marriage. We thought that we should not enter into relationships with blacks simply because "they looked different than us" (your narrative, not mine). But now we realize that there should be love and intercourse and marriage between these two races! I ardently hope for a future when people realize that animals are just like us, and it would be a shame not to court, marry, and/or fuck them. Can they not feel pleasure just like us? Can they not enjoy affection? Are we being kind of close-minded about this? Also we can agree that we here in America gave the Africans a raw deal. Didn't we give the Native Americans an even worse one, though? What should we do about all the people that we displaced and killed in order to make our cities? Wasn't that a terrible injustice? Likewise think of all the wildlife that clearing the land for your house displaced and murdered. And you, of all people, you who thinks that we should treat the animals with the same consideration that we treat people, you're alright with living over the graves of the creatures that were killed so you would have a place to live. Your subdivision, your apartment complex, your city, whatever--it's America and all the little furries that had to die because of its founding are the Native Americans. So you can preach to me about freeing the slaves all you want, but you seem to be just fine with killing their brethren who just so happened to be less conveniently located. Let's talk about the morality of this doublethought. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
But regarding the point on what is necessary - you're right in that I am not perfect, that I have killed many insects and would not want a rat in my house. The thing is though I can go further by abstaining from eating meat - and if more people did then we wouldn't have slaughterhouses and factory farms. And I have the feeling that it would be entirely possible for you to go further to by refraining from eating meat too. The comparison is appropriate because the animals feel the same pain we do, and we can prevent it. It's kind of like the thread in General at the moment - a picture is worth a thousand words. We can go out and buy the next CD of our favourite musician. Or we could donate that money to sponsoring a child, for the same cost each month. I am not perfect in this either as I sometimes buy CDs, but I do try to do a bit more - for example, I try to sponsor one new child on top of my current sponsorships per year (as well as donating to other causes). It's entirely possible for someone to do that. Likewise you have mentioned that it's not possible for everyone to go vegan - allowances can be made for the small percentage of people who cannot live on a vegan diet - but for the majority of us it is a perfectly reasonable lifestyle change. I can do it and suffer no negative health effects (I am a fit runner and practice karate), so can many others. Do you think you could? Because by doing so you're one more person who can make the decision to refuse to support the cruel meat industry. That is the whole purpose of the OP. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
As far as persuasion, it's a terrible strategy. It's offensive, alienating to your intended converts, and frankly ridiculous sounding to anyone who's not already a committed vegan. Well that's where you're wrong. I was once a meat-eater like you up until I was 17. I heard the exact same arguments, that it would be unhealthy, that animals don't know any better - from my parents and friends. But I saw the horrific cruelties being carried out on animals and decided it would be unethical to continue simply to gratify my own desire for the taste of flesh. When I look back now I realise that although my parents intended the best for me and that my friends simply weren't happy with me changing because they thought it was a challenge on their lifestyle, they weren't actually qualified to give such advice, and that there are nutritionists out there who can accommodate diets that don't involve animal products. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 14 2011 08:05 HULKAMANIA wrote: Also we can agree that we here in America gave the Africans a raw deal. Didn't we give the Native Americans an even worse one, though? What should we do about all the people that we displaced and killed in order to make our cities? Wasn't that a terrible injustice? Likewise think of all the wildlife that clearing the land for your house displaced and murdered. And you, of all people, you who thinks that we should treat the animals with the same consideration that we treat people, you're alright with living over the graves of the creatures that were killed so you would have a place to live. Your subdivision, your apartment complex, your city, whatever--it's America and all the little furries that had to die because of its founding are the Native Americans. So you can preach to me about freeing the slaves all you want, but you seem to be just fine with killing their brethren who just so happened to be less conveniently located. Let's talk about the morality of this doublethought. Yes it was, and yes it is - that is why we don't continue to engage in these injustices. We no longer steal land off people with guns because it is unethical. Likewise many creatures are exploited everyday - so why not at least do what we can, rather than continue on with it? Your logic is almost like saying well we carried out injustice on Indians so let's continue. Because you are saying we are committing injustices on animals, so let's just keep doing it. One step at a time. First, we can avoid eating them for food. This already takes out a large percentage of those that are killed everyday through painful methods. Then we can start addressing preserving the ecosystem and protecting animal conservation. | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
On February 14 2011 08:38 Tony Campolo wrote: Yes it was, and yes it is - that is why we don't continue to engage in these injustices. We no longer steal land off people with guns because it is unethical. Likewise many creatures are exploited everyday - so why not at least do what we can, rather than continue on with it? Your logic is almost like saying well we carried out injustice on Indians so let's continue. Because you are saying we are committing injustices on animals, so let's just keep doing it. One step at a time. First, we can avoid eating them for food. This already takes out a large percentage of those that are killed everyday through painful methods. Then we can start addressing preserving the ecosystem and protecting animal conservation. What about the fact that plants remember and seem to have some type of nervous system? Not to mention plants are invariably alive - at what point do you draw a line as to what constitutes an injustice? http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/study-unveils-plant-nervous-system-illuminating-how-plants-remember-and-react ed: and you entirely missed his point. His point is the same as the one I just made - you're drawing arbitrary lines in the sand based on your own opinions of what animals feel and saying "This line must not be crossed." And no one ever said that mistreatment of animals is fine. What's not fine is your proof is basically: Animals are mistreated, therefore don't eat meat. What we're saying is: Animals are mistreated, therefore don't eat meat from factory farms | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On February 14 2011 08:38 Tony Campolo wrote: Yes it was, and yes it is - that is why we don't continue to engage in these injustices. We no longer steal land off people with guns because it is unethical. This still happens. I'm still not convinced you've earned through logical argument the right to analogize human-to-human interaction with human-to-animal. The marked inconsistency with which we treat some animals as opposed to others is sound, if inconsistent and ethnocentric (like how Hinduism venerates the cow and still uses its milk; East Asian countries eat dogs for varying reasons), but ultimately what you're decrying is animal abuse in food manufacturing, a problem that is (however spuriously) dealt with by food manufacturers, and not necessarily the act of eating meat itself. i.e., if I shop logically and ethically, if I try to buy animal-derived products from purveyors who treat their animals with comparative nicety (assuming that you've proven that animals experience notions of the family with the same framework that humans do, which you have not), then what is the issue here? Your fetish for animals and conflation of them with human beings does little for your argument. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7879950 On February 14 2011 08:54 jon arbuckle wrote: i.e., if I shop logically and ethically, if I try to buy animal-derived products from purveyors who treat their animals with comparative nicety (assuming that you've proven that animals experience notions of the family with the same framework that humans do, which you have not), then what is the issue here? It's a step in the right direction, but you can still be doing more. It's like not buying one CD, and you can sponsor an extra child. So you can still not buy two CDs and sponsor two extra children. I'm just advocating that we do more than we currently are. Eating free range meat is better than eating factory farmed meat. But you could still do more. What's the harm to you in stopping eating meat and becoming a vegan? Not a lot. But the benefit to animals is quite significant - saving them from the slaughterhouse process. Most animal rights activists began with vegetarians because of the slaughterhouses. They then later find out about the factory farming processes too and its cruelty in addition to the slaughterhouse processes. And I agree I could be doing more too if I put the effort in - I do believe that I am already doing more than most people though by refraining as much as I already am by being a vegan. So hopefully you are shopping ethically already by boycotting the majority of meat out there (e.g. 99% of food outlets, all supermarket meat that is not labelled free-range) - in New Zealand 4% is free range. If you want to do more good you can also go the extra step to not eat meat and replace meat with foods that provide the same nutrients, e.g. nuts and beans. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
Occasionally, vegans encounter the claim that plants are sentient as a kind of objection to going vegan. The uninformed reasoning suggests that since ‘all life’ is sentient, it doesn’t matter what we eat. Vegans have three replies to this: 1) accept the premise that plants are sentient (no matter how offensive to common sense it is) and argue from there; 2) deny that plants are sentient; or 3) reply with both 1) and 2), as I intend to do here. First Reply: Plants Are Sentient; Therefore, Go Vegan Let’s put science and common sense on hold for a couple of minutes and assume for argument’s sake that plants are sentient. Not only that, but let’s take it all the way to absurdity and assume that plants are the most sentient life on Earth. Even if it’s true that plants are the most sentient life on Earth, veganism would still be the minimum standard of decency. This follows from the simple fact that animals are reverse protein factories, consuming multiple times the protein in plant food that they produce in protein from their flesh and bodily fluids. Cows consume from 9 to 13 times, and pigs 5 to 7 times, the protein they produce, depending on diet and confinement factors. Chickens consume 2 to 4 times the protein they produce, also depending on diet and confinement factors. So the more we’re concerned about the ‘sentience’ of plants, the less we want to contribute to the staggering inefficiencies of cycling plants through animals, and the more reason we have to go vegan to reduce both animal and plant ‘suffering’. Second Reply: Plants Aren’t Sentient; Therefore, Go Vegan Let’s now examine the idea that plants are sentient and see why people might believe, contrary to common sense, that plants are sentient, and where they might go wrong. Equivocation on Sentience To start with, let’s look at the meaning of the word sentience, because equivocation on the meaning of sentience is often a source of confusion. The definition of sentience in standard usage is an organism’s capacity to experience sensations and emotions. A non-standard definition of sentience, introduced by Robert A. Freitas Jr., and used in the so-called “sentience quotient” (SQ), is the relationship between the estimated information processing rate (measured in bits per second) of each individual processing unit, the weight or size of a single unit, and the total number of processing units. [1] When a claim is made that plants are ‘sentient’, it is helpful to ask in what sense the claim is being made. Under the SQ definition, plants are ‘sentient’ in that they have an (extremely low) SQ value, but this low SQ value says nothing about sentience under the standard definition. Consciousness sufficient to support experiential sentience almost certainly requires a sufficiently high SQ value in addition to other neuronal properties, neither of which, for example, do computers and plants possess. [2] Computers have an SQ value that is several orders of magnitude higher than all plants; and animals, including humans, have an SQ value that is up to several orders of magnitude higher than all computers. If computers can’t experience sensations and emotions, then it is almost certainly impossible that plants can, given plants’ extremely low SQ value and a non-neuronal information processing system. As such, it is unreasonable to believe that plants are sentient under the standard (non-SQ) definition. Plants Are Complex Another source of confusion regarding plants that leads some people to speculate that they are sentient is that plants are highly evolved and complex organisms that ‘react’ to their environment in surprising ways, especially in larger time scales than we perceive in everyday life. Some plants ‘react’ to insects by releasing deterrent or poisonous chemicals. Some plants release chemicals to deter other plants from growing near them. Some plants are either aggressive or passive in root development depending on whether or not they are around their own species. The Venus Flytrap catches and consumes insects when insects come in contact with tiny hairs that trigger the trap to close. The confusion arises when the assumption is made that such plant ‘behavior’ is caused by the plants “subjectively experiencing the world through sense data” rather than by insentient hormonal, electrical, mechanical, and chemical processes. The scientific principle of parsimony strongly suggests that we shouldn’t postulate a complex explanation for phenomena when a simpler explanation will suffice. When autonomic systems in mammals, such as the cardiovascular system, the immune system, and the reproductive system at the level of the ‘behavior’ of sperm in the presence of an egg appear to be reacting ‘subjectively, consciously and intentionally’ to perpetuate either themselves or their host organism, we don’t assume that these systems are sentient independently of their host organism and acting volitionally. We recognize that there are insentient hormonal, electrical, mechanical, and chemical processes that cause various ‘behaviors’ and events to take place. The development of these insentient processes can be explained by tens and hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection, where hundreds of billions of small, genetic mutations and combinations survived or failed to survive based on how adaptive they were. We should apply the principle of parsimony in our assessment of the causes of plant ‘behavior’ similarly. Sentience and Neurobiology Neuroscientists have positively confirmed the areas of our neurology (brain stem, limbic system, etc) that serve to provide sentience and complex emotion. All vertebrates and at least some non-vertebrate animals have these nervous system components, providing strong positive, empirical evidence that such beings are sentient, and that most of them have highly subjective, emotional lives. Plants do not have any of these neurological components. Back to Common Sense Organisms such as humans, dogs, chickens, pigs, cows, goats, and sheep look, behave, and move in ways that highly suggest sentience defined as the experience of sensation and emotion. Organisms such as plants look, behave, and stay still (unless the wind is blowing) in ways that highly suggest absolutely no sentience (again, defined as the experience of sensation and emotion). Absent an excellent reason to reject such strong appearances we ought to accept them. If there is any room for debate and legitimate questions on sentience, it is in the biological continuum between insects and bacteria. Insects such as spiders certainly behave and move in a manner that highly suggests at least some degree of experiential sentience. How much sentience comes in degrees, and how sentient certain organisms like spiders are, are difficult questions. But we know beyond any reasonable doubt that vertebrates are sentient; and we know with a very high degree of confidence that plants are not sentient. Conclusion As unconscious entities, plants have no subjective, conscious interest that would be morally relevant to whether we kill them for food or other sufficient reasons (e.g. removing/killing them to build a shelter). We should respect plants in the same sense in which we respect the beauty, complexity, and wonder of insentient nature and natural phenomena in general, which entails reducing our impact on them as much as is reasonable, and not destroying them gratuitously. Our moral obligations regarding plants, however, do not compare in kind to our direct moral obligations to vertebrates, whose sentience and conscious, intentional striving for life and survival is obvious to us. Given this eager striving for life and survival of sentient vertebrates, veganism is the minimum standard of decency. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On February 14 2011 09:08 Tony Campolo wrote: Regarding plants - I already dealt with this in this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7879950 It's a step in the right direction, but you can still be doing more. It's like not buying one CD, and you can sponsor an extra child. So you can still not buy two CDs and sponsor two extra children. I'm just advocating that we do more than we currently are. Eating free range meat is better than eating factory farmed meat. But you could still do more. What's the harm to you in stopping eating meat and becoming a vegan? Not a lot. But the benefit to animals is quite significant - saving them from the slaughterhouse process. Most animal rights activists began with vegetarians because of the slaughterhouses. They then later find out about the factory farming processes too and its cruelty in addition to the slaughterhouse processes. And I agree I could be doing more too if I put the effort in - I do believe that I am already doing more than most people though by refraining as much as I already am by being a vegan. So hopefully you are shopping ethically already by boycotting the majority of meat out there (e.g. 99% of food outlets, all supermarket meat that is not labelled free-range) - in New Zealand 4% is free range. If you want to do more good you can also go the extra step to not eat meat and replace meat with foods that provide the same nutrients, e.g. nuts and beans. Well, the harm in not eating meat and becoming vegetarian, let alone ditching butter or milk and becoming vegan, is that getting my complete protein fix becomes substantially more difficult than eating a chicken breast. Some meat and vegetables fulfills a larger range of dietary intake with minimal exertion, whereas playing with soy and lentils takes more time and energy. N.B. You cannot say that there's little harm in not eating meat and becoming a vegan and then backing up when the argument turns to nutrition. Maintaining a healthy diet as a vegan is more difficult than as a conscious omnivore; whether an omnivore is more liable to eat fast food is irrelevant here, because the attention to diet required as a vegan is nearly impossible for someone reliant on fast food for nourishment. Likewise, you don't seem to be listening to me: I do not think that buying CDs in place of donating that money to starving children is remotely comparable to buying meat that is processed "cruelly" as opposed to not eating meat. How meat is processed by one company does not apply for the whole concept of meat eating, and the economic and political conditions that lead to starving children are wide-ranging and not easily fixed, while the condition that leads human beings to eat meat are even less so, not even economic but instinctive. You're evangelizing without a solid ethical premise and making analogies that don't work. When people talk about vegan elitism, I think that's what they're talking about. | ||
| ||
