Freethought & Rationalism Archive

droolian · 04-27-2002, 12:13 AM

Quote:

SmashingIdols: I was a prominent vegetarian/vegan for 14 years, and :

This is the Internet. You really should say things like that unless you can back it up. You said in another thread that you put out one-sided info when you were a vegetarian. If this is true, show a list of the work you and your associates produced.

Quote:

SmashingIdols: 7. From first hand experience - veganism is fanatical and lends itself well to neurosis. Perhaps it is the strict diet control, and the eventual feeling of some vast "meat conspiracy," but it is inevitable that it will divide you from family and friends (perhaps with you believing they are bad for eating animals), and drive you into association only with people having this commonality. I personally feel that is unbalanced and unhealthy. I know for a fact that several prominent national vegetarians/vegans are devoutly religious about a vegetarian Jesus, and the true teachings of the Bible. I think the diet has some impact here as well, in the mental health arena that is.

Are you saying atheist should pretend to believe in God and go to church for their family? If this is true then being an atheist has certainly isolated you from your fellow man. The only people I lost as a group of friends, acquaintances from school anyway, were people that were cruel to animals. They watched hunting videos in slow motion and would say things like, man did you see that froth come out of that deer’s lungs?”

One of them had told me how another friend of his had let a dog that had grown too old to hunt starve to death. I was really shocked by this, but I imagine it goes on a lot. We’ve all heard that expression about sending a horse too old to work to the glue factory. I couldn’t believe anyone could let man’s best friend die, and that the other guy would continue being friends with someone who would. He simply said, “he’s a friend, what can I do?” He went on to say, “I’d respect him more if he would’ve just shot the dog.” I couldn’t believe that. But that’s how greyhounds and other dogs are done all the time in the USA.

I would not have continued my association with them anymore even if I wouldn’t have went vegetarian. Before all that stuff, when I did tell one I was thinking of becoming a vegetarian he said, “you’ll be queer next.” I haven’t lost any real friends and my parents and family still loves me. But you say you lost all your friends when you became a vegan. Now you’re saying that vegans are often fanatics that believe Jesus was a vegetarian. Do you think the ADA would sing the praises of a vegetarian diet if it weren’t healthy? Or were they part of your group that sent out info?
<a href="http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html" target="_blank">http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html</a>

Quote:

ADA: Scientific data suggest positive relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced risk for several chronic degenerative diseases and conditions, including obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer. Vegetarian diets, like all diets, need to be planned appropriately to be nutritionally adequate.

Quote:

SmashingIdols: I know for a fact that several prominent national vegetarians/vegans are devoutly religious about a vegetarian Jesus, and the true teachings of the Bible.

Many meat eaters are religious too, so watch out

Were you in one of these groups too? Could you please list a site on this and show us these great vegetarians of importance? Don’t you feel it’s unsound and grasping for you to try to assign a religious system to the rest of us? A lot of atheist are vegetarian too. You think that’s proof that you should stop being an atheist?

Quote:

SmashingIdols: I could go on for hours, but honestly - eat what you will for the best reasons you have. Here is a short compiled list of reference material that I put on line to help Dr. Jagon Mahon find us an herbivore primate - something that will assist his assertation that man is really an herbivore.

I feel like a tool talking about if man is a natural meat eater, because it really doesn’t matter----man does eat meat. I think we are cultural carnivores though. I can’t run into a field and catch and animal. Even if I could my mouth isn’t large enough to do much. My teeth aren’t sharp enough either and, and of course, the claw thing. Still man learned to make weapons and kill. True or natural carnivores come equipped.

True carnivores produce a level of hydrochloric acid that can dissolve raw bone and flesh. Carnivores don’t sweat through pores. There’s a huge list of differences, but it doesn’t matter. Man eats meat. Are animal products good for him though?

Quote:

Science Daily: Toronto, March 20, 2001 - A team of researchers led by Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) senior scientist Michael Dosch has determined that multiple sclerosis and type I (juvenile) diabetes mellitus are far more closely linked than previously thought, including the role cow milk protein plays as a risk factor in the development of both diseases for people who are genetically susceptible. This research is published in recent issues of The Journal of Immunology (April 1 and February 15, 2001).

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010322074643.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010322074643.htm</a>

Quote:

Science News: By monitoring babies in diabetes-prone families, the scientists find that infants getting formula that includes cows' milk are more likely later to develop the immune reactions associated with juvenile-onset, or type I, diabetes than are babies getting a substitute. The scientists reported the findings this week in San Diego at the 59th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

<a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/6_26_99/fob2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/6_26_99/fob2.htm</a>

Quote:

ADA: Vegetarians tend to have a lower incidence of hypertension than nonvegetarians (11). This effect appears to be independent of both body weight and sodium intake. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is much less likely to be a cause of death in vegetarians than nonvegetarians, perhaps because of their higher intake of complex carbohydrates and lower body mass index (12).
Incidence of lung and colorectal cancer is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (2,13). Reduced colorectal cancer risk is associated with increased consumption of fiber, vegetables, and fruit (14,15). The environment of the colon differs notably in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians in ways that could favorably affect colon cancer risk (16,17). Lower breast cancer rates have not been observed in Western vegetarians, but cross-cultural data indicate that breast cancer rates are lower in populations that consume plant-based diets (18). The lower estrogen levels in vegetarian women may be protective (19).
A well-planned vegetarian diet may be useful in the prevention and treatment of renal disease. Studies using human being and animal models suggest that some plant proteins may increase survival rates and decrease proteinuria, glomerular filtration rate, renal blood flow, and histologic renal damage compared with a nonvegetarian diet (20,21)

Quote:

SmashingIdols: 5. Habitat reduction worldwide show greater invasion/destruction by agriculture than livestock production. Vegetarian/vegan sources hate this fact, and avoid this topic like the plague.

Please site a source on this. Considering the amount of damage done by livestock, that seems impossible. If this is true isn’t it possible that the grain grown to feed livestock would have to be a huge factor?
And a lot of cattlemen was upset by John Robbins book Diet for a New America. He’s since written The Food Revolution. One figure that got them upset was the water it takes to make a pound of beef. It was around 5000 gallons or so as far as I recall. I wonder how upset they are with this figure being published.

Quote:

According to the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), one pound of ground lean beef has 1,197.5 calories and one pound of potatoes contains 288 calories. To get roughly the same number of calories from potatoes as you do from a pound of beef, you would need 4.5 pounds of potatoes. This means that 249 gallons of water are needed to produce 4.1 pounds of potatoes versus 12,009 gallons for a pound of beef — in order to produce the same number of calories. In other words: It takes nearly 50 times more water to produce a calorie from beef than it does from potatoes.

<a href="http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=2729&ArY=2001&ArM=6&ArD=11" target="_blank">http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=2729&ArY=2001&ArM=6&ArD=11</a>
<a href="http://lists.sierraclub.org/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A2=ind9909&L=ce-scnews-releases&F=&S=&P=1367" target="_blank">http://lists.sierraclub.org/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A2=ind9909&L=ce-scnews-releases&F=&S=&P=1367</a>
<a href="http://www.jhsph.edu/environment/CLF_Initiatives/Spira-IAParticles.html#Anchor-6296" target="_blank">http://www.jhsph.edu/environment/CLF_Initiatives/Spira-IAParticles.html#Anchor-6296</a>

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: droolian ]

MortalWombat · 04-27-2002, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Jagan Mohan:
I am a Ovo-Vegetarian for religious convictions that in turn are ethical in principle.

I do not eat meat of any sort that is obtained by Killing which involves pain.

So you would have no problem with eating meat if it didn't involve any pain to the animal?

SmashingIdols · 04-27-2002, 07:31 PM

Droolian,

You have provided way to much to answer to in a short time - therefore I will address very little of it now, and prepare a more thorough response for later.

Quick summarization:

My wife is a former president of VSC, and I a former chief editor of vegetarian living - in said offices we were intimately involved in every campaign launched by these organizations during our office. These included as well hosting people such as Howard Lyman and John Robbins, and community consciousness raising ventures, such as involvement with projects like a farm animal sanctuary, public speaking, and working with local schools towards developing more healthy diet guidelines.

Keith Akers is one such vegetarian, prominent on a national level, recent VSC president, that believes in a <a href="http://home.worldonline.dk/borkfelt/vaerker/jesus.html" target="_blank">vegetarian Jesus</a>. He has written a book on this very subject. Furthermore, the core of the VSC turned out to be comprised of said Christians - ultimately at odds with our atheism. That is one example, however it is from a prominent and rather small community (at its core). The VSC is the second largest vegetarian organization in the US.

The story of our separation from these organizaitons was long and painful - starting with our refusal to allow the dissemination of religious informations through our organization, then our desiring seek validation of the assertations of our groups, and finally ending with our outrage at the suggestions to abort our baby (we decided to have children, and during our pregnancy numerous senior office holding members recommended that we abort our child - being that population is widely recognized within these groups as the ultimate source of all such problems - the more moderate types merely expressed their disappointment with us - classic signs of an enlightenment cult, ie it is okay to have children before you joined, but not after - once you know the truth!). We left, even though we were still vegan (12 years of veganism). After our leaving, we slowly heard the paranoid stories of our desire to undo their organization - a blatant demonization - ultimately leading to the surmisal that we were atheistic zealots at odds with their christian motivations and therefore attempting to destroy their organizaiton. Sound like CULT to you?

Materials that we produced included news releases, pamphlets, billboards, bus signs, advertisements, the newsletters, special notices and leaflets accompanying lecturers (McDougall, Robbins, Lyman, etc.), etc.

To the subject matter itself:

Your information on carnivores is referring to highly specialized carnivore digestive systems. Homidae is pysiologically an omnivore - and shares traits with nearly every other omnivore existant. I would recommend reading the materials on primate guts, in the reference list above. In any case, comparing mans intestines to that of carnivores reveals only the level of specialization of the carnivore intestinal tract and digestive system. A comparison of mans intestines to that of omnivores reveals a striking similarity to other omnivores. Since the argument is not whether or not man is a carnivore, like a tiger or lion, but rather whether he is an omnivore, like pigs, why do you think the information supplied by vegetarian/vegan resources never draws this comparision?

The hunting analogy is poor:
Chimpanzees hunt and kill bush pigs with no tools whatsoever, nor do they cook their food. They merely rip the prey limb from limb, eating it raw. Primates routinely capture and eat insects, small mammals, bird eggs and fledglings, scavenge carcasses, etc. Furthermore the palentological evidence suggests man (and his ancestors) having a quantity of animal protiens in his diet for 2.5 million years. Once again, vegetarian activists disallow all such scientific observations and theories. Why?

Environmental issues end up being the most sound for advocating a reduction in meat consumption, however fall flat when demanding a total elimination - something that would create even further food shortages.

What else? Maybe we should go through a debate touching upon one subject at a time. I would enjoy such a debate if it were devoid of hostility.

As I stated, I posses a great deal of knowledge on this subject from both sides of the fence. My vegetarianism lasted for a bit over 14 years - longer than most, with involvement with numerous vegetarian, vegan, and animal rights organizations.

I think that reducing meat consumption from its current US levels would realize benefits on many levels: health, environment, and economy.

Reduction is far different than elimination.

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]

SmashingIdols · 04-27-2002, 07:44 PM

Quote:

One figure that got them upset was the water it takes to make a pound of beef. It was around 5000 gallons

First off, before we address whether or not the current methods of meat production/processing are the only way, and somehow strongly linked to a moral argument against allmeat consumption -

Back up the numbers above. Show a reference to something other than a vegetarian advocacy book making reference to some selfsame book or study. Check your references, then post. To the best of my knowledge, all such assertations go back to 1 man (from UM) who arrived at this information through a deductive process - but never tested or verified it.

Challenge A:

Give me an original verifiable source of the figures above - linked to a study or survey of actual water consumption.

The only actual study I am aware of was funded (unfortunately) by the ACA, and was closer to 450 gallons. Not to say that this was not biased information as well. It was performed by a University right here in Colorado, with some peer review. Nonetheless, we would have expected even a biased panel to come up with a figure closer to the other - a full magnitude of difference here.

Challenge B:

Show me the nutrional equivalent of the pound of beef - it is not the pound of potatoes - and do it matching or beating the caloric intake of the beef. In other words, I do not want to eat 75 pounds of potatoes to achieve the same nutritional value of one pound of meat...

If you achieve this with dairy products, fair enough - but then again, what about the water consumption for dairy cows? Most of the water for cattle is supposedly used in their drinking it. Try doing it without animal products.

I am not attempting to upset people with these assertations, just merely trying to get to the bottom of "the vegetarian informational gap."

I am convinced that extreme vegetarianism/veganism is very cult-like in its distribution and interpretation of information, indoctrination of members, and ultimately its attitude social morality and its role in defining it.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]

droolian · 04-27-2002, 10:58 PM

Let me say a few things first. You say that, “I think the diet has some impact here as well, in the mental health arena that is.” Of course you know that this is the way children that can’t win an argument end one----“you’re crazy.” You begin yours that way.

Quote:

SmashingIdols: The hunting analogy is poor:
Chimpanzees hunt and kill bush pigs with no tools whatsoever, nor do they cook their
food. They merely rip the prey limb from limb, eating it raw. Primates routinely capture
and eat insects, small mammals, bird eggs and fledglings, scavenge carcasses, etc.
Furthermore the palentological evidence suggests man (and his ancestors) having a
quantity of animal protiens in his diet for 2.5 million years. Once again, vegetarian
activists disallow all such scientific observations and theories. Why?

Chimpanzees can leap from tree to tree and grab monkeys from under the forest canopy. I can’t. Chimps have large canine teeth. Although chimps are our closest relative, we are very different. Jane Goodall says chimps eat around 1.5 percent meat. That’s nothing compared to what man consumes. She also witnessed them practicing cannibalism. Again these arguments don’t really matter, because man does eat meat. It is the cause of many of our health problems though. Besides the minuscule amount of meat they eat is nothing. If the human ate that little meat he’d be healthier.

Quote:

ADA: Incidence of lung and colorectal cancer is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (2,13). Reduced colorectal cancer risk is associated with increased consumption of fiber, vegetables, and fruit (14,15). The environment of the colon differs notably in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians in ways that could favorably affect colon cancer risk (16,17). Lower breast cancer rates have not been observed in Western vegetarians, but cross-cultural data indicate that breast cancer rates are lower in populations that consume plant-based diets (18). The lower estrogen levels in vegetarian women may be protective(19).

Quote:

SmashingIdols: My wife is a former president of VSC, and I a former chief editor of vegetarian living – in said offices we were intimately involved in every campaign launched by these organizations during our office. These included as well hosting people such as Howard Lyman and John Robbins, and involvement with such projects as a farm animal sanctuary.

That still means nothing on the Internet. There’s no proof. Droolian: “I was once a prominent meat eater, therefore I know everything.” See what I mean? I can’t find anything on vegetarian living. I looked up the site VSC and that looks like 7 people work there. You come to the conclusion that all vegetarians are just like these people? Does that seem reasonable to you? How do we know you’re not just slandering these people?

Quote:

SmashingIdols : Back up the numbers above. Show a reference to something other than a vegetarian advocacy book making reference to some selfsame book or study. Check your references, then post.

Challenge A: Give me an original verifiable source of the figures above. If you can.

Here’s where the figure came from per John Robbins site:

Quote:

The figure of 2,500 gallons was given by the renowned scientist Dr. Georg Borgstrom at the 1981 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in a presentation titled "Impacts On Demand For And Quality Of Land And Water." He was then head of the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University in Lansing, Michigan. Dr. Borgstrom has since passed away (his widow Greta has returned to their native Sweden), but his outstanding books (including The Food And People Dilemma, The Hungry Planet, Too Many, etc.) are still available through used book searches.

And more: Furthermore, it is not only Dr. Borgstrom that has come to similar conclusions. In their landmark book Population, Resources, Environment, Stanford Professors Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich stated that the amount of water used to produce one pound of meat ranges from 2,500 to as much as 6,000 gallons.

<a href="http://www.earthsave.org/rebuttal3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.earthsave.org/rebuttal3.htm</a>

With the type of scrutiny Robbins endures, I would believe his sources. Sorry, I goofed and said it was 5000, but I have read that one too. One of the sources sited by Robbins said it could be as high as 6,000. Funny that you’d ask it to be from a non-vegetarian source when I’ve yet to see any source other than beyond veg that says anything anti-veg. Many vegetarian resource groups seem to use John Robbins data. He comes across with humility in that article to me. Many sources have said it was similar if not more water taken to make a pound of beef.

And of course you did see this one, and that’s why I thought the cattlemen would really be upset. It’s not from a vegetarian source.

Quote:

According to the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), one pound of ground lean beef has 1,197.5 calories and one pound of potatoes contains 288 calories. To get roughly the same number of calories from potatoes as you do from a pound of beef, you would need 4.5 pounds of potatoes. This means that 249 gallons of water are needed to produce 4.1 pounds of potatoes versus 12,009 gallons for a pound of beef — in order to produce the same number of calories. In other words: It takes nearly 50 times more water to produce a calorie from beef than it does from potatoes.

<a href="http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=2729&ArY=2001&ArM=6&ArD=11" target="_blank">http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=2729&ArY=2001&ArM=6&ArD=11</a>

Not a vegetarian source

Quote:

Cornell University: Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed.
Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
"More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans," Pimentel said. "Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future."

<a href="http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html" target="_blank">http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html</a>

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: droolian ]

SmashingIdols · 04-27-2002, 11:11 PM

Hey, you are quick! Didnt know you were online.

Okay:

A. forget about my experiences with the groups disqualify them, because I will not post personal information here. No problem.

B. The information from John Robbins site is misleading. While the aforementioned Dr. stated these figures, he never actually attempted to verify any of them - they were arrived at purely through deduction. That is not a scientific inquiry. The other sources appear genuine however, so I will have to check them out! Always happy to get new information, how about you?

There is a substantive difference between calories of carbohydrate versus calories protien. You know that right?

Potatoes are not a complete diet.

SmashingIdols · 04-27-2002, 11:14 PM

Droolian,

Rather than threadjacking here, why don't we open a new thread, and treat each issue one at a time?

Game? <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000158" target="_blank">Go here!</a>

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]

droolian · 04-28-2002, 11:30 AM

SmashingIdols:B. The information from John Robbins site is misleading. While the aforementioned Dr. stated these figures, he never actually attempted to verify any of them - they were arrived at purely through deduction. That is not a scientific inquiry. The other sources appear genuine however, so I will have to check them out! Always happy to get new information, how about you?

You’ll say anything want you. The doctor did verify it and as noted from non-vegetarian sites the figure has been recorded as much higher. You say things like “misleading” without saying why.

You irresponsibly attack some group from Colorado that isn’t even here to defend themselves. What dirt you have on John Robbins? He a Christian too? Check out the USDA figure above. John Robbins or the weirdo group of vegetarians you dismiss didn’t have anything to do with that figure.

I hate taking a mocking tone with anyone---I really do, but you’re not really saying or proving anything, but instead dismissing vegetarians as weirdoes. I know you didn’t say this but it sounds like, “All vegetarians must be like this hypothetical group I can’t prove I encountered. They wanted my wife to abort her baby. They are a cult.” You’d have made a great Saint Paul. From one extreme to another you go.

It’s incredibly irresponsible to do all that on the internet. When preaching to the converted this tactic works well---attack the people rather than the message.

Potatoes are not a complete diet.
Neither is beef.

SmashingIdols · 04-28-2002, 04:24 PM

Wow, I am astonished at the hostility of your reply. Didn't mean to shake your tree so hard, honestly. I just don't like the preaching, brings out the tree-shaker in me. People can and should make their own dietary decisions. Speaking of preaching, who is preaching to who? I am not the one advocating the elimination of animal products. And I fully support the reduction of animal product consumption by Americans. That is a really moderate view.

Who is misleading who? The figures for meat production range anywhere from Pimentel's 400 gallons per pound of chicken, to 6000 gallons depending on who you talk about for beef. CSU says 440 for beef. Nevermind the literature responding to all of this from fisherman's groups stating that fish require either all the water in the world, or none, depending on how you look at it

What is also misleading, is that it states it as if it is a government recorded statistic - it is always quoted in close association with USDA or US Agriculture department information, as you did above. The source of that information is not the US Government - they have and advertise no such figure. In my mind, the combination of not having a real study based figure, and its being used in conjunction with official statistics (that have nothing to do with the actual water consumption) are misleading , no matter how successful or often repeated.

I think it is sad that you feel you must just attack me as some jerk rather than address my statements one at a time.

I agreed to drop any reference to my past experiences, or who I am (although after your search on Earthsave and attacks on John Robbins credibility it appears you have already formulated some guesses) as invalid and unprovable. The statement about Keith Akers above can stand - it is documented above in his own words, and in his book. All else must be taken pro facia.

Why don't you just debate this with me on the other thread, one point at a time?

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]

SmashingIdols · 04-28-2002, 04:54 PM

Actually Droolian,

The more I read your responses to the information I gave from the begining the more laughable your statements about me become.

First you totally ignored 6 of the best reasons that I gave, but focused on just two.

Then, concerning one of the reasons about neurosis and my first hand experience - you implied I had no information as such. Once I supplied it (and I still say it is true, however I cannot prove my knowledge, but Akers book says as much in any case) you then said that on the internet there is no way to confirm anybody's identity. So I agreed to forget about any past experience, all info is pro facia. I invited you to open a thread with me to the end of debating the actual subject matter itself.

Now you twist it to say that I came on this thread and immediately started attacking some poor group of vegetarians in colorado. I still haven't attacked them. I just cannot prove my identity on this or any other forum, (as you indicated to me above) and therefore can give no credibility to the statements. A good point which was taken, and my statements were modified appropriately.

Learn how to read. At the minimum stand by what you say, request, and recommend.

But do not distort this into a crediblity attack against me rather than addressing the issues I raised.

That is your tactic, not mine. And what is laughable is that you accused me of this.

04-27-2002, 07:31 PM	#13
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Droolian, You have provided way to much to answer to in a short time - therefore I will address very little of it now, and prepare a more thorough response for later. Quick summarization: My wife is a former president of VSC, and I a former chief editor of vegetarian living - in said offices we were intimately involved in every campaign launched by these organizations during our office. These included as well hosting people such as Howard Lyman and John Robbins, and community consciousness raising ventures, such as involvement with projects like a farm animal sanctuary, public speaking, and working with local schools towards developing more healthy diet guidelines. Keith Akers is one such vegetarian, prominent on a national level, recent VSC president, that believes in a <a href="http://home.worldonline.dk/borkfelt/vaerker/jesus.html" target="_blank">vegetarian Jesus</a>. He has written a book on this very subject. Furthermore, the core of the VSC turned out to be comprised of said Christians - ultimately at odds with our atheism. That is one example, however it is from a prominent and rather small community (at its core). The VSC is the second largest vegetarian organization in the US. The story of our separation from these organizaitons was long and painful - starting with our refusal to allow the dissemination of religious informations through our organization, then our desiring seek validation of the assertations of our groups, and finally ending with our outrage at the suggestions to abort our baby (we decided to have children, and during our pregnancy numerous senior office holding members recommended that we abort our child - being that population is widely recognized within these groups as the ultimate source of all such problems - the more moderate types merely expressed their disappointment with us - classic signs of an enlightenment cult, ie it is okay to have children before you joined, but not after - once you know the truth!). We left, even though we were still vegan (12 years of veganism). After our leaving, we slowly heard the paranoid stories of our desire to undo their organization - a blatant demonization - ultimately leading to the surmisal that we were atheistic zealots at odds with their christian motivations and therefore attempting to destroy their organizaiton. Sound like CULT to you? Materials that we produced included news releases, pamphlets, billboards, bus signs, advertisements, the newsletters, special notices and leaflets accompanying lecturers (McDougall, Robbins, Lyman, etc.), etc. To the subject matter itself: Your information on carnivores is referring to highly specialized carnivore digestive systems. Homidae is pysiologically an omnivore - and shares traits with nearly every other omnivore existant. I would recommend reading the materials on primate guts, in the reference list above. In any case, comparing mans intestines to that of carnivores reveals only the level of specialization of the carnivore intestinal tract and digestive system. A comparison of mans intestines to that of omnivores reveals a striking similarity to other omnivores. Since the argument is not whether or not man is a carnivore, like a tiger or lion, but rather whether he is an omnivore, like pigs, why do you think the information supplied by vegetarian/vegan resources never draws this comparision? The hunting analogy is poor: Chimpanzees hunt and kill bush pigs with no tools whatsoever, nor do they cook their food. They merely rip the prey limb from limb, eating it raw. Primates routinely capture and eat insects, small mammals, bird eggs and fledglings, scavenge carcasses, etc. Furthermore the palentological evidence suggests man (and his ancestors) having a quantity of animal protiens in his diet for 2.5 million years. Once again, vegetarian activists disallow all such scientific observations and theories. Why? Environmental issues end up being the most sound for advocating a reduction in meat consumption, however fall flat when demanding a total elimination - something that would create even further food shortages. What else? Maybe we should go through a debate touching upon one subject at a time. I would enjoy such a debate if it were devoid of hostility. As I stated, I posses a great deal of knowledge on this subject from both sides of the fence. My vegetarianism lasted for a bit over 14 years - longer than most, with involvement with numerous vegetarian, vegan, and animal rights organizations. I think that reducing meat consumption from its current US levels would realize benefits on many levels: health, environment, and economy. Reduction is far different than elimination. [ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

04-27-2002, 11:14 PM	#17
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Droolian, Rather than threadjacking here, why don't we open a new thread, and treat each issue one at a time? Game? <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000158" target="_blank">Go here!</a> [ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

04-28-2002, 04:24 PM	#19
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Wow, I am astonished at the hostility of your reply. Didn't mean to shake your tree so hard, honestly. I just don't like the preaching, brings out the tree-shaker in me. People can and should make their own dietary decisions. Speaking of preaching, who is preaching to who? I am not the one advocating the elimination of animal products. And I fully support the reduction of animal product consumption by Americans. That is a really moderate view. Who is misleading who? The figures for meat production range anywhere from Pimentel's 400 gallons per pound of chicken, to 6000 gallons depending on who you talk about for beef. CSU says 440 for beef. Nevermind the literature responding to all of this from fisherman's groups stating that fish require either all the water in the world, or none, depending on how you look at it What is also misleading, is that it states it as if it is a government recorded statistic - it is always quoted in close association with USDA or US Agriculture department information, as you did above. The source of that information is not the US Government - they have and advertise no such figure. In my mind, the combination of not having a real study based figure, and its being used in conjunction with official statistics (that have nothing to do with the actual water consumption) are misleading , no matter how successful or often repeated. I think it is sad that you feel you must just attack me as some jerk rather than address my statements one at a time. I agreed to drop any reference to my past experiences, or who I am (although after your search on Earthsave and attacks on John Robbins credibility it appears you have already formulated some guesses) as invalid and unprovable. The statement about Keith Akers above can stand - it is documented above in his own words, and in his book. All else must be taken pro facia. Why don't you just debate this with me on the other thread, one point at a time? [ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-27-2002, 11:11 PM	#16
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Hey, you are quick! Didnt know you were online. Okay: A. forget about my experiences with the groups disqualify them, because I will not post personal information here. No problem. B. The information from John Robbins site is misleading. While the aforementioned Dr. stated these figures, he never actually attempted to verify any of them - they were arrived at purely through deduction. That is not a scientific inquiry. The other sources appear genuine however, so I will have to check them out! Always happy to get new information, how about you? There is a substantive difference between calories of carbohydrate versus calories protien. You know that right? Potatoes are not a complete diet.

04-28-2002, 11:30 AM	#18
droolian Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: US Posts: 33	SmashingIdols:B. The information from John Robbins site is misleading. While the aforementioned Dr. stated these figures, he never actually attempted to verify any of them - they were arrived at purely through deduction. That is not a scientific inquiry. The other sources appear genuine however, so I will have to check them out! Always happy to get new information, how about you? You’ll say anything want you. The doctor did verify it and as noted from non-vegetarian sites the figure has been recorded as much higher. You say things like “misleading” without saying why. You irresponsibly attack some group from Colorado that isn’t even here to defend themselves. What dirt you have on John Robbins? He a Christian too? Check out the USDA figure above. John Robbins or the weirdo group of vegetarians you dismiss didn’t have anything to do with that figure. I hate taking a mocking tone with anyone---I really do, but you’re not really saying or proving anything, but instead dismissing vegetarians as weirdoes. I know you didn’t say this but it sounds like, “All vegetarians must be like this hypothetical group I can’t prove I encountered. They wanted my wife to abort her baby. They are a cult.” You’d have made a great Saint Paul. From one extreme to another you go. It’s incredibly irresponsible to do all that on the internet. When preaching to the converted this tactic works well---attack the people rather than the message. Potatoes are not a complete diet. Neither is beef.

04-28-2002, 04:54 PM	#20
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Actually Droolian, The more I read your responses to the information I gave from the begining the more laughable your statements about me become. First you totally ignored 6 of the best reasons that I gave, but focused on just two. Then, concerning one of the reasons about neurosis and my first hand experience - you implied I had no information as such. Once I supplied it (and I still say it is true, however I cannot prove my knowledge, but Akers book says as much in any case) you then said that on the internet there is no way to confirm anybody's identity. So I agreed to forget about any past experience, all info is pro facia. I invited you to open a thread with me to the end of debating the actual subject matter itself. Now you twist it to say that I came on this thread and immediately started attacking some poor group of vegetarians in colorado. I still haven't attacked them. I just cannot prove my identity on this or any other forum, (as you indicated to me above) and therefore can give no credibility to the statements. A good point which was taken, and my statements were modified appropriately. Learn how to read. At the minimum stand by what you say, request, and recommend. But do not distort this into a crediblity attack against me rather than addressing the issues I raised. That is your tactic, not mine. And what is laughable is that you accused me of this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.