SmashingIdols

To answer the orignal poster of this thread, it would appear that we concurr on meat and potatoes. While a diet could not consist of either individually, it goes a long way on both.



Add some carrots, onions, kale or spinach, a loaf of whole wheat bread and call it a meal.

Shabbychick - I would not recommend eating this every night - a diet too high in animal products could be detrimental to your health. Be moderate, eat balanced (with an emphasis on eating lower in the food chain complemented with a small amount of animal protiens) and bon apetit!

droolian

SmashingIdols: 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.

It took you three posts to respond to one, yet you say my cage is rattled? I don’t like talking to people that way, but it is irresponsible to attack a person or group when they can’t defend themselves. Still not one shred of evidence on anything said.

SmashingIdols: 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.

You know the figure Robbins provides, and the source, is accurate. He acknowledges it’s higher in some places and lower in others. Again, you repeatedly say charged things like “prove it” and staring you in the face is the lowest of figures which is John Robbins 2500 gallons per pound of beef.

<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>

SmashingIdols

No, you are wrong, and are not interested in looking at the only study ever done; right here at CSU the study and verification showed as low as 440 gallons per pound.

Robbins' original source never verified his figures – just because a scientist said it does not make him infallible – he arrived at the figure through deductive reasoning.

Huge discrepancy.

I even stated I know the University Colorado study was funded by the ACA, but why such a large discrepancy? Has the meat conspiracy gone so far as to subvert university research in a state with one of the highest health rates in the US? Thank you however for the other information, as I told you I am seeking knowledge, and have now ordered Pimentel’s book Ecological Integrity (I have the library copy in hand).

Furthermore, my other complaint with his figure you have proven - repeatedly: the deliberate manipulation of information. Every time it is presented or linked to or quoted, it is always in conjunction with US Department of Agriculture information. Earthsave informational structuring. Wow.

However misleading this is to your audience, the USDA is in no way related to the figure on water consumption. The USDA never printed that information, it was compiled by John Robbins, and conveniently pasted together in a way which makes it appear very official.

In other words, Droolian, the source of the figure on water consumption is not from the USDA as one is led to believe looking at the quote.

I have pointed this out before...

You still have addressed none of my other points on the environmental issues of world-wide vegetarianism, the problems of current food distribution to the world’s hungry, man’s natural (and historical) omnivorous nature (and the blatant lie of comparing omnivorous digestive systems to those of predators and then stating they are clearly herbivores). Yada yada yada…

SmashingIdols

By the way droolian, up above you accused me of having not shred of evidence, blah blah blah.

Didn't you follow the link I provided to Keith Akers feelings about a vegetarian Jesus, and his commitment to bringing this information to the world? <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930051263/qid=1020119557/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/103-9594052-6143011" target="_blank">Book Here</a>.

FYI - The VSC is the 2nd largest vegetarian group in the US, with over 750 members (all time high was over a thousand when a certain somebody who cannot prove identity was in office). Keith Akers is the founder of the VSC, and the longest term president, the author of <a href="http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0J4NKFBMWA&mscssid=EE53VUGC FV2F8KWF4LMDL9QUEN7F1K10&isbn=0945528000" target="_blank">A Vegetarian Sourcebook</a>, and the very mentor of the group itself.

What else could possibly remain to prove? That people were upset by our breeding? Is it so hard to believe that vegans would be upset by people breeding? Why did you return to this again?

You have attacked my crediblity since I opened my mouth on this thread, in the midst of your preaching.

Sorry for ranting but the accusation of slander really gets my goat, so to speak. It is unfair and unwarranted under the circumstances.

I cannot prove my identity (you pointed this out) you cannot disprove it, so let's just call it "My story of a personal experience," and move on.

droolian

SmashingIdols: You have attacked my crediblity since I opened my mouth on this thread, in the midst of your preaching.

No, you attacked the credibility of people who aren’t here to defend themselves. The only reason I got rude with you at all is due to irresponsible Internet behavior. Only someone socially retarded would think it’s fine to attack one group based on their experience with a few. And really, to sneakily insinuate that the VSC is a cult? Hideous.

SmashingIdols: Didn't you follow the link I provided to Keith Akers feelings about a vegetarian Jesus, and his commitment to bringing this information to the world? Book Here.

And how does this prove you know him? On the net, it’s gossip.

I’ve never heard of Keith Akers. Jerry Fawell believes in Jesus and eats meat, so? Does that really have any thing to do with other meat eaters? Is that a reflection on any other meat eater in the world? I can’t see how. It’s the way someone without a real point argues.

And about the preaching: I answered the first question at the top of this thread to the best of my abilities. I haven’t begun a single thread here. May I post my opinion?

SmashingIdols: Sorry for ranting but the accusation of slander really gets my goat, so to speak. It is unfair and unwarranted under the circumstances.

To say a group of vegetarians, and you implied that it was VSC, a group I’ve honestly never heard of, but I can see is real, would have encouraged your wife to abort her baby and that they are cult-like is indeed slanderous.

Frankly, I don’t believe you at all, but anything is possible. In one breath you say they believe in a Jesus that is vegetarian, but also want your wife to abort. I’ve never heard of a pro-abortion group of Christians, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

SmashingIdols: I even stated I know the University Colorado study was funded by the ACA, but why such a large discrepancy? Has the meat conspiracy gone so far as to subvert university research in a state with one of the highest health rates in the US?

You believe that Dr. Georg Borgstrom, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University in Lansing, Michigan “arrived at the figure through deductive reasoning?” You said, “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…”

Thoughtful people would notice a behavioral pattern existing in their own life with this. Now you say, “However misleading this is to your audience, the USDA is in no way related to the figure on water consumption. The USDA never printed that information, it was compiled by John Robbins, and conveniently pasted together in a way which makes it appear very official.
In other words, Droolian, the source of the figure on water consumption is not from the USDA as one is led to believe looking at the quote.“

So you think John Robbins and Earthsave control the media?

How about these people that get a close proximation of the figure by Dr. Borgstrom: 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.

How about these people: Herb Schulbach (Soil and Water Specialist, University of California Agricultural Extension), along with livestock farm advisors Tom Aldrich, Richard E. Johnson, and Ken Mueller, published extensive research on water use in California agriculture in the journal Soil and Water (no. 38, fall 1978). They concluded that the average pound of beef produced in California required 5,214 gallons of water.

More than 2500 gallons.

Maverick

Droolian and SmashingIdols,

Can we tone it down a notch? I know you two strongly disagree, but let's try to keep it civil.

Maverick - MF&P Moderator

SmashingIdols

Droolian,

You cannot say I slandered a group because of what I have said. Why don't you just call them on the phone? Sheesh... get a life. Apparently it was the abortion statement that got to you...wow. It happened. It was not an official action of the group - it was just the general consensus of some long-time vegan members. They did not try in any way to get us to do it - they only thought we should. What 's the big deal about that? Also, being a personal experience with a vegetarian group, why is it improper for me to talk about it? To me it was one of the smaller parts of my statement – the main being we frequently worked with information that we felt was a bit one-sided.

If I had said something similar about Scientologists would you have jumped my case about it? Probably not... however, my saying "This is what happened to me and my wife with vegetarians..." really offends you. What is funny is that now your behavior smacks of cultism, trying to silence dissatisfied ex-vegetarians. WOW. You are doing very little other than enforcing the view I presented, that vegetarian groups are cultist in nature. Why not just change the tactic?

It's true. It's what happened. The only thing I cannot prove is that we are the people that it actually happened to. If you call them they will just tell you who those people are (ex-president and ex-chief editor of VL couple) - and probably apologize and explain that they are a non-sectarian group, and are ultimately not responsible for the actions of SOME individuals. They might even tell you that they were really afraid this couple was trying to undermine their group to build an Earthsave chapter (paranoia), but they never did. Big deal. At the very least they will tell you where the next potluck is (well worth attending)!

Ultimately I could never prove we are them on the internet, but so what? It's no big deal.

We can’t prove we know Kieth Akers either, but by being a published author and well known in the vegetarian community, we don’t have to! His books say it all. It is no different than you discussing the position of John Robbins on subject matter that he has published. Once again, what exactly is the gripe? Keith’s books and papers say it all. Heck invite him to come to infidels.org, and explain it to everybody. He probably would.

I personally think you do not like the idea of someone being as long-term vegan as myself, walking away from it and endorsing a balanced diet. So, the only thing you can do is deny the existence of such a person by attacking their credibility.

Droolian here is a credibility test for you:

A. How do we know you are not a brain in a jar connected to the internet?
B. How do we know you are not 12 years old, and subsist entirely on hamburgers?
C. How do we know that you are not just trying to make vegetarianism look silly and self-defensive?
D. How do we know that you are not John Robbins, trying to defend the informational structuring strategies of Earthsave?
E. How does anybody know anything on the damn internet?

In fact Droolian, you could just be a tool... I certainly feel like one when I talk about all this to you.

So, as I stated earlier on, why don't we just forget about this, move over to the other thread, and have a simple discussion about our positions, each presenting whatever facts we feel are relevant?

I would even welcome a formal debate. The ball is in your court.

Now, let's just have a BIG HUG and move on, okay?

droolian

Sorry Maverick. I feel icky being a little rude. I have no problems with someone not agreeing with me. I don’t mind that he basically said vegetarians are mental, which is assuming too much. I even find that funny. However, this is one of the few times I’ve seen anyone name dropping to add to his or her credibility while giving sensationalized stories about them.

What SmashingIdols originally said, “ 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…”

What SmashingIdols says now,”…afraid this couple was trying to undermine their group to build an Earthsave chapter (paranoia), but they never did. Big deal. At the very least they will tell you where the next potluck is (well worth attending)!

Attempting to destroy and organization is a bit different from starting an Earthsave chapter. To exaggerate so comes across provincial.

SmashingIdols: Now, let's just have a BIG HUG and move on, okay?

BIG HUG

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: droolian ]</p>

Pensee

I don't eat any animal meat, whether it's red meat or seafood. I try to stay away from eggs. I will eat things that are made with eggs, but I don't just eat eggs. At this time, I do drink milk. In the future, I'd like to change that.............

SmashingIdols

Both statements are completely true Droolian, and as you have pointed out I cannot prove them. They will gladly admit to one (that is after all the somewhat official story) - the other one would be a little embarassing, even though my wife and I are sure it is closer to the truth. All we can do is move on to evidence pro facia.

!!!!!!BIG HUG RETURNED!!!!!

BTW - The water issue is very interesting, and I wish we could continue discussing it - I am certainly game, and it has caused me to do some rethinking about beef (yet again).

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>