Devilnaut

Val:
To assume that my comment implied that all animals wouldn't exist if we didn't breed them is silly at best.

You basically said that a Vegan will cause far more plant death by allowing however many cows they'd have normally eaten to continue to exist and consume plants, than they would by never eating any animals and only consuming plants themselves. This is false, because we breed animals for food, and a Vegan will cause less demand for that food, and hence those cows that a vegan would have normally eaten will not even begin to exist.

In response to me calling your analogy bad:

I wasn't calling your analogy bad because I disagreed with the argument it implied, I was calling it bad because it didn't imply any argument and was not similar to the situation in any way that I could see.

This isn't about "blame", it's about which option will cause more plant death: eating meat or not eaten meat. The answer is that eating meat will.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

tronvillain

Kip:
You are making the assumption that these benefits accumulate in a linear fashion, so that for a given number of calories, consuming meat will significantly cut into the benefits of consuming fruit and vegetables. It is not at all clear that this is the case. Besides which, there are countless non-meat foods which are high in calories, have little or no fibre, and do not contain phytochemicals. Again, you are assuming that vegetarianism entails a "healthy" diet.

I think that the significant causal factors in vegetarian health are consuming less calories and more fibre, and to a lesser degree saturated fats and cholesterol (I am not convinced there is a significant direct causal role there outside of calories). Why do I not think the vegetarian accomplishes these goals by means other than simply abstaining from meat? For the simple reason that it is trivially easy to eat a high-calorie low-fibre diet without consuming any meat whatsoever.

It appears to me to be an adequate explanation of much of the difference in health, though whether it explains the entire difference is another matter. The evidence is simply not compelling enough to justify me becoming a vegetarian for health reasons.

Yes, it is very simple math, which is precisely the problem. Cattle spend much of their lives grazing or being fed (in winter) hay or silage, which generally utilizes land which not otherwise be used for food production. Eventually they are of course shipped off to feedlots, where they consume the lower grades of various food crops. If there was no livestock market for those lower grades, would the human market (domestic or overseas) be able to take up the excess lower grades at the same price? That is, would the emination of that market actually result in an increased amount of food available to humans at a decreased price? It is not clear that it would. Increased demand for the higher grades combined with little demand for lower grades might actually drive up prices. As for water, it's water - it is a renewable resource. Would the water which would go unused if there was no cattle industry actually be taken up by other industries? Again, it is not clear that it would. The world is complex, not simple.

So, do you dislike foods that are greasy or fatty that are not of animal origin? If not, then references to "greasy hamburgers" and "outlined with white fat" seem somewhat dishonest. Anyway, considering animals rights, food production, and health benefits (none of which I seem to evaluate similarly), the pleasure and convienience I derive from meat and associated products justifies the deaths of animals. Remember that I understand your position, I simply do not share the subjective preferences which lead to it.

Feather

You're correct--I would not argue that choosing apple pie over cherry pie because one likes the taste of apple pie better is irrational. However, to claim that the apple pie eater is immoral because you like the taste of cherry pie is irrational. And that's what this whole argument boils down to: a vegan moralist values one form of life relative to another differently than a meat eater, and then calls the meat eater immoral. That's just irrational.

All this talk of pie has made me hungry.

Well, there's the rub. What has the definition a vegan moralist uses for "moral judgement" to do with the meat eater? Why is the vegan moralist's definition good to use and not the meat eater's? Asserting does not make it so (that's the irrational bit).

The point is that using a completely arbitrary, personal choice as the basis for judging the actions of another in a moral light is absurd.

My heart bleeds every moment you look down on me, truly.

Devilnaut

Feather:


This would seem (ultimately) to be the basis for all moral judgements. Are you suggesting that morals are only rational if they appeal to an objective standard?

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Feather

Sure. Another way to put it might be that I believe morals are so completely relative as to be ultimately useless concepts for the purpose to which they are usually put.

Kip

You are right, I have confusing "vegetarian" with "healthy vegetarian". Allow to withdraw any argument I have made towards vegetarianism itself and instead argue that a HEALTHY, vegetarian diet is optimum. Fat vegetarians do exist and can eat fast food all day long and I would not want to give the impression that simply avoiding meat is sufficient. So the question is no longer "is vegetarianism itself healthy?" but rather "is the best diet vegetarian or almost vegetarian?".

The answer is probably yes.

I agree with you about caloric restriction. CR is a very powerful mechanism that has yet to be absorbed by the public awareness. I also think, however, that the benefits of consuming more phytochemicals and antioxidants and fewer carcinogens are quite real. Studies have found that meat contains as much as three times the amount of pesticides and carcinogens as plant food (because these substances accumulate in the body of the animal that is higher on the food chain) and of course antioxidants and phytochemicals are much more abundant in plant food. The "better health" website (which is not vegetarian to my knowledge) lists these sources of antioxidants:

The list is dominated by plant food.

To quote the Better Health website again:

If my math was too simple, yours is so complex that seem to be hiding behind our lack of absolute certainty. You could be right about a lack of market demand. Millions of people are starving, but if these people have no money, there is no demand to produce food for them, whether or not there are resources to do so. However, there is also the possibility that the demand does exist, however, the Western demand for beef and chicken is simply greater. In this case, rich people want to eat expensive animals flesh so much that poor people cannot compete for dirt cheap food. If we removed the demand for beef and chicken, these people WOULD be fed more. Which situation is more similar to reality? I am not sure. So I remove my argument that vegetarianism would necessarily feed more starving people. That may be false. However, I maintain that vegetarianism would be preferrable because it allows that opportunity. If the market does not cooperate at least you are not contributing to the problem. The vegetarian's relationship with the land, animals, and poor would seem to be much healthier.

I can understand why you think the references to "greasy hamburgers" may be dishonest if I also dislike greasy french fries (often fried in fat with animal sources), which I do. But I am no longer arguing that vegetarianism itself is necessarily healthy because there are also many meatless foods that should also be excluded from a healthy diet (for example, cyanide). Rather, I am arguing that the best diet approaches vegetarianism and that vegetarianism facilitates (not necessitates) better health. So your argument:

1. You exclude meat for certains reasons.
2. You also exclude meatless foods for the SAME reasons.
3. THEREFORE vegetarianism itself is not necessarily healthy.

is quite right. But this does refute the slightly different claim:

1. You exclude meat for certains reasons.
2. You also exclude meatless foods for the SAME reasons.
3. THEREFORE an ideal diet is not necessarily vegetarian.

3 no longer follows from 1 and 2. The healthy diet excludes both meat for those reasons, as well as milkshakes and french fries, for the SAME reasons. The distinction between "vegetarian" and "meat eating" is a false dichotomy in a discussion of a healthy diet. We should speak, rather, of "healthy vegetarianism", "healthy carnivorism" (if such a thing exists), and all of other "unhealthy diets". We both reject the latter so let us not allow that to confuse the issue. The ideal diet may nevertheless approach vegetarianism and we agree that there are causal mechanisms that relate vegetarianism to better health. Although a carnivore COULD theoretically eat more fiber and less calories - this would be easier for the vegetarianism to the extent that plant food, rather than meat, has more fiber and less calories that animal flesh (however, I also realize that a person can eat too few calories and too much fiber, at which point vegetarianism would not be much help - for your health at least - the hogs, cows and chickens might be appreciative).

Of course, my efforts are futile if, despite all of these reasons, your love of animal flesh is so strong that even these cannot persuade you. All that I can do is politely remind you of the reasons and finally stop being annoying (this should be my last post on the subject). I would hope that we can agree that eating less animal food, however slightly less, is probably better than worse, and all we are risking is the loss of animal food (and the discovery of vegetarian cuisine which I prefer anyways!).

You are also aware, I hope, that there are many vegetarian meat substitutes, based upon soy or wheat (or other grains) and that the products improve every year. There are low fat as well as high fat varieties (for a richer taste) and most are high in fiber (and much lower in calories than real meat). Some veggie hotdog links of equal size, have as few as 60 calories compared the pig's 300. Many are already naturally "spiced". Most of these products have none of the hormones (to produce more milk or beef), antibiotics (to keep animals healthy in unsanitary farms), food coloring (to make fish and beef look more colorful and healthy), or soaking (to make chicken heavier and more profitable) that meat products do. You do not have to worry about undercooking soy products. There is no Mad Soy Disease (cows were fed other cow brains but soy beans have no brains!). My mother regularly uses these substitutes in tacos and spaghetti and my unsuspecting brothers and father never notice the difference. Of course, I readily admit that there are varieties of fake meat that are too bland, or too unfilling (and I have had my fair share of bad experiences with these in the past), but there are also many that are quite convincing, and, dare I say, improvements.

Okay - I have done enough proselytizing.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

A. Milos

A pirate in the sea of Malacca, member of a pirate boat, kills the crew of a yacht resisting his demand to hand over their boat and belongings to him. Pirating is the only profitable job he knows how to, or is able to do (his only other option to feed his family is to work the coconut fields where he will earn in 40 years what the owner of the yacht earned in 1 month).

A fisherman in a nearby island owns his own boat and catches 10 kilograms of fish with which he will feed his family.

Is the pirate less justified for killing people than the fisherman killing fish? Why so?

vixstile

Here is my position on the issue.

I could very easily become vegetarian with very little change to my current diet. I eat very little meat. In fact I don't really even like meat. Why don't I go vegetarian? I don't value animals! I don't value there health, happiness, or well being.

Animals are a commodity like produce or automobiles.

This is my attitude. I would never expect anyone else to have the same attitude. But I think you would be hard press to prove that I am, in anyway, wrong.

Claudia

Some comments of some things I have read in these various posts:
I eat also duck, pintad hen, rabbit, goat, kangaroo, bison, ostrich, deer, boar... all of these being eventually breed by humans.
Well, I would be grateful to anybody which shows me how to force kids eating something they do not want to eat I urgently need the trick . And not for meat, I have far more difficulties to make my kids eat vegetables
I question parental rights to feed their kid as they choose when it is harmful.
I always buy more expensive meat which breeding method is guarantied, which breeding conditions are certified to be proper to ensure good taste to meat. And yes, it means more expensive meat. Solution is to eat less of it, but why supress it?
In my country, hormones for food animals are strictly forbidden
There are animal products in chocolate? poor America...

Why do some people equate eating meat with eating mostly meat, and mostly hamburger?
IIRC, French women are the second population with long life expectancy (after Japanese). They are far to be vegetarian in average! (There are some, of course). But our diet means a lot of home-cooked meals, and eating a lot of vegetal food together with meat (some of them cooked, some of them raw).
The mere idea of a McDonald hamburger makes me shudder!

Yes, healthy vegetarian diet is better than a diet using too much meat. I would like to see comparisons with a diet using a limited but significant amount of meat, when this meat is not taken as bacon or hamburgers.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Claudia ]</p>

Automaton

Human flesh is just [deleted} yummy. There is nothing like a fine human steak, it's a marvellous delicacy. Removing this from my spectrum of available foods is thus sick and wrong. I have something inside me, a basic compelling urge to eat humans, so who are you to prevent me from slaughtering them for this purpose? You fanatics are crazy, you want to put me in jail, or even kill me, for excercising my human right to eat those of the same species, next you'll be saying I can't eat plants or breathe oxygen molecules or something equally loony. Go stick to your diet of dirty hog [deleted} and tofu [deleted}, and leave me to my peaceful cannibalism.



Message edited by Moderator to delete ranting bits.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>