Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SmashingIdols · 05-03-2002, 07:46 AM

Quote:

If it is, indeed, thought to be immoral to exist on an unhealthy diet, I suspect that during the next few years many Americans will rethink the morality aspect and decide that unhealthy eating is not so immoral after all. But I also suspect that plants and vegetarianism will increasingly come to form the basis our diets as time goes on

Last but not least, who exactly thinks that it is immoral to eat meat? Not society... Vegetarians?

Is it immoral to push your views of morality upon the masses? That makes for strangebedfellows with abortion clinic protestors and bombers.

How about doing it in the name of Jesus (like the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930051263/qid=1020440628/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/103-9594052-6143011" target="_blank">vegan author who claims Jesus was vegetarian</a>, as were all 'original' Christians)? When I confronted him about further mythologizing a character who is in all likelihood a literary invention, he responded with 'Why would you want to obstruct people from believing something that would cause so much good?' His contention was that by converting christianity to belief in a veggie-christ we would get people to stop eathing meat. BAD IDEA.

The moral code of the smaller "enlightened" group dictating social values.

Yuck.

vixstile · 05-03-2002, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Overall, the average score of the vegetarians was over double the average score of the meat-eaters, even though half of the vegetarians were sedentary people, while all of the meat-eaters tested were athletes

I also find this a bit suspect

dk · 05-03-2002, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SmashingIdols:
 When I confronted him about further mythologizing a character who is in all likelihood a literary invention, he responded with 'Why would you want to obstruct people from believing something that would cause so much good?' His contention was that by converting christianity to belief in a veggie-christ we would get people to stop eathing meat. BAD IDEA.

The moral code of the smaller "enlightened" group dictating social values.

Yuck.

A person so eagar to rationalized lie is untrustworthy. You've hit it on the head, there's a lot of good work done, but there an equal number of snake oil salesmen. I suspect that's precisely why the social sciences are so unreliable.

The AntiChris · 05-03-2002, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SmashingIdols:


Last but not least, who exactly thinks that it is immoral to eat meat? Not society... Vegetarians?

Is it immoral to push your views of morality upon the masses? That makes for strangebedfellows with abortion clinic protestors and bombers.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that you have a problem with anyone challenging the accepted values of "society", then I disagree vehemently.

As you must be aware, society's view of morally acceptable behaviour changes over time. If it weren't for the fact that enlightened people throughout the ages have challenged the status quo, some of our ancestors' more unpleasant practices would still be accepted behaviour today.

Chris

droolian · 05-03-2002, 10:47 PM

Quote:

SmashingIdols: You are basically saying that I could take a world champion marathon runner and they would not have the endurance of a sedentary vegetarian, as an example.

I didn’t say any of that.

These aren’t my studies. Presenting a study, rather than hearsay, that proves otherwise would be more substantial. What makes anyone feel that Professor Irving Fisher or others would be motivated to fabricate results? Here’s all the references from Robbin’s book along with the findings of similar studies.

Fisher, Irving, "The Influence of Flesh Eating on Endurance," Yale Medical Journal,
13(5):205-221, 1907.
Ibid.
Ioteyko, J., et al, Enquete scientifique sur les vegetariens de Bruxelles, Henri Lamertin, Brussels,
pg. 50.
Astrand, Per-Olaf, Nutrition Today 3:no2, 9-11, 1986.
Schouteden, A., Ann de Soc. Des Sciences Med. Et Nat. De Bruxelles (Belgium) I
Paris Study

A comparable study was done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine of Paris. 4 Dr.
Ioteyko compared the endurance of vegetarians and meat-eaters from all walks of life in a variety of tests.

Danish Study

In 1986, a Danish team of researchers tested a group of men on a variety of diets, using a
stationary bicycle to measure their strength and endurance.

The men were fed a mixed diet of meat and vegetables for a period of time, and then tested on the bicycle. The average time they could pedal before muscle failure was 114 minutes.

These same men later were fed a diet high in meat, milk and eggs for a similar period and then
re-tested on the bicycles. On the high meat diet, their pedalling time be-fore muscle failure
dropped dramatically - to an average of only 57 minutes.

Later, these men were switched to a strictly vegetarian diet, composed of grains, vegetables and fruits, and then tested on the bicycles. The lack of animal products didn’t seem to hurt their
performance - they peddled for an average of 167 minutes. 5

Belgium Study

Doctors in Belgium systematically compared the number of times vegetarians and meat-eaters
could squeeze a grip-meter. The vegetarians won handily with an average of 69, whilst the
meat-eaters averaged only 38. As in all other studies which have measured muscle recovery
time, here, too, the vegetarians bounced back from fatigue far more rapidly than did meat eaters.

Quote:

DRFseven: I didn't say "any society"; I said the U.S., where the #1 cause of death is heart disease and where half the population is overweight with high blood cholesterol. The China Study has spawned the long-overdue endorsement of vegetarianism by the ADA and the American Cancer Institute.

Precisely. And some people want to encourage people to continue living in a way that can hurt them, animals and the environment.

Quote:

SmashingIdols: When I confronted him about further mythologizing a character who is in all likelihood a literary invention, he responded with 'Why would you want to obstruct people from believing something that would cause so much good?'

We don’t know that you spoke with this guy. Even if he did say that it’s not all Christians or vegetarians. Again, why not post a fact instead? Any of us could say we know anyone, but it doesn’t pertain to the argument. There’d be no need for this with a valid argument.

BTW, you do the same thing on the thing about your gallbladder. Rather than ridiculing every study that finds favor with a vegetarian lifestyle, and there are many, find one study that suggest vegetarians are more likely to lose their gallbladder---just one.

Again, the China study is there for those that really want the truth.
<a href="http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/chinaproject/chinaproject.html" target="_blank">http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/chinaproject/chinaproject.html</a>

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: droolian ]

SmashingIdols · 05-04-2002, 07:04 AM

DRFseven: Whoops, I never said you said that...I was responding to what droolian's post said. I found it a bit ridiculous to make such health claims based solely upon vegetarianism. Scroll up and read his post.

Keith Akers? Doesn't matter jack squat whether or not I know him, you can just read his papers and book on the subject, where he even addresses that concern himself. Or look him up online and ask him yourself. He is after all an author and public person. See what he says about this himself. He is after all a bit vocal on this subject...

Try changing the title of your thread, and maybe people like me won't bother responding! Imagine if I posted something like "Moral implications of the Swedish Study on Sex." It is inflammatory.

Just because a study implies data does not make it true. Studies have been wrong in the past, they will again. People have been eating strictly vegan diets for a rather short time, I can hardly believe "all the data is in" as you would have us all believe.

For instance the Aging Study in Hawaii (Lon White) showed significant atrophy of neural tissue in men who consumed only moderate amount of Tofu on a regular basis - something nobody expected:

(Edited to add reference to this "wild conjecture" on my part:
White, L., Petrovitch, H., Ross, G.W., & Masaki K.H. (1996) Association of mid-life consumption of tofu with late life cognitive impairment and dementia: The Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. The Neurobiology of Aging, 17 (suppl 4), S121.

White, L., Petrovich, H., Ross, G. W., Masaki, K. H., Abbot RD, et al. (1996) Prevalence of dementia in older Japanese-American men in Hawaii. JAMA, 276, 955-960.

Dr. White contends that it is not the dangerously high (according to some health groups) level of aluminum in Tofu that is the culprit, but the isaflavones themselves.)

My Position, once again:I think final judgements and determinations of absolutes (such as threshholds of animal products at either end of the spectrum) should be reserved until all the data is in. Something you are not claiming, right?

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]

SmashingIdols · 05-04-2002, 07:13 AM

Antichris:

I firmly believe that morality is codified social values. There is no objective or absolute - I am an atheist.

Morality can and does change as public values change - however on this one, that is not forseeable in the immediate future - it is not even of current public consideration. As such it can harldy be construed immoral to consume animal products - no society currently claims this as an immoral act. True morality changes, but this is not instantaneous. Language changes too.

Furthermore, I have repeatedly pointed out that veganism could not possibly be implemented by all human beings, for various reasons, making this never a question of morality - just situational to lifestyle.

DRFseven · 05-04-2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Smashing: DRFseven: Whoops, I never said you said that...I was responding to what droolian's post said. I found it a bit ridiculous to make such health claims based solely upon vegetarianism. Scroll up and read his post.

Keith Akers? Doesn't matter jack squat whether or not I know him, you can just read his papers and book on the subject, where he even addresses that concern himself. Or look him up online and ask him yourself. He is after all an author and public person. See what he says about this himself. He is after all a bit vocal on this subject...

Try changing the title of your thread, and maybe people like me won't bother responding! Imagine if I posted something like "Moral implications of the Swedish Study on Sex." It is inflammatory.

I don't know what you are responding to by the above quote. Are you sure it's something I posted; I don't even know who Keith Akers is?

Why should I change the title? This section of the forum concerns morality, you may have noticed. If you will also notice, I'm not the one who equates dietary lifestyle with morality; that has been done by other members on both sides of the debate. The idea that it's inflammatory and, thus, shouldn't be discussed, is ridiculous; are you saying there are things we can't talk about because people might not like what they hear? It's a legitimate question, especially for this section, even if I happen to disagree.

Morality is a matter of opinion; individual opinion gleaned from the accumulation of what is available in the entire cultural millieu. Lifestyle habits change constantly and health is a huge motivating factor (look at smoking and seatbelts - total turnaround).

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]

The AntiChris · 05-04-2002, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SmashingIdols:
Morality can and does change as public values change - however on this one, that is not forseeable in the immediate future .

How do changes to the accepted views of morality even start if, as you seem to be saying, it is not acceptable for individuals to challenge the status quo?

Chris

SmashingIdols · 05-04-2002, 05:47 PM

DRFsven: So then , you are saying that eating meat is immoral. My question then is, "according to whom?"

Not according to the society in which I live. For that matter niether is smoking (no, of course I don't smoke - I am just pointing something out). However on the seatbelt issue, you may be correct; not wearing seatbelts is unlawful, at least in my state.

Antichris: What you are suggesting is not the same as labeling something immoral. On the other hand if you are saying the proper process of change is fringe groups yelling "Immoral, immoral, look over here, this is immoral" then as I said earlier you make strange bedfellows with those I mentioned. I personally despise the morality argument being used; it is a mere attempt at distorting an issue into something that implies an objective moral guideline - like the Bible. For that matter, the Bible is pretty clear on meat consumption as well.

However, if you insist upon this tactic, and If you really believe it is immoral, let's discuss that. After all, this is the forum on morality as the original poster has just pointed out.

So far, I have seen no moral argument; I would welcome one being floored.

Takers?

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]

05-04-2002, 07:04 AM	#16
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	DRFseven: Whoops, I never said you said that...I was responding to what droolian's post said. I found it a bit ridiculous to make such health claims based solely upon vegetarianism. Scroll up and read his post. Keith Akers? Doesn't matter jack squat whether or not I know him, you can just read his papers and book on the subject, where he even addresses that concern himself. Or look him up online and ask him yourself. He is after all an author and public person. See what he says about this himself. He is after all a bit vocal on this subject... Try changing the title of your thread, and maybe people like me won't bother responding! Imagine if I posted something like "Moral implications of the Swedish Study on Sex." It is inflammatory. Just because a study implies data does not make it true. Studies have been wrong in the past, they will again. People have been eating strictly vegan diets for a rather short time, I can hardly believe "all the data is in" as you would have us all believe. For instance the Aging Study in Hawaii (Lon White) showed significant atrophy of neural tissue in men who consumed only moderate amount of Tofu on a regular basis - something nobody expected: (Edited to add reference to this "wild conjecture" on my part: White, L., Petrovitch, H., Ross, G.W., & Masaki K.H. (1996) Association of mid-life consumption of tofu with late life cognitive impairment and dementia: The Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. The Neurobiology of Aging, 17 (suppl 4), S121. White, L., Petrovich, H., Ross, G. W., Masaki, K. H., Abbot RD, et al. (1996) Prevalence of dementia in older Japanese-American men in Hawaii. JAMA, 276, 955-960. Dr. White contends that it is not the dangerously high (according to some health groups) level of aluminum in Tofu that is the culprit, but the isaflavones themselves.) My Position, once again:I think final judgements and determinations of absolutes (such as threshholds of animal products at either end of the spectrum) should be reserved until all the data is in. Something you are not claiming, right? [ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

05-04-2002, 05:47 PM	#20
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	DRFsven: So then , you are saying that eating meat is immoral. My question then is, "according to whom?" Not according to the society in which I live. For that matter niether is smoking (no, of course I don't smoke - I am just pointing something out). However on the seatbelt issue, you may be correct; not wearing seatbelts is unlawful, at least in my state. Antichris: What you are suggesting is not the same as labeling something immoral. On the other hand if you are saying the proper process of change is fringe groups yelling "Immoral, immoral, look over here, this is immoral" then as I said earlier you make strange bedfellows with those I mentioned. I personally despise the morality argument being used; it is a mere attempt at distorting an issue into something that implies an objective moral guideline - like the Bible. For that matter, the Bible is pretty clear on meat consumption as well. However, if you insist upon this tactic, and If you really believe it is immoral, let's discuss that. After all, this is the forum on morality as the original poster has just pointed out. So far, I have seen no moral argument; I would welcome one being floored. Takers? [ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

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

05-04-2002, 07:13 AM	#17
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Antichris: I firmly believe that morality is codified social values. There is no objective or absolute - I am an atheist. Morality can and does change as public values change - however on this one, that is not forseeable in the immediate future - it is not even of current public consideration. As such it can harldy be construed immoral to consume animal products - no society currently claims this as an immoral act. True morality changes, but this is not instantaneous. Language changes too. Furthermore, I have repeatedly pointed out that veganism could not possibly be implemented by all human beings, for various reasons, making this never a question of morality - just situational to lifestyle.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.