Thread: What to eat
View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>
> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

>
> >> >> > but you haven't given
> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
> >> >> farmer
> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
> >> >> cost
> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
> >> >> product,
> >> >> vegetables or fruit.

>
> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
> >> > plant foods?

>
> >> Which plant foods?

>
> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
> > suffering?

>
> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any reasonable
> person would call acceptable.
>


So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > In the absence
> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>
> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
> >> >> deficiencies
> >> >> in
> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

>
> >> >> > It's also better
> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> >> >> Clearly categorically false.

>
> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
> >> > excellent choice for my health.

>
> >> That's not what you said.

>
> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

>
> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is an
> excellent choice for your health.
>


My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
vegan.

> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the first
> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.


I don't agree.