"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian meal
with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that you
would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make the
meal more healthy and enjoyable.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > 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.

So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply means
you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.