On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "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.
>

And what's the evidence for that proposition?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > 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.

That's a silly interpretation of my claim. Obviously my claim was that
if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
be healthier than a typical meat-based diet, and that's obviously what
my doctor believes too.