"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 5, 8:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> Logic. Propositions are built on logic.
>>
>
> No, empirical propositions don't come from logic alone, they are
> grounded in factual evidence.

You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not unreasonable to
conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some non-vegan
food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some vegans to
examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might have the
slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown food
likely has some trace of animal DNA.



>> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> No it's not, it is a literal interpretation. We don't all share your
>> assumptions. All you said was that you were a vegan, period. That does
>> NOT
>> necessarily mean you are eating a healthy diet.
>>
>
> But it makes it quite likely, if the diet is reasonably sensible.

Perhaps, but I would suggest that in the name of truth in advertising let's
be precise in our wording.

>> > 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
>>
>> If that's what you are claiming then that's what you should say. I have
>> no
>> way of knowing that your vegan diet is "reasonably sensible" nor that you
>> are comparing it with a "typical" meat based diet, whatever that is. Why
>> don't you compare a crappy vegan diet with a sensible balanced diet that
>> includes some low fat meat?
>>
>> > and that's obviously what
>> > my doctor believes too.
>>
>> That may be obvious to you, but you said that all your doctor knows is
>> that
>> your diet is vegan. Based on that she should not be telling you that your
>> diet is healthy, you may have a severe B-12 deficiency for example.
>
> I have regular blood tests to check for side-effects of my meds, and
> we check my iron and B-12 levels when we do those.

That's not the point. You're comparing a presumed sensible vegan diet with a
"typical" western diet (You still haven't defined that), but if you mean one
that includes quite a bit of fast food and fatty meat and over-eating then
of course your diet wins any competition easily, nobody would deny that. The
relevant comparisons for the purpose of showing that many of these
categorical claims are wrong are the less than sensible vegan diets such as
ones heavy on refined pasta which are not that healthy and ones that depend
on imported and/or heavily processed meat substitutes which are not
necessarily better than free range meat with respect to animal impact.

I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is bad, my
point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based on
all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
*exploitation*.