"Dutch" > wrote in message news:zpRwi.63720$rX4.23303@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:YcHwi.61577$fJ5.20746@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%bQvi.56647$rX4.37224@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>>>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >>>>>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> >>>>>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> >>>>>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> >>>>>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> >>>>>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
> >>>>>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> >>>>>> I understand simple logic,
> >>>>> But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
> >>>>> to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
> >>>>> for dependants in various ways),
> >>>> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.
> >>> In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.
> >> The need to die in those cases is no different than the need to live,
> >> it's not an actual contingent requirement, it's merely a fervent wish.
> >
> > People with dependants don't see it that way. Not that you'd know..
>
> You wouldn't know how "people" see things, you're an extremist and you
> have likely been this way for so long you can't remember what it's like
> to just be "people".

I know plenty about how other people see things. Look, ditch:

Etsy :: Featured Seller
I work on my sewing projects on and off throughout the day, but
I'm also a mom and at this time I need to be there for my children.
Together we bake, cook, ...
http://www.etsy.com/featured_seller....d_user_id=5418

Wood River Journal - Hailey, Idaho
I said, 'No, I need to be there for my children - they just lost
their father.
http://www.woodriverjournal.com/arti...ent/story1.txt

UtterlyBoring.com: Do Not Call List -- Red Hot, Big Loopholes
I am a single mom that has 2 small children and this job gives
me the flexability I need to be there for my children. I have tried
to find work in my field ...
utterlyboring.com/archives/2003/07/06/do_not_call_list_red_hot_big_loopholes.php

Juggling parenthood and creativity: Parent Hacks
It's more complicated than that, and there are no hard feelings,
but I need to be there for my children. I can't just run off pursuing
my dreams while my ...
www.parenthacks.com/2006/05/juggling_parent.html

A widow's fight for justice | NATIONAL | NEWS | tvnz.co.nz
I need to be there for them. I need to be together for them. I'm
trying to earn a living for them. I'm doing what I can to make the
rest of our lives ...
tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/592489/

From people who really care
.... realize that the chores will always be there, but my children
will grow up and leave one day. I need to be there for them".
www.paternidadcondignidad.com/testimonios.htm

Advance Titan Online
He knows I love all my cats and I had to prove to him that I
need to be there for them. Lord knows, 74 cats can't survive
all by their lonesome." ...
http://www.advancetitan.com/story.as...354&story=6232

j. - The fight of their lives
I need to be there for them. We've been very open with the kids.
We told them at the beginning."
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-...playstory.html

Focus on the Gifts | Chiropractic News
I want to be their chiropractor not just when they are hurting
(yes, I believe that I need to be there for them then too) but
just as importantly I need to ...
http://www.planetc1.com/search/focus...efdecb974 88a

Starling Fitness » Question of the Week: Why Do I Want
To Be Thin?
My kids are young (2 & 3) and I need to be there for them
with they are older. It also helps that my wife is significantly
younger than I am, ...
http://www.starling-fitness.com/arch...nt-to-be-thin/

iSpud on deviantART
I'm starting to get worried about them though, well I've been
worried about them for a bit now, I need to be there for them...
desperately. ...
ispud.deviantart.com/

The Heretical Jew: Yeshivah
However at this precise moment, I need to be there for them
as much as I possibly can. True that will bot be 24/7. Yet the
damage that has been done to my ...
thehereticaljew.blogspot.com/2007/05/yeshivah.html

Note from Bumper Boy - Racerhub Forums
If my daughters need me, I need to be there for them without
concern of being threatened to be fired. I apologize to the
drivers, their families, ...
www.racerhub.com/forum/showthread.php?p=82590

Results * - * of about 712,000 for "i need to be there for them"

> >>>> In any
> >>>> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
> >>>> desire, however earnest.
> >>> Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.
> >> No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
> >> unable to provide, dependents still survive.
> >
> > With a sense of emotional loss, stress, and possibly hardship.
>
> So the "need" is not absolute, it's a contingency to avoiding stress and
> difficulties. Abstaining from meat has that effect on me, so it must be
> OK to do.

How dare you compare losing an irreplaceable loved one and
their much needed support, with an easily replaceable flavour.

> >>>> > it does not follow that food
> >>>>> is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.
> >>>> That's not what I said,
> >
> > But you said that it makes sense to you
>
> Yes, it is a reasonable statement, taken in context. It means, as
> Jonathan points out, "need" is always relative, not absolute.

What a joke. In any context, we absolutely need to eat to live.

> >>> I said no *particular* food is needed.
> >>>
> >>> A non sequitur.
> >> It's an important point that requires acknowledgment.
> >
> > It's BS.
> >
> >> The arguments
> >> involving the word "need" are sleight-of-hand.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> No, sense. "Need" as it's used in the typical vegan argument is pure
> chicanery. For example, I would venture that most people eat 50-100%
> more than they actually "need" to survive, and thrive. And studies have
> shown they would be healthier eating at this level. Meanwhile their
> "footprint" would be 1/2 what it currently is, without question, because
> they eat the same foods just much less of it, while substituting a
> plant-based food for an animal based food it is almost impossible to
> calculate the difference. So all the arguments used to make consuming
> meat a moral-ethical issue can be made even more convincingly to say
> that we are morally obliged to eat no more than the amount we "need to
> survive". Where is that argument being made? Why am I not at least as
> moral as a vegan by their own measurement if I eat very little?

That's pure chicanery.

'According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support
60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people
growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain -- with 56 million
people -- could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable
diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters' grain
consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each
consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped
countries is consumed directly.
...'
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142

> >>>>> (MDG! what absolute trollocks).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> however it's not what I said. What I said was
> >>>>>> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
>>
> >>>>> What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
> >>>>> what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.
>>
> >>>> I include food from the meat category in my diet because it has proven
> >>>> beneficial to my health, and highly satisfying.
>>
> >>> "i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
> >>> diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
> >>> problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
> >>> Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x
> >>>
> >>> "I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
> >>> health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
> >>> with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
> >>> because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
> >>> Dutch 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq
> >>>
> >>> "Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal"
> >>> diet I tend more easily to obesity, infections, and gastric
> >>> problems. I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years,
> >>> the aversion is in full control."
> >>> Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2
> >>>
> >>> Isn't that interesting, folks. Confused? Don't be.
> >> LOL, who are you talking to?
> >
> > Embarrassed?
>
> Not at all, I have no reason to be.

You have *every* reason to be.

> > You should be.
>
> No I shouldn't. You should be embarrassed to be resorting to such
> desperate tactics to make a case against another person.

You should. What a 'coincidence' that 'you enjoyed spectacularly
good health' until your 'magical conversion' in these groups, and
also amazingly 'just happened' to get over all of those problems.

> > Who do you think I'm talking to?
>
> Some "folks"?? as if anyone else is reading your replies but me. Are you
> so deluded that you think there is an *audience*?

This is an open forum. Are you so deluded that you think there
aren't quite a few people, present and future, who enjoy seeing
you getting your wretched lying arrogant ass kicked around?

> >> And what leads you to believe
> >> that a
> >> person's physical makeup and health needs remain static?
> >
> > Did you spontaneously grow claws and fangs too?
>
> Answer the question. Your little smear campaign is based on the notion
> that a person's body never changes over their lifespan.

From chronically unhealthy meat-eater, to spectacularly healthy
vegetarian, to persistent health problems, to healthy meat eater?

Sure. Only on this forum, when it's useful to say that, fraud.

> >>>> There is no reasonable,
> >>>> rational argument which would necessitate eliminating it. Cherry picking
> >>>> study data will not do it.
> >>> So
> >> So stop cherry-picking.
> >
> > So you admit that the data is there.
>
> There's "data" that shows a lot of things, "data" from different studies
> frequently contradict.

Show us studies which contradict the data we're talking about.

> > Saying that the data - from
> > the most comprehensive epidemiological study and other large
> > studies, which shows that even small amounts of animal-based
> > 'foods' causes a significant increase in chronic degenerative
> > diseases
>
> Really, was "causation" demonstrated? Are you certain?

"Association" is. What's the difference?

> - doesn't represent a reasonable, rational argument, or
> > is "cherry picking",
>
> You're cherry-picking and making rash claims.

You're lying through your rotten teeth.

> is not reasonable or rational, ditch, and will
> > certainly "not do it". But carry on trying to deny the evidence..
>
> You seem to be suffering under the illusion that the weight of science
> is on your side, on the side of results supported by 1% of the
> scientific community and the public-at-large. Give your head a big
> shake, you need to recognize that YOU are promoting an extreme
> interpretation of nutritional science, in addition to have no medical or
> scientific credentials to do so. Tens of thousands of EXPERTS say that a
> moderate amount of meat is consistent with a healthy diet. Are they all
> wrong? Are you sure that your quasi-religious ideas about animals aren't
> clouding your judgment?

Your addiction to animal fat is certainly clouding yours, shill.

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are
the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of
world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
.....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
intake: relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI
0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99;
and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
and white meat (relative to no white meat intake: RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week
= 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
1153S-1161S.
A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html

All 'foods' of animal origin.

'Plasma lipids and diet groups

The first article published about this study compared concentrations
of total cholesterol and various lipoprotein fractions in 4 diet groups:
vegans, who never ate animal products; vegetarians, who never ate
meat or fish but did eat dairy products, eggs, or both; fish eaters, who
ate fish but no meat; and meat eaters (4). Both total- and LDL-cholesterol
concentrations were significantly lower in vegans than in meat eaters,
whereas vegetarians and fish eaters had similar, intermediate values.
HDL-cholesterol concentrations were highest in fish eaters but did not
differ among the other diet groups. Mean cholesterol concentrations for
vegans, vegetarians, fish eaters, and meat eaters, adjusted for age and
sex, are shown in Table 1. On the basis of these results, it was predicted
that the incidence of ischemic heart disease might be 24% lower in
lifelong vegetarians and 57% lower in lifelong vegans than in meat
eaters.
.....
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for
both foods).
...
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S