pearl wrote:
> "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.
[..]
>
> Results * - * of about 712,000 for "i need to be there for them"

That means they *want* very much to be there in order to achieve certain
aims. That use of the word "need" to convey a fervent wish is not the
same as the meaning of the word in the context of diet, which is a
*requirement*.
>
>>>>>> 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.

They fall into the same general category, they are wishes, preferences,
not needs, because they are not specifically contingent. If they truly
were "needs" (assuming the contingent to be "for life itself") then one
would certainly perish without them.

>
>>>>>> > 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.

There are breatharians, however assuming that statement to be true, "to
live" is the objective which makes the word "need" valid in the sentence.


>>>>> 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.

Why? What is wrong with the argument? Why can vegans stuff their faces
with as much veggie food and sweets as they want and call themselves
moral while I consume 1/3 the calories they do?

> 'According to the British group Vegfam,

Where is the data to support all these claims?


>>>>>>> (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

No 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.

I did enjoy good health for many years, it did deteriorate rapidly, as
did my wife's. Returning some sanity to our diet came at the perfect
time. Too bad if that flies in the face of your wretched desire to
control what other people eat and how they think.

>
>>> 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

That's exactly what I think. Nobody else is reading this or ever will.

>
>>>> 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?

Exactly, a common progression.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

>
>>>>>> 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.

You haven't even begun to convince me the "data" shows what you claim it
does. You don't know how to properly read and interpret studies, you
read articles about the studies which draw conclusions you agree with.

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/...l/52/2/92#SEC4
A vegetarian diet can be quite healthful if it is carefully planned and
provides adequate calories. Diets including lean meats in small to
moderate amounts can be just as healthful. The greater the restriction
of food groups in a particular diet, the more possibility there is of
dietary deficiencies.

>>> 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?

You should not be quoting scientific data if you don't understand
something so fundamental.


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

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

Let us briefly return to the evidence provided by the China Study,1 and
that which Dr. Campbell selects to form his argument that animal protein
contributes to cancer.2

The China Study looked at cancer in two ways: official cancer mortality
statistics and a questionnaire that asked each household whether or not
there were cancer patients in the family.

According to the “uncorrected” data, households from villages that had
higher average animal protein intakes during the three-day, in-house
observation were more likely to have cancer patients within their family
according to the questionnaire (Figure 1), but villages with higher
average animal protein intakes did not have higher incidences of cancer
mortality according to the government statistics (Figure 2).

Yearly meat intake was negatively correlated with cancer whether
measured by the official statistics or by the questionnaire, but the
association was not statistically significant. [See note 2 on
statistical significance.] A much better predictor of cancer by both
measures was latitude, which reflects vitamin D levels, but that’s
another story for another day.

Despite Campbell’s criticism of my use of “uncorrected, crude
correlations,” his own argument that animal protein is linked to cancer
in the China Study rests squarely on those very "uncorrected"
correlations. He disregards the official cancer mortality statistics and
the information about meat intake from the questionnaire, presumably
because they do not support his argument. Instead, he relies on the
association between animal protein intake during the three-day, in-house
observation and the percentages of households claiming cancer patients
in their families on the questionnaire; he then supports this flimsy
figure with supposed surrogate “biomarkers” for animal protein intake.



>> 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

Your desire to control other people's diets, what they put in their
newsgroup posts and their way of thinking will always be frustrated.

> 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
> for all stages of the lifecycle,

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/...l/52/2/92#SEC4
A vegetarian diet can be quite healthful if it is carefully planned and
provides adequate calories. Diets including lean meats in small to
moderate amounts can be just as healthful. The greater the restriction
of food groups in a particular diet, the more possibility there is of
dietary deficiencies.