"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Px2xi.64026$fJ5.29132@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zpRwi.63720$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*.

They mean that they believe that there's a requirement for them
to be there for them as family, with everything that that entails.

> >>>>>> 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.

They are nowhere near comparable. If you can't even see that...

> >>>>>> > 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.

Back to first grade again.. Mary *wants* a new TV (objective).
Paul tells Mary that a new TV costs $50. Mary *needs* $50..

> >>>>> 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?

Humans require *quantity*, as well as variety and quality.

> > '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
>
> Where is the data to support all these claims?

You can work it out for yourself with a bit of research.
Why did you snip it? Looks like you're trying to hide it.

This is a referenced page;
http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm

'-One-half of the Earth’s land mass is grazed by livestock.[1]
-More than 60% of the world’s rangelands were damaged by
overgrazing during the past half century.[2]
-As much as 85% of rangeland in the western US is being
degraded by overgrazing.[3]
-Overgrazing is by far the most pervasive cause of desertification.[4]
-35 pounds of topsoil are lost in the production of one pound of
grain-fed beef.[5]
-64% of US cropland produces livestock feed.[6]
-Only 2% of US cropland produces fruits and vegetables.[7]
-Pounds of edible product that can be produced on an acre of
prime land: Apples 20,000; Carrots 30,000; Potatoes 40,000;
Tomatoes 50,000; Beef 250 [8]
...
-12-16 pounds of grain and soy are needed to produce one pound
of grain-fed beef.[40]
..
-5 million children in the US go hungry every month.[43]
-Approximately 40,000 people die each day worldwide due to
hunger or hunger-related causes.[44]
-If Americans reduced their intake of meat by merely 10%,
100,000,000 people could be fed using the land, water and
energy that would be freed up from growing livestock feed.[45]
-10 billion people could be sustained from present croplands
if all ate a vegetarian diet. [46]
.....
http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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 have *every* reason to be. Snipping comments being one.

> >>> 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.

That's a laugh. What, don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Anyway, you LIED about having kids to push your agenda, and
the evidence points to you also lying about your health and diet.
1. You are a proven liar with an agenda. 2. All the discrepancies
in the number of years 'you were vegetarian'. 3. The timing of it.
You came here pretending to be vegetarian to drag others down.

> > 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.

Sure. Too bad for you that you are a proven liar with an agenda.

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

"Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005. More than ever, eh.

> >>>> 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

I still don't see any verifiable evidence on that page.

> >>>>>> 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.

Empty denial. Everyone can read them and understand what's written.

> 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.

That's not a study. And you do know that cancer is big business?

> >>> 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.

Where's your explanation then, or haven't you any?

> >> - 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.
>
> 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.

'These critics, who are mischievously posing as qualified scientists,
have committed errors that expose either their ignorance of basic
research principles and/or their passionate following of an unstated
agenda. By superficially citing uncorrected crude correlations from
the China Project monograph, they show a serious lack of
understanding not only of the fundamentals of scientific research
but also of the principles of statistics, epidemiology and nutrition.
To make matters worse, they have selected correlations that reflect
an alternative agenda or bias that has nothing to do with objective
science.
...
Masterjohn also strongly laments, both on the WAPF website
and on his own website, the negative publicity long given to high
cholesterol foods like eggs, butter and liver, and says that these
are "super foods" that must be consumed. He claims that dietary
cholesterol itself must be consumed and that the concept of
good and bad blood cholesterol (HDL and LDL, respectively)
is a myth. He then goes on to label the government's diet and
health recommendations to lower dietary fat as "totalitarian".
Strong views, strong language, lots of confidence, especially for
someone with no nutrition research training or experience. When
I asked him who supports WAPF, he told me that farmers,
among others, were important contributors. Because factory
farms now produce most of the food in the U.S., I would be
more comfortable if I knew how much influence these 'farmer'
conglomerates have on WAPF itself. I don't decry the industry
promoting its product—honestly of course—but I question the
blatant attempt of WAPF writers to convey seemingly objective
opinion that favors the industry without making clear their
serious lack of qualifications and conflicts of interest.
...'
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/c...a_response.htm

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

My desire is to share information for others to consider.
Your snipping, lies, smear and denial are all to no avail.

> > '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.

'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