On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:20:13 GMT, Bob Yates >
wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:

>> Yes, a valid choice for mindless zombies bereft of empathy with other
>> living entities.
>>
>> >Care to join me a some rare roast beef, maybe veal?
>>
>> Well, then you obviously didn't read these facts about the harmful
>> effects of meat eating:
>>
>
>I did answer your "facts(?)". But as you have seen fit not to respond
>to my answer, but have instead chosen to insult me, the only valid
>inference is that you have no answer and have conceded defeat. By your
>gratuitous insults you have shown that your argument have no validity.
>I have at all times responded with civility and courtesy, why have you
>personally attacked me? The only answer is that you have no response to
>my arguments, so to use the old lawyer joke, since you cannot pound on
>the law and cannot pound on the facts you choose to pound on the table.

You haven't posed any arguments. You have simply given your opinion. I
don't have to respond to your opinions. Every nutrition expert in the
world since the 60s have pointed out the harmful effects of meat
eating to the body and to the environment, and there are tons of
statistics and scientific facts to support their conclusions.To
contradict them just makes you look either stupid or uninformed.

>If you choose to continue to insult me I will choose to accept those
>insults as validation of my argument and your concession of defeat of
>the vegetarian viewpoint as expressed by you.

Your braindead way of trying to pass off your personal opinion as an
argument is an insult to my intelligence. But I'll forgive that you
insult my intelligence and take it as a sign that you don't have any
other option considering the facts that there are no good arguments in
favor of meat-eating.



www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

Cross posts cut

"Jahnu" > wrote in message > Your braindead way of trying to
pass off your personal opinion as an
> argument is an insult to my intelligence. But I'll forgive that you
> insult my intelligence and take it as a sign that you don't have any
> other option considering the facts that there are no good arguments in
> favor of meat-eating.

how about he wants to do it and isn't going to buy into any bizarre
philosophy that stops him

Jim Webster
>
>
>
> www.krishna.com
> www.iskcon.org
> www.krishna.dk

Jim Webster wrote:
>
> Cross posts cut
>
> "Jahnu" > wrote in message > Your braindead way of trying to
> pass off your personal opinion as an
> > argument is an insult to my intelligence. But I'll forgive that you
> > insult my intelligence and take it as a sign that you don't have any
> > other option considering the facts that there are no good arguments in
> > favor of meat-eating.
>
> how about he wants to do it and isn't going to buy into any bizarre
> philosophy that stops him
>
> Jim Webster

I did post some facts in reasons to Jahun earlier in the thread, but he
choose to answer with insults. I responded that I considered that as an
admission of defeat. Since he has conceded the argument, I have no need
to continue it with him.

One of the the things in favor of meat eating is that livestock is the
most efficient way of converting grassland for human consumption. One
of the many point that I put forward that Jahun choose to ignore.

"Jahnu" > wrote
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:34:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"Jahnu" > wrote
> >
> >> HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
> >
> >The broken record is only one technique used to win arguments, but it's
one
> >of the most mindless.
>
> That may be, but since you don't have any facts to back up your case
> even mindless repetition of facts in support of mine wins.

You don't repeat facts, you repeat lies, half-truths, propaganda and
rhetoric. Facts require credible support, you provide none of that.

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:05:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Jahnu" > wrote

>You don't repeat facts, you repeat lies, half-truths, propaganda and
>rhetoric. Facts require credible support, you provide none of that.

That's called projecting your own faults on others. As you can see
from the facts below you are way off the mark. It doesn't matter how
much you mince heads try to obfuscate the issue, the facts remain that
the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet,
and anyone who supports it is either grossly uninformed and ignorant
or an evil person hmself.

"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
certain diseases?

Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although they
didn't have much support from modern science until recently. Now,
medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between
meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are
giving vegetarianism another look.

Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is
somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart
disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical
Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases
can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several
well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco
and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause of
mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent
areas of the world.2

The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat
and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on
arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that
there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart
disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as
he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol
gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the
arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to
high blood pressure, heart diseases, and strokes.

On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore
Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol
levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet'
D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol
associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which
protein comes only from vegetables.'5

What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly
suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum,
breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat
little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and
Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6

Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas
with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live
on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas
those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely
vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7

Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I
have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer
rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little
or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8

Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given
by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is
simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short
intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to
quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system.
Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have
intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long
intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can
overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even
cancer.

And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is
slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it
turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration
by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat
a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives
to be carcinogenic.9

And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals
fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in
your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice
before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and
fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before
birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still
be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that
they be listed on the package.'10

Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of
Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many
common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables
and grains.'11

But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters?
Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is
no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is
historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and
digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic
Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has
lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.'

And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most
industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a
hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th
century consumer society.

But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating
meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other
animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food.'

(The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with
that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.)

As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on
nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily
recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams
recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because
reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much
protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein
consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but
actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively
related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart disease. In order
to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to
eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of
grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12

Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources
of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more
protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak.

Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs,
and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids
not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were
incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at
the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in
Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and
grains are excellent sources of complete proteins.

In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat -
and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to
lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the
vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians
simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the
vegetarian animals."


References:

Can be had upon request.



www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:42:37 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>

>"Jahnu" > wrote in message

>>Your braindead way of trying to pass off your personal opinion as an
>> argument is an insult to my intelligence. But I'll forgive that you
>> insult my intelligence and take it as a sign that you don't have any
>> other option considering the facts that there are no good arguments in
>> favor of meat-eating.
>
>how about he wants to do it and isn't going to buy into any bizarre
>philosophy that stops him

That's not an argument, that's just an opinion or a stand point.


www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:57:09 GMT, Bob Yates >
wrote:

>Jim Webster wrote:

>I did post some facts in reasons to Jahun earlier in the thread, but he
>choose to answer with insults. I responded that I considered that as an
>admission of defeat. Since he has conceded the argument, I have no need
>to continue it with him.
>
>One of the the things in favor of meat eating is that livestock is the
>most efficient way of converting grassland for human consumption. One
>of the many point that I put forward that Jahun choose to ignore.

I chose to ignore it because it is such a brain dead, lame proposition
that it is not even worthy a response.

"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
certain diseases?

Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although they
didn't have much support from modern science until recently. Now,
medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between
meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are
giving vegetarianism another look.

Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is
somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart
disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical
Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases
can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several
well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco
and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause of
mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent
areas of the world.2

The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat
and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on
arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that
there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart
disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as
he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol
gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the
arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to
high blood pressure, heart diseases, and strokes.

On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore
Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol
levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet'
D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol
associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which
protein comes only from vegetables.'5

What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly
suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum,
breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat
little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and
Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6

Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas
with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live
on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas
those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely
vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7

Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I
have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer
rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little
or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8

Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given
by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is
simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short
intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to
quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system.
Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have
intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long
intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can
overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even
cancer.

And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is
slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it
turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration
by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat
a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives
to be carcinogenic.9

And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals
fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in
your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice
before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and
fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before
birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still
be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that
they be listed on the package.'10

Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of
Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many
common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables
and grains.'11

But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters?
Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is
no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is
historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and
digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic
Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has
lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.'

And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most
industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a
hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th
century consumer society.

But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating
meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other
animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food.'

(The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with
that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.)

As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on
nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily
recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams
recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because
reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much
protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein
consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but
actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively
related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart disease. In order
to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to
eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of
grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12

Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources
of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more
protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak.

Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs,
and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids
not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were
incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at
the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in
Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and
grains are excellent sources of complete proteins.

In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat -
and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to
lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the
vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians
simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the
vegetarian animals."


References:

Can be had upon request.


www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

"Jahnu" > wrote
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:05:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"Jahnu" > wrote
>
> >You don't repeat facts, you repeat lies, half-truths, propaganda and
> >rhetoric. Facts require credible support, you provide none of that.
>
> That's called projecting your own faults on others.

No, it's calling you on your practice of posting long lists of unsupported
claims.

> As you can see
> from the facts below you are way off the mark.

I don't see facts, I see more unsupported opinions, to go along with the
lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric.

> It doesn't matter how
> much you mince heads try to obfuscate the issue,

It's you who is equivocating the basic issue.

the facts remain that
> the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet,

The "meat industry" is *not* the issue between meat eaters and vegans. The
fundamental issue in question is whether or not it is moral or not to kill
animals and eat them.

> and anyone who supports it is either grossly uninformed and ignorant
> or an evil person hmself.

Ad hominem fallacy and poisoning the well.

> "Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health?

That depends on what the previous diet was of person adopting the diet.

Can it prevent
> certain diseases?

No vegetarian diet has been shown to be superior to a properly balanced
omnivorous diet.

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:21:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Jahnu" > wrote

>No, it's calling you on your practice of posting long lists of unsupported
>claims.

What makes you think they are unsupported?

>> As you can see
>> from the facts below you are way off the mark.
>
>I don't see facts, I see more unsupported opinions, to go along with the
>lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric.

Why do you think that the statistics showing the evils of the meat
industry are 'lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric'?

>The "meat industry" is *not* the issue between meat eaters and vegans.

I don't know about that. But it is the issue you have with me.

>The
>fundamental issue in question is whether or not it is moral or not to kill
>animals and eat them.

Ask yourself this question. Would you like someone to feed you up for
slaughter, transport you under horrible circumstances in a truck to
automated death factories and shoot a nail in your forehead?

>No vegetarian diet has been shown to be superior to a properly balanced
>omnivorous diet.

Are you dense? Didn't you see what was written? Why don't you just
admit it. You are just another meat-head bereft of empathy with other
living entities. So let's conveniently overlook and obfuscate the
facts pointing to my evil and sinful ways.

"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
certain diseases?

Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although they
didn't have much support from modern science until recently. Now,
medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between
meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are
giving vegetarianism another look.

Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is
somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart
disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical
Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases
can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several
well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco
and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause of
mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent
areas of the world.2

The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat
and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on
arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that
there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart
disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as
he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol
gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the
arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to
high blood pressure, heart diseases, and strokes.

On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore
Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol
levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet'
D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol
associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which
protein comes only from vegetables.'5

What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly
suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum,
breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat
little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and
Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6

Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas
with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live
on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas
those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely
vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7

Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I
have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer
rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little
or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8

Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given
by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is
simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short
intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to
quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system.
Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have
intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long
intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can
overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even
cancer.

And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is
slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it
turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration
by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat
a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives
to be carcinogenic.9

And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals
fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in
your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice
before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and
fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before
birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still
be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that
they be listed on the package.'10

Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of
Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many
common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables
and grains.'11

But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters?
Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is
no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is
historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and
digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic
Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has
lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.'

And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most
industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a
hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th
century consumer society.

But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating
meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other
animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food.'

(The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with
that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.)

As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on
nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily
recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams
recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because
reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much
protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein
consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but
actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively
related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart disease. In order
to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to
eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of
grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12

Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources
of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more
protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak.

Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs,
and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids
not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were
incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at
the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in
Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and
grains are excellent sources of complete proteins.

In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat -
and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to
lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the
vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians
simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the
vegetarian animals."


References:

Can be had upon request.




www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

How to Win an Argument with a Plant-Eater

While their numbers at an awesomely high level, Meatatarians still are
the most common type of human, but it is not unusual to be confronted
with a plant-eater who not only protects his own right to eat plants,
but argues aggressively that Meatatarians should join him in his
ludicrous plant diet. Herbivores may regard meat-eaters as a strange lot
who munch on "cow corpses" and whose diet doesn't have the substance to
make them strong, productive human beings. The following presentation is
designed to turn the tables on such discussions by showing the
devastating effects of plant-eating both on individuals and on our
planet. It is based on a richly informative poster entitled, "How to win
an argument with a Plant-Eater," published by Visionary Darkness, an
organization based in Alaska, giving facts from Pulitzer Prize nominee
Roger Barr's book "The Pathetic Plant People". Below are eight separate
arguments against plant-eating and in favor of a Meatatarian diet.
1. The Hunger/Air Argument against plant-eating

Much of the world's massive hunger problems could be solved by the
reduction or elimination of plant-eating. The reasons: 1) Vegetarians
need to eat TWICE if not THREE TIMES as much as a meat-eater does just
to acquire HALF as much nutrition as a meat-eater would gain just by
eating a sirloin steak; 2) vast quantities of plants which FEED US
OXYGEN are destroyed every year!

This year alone, twenty million people worldwide will die as a result of
malnutrition. One child dies of malnutrition every 2.3 seconds. One
hundred million people could be adequately fed using the beef freed if
Americans reduced their intake of plants by a mere 100%.

Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people. Eighty
percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S. is eaten by
vegetarians. The percentage of oygen wasted by cycling grain through
vegetarians is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can hold 40,000 pounds of vegetarian food, or 250
pounds of beef. See how much more food these GREEDY vegetarians require?
Six-Hundred and Sixty Six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
vegetarian production, and to produce each pound of plant requires
enough oxygen to keep a child alive for an entire day!
2. The Environmental Argument against plant-eating

Many of the world's massive environmental problems could be solved by
the reduction or elimination of plant-eating, including global warming,
loss of unpoluted air, loss of plants and the horrifying possibility of
plant extinction. Of course, if this were to happen, we would become
extinct. But this is very doubtful because there are too many good
Meatatarians out there fighting to save what's left of this world.

The temperature of the earth is rising. This global warming, known as
"the greenhouse effect," results primarily from gaseous emissions from
cows. Three times more oxygen must be wasted to produce a plant-centered
diet than for a plant-free diet. If people stopped eating plants, the
threat of higher world temperatures would be vastly diminished.

Trees, and especially the old-growth forests, are essential to the
survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major cause of global
warming and oxygen loss. Both of these effects lead to diminished
enjoyment of life. Plant-eating is the number one driving force for the
destruction of these forests. Two-hundred and sixty million acres of
U.S. forestland has been cleared for cropland to produce the
plant-centered diet. Fifty-five square feet of tropical rainforest is
consumed to produce a months worth food for a plant-eater!!! An alarming
50% of all U.S. plants have been lost to date. Eighty-five percent of
this loss is directly related to plant consumption. This is why the
plant-eaters must either change their ways or experience the pain that
they cause the world in a much more brutal manner. I suggest three times
as painful, perhaps four.

Another devastating result of deforestation is the loss of plant
species. Each year 1,000 species are eliminated due to destruction of
tropical rainforests for plant eating and other uses. The rate is
growing yearly. My main worry is that the "Venus Fly Trap" is going to
become extinct. This is one of the best plants ever. In fact, it *IS*
THE BEST PLANT EVER. Not only does is provide us with oxygen, but it
eats meat too! It kills the bugs and such that would normally kill the
plants! I'm working on a project to grow "Venus-Vegan Traps". They are
basically the same as the Venus Fly Traps, but they are much larger and
they can walk. These Vegan Traps do just what you think: they catch
Vegans and give them the slow agonizing death that they deserve. Look
for these at your local S-Mart in the year 2000.

To keep up with U.S. consumption, 300 trillion pounds of plants are
imported annually from Central, South, North, East, West, and Diagonal
Bolivia. This economic incentive impels these nations to cut down their
forests to make more food for the plant-eaters. The short-term gain
ignores the long-term, irreparable harm to the earth's ecosystem. In
effect these countries are being drained of their resources to put
plants on the table of Americans while 100% of all Central American
Vegetarian/Vegan hildren under the age of five are undernourished.
3. The Cancer Argument against Plant-Eating

Those who eat plants are far more likely to contract cancer than those
following a Meatatarian diet.

The risk of contracting breast cancer is 3.8 times greater for women who
eat plants daily compared to NEVER; 2.8 times greater for women who
prune the hedges daily compared to NEVER; and 3.25 greater for women who
spray "weed-killer" liquids on plants 2 to 4 times a week as compared to
NEVER.

The risk of fatal ovarian cancer is three times greater for women who
eat plants 3or more times a week as compared to NONE.

The risk of fatal prostate cancer is 3.6 times greater for men who
consume plants, shrubbery, bushes, and soy milk daily as compared to
NEVER. Where does this cancer come from? Well as you all know, cancer is
often believed to be the "evil" inside a person...."The cancer in the
system" if you will. But scientifically, it can be proven that most of
these plants that vegans eat are showered all the time with pesticides
which can cause cancer. Plus, it has been reported that in their dying
moments, plants release a secret fluid througout their system. It is
sort of a defense mechanism. What this does is it poisons itself, in
hopes that whoever is killing it, will eventually eat it and be
poisoned. This is why you see so many plant-eaters looking so horribly
unhealthy.
4. The Cholesterol Argument against plant-eating

Here are facts showing that: 1) U.S. physicians are not sufficiently
trained in the importance of the relation of diet to health; 2)
meat-eaters ingest excessive amounts of cholesterol, making them
susceptible to heart attacks. Then again, plant-eaters ingest so much
soy and plants that they don't experience heart attacks, but their
hearts turn green (the color of the plants!) and shrivel up and die. A
wise heart knows not to pump blood for a soul that has killed the plants
which provide the heart with the air that it needs to survive on. When
the heart kills the person that it resides in, this is called: Heart
Anger. (the anger part of the term is derived from the heart's
intollerence for plant suffering).

It is strange, but true that U.S. physicians are as a rule ill-educated
in the single most important factor of health, namely diet and
nutrition. Of the 125 medical schools in the U.S., only 30 require their
students to take a course in nutrition. The average nutrition training
received by the average U.S. physician during four years in school is
only 2.5 hours. Thus doctors in the U.S. are ill-equipped to advise
their patients in minimizing foods, such as plants, that contain
excessive amounts of MURDER and are known causes of the heart to say,
"You killed the plants, now I kill you."

Heart Anger is the most common cause of death in the U.S., for
vegetarians and vegans, killing one plant eater every 45 seconds. The
male plant-eater's risk of death from heart anger is 100%. The risk to
men who eats no plant is 0%. Reducing one's consumption of plants, soy
and rice cakes by 100% reduces the risk of heart anger by 100%.
Completely eliminating these products from one's diet not only increases
one's chances for a long healthy life, but it guarantees a longer oxygen
supply for the children of the future.

The average chlorophyl consumption of a plant-centered diet is
210,238,571.7 grams per day. The chance of dying from heart anger if you
are male and your blood chlorophyl is 210,238,571.7 milligrams daily is
greater than 99.99999%. (which would probably mean about %100).
5. The Natural Meat Sources Argument against Plant-Eating

The world's natural resources are being rapidly depleted as a result of
plant-eating.

Raising plants for consumption is a very inefficient way of generating
food. Pound for pound, far more resources must be expended to feed
plant-killers than Meatatarians. For example, more than half of all
water used for all purposes in the U.S. is used to keep plants alive.
This water is completely wasted when these plants are killed and
consumed by plant eaters. The amount of water used in production of the
average plant is sufficient to float a dead plant-eater's corpse (which
is not much considering the weight of most plant-eaters). While 25
gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of beef, 5,000 gallons
are needed to feed enough plants to equal the nutrition derived from
that same pound of beef. That same 5,000 gallons of water can be used to
wash your hands off time and time again after eating some honey barbeque
tender roast from Kentucky Fried Chicken. If this water cost were not
subsidized by the government, the cheapest plant would cost more than
$5,000 per pound.

Plant-eating is the core of our earth at an alarming rate. It is a
scarcely known fact, but all plant's roots extend to the core of the
earth. Like I said, plants ARE the life source of this world. Every time
a plant is uprooted, it takes a little bit of the core with it. By doing
this, the core of the earth is becoming more and more unstable. I hope
that it never reaches the extreme case of collapsing entirely and
destroying the outside world. Don't kill the plants people, you are just
killing your futures when you do!

One-Hundred percent of all raw materials (base products of farming,
forestry; including lumber) consumed by the U.S. are devoted to the
consumption of plants, as compared with 0% to produce a complete
Meatatarian diet.
6. The Chemical Argument against Plant-Eating

Here are facts showing the dangers of eating plants because of the large
amounts of chemicals treated to them to control bugs eating plants
(commonly called bugs eating plants), which are becoming immune to these
drugs at an alarming rate. Also this is done to the plants in attempt to
stop them from releasing their poisons which kill those who try to eat
them. Scientists, do not seem to be able to grasp the concept that
pesticides and chemicals aren't doing a damned thing!

The plants that are being raised for consumption in the United States
are able to poison themselves to kill those who eat them. The plant
industry attempts to control this by showering the plants with
pesticides and other chemicals. Huge quantities of chemicals go for this
purpose. Of all chemicals used in the U.S., including science class
labs, 97% are used on plants. AND THE RATE IS GROWING!

But this is NOT effective because the plants can actually use these
pesticides to their advantage to cause disease. The percentage of
staphylocowawhattheheckareyoutalkinabouta infections resistant to
pesticide, for example, has grown from 99% in 1960 to 100% in 1988.
These pesticides and-or the poisons they are intended to destroy reside
in the plants that goes to the grocer.

It is not healthy for humans to consume this plants. The response of the
Yugoslavian Yarn Community to the routine showering of pestides to U.S.
vegetation was to ban the importation of U.S. plants. European buyers do
not want to expose consumers to this serious health hazard. By
comparison, U.S. plants and pharmaceutical industries gave their full
and complete support to the routine spraying pesticides and chemicals
onto plants, turning a blind eye to the threat of disease to the
consumer.
7. The Pesticide Argument against Plant-Eating

Unknown to most plant-eaters, U.S.-produced plants contain dangerously
high quantities of deadly pesticides.

The common belief is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture protects
consumers' health through regular and thorough plant inspection. In
reality, fewer than one out of every 250,000 slaughtered plants is
tested for toxic chemical residues. And they haven't even figured out a
way to stop the plants from releasing that natural poison that I told
you about into their systems. So it really IS pointless to treat these
plants with pesticides UNLESS there is another scheme behind all this.
Perhaps the Department of Agriculture is being run by a Meatatarian who
WANTS the vegetarians to die for their sins! They should indeed suffer
for their glutony, and perhaps by adding MORE poisons to these already
poisonous plants, is the perfect way to get the message across!

Proof that these chemicals are indeed ingested by the plant-eater is
proven by the following facts:

* Ninety-nine percent of U.S. plant's milk contains significant
levels of DDT. In stark contrast, only 8% of U.S. mother's milk
containing significant levels of DDT. This shows that the primary source
of DDT is the plant ingested by the mothers. DDT can also be found in
Jake The Snake Roberts, but that is a much more harmful source of DDT.
(You can do some in-depth research on him at a WWF website).
* Contamination of breast milk due to chlorophylic-poisons and
pesticides in animal products found in plant-eating mothers versus
nonplant-eating mothers is 87 times higher.
* The amount of the pesticide Dieldrin ingested by the average
breast-fed American infant is 90 times the permissible level.

8. The Ethical Argument against Plant Eating

Many of those who have adopted a Meatatarian diet have done so because
of the ethical argument, either from reading about or personally
experiencing what goes on daily at any one of the thousands of harvest
fields in the U.S. and other countries, where plants suffer the cruel
process of being unable to get up and run since their roots are secured
in the ground, manipulation, violent death, and even rape in a few
bizarre cases! Their pain and terror is beyond calculation. To quote
Revered Maynard: "You see, tommorow is harvest day, and to them (the
plants) it is THE HOLOCAUST"

The harvest tractor is the final stop for plants raised for the selfish
vegetarian diet. These ghastly places, while little known to most
plant-eaters, process enormous numbers of plants each years. In the U.S.
alone, 911,472,297,735,666,001.763 plants are killed for consumption
every hour. A surprising quantity of plants are consumed by the
plant-eater. The average percapita consumption of plants in the U.S.,
Canada and Australia (and France) is 200,000,000 pounds per year! The
average American consumes in a 72-year lifetime approximately 11
redwoods, 3 hedges and and bushes, 23 honeysuckles, 45 pounds of soy,
1,100 pieces of bark and 862 pieces of brocolli! Bon appetite
*******s!!!

People who come in contact with harvest fields cannot help but be
affected by what they see and hear. Those living nearby must daily
experience the screams of terror and anger of the plants led to
slaughter. Those working inside must also see and participate in the
crimes of mayhem and murder. Most who choose this line of work are not
on the job for long. Of all occupations in the U.S., harvest fields
worker has the highest turnover rate. It also has the highest rate of
on-the-job injury. For example, take the case of John J. Farmer. He quit
his job after working there for only a few weeks. "I couldn't take it
anymore. At first, you don't hear the plants screaming when the tractor
engine is 'a blazin! But then, once you shut off the tractor, you can
hear all of them weeping and crying and they even said some nasty things
about what they were going to do to my momma! Even worse, when I went to
sleep at night, I could hear them (the plants) swaying in the wind as if
they were moving towards me and whispering to each other. I just
couldn't take it anymore! It's just not right! I've adapted the
Meatatarian lifestyle, and I'm currently raising a gargantuan cow named
"Bertha" which should keep me fed for the next couple of years! I'd also
like to tell all the plants out there that I'm sorry for what I did. I
know I was wrong. I don't know how I could place income over your lives!
Please forgive me....I have seen the light!" Unfortunately, 2 weeks
after this, John J. Farmer's momma was found hung by a grapevine in her
room. There was a message on the floor beneath her hanging dead corpse.
It read, 'Now we're even, leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.
Don't EVER harm another plant again. -The Plants of Vengeance." John J.
Farmer now resides in a state mental institution where he is "making
progress" according to Doctor David Dinglefloppingsmith.

Jahnu wrote:
>>No, it's calling you on your practice of posting long lists of unsupported
>>claims.
>
> What makes you think they are unsupported?

I replied to this list a couple weeks ago and you have yet to address
the list's shortcomings. Those shortcomings start with the origin of the
list, which you erroneously cite as the NY Times. It is, in fact, a list
found in one of activist John Robbins' books.

Let me restore to refresh your incense-addled memory:
---restore---
> HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
>
> The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989


http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm

Not NYT, it's by John Robbins. Where do you get that date citation?
Robbins is a vegan activist, not a journalist. Stop misleading others.

> Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
> million.


Why do most people starve to death? It isn't because we have cows.

Not only is it true that a hunger free world is totally
attainable, we are, right now in fact, gaining on it and well
on the winning side of achieving it. Today, about 24,000 people
die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. This is down
from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000 twenty years ago.
Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.
Today 10% of children in developing countries die before the age
of five. This is down from 28% fifty years ago. All of this
despite the increase in world population during this time.
http://www.worldlegacy.org/HungerInfo.htm

The main reasons for hunger deal with distribution due to war and politics.

> Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
> Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million


Inaccurate. The grains fed to cattle are, for the most part, unfit for
human consumption.

> Human beings in America: 243 million


Closer to 300 million now, give or take an additional 5-10 million
illegal immigrants.

> Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
> U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion


Try about 5% of that. Most of what's fed to cattle is unfit for human
consumption.

> Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20
>
> Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80


You wouldn't eat the corn (maize) grown for cattle.

> Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95
>
> Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99
>
> How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds


Better update your information. Child starvation is declining, even
while meat consumption is rising. Go figure.

> Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO
>
> Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165


Applesranges. Percentage of acres where beef is raised and which
potatoes are even a viable crop? Hint: it isn't anywhere near 100%.

> Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56


No, that figure takes range lands into consideration. Arable farmland is
decreasing because of the population increase and sprawl associated with
it, not to mention land set-asides (erosion protection, imminent domain,
and "wetlands" protection).

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/landlim.htm

> Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16
>
> The Environmental Argument
>
> Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect


Ipse dixit.

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publi...berkowitz.html

> Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
> fossil fuels.


Ipse dixit. See above, and:
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html

Stop exhaling if you're worried about CO2. You're part of the problem.

> Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
> diet: 50 times more


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
>
> Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
> 85


Prove both.

> Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
> meat-centered diet: 260 million


Prove it.

> Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds
>
> Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
> housecat.


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
> sq.ft.


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
> rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> The Cancer Argument
>
> Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
> vs. less than once a week: 4 times


Citation, please.

> For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times


Citation, please.

> Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
> more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times


Citation, please.

> Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
> sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times


Citation, please.

> The Natural Resources Argument
>
> Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
> livestock portion.


Citation, please.

> Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
> float a destroyer.


Bullshit. An Arleigh Burke Class destroyer fully loaded displaces 8,300
tons. That's the equivalent of over 2.28 million gallons. The Kidd and
Spruance Classes both displace more.

> Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25


Ipse dixit.

> Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500


Ipse dixit. Go float a destroyer.

> Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
> subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound


Ipse dixit.

> Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
> longer subsidized: 89 dollars


Ipse dixit.

> Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
> meat-centered diet: 13


Ipse dixit.

> Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260


Ipse dixit.

> Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million


Ipse dixit.

> Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
> factory farming of meat: 34.5


Ipse dixit.

> Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8


Ipse dixit.

> Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
> meat-centered diet: 33


Ipse dixit.

> The Cholesterol Argument
>
> Number of U.S. medical schools: 125
>
> Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30
>
> Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
> years in medical school: 25 hours


I believe that figure needs some adjustment.

> Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack


No, heart disease. Heart attacks count in that figure.

> How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds
>
> Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.
>
> Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
> cholesterol if it is: normal


The Inuit eat a high-cholesterol diet, but do not suffer heart disease.
Other groups also eat high-cholesterol diets and are unaffected by heart
disease to the extent we are in the West. The difference between them
and other groups is the amount of saturated fat in the diet, not
cholesterol.

> Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
> blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.


Ipse dixit. LDL and HDL ratios are more important in assessing risks of
heart disease and heart attack. So, too, are factors like C-reactive
protein (CRP) level.

<snip rest of unsupported prattle>
--end restore---

>>>As you can see
>>>from the facts below you are way off the mark.
>>
>>I don't see facts, I see more unsupported opinions, to go along with the
>>lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric.
>
> Why do you think that the statistics showing the evils of the meat
> industry are 'lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric'?

See restored info above.

<snip>
> Ask yourself this question. Would you like someone to feed you up for
> slaughter, transport you under horrible circumstances in a truck to
> automated death factories and shoot a nail in your forehead?

We don't do that to humans, only to animals destined for dinner tables.

>>No vegetarian diet has been shown to be superior to a properly balanced
>>omnivorous diet.
>
> Are you dense? Didn't you see what was written?

Yes, a full steaming load of crap. Look at what the OP wrote, you
yellow-gowned fool: a *properly balanced* omnivorous diet. You want to
argue the extreme that suits you, when in fact many "vegetarians" eat
unbalanced diets which result in health problems as well.

http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...-disorders.htm

<snip>

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:45:26 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:
>>>No, it's calling you on your practice of posting long lists of unsupported
>>>claims.
>>
>> What makes you think they are unsupported?
>
>I replied to this list a couple weeks ago and you have yet to address
>the list's shortcomings. Those shortcomings start with the origin of the
>list, which you erroneously cite as the NY Times. It is, in fact, a list
>found in one of activist John Robbins' books.
>
>Let me restore to refresh your incense-addled memory:
>---restore---
> > HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
> >
> > The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989
>
>
>http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm
>
>Not NYT, it's by John Robbins. Where do you get that date citation?
>Robbins is a vegan activist, not a journalist. Stop misleading others.
>
> > Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
> > million.
>
>
>Why do most people starve to death? It isn't because we have cows.
>
> Not only is it true that a hunger free world is totally
> attainable, we are, right now in fact, gaining on it and well
> on the winning side of achieving it. Today, about 24,000 people
> die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. This is down
> from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000 twenty years ago.
> Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.
> Today 10% of children in developing countries die before the age
> of five. This is down from 28% fifty years ago. All of this
> despite the increase in world population during this time.
> http://www.worldlegacy.org/HungerInfo.htm
>
>The main reasons for hunger deal with distribution due to war and politics.
>
> > Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
> > Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million
>
>
>Inaccurate. The grains fed to cattle are, for the most part, unfit for
>human consumption.
>
> > Human beings in America: 243 million
>
>
>Closer to 300 million now, give or take an additional 5-10 million
>illegal immigrants.
>
> > Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
> > U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion
>
>
>Try about 5% of that. Most of what's fed to cattle is unfit for human
>consumption.
>
> > Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20
> >
> > Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80
>
>
>You wouldn't eat the corn (maize) grown for cattle.
>
> > Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95
> >
> > Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99
> >
> > How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds
>
>
>Better update your information. Child starvation is declining, even
>while meat consumption is rising. Go figure.
>
> > Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO
> >
> > Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165
>
>
>Applesranges. Percentage of acres where beef is raised and which
>potatoes are even a viable crop? Hint: it isn't anywhere near 100%.
>
> > Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56
>
>
>No, that figure takes range lands into consideration. Arable farmland is
>decreasing because of the population increase and sprawl associated with
>it, not to mention land set-asides (erosion protection, imminent domain,
>and "wetlands" protection).
>
>http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/landlim.htm
>
> > Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16
> >
> > The Environmental Argument
> >
> > Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
>http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publi...berkowitz.html
>
> > Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
> > fossil fuels.
>
>
>Ipse dixit. See above, and:
>http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
>http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html
>
>Stop exhaling if you're worried about CO2. You're part of the problem.
>
> > Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
> > diet: 50 times more
>
>
>Ipse dixit. Prove it.
>
> > Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
> >
> > Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
> > 85
>
>
>Prove both.
>
> > Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
> > meat-centered diet: 260 million
>
>
>Prove it.
>
> > Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> > Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds
> >
> > Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> > Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
> > housecat.
>
>
>Ipse dixit. Prove it.
>
> > Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
> > sq.ft.
>
>
>Ipse dixit. Prove it.
>
> > Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
> > rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year
>
>
>Ipse dixit. Prove it.
>
> > The Cancer Argument
> >
> > Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
> > vs. less than once a week: 4 times
>
>
>Citation, please.
>
> > For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times
>
>
>Citation, please.
>
> > Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
> > more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times
>
>
>Citation, please.
>
> > Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
> > sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times
>
>
>Citation, please.
>
> > The Natural Resources Argument
> >
> > Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
> > livestock portion.
>
>
>Citation, please.
>
> > Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
> > float a destroyer.
>
>
>Bullshit. An Arleigh Burke Class destroyer fully loaded displaces 8,300
>tons. That's the equivalent of over 2.28 million gallons. The Kidd and
>Spruance Classes both displace more.
>
> > Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500
>
>
>Ipse dixit. Go float a destroyer.
>
> > Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
> > subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
> > longer subsidized: 89 dollars
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
> > meat-centered diet: 13
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
> > factory farming of meat: 34.5
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
> > meat-centered diet: 33
>
>
>Ipse dixit.
>
> > The Cholesterol Argument
> >
> > Number of U.S. medical schools: 125
> >
> > Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30
> >
> > Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
> > years in medical school: 25 hours
>
>
>I believe that figure needs some adjustment.
>
> > Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack
>
>
>No, heart disease. Heart attacks count in that figure.
>
> > How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds
> >
> > Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.
> >
> > Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.
>
>
>Ipse dixit. Prove it.
>
> > Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
> > cholesterol if it is: normal
>
>
>The Inuit eat a high-cholesterol diet, but do not suffer heart disease.
>Other groups also eat high-cholesterol diets and are unaffected by heart
>disease to the extent we are in the West. The difference between them
>and other groups is the amount of saturated fat in the diet, not
>cholesterol.
>
> > Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
> > blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.
>
>
>Ipse dixit. LDL and HDL ratios are more important in assessing risks of
>heart disease and heart attack. So, too, are factors like C-reactive
>protein (CRP) level.
>
><snip rest of unsupported prattle>
>--end restore---
>
>>>>As you can see
>>>>from the facts below you are way off the mark.
>>>
>>>I don't see facts, I see more unsupported opinions, to go along with the
>>>lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric.
>>
>> Why do you think that the statistics showing the evils of the meat
>> industry are 'lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric'?
>
>See restored info above.
>
><snip>
>> Ask yourself this question. Would you like someone to feed you up for
>> slaughter, transport you under horrible circumstances in a truck to
>> automated death factories and shoot a nail in your forehead?
>
>We don't do that to humans, only to animals destined for dinner tables.
>
>>>No vegetarian diet has been shown to be superior to a properly balanced
>>>omnivorous diet.
>>
>> Are you dense? Didn't you see what was written?
>
>Yes, a full steaming load of crap. Look at what the OP wrote, you
>yellow-gowned fool: a *properly balanced* omnivorous diet. You want to
>argue the extreme that suits you, when in fact many "vegetarians" eat
>unbalanced diets which result in health problems as well.
>
>http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...-disorders.htm
>
><snip>

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:45:26 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:
>>>No, it's calling you on your practice of posting long lists of unsupported
>>>claims.
>>
>> What makes you think they are unsupported?
>
>I replied to this list a couple weeks ago and you have yet to address
>the list's shortcomings. Those shortcomings start with the origin of the
>list, which you erroneously cite as the NY Times. It is, in fact, a list
>found in one of activist John Robbins' books.

Whatever. The NY Times posted the article. Besides it doesn' become
less true because it originally came from John Robbins. The facts are
collaborated by health experts all over the world. It doesn't matter
how much you meat-heads try to obfuscate the issue to divert the
attention from your sinful ways, the facts remain that the meat
industry is committing crimes against nature and her inhabitants, and
those who support it will be punished by mother nature.

Nor does the facts become less valid by your refusing to acknowledge
them.

"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
certain diseases?

Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although they
didn't have much support from modern science until recently. Now,
medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between
meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are
giving vegetarianism another look.

Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is
somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart
disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical
Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases
can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several
well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco
and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause of
mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent
areas of the world.2

The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat
and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on
arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that
there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart
disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as
he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol
gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the
arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to
high blood pressure, heart diseases, and strokes.

On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore
Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol
levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet'
D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol
associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which
protein comes only from vegetables.'5

What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly
suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum,
breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat
little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and
Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6

Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas
with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live
on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas
those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely
vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7

Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I
have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer
rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little
or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8

Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given
by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is
simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short
intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to
quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system.
Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have
intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long
intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can
overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even
cancer.

And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is
slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it
turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration
by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat
a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives
to be carcinogenic.9

And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals
fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in
your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice
before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and
fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before
birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still
be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that
they be listed on the package.'10

Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of
Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many
common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables
and grains.'11

But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters?
Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is
no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is
historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and
digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic
Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has
lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.'

And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most
industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a
hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th
century consumer society.

But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating
meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other
animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food.'

(The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with
that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.)

As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on
nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily
recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams
recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because
reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much
protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein
consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but
actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively
related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart disease. In order
to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to
eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of
grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12

Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources
of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more
protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak.

Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs,
and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids
not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were
incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at
the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in
Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and
grains are excellent sources of complete proteins.

In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat -
and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to
lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the
vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians
simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the
vegetarian animals."


References:

Can be had upon request.




www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

Jahnu wrote:
>>>>No, it's calling you on your practice of posting long lists of unsupported
>>>>claims.
>>>
>>>What makes you think they are unsupported?
>>
>>I replied to this list a couple weeks ago and you have yet to address
>>the list's shortcomings. Those shortcomings start with the origin of the
>>list, which you erroneously cite as the NY Times. It is, in fact, a list
>>found in one of activist John Robbins' books.
>
> Whatever.

No, not "whatever." You made the claim that the list is some set of
proofs; it clearly isn't. You got the list off a vegan activist site,
and like so many things on the Internet, the information contained in it
has been altered. This is at least true with your citation, and I
suspect it's true with some of the already inflated propaganda from Mr
Robbins.

> The NY Times posted the article.

Ipse dixit. I did a search and couldn't find the article in the NYT
archives.

> Besides it doesn' become
> less true because it originally came from John Robbins.

It doesn't become any more true for that reason, either. The details
stand or fall on their own merits.

> The facts are
> collaborated by health experts all over the world.

Ipse dixit, appeal to popularity, and appeal to authority. Many health
experts would also disagree with some of the points contained therein.
So, too, would experts in hunger and resource management: I listed
information from a hunger site which showed many of your points are in
error.

> It doesn't matter how much you meat-heads

I'm vegetarian, asswipe. I'm having fresh fruit and mixed raw nuts as I
write this.

> try to obfuscate the issue to divert the
> attention from your sinful ways,

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but
what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"
Matthew 15:10-11

You surely know accounts of saddhus and yogis eating meat *by choice*.
The Vedas do not have an absolute prohibition against meat-eating. Even
the Buddha ate meat when it was offered to him. I don't eat meat, yet
you assail me as a "meat head." Where you and I differ is that I accept
all the religious teachings that food doesn't create holiness or lead to
enlightenment, and you very smugly and sanctimoniously do. We also
differ on the blind acceptance of information contained in lists created
by activists: I showed you that much of the list is flawed, yet you
defend it by calling others names. Is that what ISKCON is teaching these
days? (No offense to Michael if he reads this.)

> the facts remain that the meat
> industry is committing crimes against nature and her inhabitants,

Ipse dixit.

> those who support it will be punished by mother nature.

Your own karma will come back and bite you on your ass. That includes
your embracing and perpetration of lies as well as your amoral
assertions about others in these newsgroups.

> Nor does the facts become less valid by your refusing to acknowledge
> them.

Your grammar is terrible. So, too, is your reliance on unsupported
claims and deceitful attributions. That list is by John Robbins, not the
NYT. His book is copyrighted, so you should give him credit for his list
whether you check out the data or blindly accept it.

<snip more questionable "facts">

Jahnu wrote:
>
> References:
>
> Can be had upon request.
>

Full citation please, only peer reviewed.

"Jahnu" > wrote
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:21:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"Jahnu" > wrote
>
> >No, it's calling you on your practice of posting long lists of
unsupported
> >claims.
>
> What makes you think they are unsupported?

For one thing, there is a conspicuous absence of supporting references, and
also many of them are plainly false and/or misleading statements. It's the
work of an AR fundie, with no regard for accuracy or objectivity.

> >> As you can see
> >> from the facts below you are way off the mark.

> >I don't see facts, I see more unsupported opinions, to go along with the
> >lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric.
>
> Why do you think that the statistics showing the evils of the meat
> industry are 'lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric'?

I'm telling you that 'lies, half-truths, propaganda and rhetoric' are
interspersed with (usually questionable) statistics to convey a blatantly
false and biased impression.

> >The "meat industry" is *not* the issue between meat eaters and vegans.
>
> I don't know about that.

I do.

> But it is the issue you have with me.

No, it isn't, "the meat industry" is a convenient smokescreen, a whipping
boy you employ to front your campaign to eliminate the consumption of meat.
I can demonstrate this easily. If I were to acknowledge every claim you make
about "the meat industry" (whatever that means) and stopped patronizing it,
but substituted only meat, fish and fowl obtained from a small local co-op
of farmers and fishermen who used all humane methods of husbandry, you would
still attack my lifestyle, even_though I would probably be complicit in less
animal death and suffering than most vegans, yourself included.

> >The
> >fundamental issue in question is whether or not it is moral or not to
kill
> >animals and eat them.
>
> Ask yourself this question. Would you like someone to feed you up for
> slaughter, transport you under horrible circumstances in a truck to
> automated death factories and shoot a nail in your forehead?

Of course not. Ask yourself this one, would you like someone to drive a huge
machine through your neighbourhood chopping everything in sight to bits with
huge blades, decimating the population. Then they come along and spray a
noxious poison everwhere, on your home, your babies and on the food you eat.
Maybe then you can get to die slowly and painfully from the poison. Then
they do that a few more times before they come along with another huge
machine and take away all your food and shelter and decimate your population
again. Then, if you're "lucky" enough to still be alive, and you don't
starve, you can look forward to be picked off by predators, since all the
shelter is gone.

Hmmm, maybe a quick shot to the head doesn't sound too bad...

> >No vegetarian diet has been shown to be superior to a properly balanced
> >omnivorous diet.
>
> Are you dense?

No, I'm not, but you are lacking in objectivity.

> Didn't you see what was written? Why don't you just
> admit it. You are just another meat-head bereft of empathy with other
> living entities.

It makes you feel like a hero to say that doesn't it? You think that makes
you a better person, but it does just the opposite, it makes you a
self-righteous creep.

> So let's conveniently overlook and obfuscate the
> facts pointing to my evil and sinful ways.

What's obfuscation about pointing out to you that your life and your diet is
built on a mountain of dead animals? You seem to be living in a fantasy
world where pointing fingers at others and ignoring your own sins elevates
you to a high moral plateau. What a horrible way to live.

> "Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
> certain diseases?

Compared to what? Another fallacy you are perpetuating is that there are two
types of diet, vegetarian, and "other". That's patently dishonest.

If you want to swap quotes on nutrition, I can link countless reputable
dietary studies showing the benefits of a varied balanced diet.

"Jahnu" > wrote
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:57:09 GMT, Bob Yates >
> wrote:
>
> >Jim Webster wrote:
>
> >I did post some facts in reasons to Jahun earlier in the thread, but he
> >choose to answer with insults. I responded that I considered that as an
> >admission of defeat. Since he has conceded the argument, I have no need
> >to continue it with him.
> >
> >One of the the things in favor of meat eating is that livestock is the
> >most efficient way of converting grassland for human consumption. One
> >of the many point that I put forward that Jahun choose to ignore.
>
> I chose to ignore it because it is such a brain dead, lame proposition
> that it is not even worthy a response.

I would think that such a lame proposition would afford you an opportunity
to show how right you are. Why not take the opportunity?

The reason is that you cannot, because his point is valid, in fact livestock
is the_only_way to convert grassland for human consumption, Livestock is
also the only use for low grade and spoiled grains that don't meet the
standard for human consumption, that's what most of that statistic you use
of grains fed to livestock is comprised of. You're a snake-oil salesman,
nothing could be more evident.

I'd like to eat you Bob!

....maybe like that german looney...chop off your penis and fry it, and
put you in a bath of warm water to bleed a while....

bright blessings false prophet!

King Amdo.

Bob Yates > wrote in message >...
> How to Win an Argument with a Plant-Eater
>
> While their numbers at an awesomely high level, Meatatarians still are


etc etc etc

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:25:00 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:

>> Whatever.
>
>No, not "whatever." You made the claim that the list is some set of
>proofs; it clearly isn't.

It clearly is.

>You got the list off a vegan activist site,

I didn't. And even if I did, so what? Obviously vegans care about what
they eat and how animals are treated, which shows that they think
about stuff. Meat-heads on the other hand are bereft of empathy with
other living entities, so obviously they cannot be trusted.

>and like so many things on the Internet, the information contained in it
>has been altered.

How do you know that?

>This is at least true with your citation, and I
>suspect it's true with some of the already inflated propaganda from Mr
>Robbins.

I really could't care less what you suspect.

>> The NY Times posted the article.
>
>Ipse dixit. I did a search and couldn't find the article in the NYT
>archives.

Can you prove that? I think you are lying.

>> Besides it doesn' become
>> less true because it originally came from John Robbins.
>
>It doesn't become any more true for that reason, either. The details
>stand or fall on their own merits.

That's right. Therefore they are true.

>Ipse dixit, appeal to popularity, and appeal to authority. Many health
>experts would also disagree with some of the points contained therein.
>So, too, would experts in hunger and resource management: I listed
>information from a hunger site which showed many of your points are in
>error.

No it didn't. What it shows is that you feel guilty about eating meat.
If you didn't you wouldn't get so defensive about it.

>> It doesn't matter how much you meat-heads
>
>I'm vegetarian, asswipe. I'm having fresh fruit and mixed raw nuts as I
>write this.

Can you prove it, mince head? No vegetarian would appear so brain dead
as you do defending such a vile habit.

>> try to obfuscate the issue to divert the
>> attention from your sinful ways,
>
> Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.
> What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but
> what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"
> Matthew 15:10-11

That figures. You are a Christian meat head.

>You surely know accounts of saddhus and yogis eating meat *by choice*.

No sadhus and yogis eat meat. If they did, by definition, they
wouldn't be sadhus and yogis.

>The Vedas do not have an absolute prohibition against meat-eating.

That may be, but they sure have prohibitions against cow killing, and
they sure do have prohibitions against the mindless wanton slaughter
of animals that take place in he modern culture.

>Even
>the Buddha ate meat when it was offered to him.

As if you would have a clue about what Buddha would or would not eat.

>I don't eat meat, yet
>you assail me as a "meat head."

Of course you eat meat. I can detect a meat eater miles away. You are
a liar and a meat head. Who do you think you are fooling?

<snip the rest of your BS>




www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:53:53 GMT, Bob Yates >
wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:
>>
>> References:
>>
>> Can be had upon request.
>>
>
>Full citation please, only peer reviewed.


FOOTNOTES and REFERENCES

1/ Journal of the American Medical Associaiton, Editor: Diet and
Stress in vascular disease. JAMA 176: 134-5, 1961

2/ Inter-Society Commission for Heart Disease Resources. Report of
ISCHDR: Primary prevention of the arteriosclerotic diseases.
Circulation 42: A53-95, December 1970; also Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition and Human needs: Dietery Goals for the United States.
US.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402, 1977

3/ Saturated fats are found primarily, but not exclusively in foods of
animal origin; hydrogenated fats are found in commercially prepared
foods; Cholesterol is found _only_ in animal products.

4/ Kaare R. Norum, "What is the Experts' Opinionon Diet and Coronary
Heart Diseases?" Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, 12
February 1977.

5/ C.R. Sirtori, et. al., "Soybean Protein Diet in the Treatment of
Type 2 Hyperlipoproteinaemia," The Lancet 1 (8006): 275-7, (5 Feb.
1977).

6/ R.L. Phillips, "Role of Lifestyle and Dietary Habits in Risk of
Cancer Among 7th-Day Adventists," Cancer Research 35:3513, (November
1975); Moton Mintz, "Fat Intake Seen Increasing Cancer Risk,"
Washington Post, 10 September 1976.

7/ M.J. Hill, "Bacteria and the Aetiology of Cancer of the Large
Bowel," Lancet, 1:95-100, 1971.

8/ Quoted from Cancer and Other Diseases from Meat Consumption,
Blanche Leonardo, Ph.D. 1979, p. 12.

9/ M. Jacobson, "How Sodium Nitrite Can Affect Your Health,"
(Washington D.C.: Center for Science in the public interest, 1973);
W.Linjinsky, and S.S. Epstein, "Nitrosamines as Environmental
Carcinogens," Nature, no. 225 (1970), p. 21-3; Committee on Nitrate
Accumulation, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave.,
Washington, D.C., 20418, 1972, and the Lancet, "Nitrate and Human
Cancer," 2 (8032): 281, 6 August 1977.

10/ Gary and Steven Null, Poisons in Your Body, Arco Press, 1977, p.
52.

11/ American Adademy of Sciences, Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer,
National Research Consul, National Academy Press, Washington, June
1982.

12/ Dr. Paavo Airola, "Health Forum," Vegetarian Times, August 1982,
p.67.

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>For one thing, there is a conspicuous absence of supporting references, and
>also many of them are plainly false and/or misleading statements. It's the
>work of an AR fundie, with no regard for accuracy or objectivity.


FOOTNOTES and REFERENCES

1/ Journal of the American Medical Associaiton, Editor: Diet and
Stress in vascular disease. JAMA 176: 134-5, 1961

2/ Inter-Society Commission for Heart Disease Resources. Report of
ISCHDR: Primary prevention of the arteriosclerotic diseases.
Circulation 42: A53-95, December 1970; also Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition and Human needs: Dietery Goals for the United States.
US.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402, 1977

3/ Saturated fats are found primarily, but not exclusively in foods of
animal origin; hydrogenated fats are found in commercially prepared
foods; Cholesterol is found _only_ in animal products.

4/ Kaare R. Norum, "What is the Experts' Opinionon Diet and Coronary
Heart Diseases?" Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, 12
February 1977.

5/ C.R. Sirtori, et. al., "Soybean Protein Diet in the Treatment of
Type 2 Hyperlipoproteinaemia," The Lancet 1 (8006): 275-7, (5 Feb.
1977).

6/ R.L. Phillips, "Role of Lifestyle and Dietary Habits in Risk of
Cancer Among 7th-Day Adventists," Cancer Research 35:3513, (November
1975); Moton Mintz, "Fat Intake Seen Increasing Cancer Risk,"
Washington Post, 10 September 1976.

7/ M.J. Hill, "Bacteria and the Aetiology of Cancer of the Large
Bowel," Lancet, 1:95-100, 1971.

8/ Quoted from Cancer and Other Diseases from Meat Consumption,
Blanche Leonardo, Ph.D. 1979, p. 12.

9/ M. Jacobson, "How Sodium Nitrite Can Affect Your Health,"
(Washington D.C.: Center for Science in the public interest, 1973);
W.Linjinsky, and S.S. Epstein, "Nitrosamines as Environmental
Carcinogens," Nature, no. 225 (1970), p. 21-3; Committee on Nitrate
Accumulation, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave.,
Washington, D.C., 20418, 1972, and the Lancet, "Nitrate and Human
Cancer," 2 (8032): 281, 6 August 1977.

10/ Gary and Steven Null, Poisons in Your Body, Arco Press, 1977, p.
52.

11/ American Adademy of Sciences, Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer,
National Research Consul, National Academy Press, Washington, June
1982.

12/ Dr. Paavo Airola, "Health Forum," Vegetarian Times, August 1982,
p.67.

<snip>

>If you want to swap quotes on nutrition, I can link countless reputable
>dietary studies showing the benefits of a varied balanced diet.

Sure you can. Studies funded and made by the meat industry.

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

Jahnu wrote:
>>>Whatever.
>>
>>No, not "whatever." You made the claim that the list is some set of
>>proofs; it clearly isn't.
>
> It clearly is.

It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
are incorrect.

>>You got the list off a vegan activist site,
>
> I didn't.

You did. I pasted a link to the identical list last week (or week
before) when I tried to get you to address it. You didn't then, you're
not now. Here it is:

http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm

> And even if I did, so what?

It goes to the list's AND your credibility. I've already noted several
points which are in error. You have yet to challenge those points, or
support any of the others, with any evidence.

> Obviously vegans care about what
> they eat and how animals are treated,

I don't think that's obvious, especially given your own callous
indifference to rats, mice, frogs, snakes, etc., killed in the
harvesting of your own food.

> which shows that they think about stuff.

No, it only shows they give lip-service to "issues." IOW, they talk the
talk. They do NOT walk the walk. This is apparent when you dismiss
Professor Davis' work without addressing its points: that your diet
causes casualties and deaths in its production, and that a diet
consisting of grazed ruminants and home-grown produce causes fewer
casualties. You just cannot get past the idea that some meat is humane,
ethical, nutritious, and superior in terms of CDs than a veg-n diet.

> Meat-heads on the other hand are bereft of empathy with
> other living entities, so obviously they cannot be trusted.

You're engaging in hyperbole rather than seriously addressing issues.
Care to try again?

>>and like so many things on the Internet, the information contained in it
>>has been altered.
>
> How do you know that?

For starters, a review of NYT archives will show they never wrote that.
A search in John Robbins' book DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA will show you he
wrote it. Compare the list to Robbins' versions and see if it matches
completely. Then ask yourself, Where's the proof that he got any of it
correct?

>>This is at least true with your citation, and I
>>suspect it's true with some of the already inflated propaganda from Mr
>>Robbins.
>
> I really could't care less what you suspect.

I know; you're disingenuous when it comes to the Truth. That's why
you're seeking "enlightenment" in a third-world country without flush
toilets and where infanticide is the leading cause of death for females.

>>>The NY Times posted the article.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. I did a search and couldn't find the article in the NYT
>>archives.
>
> Can you prove that? I think you are lying.

Check with your local library. The online archive goes back to 1996:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/advanced

>>>Besides it doesn' become
>>>less true because it originally came from John Robbins.
>>
>>It doesn't become any more true for that reason, either. The details
>>stand or fall on their own merits.
>
> That's right. Therefore they are true.

No, you haven't established any reason to believe they're true. I showed
you that several of them are false. Why don't you take some time and
research those I asked you to prove?

>>Ipse dixit, appeal to popularity, and appeal to authority. Many health
>>experts would also disagree with some of the points contained therein.
>>So, too, would experts in hunger and resource management: I listed
>>information from a hunger site which showed many of your points are in
>>error.
>
> No it didn't.

Let me again repeat the same information you keep denying:

Not only is it true that a hunger free world is totally
attainable, we are, right now in fact, gaining on it and well
on the winning side of achieving it. Today, about 24,000 people
die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. This is down
from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000 twenty years ago.
Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.
Today 10% of children in developing countries die before the age
of five. This is down from 28% fifty years ago. All of this
despite the increase in world population during this time.
http://www.worldlegacy.org/HungerInfo.htm

So hunger is on the decline. Furthermore, the *cause* of hunger is
related to distribution of existing resources. We already have enough to
feed everyone in the world. Wars and politics are the chief issues
affecting distribution.

> What it shows is that you feel guilty about eating meat.

I neither eat meat nor feel guilty.

> If you didn't you wouldn't get so defensive about it.

If you had a brain cell you would address the points in that errant list.

>>>It doesn't matter how much you meat-heads
>>
>>I'm vegetarian, asswipe. I'm having fresh fruit and mixed raw nuts as I
>>write this.
>
> Can you prove it, mince head?

Want me to send you my shit so you can analyze it?

> No vegetarian would appear so brain dead

You do.

> as you do defending such a vile habit.

Why is it a vile habit?

>>>try to obfuscate the issue to divert the
>>>attention from your sinful ways,
>>
>> Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.
>> What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but
>> what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"
>> Matthew 15:10-11
>
> That figures. You are a Christian meat head.

Christian vegetarian.

>>You surely know accounts of saddhus and yogis eating meat *by choice*.
>
> No sadhus and yogis eat meat.

They do.

> If they did, by definition, they
> wouldn't be sadhus and yogis.

Ipse dixit.

>>The Vedas do not have an absolute prohibition against meat-eating.
>
> That may be,

No, that is so.

> but they sure have prohibitions against cow killing, and
> they sure do have prohibitions against the mindless wanton slaughter
> of animals that take place in he modern culture.

The production of food is not mindless or wanton.

>>Even
>>the Buddha ate meat when it was offered to him.
>
> As if you would have a clue about what Buddha would or would not eat.

The Buddha ate meat and therefore was not a vegetarian. Indeed,
it is thought that he died from food poisoning after eating
contaminated pork.... Others may argue that if they are not
directly involved in the slaughter of such animals then it is
not ethically unwholesome. Indeed, in countries whose cultural
orientation is Buddhist, you will find meat being eaten which
has involved the killing of animals specially for this purpose.
http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm

See also:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze..._eat_meat.html
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut034.htm

What else haven't you learned in that yellow dress?

>>I don't eat meat, yet
>>you assail me as a "meat head."
>
> Of course you eat meat.

No, I really don't. Look at my recipes in this and other groups.

http://snipurl.com/4byu
http://snipurl.com/4byv
http://snipurl.com/4byw
http://snipurl.com/4byx

Now tell me why I would even experiment for two freaking weeks to make
meatless meatballs if I weren't vegetarian?

> I can detect a meat eater miles away.

Try again, idiot.

> You are a liar and a meat head.

Why do I know so much about veg-n restaurants?
http://snipurl.com/4bz0
http://snipurl.com/4bz3
http://snipurl.com/4bz4

Note the last one is in praise of your group's restaurants. Perhaps you
need to go do kirtan for a while and check back before you impugn my
character. It's people like you who give ISKCON a bad name.

> Who do you think you are fooling?

You're a fool, so why don't you figure it out.

"Jahnu" > wrote
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >For one thing, there is a conspicuous absence of supporting references,
and
> >also many of them are plainly false and/or misleading statements. It's
the
> >work of an AR fundie, with no regard for accuracy or objectivity.
>
>
> FOOTNOTES and REFERENCES
>
> 1/ Journal of the American Medical Associaiton, Editor: Diet and
> Stress in vascular disease. JAMA 176: 134-5, 1961
>
> 2/ Inter-Society Commission for Heart Disease Resources. Report of
> ISCHDR: Primary prevention of the arteriosclerotic diseases.
> Circulation 42: A53-95, December 1970; also Senate Select Committee on
> Nutrition and Human needs: Dietery Goals for the United States.
> US.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402, 1977
>
> 3/ Saturated fats are found primarily, but not exclusively in foods of
> animal origin; hydrogenated fats are found in commercially prepared
> foods; Cholesterol is found _only_ in animal products.
>
> 4/ Kaare R. Norum, "What is the Experts' Opinionon Diet and Coronary
> Heart Diseases?" Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, 12
> February 1977.
>
> 5/ C.R. Sirtori, et. al., "Soybean Protein Diet in the Treatment of
> Type 2 Hyperlipoproteinaemia," The Lancet 1 (8006): 275-7, (5 Feb.
> 1977).
>
> 6/ R.L. Phillips, "Role of Lifestyle and Dietary Habits in Risk of
> Cancer Among 7th-Day Adventists," Cancer Research 35:3513, (November
> 1975); Moton Mintz, "Fat Intake Seen Increasing Cancer Risk,"
> Washington Post, 10 September 1976.
>
> 7/ M.J. Hill, "Bacteria and the Aetiology of Cancer of the Large
> Bowel," Lancet, 1:95-100, 1971.
>
> 8/ Quoted from Cancer and Other Diseases from Meat Consumption,
> Blanche Leonardo, Ph.D. 1979, p. 12.
>
> 9/ M. Jacobson, "How Sodium Nitrite Can Affect Your Health,"
> (Washington D.C.: Center for Science in the public interest, 1973);
> W.Linjinsky, and S.S. Epstein, "Nitrosamines as Environmental
> Carcinogens," Nature, no. 225 (1970), p. 21-3; Committee on Nitrate
> Accumulation, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave.,
> Washington, D.C., 20418, 1972, and the Lancet, "Nitrate and Human
> Cancer," 2 (8032): 281, 6 August 1977.
>
> 10/ Gary and Steven Null, Poisons in Your Body, Arco Press, 1977, p.
> 52.
>
> 11/ American Adademy of Sciences, Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer,
> National Research Consul, National Academy Press, Washington, June
> 1982.
>
> 12/ Dr. Paavo Airola, "Health Forum," Vegetarian Times, August 1982,
> p.67.

I notice that the newest link there is 22 years old.

I was talking about specific references for your bullshit "How to win an
argument..." list..

> <snip>
>
> >If you want to swap quotes on nutrition, I can link countless reputable
> >dietary studies showing the benefits of a varied balanced diet.
>
> Sure you can. Studies funded and made by the meat industry.

How about Centres for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.cdc.gov/health/nutrition.htm ? Are the CDC shills for "the meat
industry"?

No "Janhu", seriously, you lack credibility, and you damage whatever
crediblity your "cause" might have.

Dutch wrote:

<snip>

> No "Janhu", seriously, you lack credibility, and you damage whatever
> crediblity your "cause" might have.

This from the twit who doesn't even know African lions and deer
don't share a habitat.

Rat

King Amdo wrote:
>
> I'd like to eat you Bob!
>
> ...maybe like that german looney...chop off your penis and fry it, and
> put you in a bath of warm water to bleed a while....
>
> bright blessings false prophet!
>
> King Amdo.

No thanks, I am not into kinky stuff. Maybe one of the animal rights
people would be willing. After all it would be meat, but not of an
"animal".

Jahnu wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:53:53 GMT, Bob Yates >
> wrote:
>
> >Jahnu wrote:
> >>
> >> References:
> >>
> >> Can be had upon request.
> >>
> >
> >Full citation please, only peer reviewed.
>
> FOOTNOTES and REFERENCES

Thank you,

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:12:33 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
>evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
>in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
>are incorrect.

You have showed nothing, mince head, except that your whiny attempts
to obfuscate the issue doesn't work. The fact is that the meat
industry is a cancer on the planet, and that fact remains fact no
matter how much you try to divert away the attention from it by trying
to discredit the source or justify one wrong by another wrong. Here
are some more facts for you to contemplate, spongy brain:

from the New York Times February 6, 2004
Mad Cow Quandary: Making Animal Feed
By DENISE GRADY

Published: February 6, 2004


n the month and a half since a case of mad cow disease was discovered
in Washington State, Americans have been learning more than they
wanted to know about what cattle in this country have been eating.

Though consumers may imagine bucolic scenes of nursing calves and cows
munching on grass or hay, much of American agriculture no longer works
that way. For years, calves have been fed cow's blood instead of milk,
and cattle feed has been allowed to contain composted wastes from
chicken coops, including feathers, spilled feed and even feces.


Most people had never heard of those practices until last week, when
the Food and Drug Administration barred them, saying they could spread
mad cow disease. But the agency did not prohibit other practices that
involve using animal remains to make cattle feed.

Though the United States banned the use of cow parts in cattle feed in
the 1990's, it still permits rendered matter from cows to be fed to
pigs and chickens, and rendered pigs and chickens to be fed back to
cows. Critics say that in theory, that sequence could bring mad cow
disease full circle, back to cows.

On Wednesday, an expert panel advising the government urged a ban on
using any animal remains to make feed supplements for cattle. The
European Union has such a rule, but America does not, and the cattle
industry has accused the advisory group of exaggerating the risk in
this country.

Europe barred animal parts from cattle feed because scientists suspect
that tissue from infected animals, particularly the brain or spinal
cord from sick cows, can transmit the disease. Contaminated feed is
widely believed to have started the mad cow epidemic that infected
more than 180,000 animals in Britain in the 1980's and has led to the
death of more than 140 people.

Any decision by the United States to take the panel's advice, barring
all animal protein from cattle feed, could have a large effect on
another low-profile part of the livestock industry: rendering - that
is, pressure cooking on an industrial scale. Protein supplements
derived from rendered livestock are added to feed to help animals gain
weight and produce more milk.

Decisions about what kinds of rendered animal parts can go into cattle
feed are made by the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Stephen
Sundlof, director of the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said
there was no evidence that pigs or chickens could transmit mad cow
disease. He said the F.D.A. needed to study the expert panel's report
further to determine whether the feed rules should be made stricter.
He noted that the new report had come to conclusions very different
from those in a 2001 report by Harvard researchers that the agency
has relied on to make its rules.

When the new report was issued, "I asked the committee, `Help me here,
as a regulator who has to base their decisions on science, and now I'm
confronted with two very different scientific opinions,' " Dr. Sundlof
said.

"We need to find out what is at the root of that," he added, "before
we can make any decisions different from what we made last week."

Dr. Gary Weber, executive director for regulatory affairs at the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said the cattle industry was
prepared to change feeding practices if the F.D.A. determined that
doing so was necessary.

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:17:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Jahnu" > wrote

>I notice that the newest link there is 22 years old.

So? It just shows how evil and powerful the meat industry is to
suppress such knowledge.

>I was talking about specific references for your bullshit "How to win an
>argument..." list..

You can whine and whimper as much as like and try to obfuscate the
issue, the facts are still there. The meat industry is a cancer on the
planet.

>> Sure you can. Studies funded and made by the meat industry.
>
>How about Centres for Disease Control and Prevention
>http://www.cdc.gov/health/nutrition.htm ? Are the CDC shills for "the meat
>industry"?

blah blah.

>No "Janhu", seriously, you lack credibility, and you damage whatever
>crediblity your "cause" might have.

The only thing that is being damaged is your brain from all the
disease infested, rotten carcasses you eat. The meat industry is only
thriving because of people like you.

from the New York Times February 6, 2004
Mad Cow Quandary: Making Animal Feed
By DENISE GRADY

Published: February 6, 2004


n the month and a half since a case of mad cow disease was discovered
in Washington State, Americans have been learning more than they
wanted to know about what cattle in this country have been eating.

Though consumers may imagine bucolic scenes of nursing calves and cows
munching on grass or hay, much of American agriculture no longer works
that way. For years, calves have been fed cow's blood instead of milk,
and cattle feed has been allowed to contain composted wastes from
chicken coops, including feathers, spilled feed and even feces.


Most people had never heard of those practices until last week, when
the Food and Drug Administration barred them, saying they could spread
mad cow disease. But the agency did not prohibit other practices that
involve using animal remains to make cattle feed.

Though the United States banned the use of cow parts in cattle feed in
the 1990's, it still permits rendered matter from cows to be fed to
pigs and chickens, and rendered pigs and chickens to be fed back to
cows. Critics say that in theory, that sequence could bring mad cow
disease full circle, back to cows.

On Wednesday, an expert panel advising the government urged a ban on
using any animal remains to make feed supplements for cattle. The
European Union has such a rule, but America does not, and the cattle
industry has accused the advisory group of exaggerating the risk in
this country.

Europe barred animal parts from cattle feed because scientists suspect
that tissue from infected animals, particularly the brain or spinal
cord from sick cows, can transmit the disease. Contaminated feed is
widely believed to have started the mad cow epidemic that infected
more than 180,000 animals in Britain in the 1980's and has led to the
death of more than 140 people.

Any decision by the United States to take the panel's advice, barring
all animal protein from cattle feed, could have a large effect on
another low-profile part of the livestock industry: rendering - that
is, pressure cooking on an industrial scale. Protein supplements
derived from rendered livestock are added to feed to help animals gain
weight and produce more milk.

Decisions about what kinds of rendered animal parts can go into cattle
feed are made by the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Stephen
Sundlof, director of the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said
there was no evidence that pigs or chickens could transmit mad cow
disease. He said the F.D.A. needed to study the expert panel's report
further to determine whether the feed rules should be made stricter.
He noted that the new report had come to conclusions very different
from those in a 2001 report by Harvard researchers that the agency
has relied on to make its rules.

When the new report was issued, "I asked the committee, `Help me here,
as a regulator who has to base their decisions on science, and now I'm
confronted with two very different scientific opinions,' " Dr. Sundlof
said.

"We need to find out what is at the root of that," he added, "before
we can make any decisions different from what we made last week."

Dr. Gary Weber, executive director for regulatory affairs at the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said the cattle industry was
prepared to change feeding practices if the F.D.A. determined that
doing so was necessary.

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

imcompetence, inc. wrote:

Start noting your snips, yellow-garbed clown.

>>It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
>>evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
>>in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
>>are incorrect.
>
> You have showed

....that you thoroughly lack the character and integrity to carry on an
intelligent and reasoned discussion, and that you are wholly incompetent
in supporting the points you make. Why? Because you are emotively driven
by an agenda and care nothing about facts, reason, or logic.

<snip>

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:49:41 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>imcompetence, inc. wrote:
>
>Start noting your snips, yellow-garbed clown.
>
>>>It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
>>>evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
>>>in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
>>>are incorrect.
>>
>> You have showed
>
>...that you thoroughly lack the character and integrity to carry on an
>intelligent and reasoned discussion, and that you are wholly incompetent
>in supporting the points you make. Why? Because you are emotively driven
>by an agenda and care nothing about facts, reason, or logic.
>
><snip>

Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some don't.

wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:49:41 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>imcompetence, inc. wrote:
>>
>>Start noting your snips, yellow-garbed clown.
>>
>>
>>>>It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
>>>>evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
>>>>in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
>>>>are incorrect.
>>>
>>>You have showed
>>
>>...that you thoroughly lack the character and integrity to carry on an
>>intelligent and reasoned discussion, and that you are wholly incompetent
>>in supporting the points you make. Why? Because you are emotively driven
>>by an agenda and care nothing about facts, reason, or logic.
>>
>><snip>
>
>
> Some farm animals benefit from being born.

No animals benefit from being born, ****WIT. Stop lying.

Davey wrote:
>>imcompetence, inc. wrote:

That one applies to you, too.

>>Start noting your snips, yellow-garbed clown.
>>
>>
>>>>It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
>>>>evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
>>>>in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
>>>>are incorrect.
>>>
>>>You have showed
>>
>>...that you thoroughly lack the character and integrity to carry on an
>>intelligent and reasoned discussion, and that you are wholly incompetent
>>in supporting the points you make. Why? Because you are emotively driven
>>by an agenda and care nothing about facts, reason, or logic.
>>
>><snip>
>
> Some farm animals benefit from farming.

Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?

> Some don't.

Why not?

obfuscations can divert the attention
away from such evil and sinful practice?(Snip)
> www.krishna.com
> www.iskcon.org
> www.krishna.dk

There is nothing "sinful" about it, Janhu, according to Godfrom
Genesis 2, 3)
2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of
the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon
the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they
delivered.

3
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the
green herb have I given you all things.

Now what your false and bizarre Hindu dieties have to say about it, we
simply don't care. Go back to India and bow down before your grotesque
statues and chew your nasty betel nuts, your abstention from meat
won't keep you out of hell. But stop preaching your paganistic
morality to us, we don't want to hear it.-Jitney

usual suspect wrote:
> > Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>
> Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>

Never heard of possums being farmed, some new fangled, city slicker,
yuppie thing? No redneck would be dumb enough to do anything like that,
might be one of those weird Nazi gun control cultist.

jitney wrote:
>
> obfuscations can divert the attention
> away from such evil and sinful practice?(Snip)
> > www.krishna.com
> > www.iskcon.org
> > www.krishna.dk
>
> There is nothing "sinful" about it, Janhu, according to Godfrom
> Genesis 2, 3)
> 2
> And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of
> the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon
> the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they
> delivered.
>
> 3
> Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the
> green herb have I given you all things.
>
> Now what your false and bizarre Hindu dieties have to say about it, we
> simply don't care. Go back to India and bow down before your grotesque
> statues and chew your nasty betel nuts, your abstention from meat
> won't keep you out of hell. But stop preaching your paganistic
> morality to us, we don't want to hear it.-Jitney

Hinduism does not prohibit eating meat
According to Hinduism we have to be careful about our food, because what
we eat decides our physical well being as well as our mental makeup.
Eating very gross foods like animal meat and heavy or intoxicating
food, may lead to the strengthening of animal qualities and lethargic
nature in us. This is one reason why Hindus do not prefer to eat non-
vegetarian food. Another reason is their belief that killing innocent
and helpless animals for the purpose of filling ones stomach is a bad
karma with harmful consequences.

Apart from non vegetarian food, orthodox Hindus also avoid eating spicy
food, onions, garlic, mushrooms, intoxicating juices, very sour food and
some bulbs and tubers. The following are a few quotations from the
Manusmriti.

The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food, commits
no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who
are to be eaten (for those special purposes). ( 5:30)

Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and
injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly
bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat. (5:48)

There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in
carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but
abstention brings great rewards. (5:56)

Not all Hindus avoid eating meat. A great majority of Hindus eat it. In
ancient India even the Brahmins were said to be eating certain types of
sacrificial meat. Hindu law books do not prohibit the eating of meat in
general, but only certain types of meat. Jainism and Buddhism influenced
the food eating habits of the Hindu community during the Gupta and post
Gupta period, although we cannot say definitely that the concept of non
violence and avoiding meat eating were alien to them before. As early as
the rig Vedic period, ancient Hindu sages who spent their lives in
meditation and seclusion subsisted on roots and tubers and plant food
only to gain control over their minds and bodies and attain
self-realization.

http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_food.htm

There is some elitism connected with the vegetarian diet that relates to
the caste system, similar to the Japanese traditionally looking down on
those on the islands that prepared meat and leather.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:12:33 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
>evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
>in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
>are incorrect.

You have showed nothing, mince head, except that your whiny attempts
to obfuscate the issue doesn't work. The fact is that the meat
industry is a cancer on the planet, and that fact remains fact no
matter how much you try to divert away the attention from it by trying
to discredit the source or justify one wrong by another wrong. Here
are some more facts for you to contemplate, spongy brain:

from the New York Times February 6, 2004
Mad Cow Quandary: Making Animal Feed
By DENISE GRADY

Published: February 6, 2004


n the month and a half since a case of mad cow disease was discovered
in Washington State, Americans have been learning more than they
wanted to know about what cattle in this country have been eating.

Though consumers may imagine bucolic scenes of nursing calves and cows
munching on grass or hay, much of American agriculture no longer works
that way. For years, calves have been fed cow's blood instead of milk,
and cattle feed has been allowed to contain composted wastes from
chicken coops, including feathers, spilled feed and even feces.


Most people had never heard of those practices until last week, when
the Food and Drug Administration barred them, saying they could spread
mad cow disease. But the agency did not prohibit other practices that
involve using animal remains to make cattle feed.

Though the United States banned the use of cow parts in cattle feed in
the 1990's, it still permits rendered matter from cows to be fed to
pigs and chickens, and rendered pigs and chickens to be fed back to
cows. Critics say that in theory, that sequence could bring mad cow
disease full circle, back to cows.

On Wednesday, an expert panel advising the government urged a ban on
using any animal remains to make feed supplements for cattle. The
European Union has such a rule, but America does not, and the cattle
industry has accused the advisory group of exaggerating the risk in
this country.

Europe barred animal parts from cattle feed because scientists suspect
that tissue from infected animals, particularly the brain or spinal
cord from sick cows, can transmit the disease. Contaminated feed is
widely believed to have started the mad cow epidemic that infected
more than 180,000 animals in Britain in the 1980's and has led to the
death of more than 140 people.

Any decision by the United States to take the panel's advice, barring
all animal protein from cattle feed, could have a large effect on
another low-profile part of the livestock industry: rendering - that
is, pressure cooking on an industrial scale. Protein supplements
derived from rendered livestock are added to feed to help animals gain
weight and produce more milk.

Decisions about what kinds of rendered animal parts can go into cattle
feed are made by the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Stephen
Sundlof, director of the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said
there was no evidence that pigs or chickens could transmit mad cow
disease. He said the F.D.A. needed to study the expert panel's report
further to determine whether the feed rules should be made stricter.
He noted that the new report had come to conclusions very different
from those in a 2001 report by Harvard researchers that the agency
has relied on to make its rules.

When the new report was issued, "I asked the committee, `Help me here,
as a regulator who has to base their decisions on science, and now I'm
confronted with two very different scientific opinions,' " Dr. Sundlof
said.

"We need to find out what is at the root of that," he added, "before
we can make any decisions different from what we made last week."

Dr. Gary Weber, executive director for regulatory affairs at the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said the cattle industry was
prepared to change feeding practices if the F.D.A. determined that
doing so was necessary.

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:17:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Jahnu" > wrote

>I notice that the newest link there is 22 years old.

So? It just shows how evil and powerful the meat industry is to
suppress such knowledge.

>I was talking about specific references for your bullshit "How to win an
>argument..." list..

You can whine and whimper as much as like and try to obfuscate the
issue, the facts are still there. The meat industry is a cancer on the
planet.

>> Sure you can. Studies funded and made by the meat industry.
>
>How about Centres for Disease Control and Prevention
>http://www.cdc.gov/health/nutrition.htm ? Are the CDC shills for "the meat
>industry"?

blah blah.

>No "Janhu", seriously, you lack credibility, and you damage whatever
>crediblity your "cause" might have.

The only thing that is being damaged is your brain from all the
disease infested, rotten carcasses you eat. The meat industry is only
thriving because of people like you.

from the New York Times February 6, 2004
Mad Cow Quandary: Making Animal Feed
By DENISE GRADY

Published: February 6, 2004


n the month and a half since a case of mad cow disease was discovered
in Washington State, Americans have been learning more than they
wanted to know about what cattle in this country have been eating.

Though consumers may imagine bucolic scenes of nursing calves and cows
munching on grass or hay, much of American agriculture no longer works
that way. For years, calves have been fed cow's blood instead of milk,
and cattle feed has been allowed to contain composted wastes from
chicken coops, including feathers, spilled feed and even feces.


Most people had never heard of those practices until last week, when
the Food and Drug Administration barred them, saying they could spread
mad cow disease. But the agency did not prohibit other practices that
involve using animal remains to make cattle feed.

Though the United States banned the use of cow parts in cattle feed in
the 1990's, it still permits rendered matter from cows to be fed to
pigs and chickens, and rendered pigs and chickens to be fed back to
cows. Critics say that in theory, that sequence could bring mad cow
disease full circle, back to cows.

On Wednesday, an expert panel advising the government urged a ban on
using any animal remains to make feed supplements for cattle. The
European Union has such a rule, but America does not, and the cattle
industry has accused the advisory group of exaggerating the risk in
this country.

Europe barred animal parts from cattle feed because scientists suspect
that tissue from infected animals, particularly the brain or spinal
cord from sick cows, can transmit the disease. Contaminated feed is
widely believed to have started the mad cow epidemic that infected
more than 180,000 animals in Britain in the 1980's and has led to the
death of more than 140 people.

Any decision by the United States to take the panel's advice, barring
all animal protein from cattle feed, could have a large effect on
another low-profile part of the livestock industry: rendering - that
is, pressure cooking on an industrial scale. Protein supplements
derived from rendered livestock are added to feed to help animals gain
weight and produce more milk.

Decisions about what kinds of rendered animal parts can go into cattle
feed are made by the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Stephen
Sundlof, director of the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said
there was no evidence that pigs or chickens could transmit mad cow
disease. He said the F.D.A. needed to study the expert panel's report
further to determine whether the feed rules should be made stricter.
He noted that the new report had come to conclusions very different
from those in a 2001 report by Harvard researchers that the agency
has relied on to make its rules.

When the new report was issued, "I asked the committee, `Help me here,
as a regulator who has to base their decisions on science, and now I'm
confronted with two very different scientific opinions,' " Dr. Sundlof
said.

"We need to find out what is at the root of that," he added, "before
we can make any decisions different from what we made last week."

Dr. Gary Weber, executive director for regulatory affairs at the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said the cattle industry was
prepared to change feeding practices if the F.D.A. determined that
doing so was necessary.

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

Jahnu wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:17:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jahnu" > wrote
>
>
>>I notice that the newest link there is 22 years old.
>
>
> So?

So, your material is stale, shit4braincell.

You really are stupid.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:24:33 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>So, your material is stale, shit4braincell.
>
>You really are stupid.

You are just saying that because you are really ****ed off that your
obfuscation techniques don't work here. What did you think, meatBall,
that you could come to a vegan or philosophy group and convince us
that vegetarianism is as cruel to animals as the meat industry? I
mean, how brain dead can you be? Your brain must have turned to mush
from all the dead, murdered, rotten carcasses you eat.

Do you know why they call it 'tender' meat, mincehead? Do you know why
the meat is tender and soft? Because it is ROTTEN. And do you know why
the meat is not green and gray in color like it should be according to
its decomposed state? Because they put red dye in it, that's why.
That's what you eat, slimeBall. And that's why you stink like a grave
yard out of your mouth. I can't believe you come back again and again
just so I can kick your limp ass repeatedly with the facts of the
evils of the meat industry. Read more about it below, scumbag:

from the New York Times February 6, 2004
Mad Cow Quandary: Making Animal Feed
By DENISE GRADY

Published: February 6, 2004


n the month and a half since a case of mad cow disease was discovered
in Washington State, Americans have been learning more than they
wanted to know about what cattle in this country have been eating.

Though consumers may imagine bucolic scenes of nursing calves and cows
munching on grass or hay, much of American agriculture no longer works
that way. For years, calves have been fed cow's blood instead of milk,
and cattle feed has been allowed to contain composted wastes from
chicken coops, including feathers, spilled feed and even feces.


Most people had never heard of those practices until last week, when
the Food and Drug Administration barred them, saying they could spread
mad cow disease. But the agency did not prohibit other practices that
involve using animal remains to make cattle feed.

Though the United States banned the use of cow parts in cattle feed in
the 1990's, it still permits rendered matter from cows to be fed to
pigs and chickens, and rendered pigs and chickens to be fed back to
cows. Critics say that in theory, that sequence could bring mad cow
disease full circle, back to cows.

On Wednesday, an expert panel advising the government urged a ban on
using any animal remains to make feed supplements for cattle. The
European Union has such a rule, but America does not, and the cattle
industry has accused the advisory group of exaggerating the risk in
this country.

Europe barred animal parts from cattle feed because scientists suspect
that tissue from infected animals, particularly the brain or spinal
cord from sick cows, can transmit the disease. Contaminated feed is
widely believed to have started the mad cow epidemic that infected
more than 180,000 animals in Britain in the 1980's and has led to the
death of more than 140 people.

Any decision by the United States to take the panel's advice, barring
all animal protein from cattle feed, could have a large effect on
another low-profile part of the livestock industry: rendering - that
is, pressure cooking on an industrial scale. Protein supplements
derived from rendered livestock are added to feed to help animals gain
weight and produce more milk.

Decisions about what kinds of rendered animal parts can go into cattle
feed are made by the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Stephen
Sundlof, director of the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said
there was no evidence that pigs or chickens could transmit mad cow
disease. He said the F.D.A. needed to study the expert panel's report
further to determine whether the feed rules should be made stricter.
He noted that the new report had come to conclusions very different
from those in a 2001 report by Harvard researchers that the agency
has relied on to make its rules.

When the new report was issued, "I asked the committee, `Help me here,
as a regulator who has to base their decisions on science, and now I'm
confronted with two very different scientific opinions,' " Dr. Sundlof
said.

"We need to find out what is at the root of that," he added, "before
we can make any decisions different from what we made last week."

Dr. Gary Weber, executive director for regulatory affairs at the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said the cattle industry was
prepared to change feeding practices if the F.D.A. determined that
doing so was necessary.

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

Jahnu wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:24:33 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>So, your material is stale, shit4braincell.
>>
>>You really are stupid.
>
>
> You are just saying that because you are really ****ed off that your
> obfuscation techniques don't work here

No, punk, I'm saying it because your material is stale
and unperusasive.

You really are stupid, punk. You are seen to be a
hypocrite and liar.