Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 04:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Mar 2, 7:54*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:51*am, George Plimpton wrote:









On 3/2/2012 9:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 17:44, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 6:08 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 2:36 pm, * *wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:03 am, * *wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:37, [email protected] wrote:


On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500,
wrote:


My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.


I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
how unclean chicken meat generally is.


It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"


* * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.


It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?


* * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
a person horribly sick. So cook it.


I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.


* * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.


OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.


* * � Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.


Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.


* * * Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
products.


But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
grounded in any evidence.


Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
one serving of grass-fed beef.


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
in a decade.


Thanks.


It was shit. *When an idiot - truly a works-to-be-stupid idiot - like
Douchebag Hamilton is praising you for saying something stupid, the best
thing to do is just keep your stupid ****ing mouth shut.


Your opinion is not especially well-informed or important.


Uh-huh - that's why you spend such an inordinate amount of time
responding to me.


I think Rupert is using you for an amusing diversion in his spare time
like the rest of us do.


Yes, that is correct.

Ball actually does have a point here; it is a silly habit.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 04:51 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Mar 2, 7:57*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:58 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 2 Mrz., 17:43, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:37, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500,
wrote:


My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.


I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
how unclean chicken meat generally is.


It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"


* * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.


It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?


* * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
a person horribly sick. So cook it.


I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.


* * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.


OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.


* * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.


Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 04:53 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Mar 2, 10:34*pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
plant foods?

In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional deficiencies in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 06:14 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default What to eat

On 3/2/2012 8:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 2, 7:57 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:58 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 2 Mrz., 17:43, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:37, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500,
wrote:


My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.


I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
how unclean chicken meat generally is.


It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"


It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.


It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?


Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
a person horribly sick. So cook it.


I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.


Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.


OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.


Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.


Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
products.


But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
grounded in any evidence.


Correct, it isn't grounded in evidence. It is grounded in logical
consideration of plausible and likely true propositions.


If they are plausible and likely to be true, they must be grounded in
some evidence.


No, that's false. The plausibility has to do with the conceptual
knowledge, not with any empirical investigation. Plenty of things that
are plausible based on reasonably well conceived ideas turn out to be
wrong upon empirical investigation, which usually leads to the discovery
of some error in the initial conception. However, even if you give a
little more thought to the concepts involved here, you aren't going to
hit upon something that would reasonably lead you to conclude that the
initial assumption of plausibility was unwarranted.


I don't believe that an empirical claim about the world can be
"plausible based on reasonably well-conceived ideas", except insofar
as the judgement of plausibility is in some way related to facts about
the world that have in some way been established through empirical
investigation.


They have been.


Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
one serving of grass-fed beef.


We aren't talking about "most animal products". 100% grass-fed beef
exists, and plausibly, it causes no additional animal deaths at all.
You might wish to speculate idly about a beef steer putting its foot
into a rodent burrow and crushing some rodents to death, but in fact
cattle try to avoid stepping in holes.


It is entirely *implausible* to think that mechanized vegetable
agriculture does *not* kill significant numbers of field animals -
certainly far more than grazing animals.


I'm not aware of any compelling reason to think it causes more deaths
per calorically equivalent serving.


Of *course* you are aware of that.

I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Not his job.


No. It's not his job. But my point that he has given her no especially
good reason to rethink her decision to go vegetarian stands.


I already did.


You already did what? I was talking about David Harrison.


But *I* have pointed out that she didn't adequately think through her
decision to go vegetarian.


First, her health concerns are unwarranted,


There are legitimate health concerns associated with eating meat.


*NOT* any concerns that can't be addressed by proper food handling that
does not involve extreme measures.

Anyway, she was talking about chicken specifically, which, due to
commercial chicken slaughter and packaging practices, has a relatively
high risk of salmonella contamination (but that contamination can be
safely addressed quite easily.) Other kinds of meat, such as beef and
pork and lamb, don't pose anything close to the risk that commercially
processed poultry does, and poultry does not pose a hard-to-handle risk.


and in fact
are almost certainly just a smokescreen anyway. The whole way her post
was written reeked with insincerity. She was striving for a particular
literary "feel", rather than simply to state her concerns. It reeked of
dishonesty and insincerity from the first paragraph.

Second, her typically naive "vegan" concerns about animal cruelty were
obviously those of a neophyte, one who has not given one bit of thought
to the harm caused by what she does consume.


You have no basis for that assertion.


Of course I have. The entire tone of her post suggests it.


What I have done is show that the easy, casual and fatuously
ego-gratifying assumption that refraining from consuming animal bits
*necessarily* shows one is pursuing the least-harm consumption pattern
is false.


Oh, good for you.


Yes.

Obviously it is conceivable that there might be some other consumption
patterns that wouldn't involve substantial sacrifice which cause no
more harm. Showing that this might be the case is really not any
extraordinary achievement.


It's enough to gut the entire "vegan" proposition.


Wrong.


No, I'm right, as usual.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 09:05 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default What to eat



"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
plant foods?


Which plant foods?


In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional deficiencies
in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 12:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Mar 3, 7:14*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:51 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 2, 7:57 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:58 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 17:43, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:37, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500,
wrote:


My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.


I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
how unclean chicken meat generally is.


It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"


* * * *It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.


It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?


* * * *Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
a person horribly sick. So cook it.


I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.


* * * *Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.


OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.


* * * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.


Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.


* * * *Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
products.


But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
grounded in any evidence.


Correct, it isn't grounded in evidence. *It is grounded in logical
consideration of plausible and likely true propositions.


If they are plausible and likely to be true, they must be grounded in
some evidence.


No, that's false. *The plausibility has to do with the conceptual
knowledge, not with any empirical investigation. *Plenty of things that
are plausible based on reasonably well conceived ideas turn out to be
wrong upon empirical investigation, which usually leads to the discovery
of some error in the initial conception. *However, even if you give a
little more thought to the concepts involved here, you aren't going to
hit upon something that would reasonably lead you to conclude that the
initial assumption of plausibility was unwarranted.


I don't believe that an empirical claim about the world can be
"plausible based on reasonably well-conceived ideas", except insofar
as the judgement of plausibility is in some way related to facts about
the world that have in some way been established through empirical
investigation.


They have been.


Good, so you can tell me what the evidence is, as I requested before.









Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
one serving of grass-fed beef.


We aren't talking about "most animal products". *100% grass-fed beef
exists, and plausibly, it causes no additional animal deaths at all.
You might wish to speculate idly about a beef steer putting its foot
into a rodent burrow and crushing some rodents to death, but in fact
cattle try to avoid stepping in holes.


It is entirely *implausible* to think that mechanized vegetable
agriculture does *not* kill significant numbers of field animals -
certainly far more than grazing animals.


I'm not aware of any compelling reason to think it causes more deaths
per calorically equivalent serving.


Of *course* you are aware of that.


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Not his job.


No. It's not his job. But my point that he has given her no especially
good reason to rethink her decision to go vegetarian stands.


I already did.


You already did what? I was talking about David Harrison.


But *I* have pointed out that she didn't adequately think through her
decision to go vegetarian.


On the basis of no good reasons to think so.

* First, her health concerns are unwarranted,


There are legitimate health concerns associated with eating meat.


*NOT* any concerns that can't be addressed by proper food handling that
does not involve extreme measures.


Yes. Other concerns apart from that. Eating meat at the levels typical
in modern Western societies increases your risk for various serious
health problems such as heart disease and cancer.


Anyway, she was talking about chicken specifically, which, due to
commercial chicken slaughter and packaging practices, has a relatively
high risk of salmonella contamination (but that contamination can be
safely addressed quite easily.) *Other kinds of meat, such as beef and
pork and lamb, don't pose anything close to the risk that commercially
processed poultry does, and poultry does not pose a hard-to-handle risk.

and in fact
are almost certainly just a smokescreen anyway. *The whole way her post
was written reeked with insincerity. *She was striving for a particular
literary "feel", rather than simply to state her concerns. *It reeked of
dishonesty and insincerity from the first paragraph.


Second, her typically naive "vegan" concerns about animal cruelty were
obviously those of a neophyte, one who has not given one bit of thought
to the harm caused by what she does consume.


You have no basis for that assertion.


Of course I have. *The entire tone of her post suggests it.


It's always good to hear about your mind-reading skills.









What I have done is show that the easy, casual and fatuously
ego-gratifying assumption that refraining from consuming animal bits
*necessarily* shows one is pursuing the least-harm consumption pattern
is false.


Oh, good for you.


Yes.


Obviously it is conceivable that there might be some other consumption
patterns that wouldn't involve substantial sacrifice which cause no
more harm. Showing that this might be the case is really not any
extraordinary achievement.


It's enough to gut the entire "vegan" proposition.


Wrong.


No, I'm right, as usual.


What do you think the "vegan" proposition is?
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 12:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Mar 3, 10:05*am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

...









On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.


but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
plant foods?


Which plant foods?


Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
suffering?











In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional deficiencies
in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.


It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.


The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 08:37 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default What to eat



"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

...









On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.


but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
plant foods?


Which plant foods?


Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
suffering?


I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any reasonable
person would call acceptable.

In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
deficiencies
in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.


It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.


The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.


You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is an
excellent choice for your health.

The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the first
is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.




  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 12:32 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

...









On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


...


On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.


but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
plant foods?


Which plant foods?


Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
suffering?


I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any reasonable
person would call acceptable.


So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.









In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
deficiencies
in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.


It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.


The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.


You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is an
excellent choice for your health.


My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
vegan.

The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the first
is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.


I don't agree.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 07:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default What to eat


"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

...









On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


...


On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be
some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet
are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.


but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
environmental
cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
plant foods?


Which plant foods?


Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
suffering?


I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
reasonable
person would call acceptable.


So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.


The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian meal
with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that you
would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make the
meal more healthy and enjoyable.









In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy
for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
deficiencies
in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.


It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.


The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.


You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is
an
excellent choice for your health.


My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
vegan.

The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the
first
is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.


I don't agree.


So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply means
you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.








  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 08:12 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

...









On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


...


On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


...


On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be
some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet
are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.


but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
environmental
cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
plant foods?


Which plant foods?


Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
suffering?


I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
reasonable
person would call acceptable.


So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.


The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian meal
with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that you
would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make the
meal more healthy and enjoyable.


And what's the evidence for that proposition?











In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy
for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
deficiencies
in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.


It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.


The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.


You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is
an
excellent choice for your health.


My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
vegan.


The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the
first
is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.


I don't agree.


So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply means
you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.


That's a silly interpretation of my claim. Obviously my claim was that
if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
be healthier than a typical meat-based diet, and that's obviously what
my doctor believes too.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default What to eat

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 04:03:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
exception,


In some case it is, but you can't accept that much so you can't even get to
the starting line. IF you're ever able to be honest enough to admit that
sometimes it is, then what?

but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
one serving of grass-fed beef.


So far it looks like about a hundred if we DON'T figure byproducts into the
count. If we do figure byproducts into the count then the number for servings of
food goes way down and the estimate of hundreds becomes again overly generous on
my part, since if we include items made with byproducts the soy would propably
jump to thousands or millions of times more. Try it for not only however many
servings of beef, but also now include however many items made from the 600
pounds of leather, and whatever other byproduct made items you want to account
for. How about just doing it for the entire thousand pounds of animal material
and however manty items...food...leather...animal food...fertilizer...... If you
want to go at it that way, but I still suggest we stick with human grade food
items only and not even pet food. Remember it's you eliminationists who want to
include the byproduct stuff too, not me. But since you do, then you need to go
ahead and do it. Go:
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:58 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default What to eat



"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

...









On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


...


On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


...


On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might
be
some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and
yet
are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on
animals.


but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a
local
farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
environmental
cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed
plant-based
product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm
than
plant foods?


Which plant foods?


Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the
other
night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
suffering?


I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some
of
the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken
presents a
meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
reasonable
person would call acceptable.


So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.


The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian
meal
with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that
you
would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make
the
meal more healthy and enjoyable.


And what's the evidence for that proposition?


Logic. Propositions are built on logic.












In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good
strategy
for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
deficiencies
in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than
thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has
advantages.


It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.


The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.


You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is
not
the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor
is
an
excellent choice for your health.


My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
vegan.


The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the
first
is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.


I don't agree.


So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply
means
you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.


That's a silly interpretation of my claim.


No it's not, it is a literal interpretation. We don't all share your
assumptions. All you said was that you were a vegan, period. That does NOT
necessarily mean you are eating a healthy diet.

Obviously my claim was that
if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
be healthier than a typical meat-based diet


If that's what you are claiming then that's what you should say. I have no
way of knowing that your vegan diet is "reasonably sensible" nor that you
are comparing it with a "typical" meat based diet, whatever that is. Why
don't you compare a crappy vegan diet with a sensible balanced diet that
includes some low fat meat?

and that's obviously what
my doctor believes too.


That may be obvious to you, but you said that all your doctor knows is that
your diet is vegan. Based on that she should not be telling you that your
diet is healthy, you may have a severe B-12 deficiency for example.





  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 10:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Mar 5, 8:58*pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

...









On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


....


On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


...


On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message


...


On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might
be
some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and
yet
are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on
animals.


but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a
local
farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
environmental
cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed
plant-based
product,
vegetables or fruit.


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm
than
plant foods?


Which plant foods?


Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the
other
night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
suffering?


I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some
of
the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken
presents a
meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
reasonable
person would call acceptable.


So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.


The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian
meal
with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that
you
would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make
the
meal more healthy and enjoyable.


And what's the evidence for that proposition?


Logic. Propositions are built on logic.


No, empirical propositions don't come from logic alone, they are
grounded in factual evidence.











In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good
strategy
for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
deficiencies
in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than
thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has
advantages.


It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.


The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.


You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is
not
the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor
is
an
excellent choice for your health.


My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
vegan.


The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the
first
is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.


I don't agree.


So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply
means
you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.


That's a silly interpretation of my claim.


No it's not, it is a literal interpretation. We don't all share your
assumptions. All you said was that you were a vegan, period. That does NOT
necessarily mean you are eating a healthy diet.


But it makes it quite likely, if the diet is reasonably sensible.

Obviously my claim was that
if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
be healthier than a typical meat-based diet


If that's what you are claiming then that's what you should say. *I have no
way of knowing that your vegan diet is "reasonably sensible" nor that you
are comparing it with a "typical" meat based diet, whatever that is. Why
don't you compare a crappy vegan diet with a sensible balanced diet that
includes some low fat meat?

and that's obviously what
my doctor believes too.


That may be obvious to you, but you said that all your doctor knows is that
your diet is vegan. Based on that she should not be telling you that your
diet is healthy, you may have a severe B-12 deficiency for example.


I have regular blood tests to check for side-effects of my meds, and
we check my iron and B-12 levels when we do those.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 10:20 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Mar 5, 8:29*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 04:03:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
exception,


* * In some case it is, but you can't accept that much so you can't even get to
the starting line. IF you're ever able to be honest enough to admit that
sometimes it is, then what?


Then having a diet which includes some grass-fed beef may be a good
approach to reducing animal suffering too, as well as a vegan diet.

but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
one serving of grass-fed beef.


* * So far it looks like about a hundred if we DON'T figure byproducts into the
count.


Nonsense. We have absolutely no grounds for making an estimate of what
the factor is.

If we do figure byproducts into the count then the number for servings of
food goes way down


Wrong.

and the estimate of hundreds becomes again overly generous on
my part, since if we include items made with byproducts the soy would propably
jump to thousands or millions of times more. Try it for not only however many
servings of beef, but also now include however many items made from the 600
pounds of leather, and whatever other byproduct made items you want to account
for. How about just doing it for the entire thousand pounds of animal material
and however manty items...food...leather...animal food...fertilizer...... If you
want to go at it that way, but I still suggest we stick with human grade food
items only and not even pet food. Remember it's you eliminationists who want to
include the byproduct stuff too, not me. But since you do, then you need to go
ahead and do it. Go:


I did.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017