 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > > I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet for a new > > america". > > It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled screed. > Hey, thanks for your reply - Certainly, check the facts and references therin as much as possible. > > When questioned about the details here by Usual Suspect I did a little > > library search. > > > > Conclusions: > > > > 1) Yes, Plato's writings make Socrates seem like an advocate of > > vegetarian living. > > For the record, I didn't question that. > > > 2) Many advocates of vegetarianism stretch the words too far taking him > > completely out of context. > > Some of the claims are beyond being out of context. They're complete > fabrications as you noted below. > > > For example: > > http://www.ivu.org/history/greece_rome/socrates.html > > > > Notice how the source for the quote is a usenet post?  > > > > I have searched online versions of the republic and found that post to > > basically be a fabrication. > > Basically? Call it what it is: a fabrication. Period. > Yes. Certainly worth a failing grade in any class, or the loss of your job as a journalist. Definitely doesn't make a good name for vegetarians does it. > > If anyone could point me to a proper > > source of this dialog to prove me wrong I would be greatly obliged. In > > the meantime I'll keep looking - an excuse to read plato which I never > > have really gotten into. > > > > > > In the Repubic, book 2 (as usually annotated), the following fragment > > appears: > > > > ... and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them. > > Certainly. > > And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians > > than before? > > Much greater. > > ... > > In fact, the activity leading to the greater need of physicians he > > describes is not just the eating of animals, but a "luxurious > > lifestyle" which he had gone into some depth describing.. dainties, > > perfumes, insense, servants, swineherds.. > > I.E., *OVER*-consumption. > > > In fact, these other 'luxuries' (including meat eating) are what he > > claims contribute to: > > > > ...and so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not? > > Most certainly. > > ... > > > > Indeed, his commentary is quite similar to that made by many pundits > > Activists, not merely pundits. > > > today, with modern luxuries being SUVs, air conditioners, and > > all-you-can-eat ribs of unknown origin. > > Air-conditioning has probably prevented more wars than it will ever > cause. People act more rationally and peaceably when they're comfortable > than when they're agitated in extreme heat and humidity. > But those who don't have air conditioners are upset at the inequality.. Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality might not even be the main culprit. I don't think meat eating is the main culprit - Ghandi disagreed saying that meat eating made people mean-spirited. I don't think there's much scientific evidence to back that up but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it. > > Nowhere have I found him specifically say that meat eating would fill > > the hospitals or alone require more doctors (though I would argue that > > it does both these today). > > Even if you distinguish between moderate consumption of healthful meats > -- especially lean cuts -- and gluttonous consumption of the more > unhealthful ones? I would strongly disagree with your generalization. > The diseases that are most responsible for filling the hospitals and requiring more doctors are correlated with animal protein consumption. Better? > > Also interesting to note is that in the Statesman (Plato), Socrates is > > found questioning the utility of a categorical division between "human" > > and "brute" (animal).. > > Nobody's perfect, not even Socrates. A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's ****ed Cheers - shevek |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
>>>I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet for a new >>>america". >> >>It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled screed. >> > > Hey, thanks for your reply - No problem. > Certainly, check the facts and references therin as much as possible. > >>>When questioned about the details here by Usual Suspect I did a little >>>library search. >>> >>>Conclusions: >>> >>>1) Yes, Plato's writings make Socrates seem like an advocate of >>>vegetarian living. >> >>For the record, I didn't question that. >> >> >>>2) Many advocates of vegetarianism stretch the words too far taking him >>>completely out of context. >> >>Some of the claims are beyond being out of context. They're complete >>fabrications as you noted below. >> >> >>>For example: >>>http://www.ivu.org/history/greece_rome/socrates.html >>> >>>Notice how the source for the quote is a usenet post? >>> >>>I have searched online versions of the republic and found that post to >>>basically be a fabrication. >> >>Basically? Call it what it is: a fabrication. Period. >> > Yes. Certainly worth a failing grade in any class, or the loss of your > job as a journalist. Except at the NY Times. > Definitely doesn't make a good name for > vegetarians does it. Not for anyone who does it. >>>If anyone could point me to a proper >>>source of this dialog to prove me wrong I would be greatly obliged. In >>>the meantime I'll keep looking - an excuse to read plato which I never >>>have really gotten into. >>> >>> >>>In the Repubic, book 2 (as usually annotated), the following fragment >>>appears: >>> >>>... and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them. >>>Certainly. >>>And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians >>>than before? >>>Much greater. >>>... >>>In fact, the activity leading to the greater need of physicians he >>>describes is not just the eating of animals, but a "luxurious >>>lifestyle" which he had gone into some depth describing.. dainties, >>>perfumes, insense, servants, swineherds.. >> >>I.E., *OVER*-consumption. >> >> >>>In fact, these other 'luxuries' (including meat eating) are what he >>>claims contribute to: >>> >>>...and so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not? >>>Most certainly. >>>... >>> >>>Indeed, his commentary is quite similar to that made by many pundits >> >>Activists, not merely pundits. >> >> >>>today, with modern luxuries being SUVs, air conditioners, and >>>all-you-can-eat ribs of unknown origin. >> >>Air-conditioning has probably prevented more wars than it will ever >>cause. People act more rationally and peaceably when they're comfortable >>than when they're agitated in extreme heat and humidity. > > But those who don't have air conditioners are upset at the inequality.. Too bad. > Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality > might not even be the main culprit. I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they already have. > I don't think meat eating is the > main culprit - Ghandi disagreed saying that meat eating made people > mean-spirited. I don't think there's much scientific evidence to back > that up but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it. There's no science to back it up and no anecdotal evidence of it, either. India is a nation not without conflict. It's a deadly place to be Muslim or Christian -- those vegetarian Hindus can be some nasty ****ers: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sasia/india-religion.htm http://www.dailyherald.com/special/p...ndia/hindu.asp http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0307/p06s01-wosc.html http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/India.htm http://www.saag.org/papers/paper31.html Etc. >>>Nowhere have I found him specifically say that meat eating would fill >>>the hospitals or alone require more doctors (though I would argue that >>>it does both these today). >> >>Even if you distinguish between moderate consumption of healthful meats >>-- especially lean cuts -- and gluttonous consumption of the more >>unhealthful ones? I would strongly disagree with your generalization. > > The diseases that are most responsible for filling the hospitals and > requiring more doctors are correlated with animal protein consumption. > Better? No. "Animal protein consumption" doesn't cause clogged arteries or strokes; lack of exercise, smoking, and excessive consumption of saturated fat and excessive sugar does. That's why you'll find hospitals filled with the *very same* maladies -- cancers, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc. -- around the world, including in predominantly vegetarian nations. For example: http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralacalljan04/p26-28.pdf >>>Also interesting to note is that in the Statesman (Plato), Socrates is >>>found questioning the utility of a categorical division between "human" >>>and "brute" (animal).. >> >>Nobody's perfect, not even Socrates. > > A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's ****ed |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > > > > > Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality > > might not even be the main culprit. > > I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There > are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they > already have. > Very true. And unfortunately there are some who think it is "fun to kill some people". > > I don't think meat eating is the > > main culprit - Ghandi disagreed saying that meat eating made people > > mean-spirited. I don't think there's much scientific evidence to back > > that up but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it. > > There's no science to back it up and no anecdotal evidence of it, > either. India is a nation not without conflict. It's a deadly place to > be Muslim or Christian -- those vegetarian Hindus can be some nasty ****ers: > http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sasia/india-religion.htm > http://www.dailyherald.com/special/p...ndia/hindu.asp > http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0307/p06s01-wosc.html > http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/India.htm > http://www.saag.org/papers/paper31.html > > Etc. Good points. Again, vegetarian !-> ethical. (does not imply) > > >>>Nowhere have I found him specifically say that meat eating would fill > >>>the hospitals or alone require more doctors (though I would argue that > >>>it does both these today). > >> > >>Even if you distinguish between moderate consumption of healthful meats > >>-- especially lean cuts -- and gluttonous consumption of the more > >>unhealthful ones? I would strongly disagree with your generalization. > > > > The diseases that are most responsible for filling the hospitals and > > requiring more doctors are correlated with animal protein consumption. > > Better? > > No. "Animal protein consumption" doesn't cause clogged arteries or > strokes; lack of exercise, smoking, and excessive consumption of > saturated fat and excessive sugar does. That's why you'll find hospitals > filled with the *very same* maladies -- cancers, diabetes, heart > disease, stroke, etc. -- around the world, including in predominantly > vegetarian nations. For example: > http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralacalljan04/p26-28.pdf > Interesting. Despite (presumably) far less meat consumption their infectious disease rate is almost as high as the US.. though the biggest difference in the populations is clearly less cancer for the Keralins. The lesson is: vegetarian !-> healthy. Also interesting is that the oft sited Harris meta-study of disease - diet correlations leaves India out of the picture. I don't think he weighted countries for population when doing the correlation either. Some day I'd like to repeat his study and see if anything new comes up. A nice exercise in statistics and internet database research. Cheers - shevek |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
>>> Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality >>>might not even be the main culprit. >> >>I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There >>are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they >>already have. > > Very true. And unfortunately there are some who think it is "fun to > kill some people". That's nothing new. >>>I don't think meat eating is the >>>main culprit - Ghandi disagreed saying that meat eating made people >>>mean-spirited. I don't think there's much scientific evidence to back >>>that up but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it. >> >>There's no science to back it up and no anecdotal evidence of it, >>either. India is a nation not without conflict. It's a deadly place to >>be Muslim or Christian -- those vegetarian Hindus can be some nasty ****ers: >>http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sasia/india-religion.htm >>http://www.dailyherald.com/special/p...ndia/hindu.asp >>http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0307/p06s01-wosc.html >>http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/India.htm >>http://www.saag.org/papers/paper31.html >> >>Etc. > > Good points. Again, vegetarian !-> ethical. > (does not imply) > >>>>>Nowhere have I found him specifically say that meat eating would fill >>>>>the hospitals or alone require more doctors (though I would argue that >>>>>it does both these today). >>>> >>>>Even if you distinguish between moderate consumption of healthful meats >>>>-- especially lean cuts -- and gluttonous consumption of the more >>>>unhealthful ones? I would strongly disagree with your generalization. >>> >>>The diseases that are most responsible for filling the hospitals and >>>requiring more doctors are correlated with animal protein consumption. >>>Better? >> >>No. "Animal protein consumption" doesn't cause clogged arteries or >>strokes; lack of exercise, smoking, and excessive consumption of >>saturated fat and excessive sugar does. That's why you'll find hospitals >>filled with the *very same* maladies -- cancers, diabetes, heart >>disease, stroke, etc. -- around the world, including in predominantly >>vegetarian nations. For example: >>http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralacalljan04/p26-28.pdf > > Interesting. Despite (presumably) far less meat consumption their > infectious disease rate is almost as high as the US.. though the > biggest difference in the populations is clearly less cancer for the > Keralins. Clearly less defined by what standard? Americans get more cancer because we live longer. "In developing countries people are starting to live longer," said Otis Brawley, a cancer researcher at Emory. "We may be looking at a simple biological principle that the older we get, we end up with more malignancies. ... Developing counties are also being exposed to the carcinogens that have been causing higher cancer rates in the industrialized world for 100 years." According to the World Health Organization, life expectancies in the developing world's most populous countries, China and India, have lengthened considerably. In 1950, the average life expectancy was about 40 years old. By 2000, the figure had risen to 62." http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/03/09/cancer.study/ > The lesson is: vegetarian !-> healthy. Wrong. You're discounting more important variables at play like increased longevity. > Also interesting is that the oft sited cited... oft-cited by whom? > Harris meta-study of disease - > diet correlations leaves India out of the picture. Was it geographically-focused (to south Asia)? > I don't think he > weighted countries for population when doing the correlation either. > Some day I'd like to repeat his study and see if anything new comes up. > A nice exercise in statistics and internet database research. Probably every bit as irrelevant as Hindhede's conjecture. I note your whiff at my last post about that. Let me refresh your memory: --- START --- > What happened in 1918 involved millions of people. Wrong. *Not* millions. There are only about five and a half million Danes today. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/da.html > It has been written > about in at least a few medical journals (likely several), No, it hasn't. This one obscure letter to the editor of JAMA has been repeatedly offered as "proof" by activists despite the fact that it (a) is NOT a study and (b) doesn't lead to the conclusion the activists claim it does. > and has been > noted by military strategists and economists as well as "vegan > activists". I doubt that very seriously. I just searched using the words denmark, hindhede, and jama at Google. I got seven hits. Two of them are from mindfully.org, two from europeanvegetarian.org, one from IVU, one from an archive of food newsgroups, and one from the website of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which it's cited in an article entitled "Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?" The authors of that article wrote, "During World Wars I and II, wartime food restrictions that virtually eliminated meat consumption in Scandinavian countries were followed by a decline in the mortality rate (by {approx}2 deaths/1000) that returned to prewar levels after the restriction was lifted." Nevermind the fact that this 0.2% difference in mortality rates was noted *acutely* -- *immediately* -- rather than over a period of time as occurs with the diseases connected to over-consumption of fatty foods. That difference could be explained by a number of variables including a warmer than normal winter, lack of rampant influenza, or -- if you want to add risks associated with meat consumption -- a reduction in food-borne illness from tainted meat. What Hindhede found was a statistically insignificant reduction in mortality which he failed to adequately explain. > In this context why are you attacking mindfully.org for their 9/11 > conspiracy theories? I addressed it in the context that the website's owner admits to bias. I think it's germane to the issue at hand. > This is an ad-hominem attack. No, it is not. By the site's owner's own admission, he's biased. > Objection sustained. In a courtroom setting, you don't sustain your own objection. >>> Read it from another server if you don't like >>> theirs. >> >> >> It's not about liking it or not, it's about its validity. You don't >> question it, and I do for the reasons already stated. > > > Do you question that the death rate in Denmark dropped substantially > over the 3 year period? I don't think 0.2% is substantial, especially over three years. Let's take a look at the other variables and see just how much of that 0.2% was directly attributable to reduced meat consumption given the fact that most diseases associated with over-consumption of fatty foods -- cancers, heart disease, stroke, etc. -- take more than three years to manifest themselves. > Do you question that the lack of meat in the > diets had an impact in that drop? Absolutely. There are too many variables which aren't discussed, either for the pupose of exclusion or inclusion. >>>> If so, I suggest it started it Berkeley. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> When Socrates wrote that animal consumption would fill the >>>> >>>> >>>> hospitals, >>> >>> >>>> Stop pushing these lies, shev. First, Socrates didn't write anything >>>> which is extant; his teachings are found in the writings of others, >>>> including Plato. Second, what you assert he wrote isn't even what >>>> Socrates said in the dialogue Plato recounts. In the dialogue which >>>> you refer, Socrates gives Glaucon the two choices of gluttony or >>>> wellness; >>> >>> >>> True, the record of Socrates is from Plato. >> >> >> Then stop repeating BS you've picked up from vegan activist sites that >> Socrates wrote something like the above. Plato recounts nothing like you >> allege. >> >> >>> Also true my greek is quite poor, >> >> >> "Quite poor" meaning you've not had a course in it? > > > Malaca poofti! Kalisperra. > > That's about the extent of it. Most English translations are reliable enough to get the gist of what Plato was conveying. The differences will be nuanced, not significantly different. >>> but I am interested and I'll take a look at some other >>> translations to see more. >> >> >> Translations have nothing to do with it. Plato never recounted any such >> dialogue. >> >>> From what I read >> >> >> Where? On an activist website (like mindfully.org) or in Plato's works? >> >> >>> there is more to it than >>> just gluttony, and the land resources argument you mention below. >> >> >> I await either your detailed response about it or an admission (and >> apology) that you were repeating something you found on an activist >> website, book, or post. > > > Give me a few days on that one, parakalo. I've read your other post and you get highest props for investigating to see if the vegan activsts are right or if I am. Others here, like "Scented Nectar," should learn a lot from your desire and your commendable *willingness* to get to the truth. >>>> this is what you've done inasmuch as you've relied on the vegan >>>> simplication "veg-n good, meat bad." I and others have shown you data >>>> which show that meat can be a part of a healthy diet, especially if >>>> it's lean or consumed in moderation. >>> >>> >>> Something I have never denied! >> >> >> You did initially. You also snipped my thought in midstream. I was >> making an analogy between two over-simplifications or generalizations. >> >> >>>> Plato also conveys that Socrates made >>>> other issues about meat and war with respect to allocation of scarce >>>> resources like pasture land. This is not an issue today: we have >>>> sufficient resources to produce more than we can consume ("factory" >>>> farming rules), and the only wars for grazing land occur when >>>> misguided activists from urban areas attempt to tell producers how, where, and >>>> when to produce food and what consumers can eat. >>> >>> >>> Not an issue? >> >> >> Not in the context of Socrates' dialogue. >> >> >>> Destruction of rainforests not an issue? >> >> >> Not in the context of Socrates' dialogue. >> >> >>> Land rights not an issue? >> >> >> Not in the context of Socrates' dialogue or to the extent that the >> far-left wish to make land rights an issue. >> >> >>> Agriculture subsidies, midwest soil depletion, there are >>> a lot of issues here. >> >> >> Not in the context of Socrates' dialogue. >> >> >>>>> this was before feedlots existsed. Now that we are raising the >>> >>> >>> animals >>> >>>>> in such fowl conditions (no pun intended), those ones are likely >>> >>> >>> much >>> >>>>> worse for you still. >>>> >>>> >>>> Completely unproven claim. Your objection to various methods of >>>> livestock production is noted. I disagree with you that meat from >>>> those methods is inherently less nutritious or healthful, not to mention >>>> the fact that meat is a product of input (feed and care) factors rather >>>> than factors related to environment (ranging versus housing). Two chickens >>>> of the same type fed the same feed will yield similar nutrition profiles >>>> regardless of how they're housed. The same is true with other species. >>> >>> >>> The claim is well proven; >> >> >> No, it is not. >> >> >>> you are right >> >> >> Completely. >> >> >>> in that it is the input (feed >>> and care) that causes the new problems, obvious examples being BSE >>> (animal protein feed), hormones, antibiotics.. >> >> >> WRONG. Poultry and pork are not fed hormones. Ever. Furthermore, both of >> those meats are tested for antibiotic residues. >> >> The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits the use of >> hormones in the raising of hogs or poultry in the United States. >> Therefore all pork and poultry products that carry the "no >> hormones administered" label only represent the regulations that >> are already in place for pork and poultry and should not be >> taken to mean that the manufacturer is doing anything beyond >> USDA requirements for conventional pork and poultry products. >> http://www.eco-labels.org/label.cfm?LabelID=114 >> >> Some people think that all commercially raised animals - cattle, >> hogs, sheep, and poultry - are fed hormones as growth promoters. >> In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not >> permit the use of hormones in raising hogs or chickens, turkeys >> and other fowl. That is why the USDA does not allow the use of >> the term "no hormones added" on labels of pork or poultry >> products unless it is followed by a statement explaining that >> "Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones." >> http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA71087/ >> >> Prophylactic antibiotics are withdrawn from feeds 10-30 days before >> slaughter for most animal species. Meat is tested for antibiotic >> residues (statistical sampling) before being allowed into the human food >> supply. > > > Thanks for that info about the hogs/poultry! I didn't realize that - > thanks for correcting my error here. It's an error perpetrated by anti-meat activists. I think the second point about antibiotics being withdrawn prior to slaughter and testing meat for residue is also very important given the wild claims perpetrated by activists. Many large-scale producers only use antibiotics when flocks are already ill or very much likely to become ill (due to weather extremes, regional outbreak of illness, etc.). The practice of force-feeding antibiotics to livestock is hardly as prevalent as activists claim. That said, the benefits of such practices outweigh the risks: According to a recent American Academy of Microbiology report, The Role of Antibiotics in Agriculture, intensive and extensive antibiotic use leads to the establishment of a pool of antibiotic resistance genes in the environment. The AAM report claims that both pathogenic bacteria and organisms that do not cause disease may become resistant to antibiotics, and bacteria of human and animal origin can serve as reservoirs for resistance genes. The University of Minnesota researchers therefore decided to develop a mathematical model to evaluate the potential human health risks and benefits of the use of the antibiotic, tylosin, in chickens. They compared the potential risks associated with increased levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat with the potential benefits associated with decreased risk of food-borne illness. "Antibiotic resistance is a problem in both human medicine and animal production agriculture," said Singer. “But our model demonstrated that the reduced number of infections and illness days associated with the use of tylosin in chicken far exceeded the increased human health risks associated with antibiotic resistance due to tylosin use." http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/...its-of-poultry And if you're unwilling to consume animals which *may* have been treated by prophylaxis (and withdrawn and tested for residues before it's sold), you still have the option of buying from farms which openly promote their objection to such practices. >>> The texture of the chicken will be different - due to the different >>> amount of exercise - vitamin D input - and more. >> >> >> Resulting in *minor variations* in nutritional profiles. >> >> >>> Your (true) claims that meat can be part of a healthful diet will not >>> be believed if you simultaneously defend the disgusting factory farm >>> techniques! >> >> >> Some people choose to believe what they want despite evidence to the >> contrary -- like Hindhede's 1920 letter to the editor, claims that >> Socrates wrote something he never did, lies about hormone use in >> poultry, and half-truths about antibiotic use. >> >> You can believe the activists if you want. I urge you, though, to >> question their authority and (dis)information every bit as you want to >> question farmers'. > > > Very good advice! And I hope you question USDA advice every bit as > much as you question mine. I do. When I hold the USDA and activists to the same standard, the USDA wins over 90% of the time. --- END --- Do you still think differences of 0.2% over three years are "substantial" when not considering other possibilities like flu outbreaks, the end of the war, and so on? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > >>> Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality > >>>might not even be the main culprit. > >> > >>I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There > >>are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they > >>already have. > > > > Very true. And unfortunately there are some who think it is "fun to > > kill some people". > > That's nothing new. > Sorry, the quote should have been "It's fun to shoot some people" - Gen. Mattis > >>>I don't think meat eating is the > >>>main culprit - Ghandi disagreed saying that meat eating made people > >>>mean-spirited. I don't think there's much scientific evidence to back > >>>that up but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it. > >> > >>There's no science to back it up and no anecdotal evidence of it, > >>either. India is a nation not without conflict. It's a deadly place to > >>be Muslim or Christian -- those vegetarian Hindus can be some nasty ****ers: > >>http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sasia/india-religion.htm > >>http://www.dailyherald.com/special/p...ndia/hindu.asp > >>http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0307/p06s01-wosc.html > >>http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/India.htm > >>http://www.saag.org/papers/paper31.html > >> > >>Etc. > > > > Good points. Again, vegetarian !-> ethical. > > (does not imply) > > > >>>>>Nowhere have I found him specifically say that meat eating would fill > >>>>>the hospitals or alone require more doctors (though I would argue that > >>>>>it does both these today). > >>>> > >>>>Even if you distinguish between moderate consumption of healthful meats > >>>>-- especially lean cuts -- and gluttonous consumption of the more > >>>>unhealthful ones? I would strongly disagree with your generalization. > >>> > >>>The diseases that are most responsible for filling the hospitals and > >>>requiring more doctors are correlated with animal protein consumption. > >>>Better? > >> > >>No. "Animal protein consumption" doesn't cause clogged arteries or > >>strokes; lack of exercise, smoking, and excessive consumption of > >>saturated fat and excessive sugar does. That's why you'll find hospitals > >>filled with the *very same* maladies -- cancers, diabetes, heart > >>disease, stroke, etc. -- around the world, including in predominantly > >>vegetarian nations. For example: > >>http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralacalljan04/p26-28.pdf > > > > Interesting. Despite (presumably) far less meat consumption their > > infectious disease rate is almost as high as the US.. though the > > biggest difference in the populations is clearly less cancer for the > > Keralins. > > Clearly less defined by what standard? Americans get more cancer because > we live longer. > "In developing countries people are starting to live longer," > said Otis Brawley, a cancer researcher at Emory. > > "We may be looking at a simple biological principle that the > older we get, we end up with more malignancies. ... Developing > counties are also being exposed to the carcinogens that have > been causing higher cancer rates in the industrialized world for 100 > years." > > According to the World Health Organization, life expectancies in > the developing world's most populous countries, China and India, > have lengthened considerably. In 1950, the average life > expectancy was about 40 years old. By 2000, the figure had risen > to 62." > http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/03/09/cancer.study/ > Another factor in our cancer rate is that we eat meat and smoke cigarettes, both activities are correlated with cancer, although exactly why they are correlated is still not known conclusively for either of the sources. > > The lesson is: vegetarian !-> healthy. > > Wrong. You're discounting more important variables at play like > increased longevity. > Sorry for my notation. I mean that vegetarian does -not- imply health. One can be an unhealthy vegetarian, getting no excercise, mineral-poor crops, etc. > > Also interesting is that the oft sited > > cited... oft-cited by whom? > Thank you - by vegetarian proponents and cancer reserachers I guess. > > Harris meta-study of disease - > > diet correlations leaves India out of the picture. > > Was it geographically-focused (to south Asia)? > No. www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm > > I don't think he > > weighted countries for population when doing the correlation either. > > Some day I'd like to repeat his study and see if anything new comes up. > > A nice exercise in statistics and internet database research. > > Probably every bit as irrelevant as Hindhede's conjecture. I note your > whiff at my last post about that. Let me refresh your memory: > > --- START --- > > > What happened in 1918 involved millions of people. > > > Wrong. *Not* millions. There are only about five and a half million > Danes today. > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/da.html > Thanks - > > It has been written > > about in at least a few medical journals (likely several), > > > No, it hasn't. This one obscure letter to the editor of JAMA has been > repeatedly offered as "proof" by activists despite the fact that it (a) > is NOT a study and (b) doesn't lead to the conclusion the activists > claim it does. > > > and has been > > noted by military strategists and economists as well as "vegan > > activists". > > > I doubt that very seriously. I just searched using the words denmark, > hindhede, and jama at Google. I got seven hits. Two of them are from > mindfully.org, two from europeanvegetarian.org, one from IVU, one from > an archive of food newsgroups, and one from the website of the American > Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which it's cited in an article entitled > "Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?" > > The authors of that article wrote, "During World Wars I and II, wartime > food restrictions that virtually eliminated meat consumption in > Scandinavian countries were followed by a decline in the mortality rate > (by {approx}2 deaths/1000) that returned to prewar levels after the > restriction was lifted." Thanks for your research report. I'll have to look into it further. > > Nevermind the fact that this 0.2% difference in mortality rates was > noted *acutely* -- *immediately* -- rather than over a period of time as > occurs with the diseases connected to over-consumption of fatty foods. > That difference could be explained by a number of variables including a > warmer than normal winter, lack of rampant influenza, or -- if you want > to add risks associated with meat consumption -- a reduction in > food-borne illness from tainted meat. > Your percentage calculation is off. A change of 2 deaths/1000 is an infinite percentage change from none, you need to consider the previous number. In Hindhede's paper he quotes the figure 34%. Also, if you rely heavily on animal protein in your diet you will notice the difference to e.g. your stamina very quickly if you switch to mostly plant diet. True, cancers take a long time to develop, but other things can be affected immediately. > What Hindhede found was a statistically insignificant reduction in > mortality which he failed to adequately explain. > > > [...] > > > > > > Do you question that the death rate in Denmark dropped substantially > > over the 3 year period? > > I don't think 0.2% is substantial, especially over three years. Let's > take a look at the other variables and see just how much of that 0.2% > was directly attributable to reduced meat consumption given the fact > that most diseases associated with over-consumption of fatty foods -- > cancers, heart disease, stroke, etc. -- take more than three years to > manifest themselves. > It's not the fat that's the problem! It's the protein. The effects can manifest in minutes. 34% is substantial. > > Do you question that the lack of meat in the > > diets had an impact in that drop? > > > Absolutely. There are too many variables which aren't discussed, either > for the pupose of exclusion or inclusion. > It certainly isn't a proof of causation, merely correlation. However, sometimes an inference is appropriate. Do you think cigarettes can CAUSE lung cancer? The evidence is similar - only a correlation is observed. > > [...] > >>> but I am interested and I'll take a look at some other > >>> translations to see more. > >> > >> > >> Translations have nothing to do with it. Plato never recounted any such > >> dialogue. > >> > >>> From what I read > >> > >> > >> Where? On an activist website (like mindfully.org) or in Plato's works? > >> > >> > >>> there is more to it than > >>> just gluttony, and the land resources argument you mention below. > >> > >> > >> I await either your detailed response about it or an admission (and > >> apology) that you were repeating something you found on an activist > >> website, book, or post. > > > > > > Give me a few days on that one, parakalo. > > I've read your other post and you get highest props for investigating to > see if the vegan activsts are right or if I am. Others here, like > "Scented Nectar," should learn a lot from your desire and your > commendable *willingness* to get to the truth. > Thank you! You were right about Socrates so I guess I'm going to have to research Hindhede a bit more now too. [...] > >> > >> Prophylactic antibiotics are withdrawn from feeds 10-30 days before > >> slaughter for most animal species. Meat is tested for antibiotic > >> residues (statistical sampling) before being allowed into the human food > >> supply. > > > > > > Thanks for that info about the hogs/poultry! I didn't realize that - > > thanks for correcting my error here. > > It's an error perpetrated by anti-meat activists. I think the second > point about antibiotics being withdrawn prior to slaughter and testing > meat for residue is also very important given the wild claims > perpetrated by activists. Many large-scale producers only use > antibiotics when flocks are already ill or very much likely to become > ill (due to weather extremes, regional outbreak of illness, etc.). The > practice of force-feeding antibiotics to livestock is hardly as > prevalent as activists claim. That said, the benefits of such practices > outweigh the risks: > > According to a recent American Academy of Microbiology report, > The Role of Antibiotics in Agriculture, intensive and extensive > antibiotic use leads to the establishment of a pool of > antibiotic resistance genes in the environment. > > The AAM report claims that both pathogenic bacteria and > organisms that do not cause disease may become resistant to > antibiotics, and bacteria of human and animal origin can serve > as reservoirs for resistance genes. > > The University of Minnesota researchers therefore decided to > develop a mathematical model to evaluate the potential human > health risks and benefits of the use of the antibiotic, tylosin, > in chickens. They compared the potential risks associated with > increased levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat with > the potential benefits associated with decreased risk of > food-borne illness. > > "Antibiotic resistance is a problem in both human medicine and > animal production agriculture," said Singer. > > "But our model demonstrated that the reduced number of > infections and illness days associated with the use of tylosin > in chicken far exceeded the increased human health risks > associated with antibiotic resistance due to tylosin use." > http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/...its-of-poultry > > And if you're unwilling to consume animals which *may* have been treated > by prophylaxis (and withdrawn and tested for residues before it's sold), > you still have the option of buying from farms which openly promote > their objection to such practices. > Thanks. In general, I think farm animals raised for food get -better- medical care than people. Look at the amount of mineral supplements in the feed at your ag store (30 - 40 minerals) - compare to baby food in the grocery store (5-10 minerals). An owner of a herd of beef, be they well treated or not, is not going to spend the money on antibiotics if he doesn't have to. He isn't going to spring 100k for hip replacements either - instead he'll try to use vegetable based calcium supplements in the feed. > > > > > > Very good advice! And I hope you question USDA advice every bit as > > much as you question mine. > > > I do. When I hold the USDA and activists to the same standard, the USDA > wins over 90% of the time. > > --- END --- > > Do you still think differences of 0.2% over three years are > "substantial" when not considering other possibilities like flu > outbreaks, the end of the war, and so on? Yes! Especially when combined with further statistics that lead to the same conclusion. Another example: http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china1.html Thanks as Usual for your correspondance - shev. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > wrote: >> >>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality >>>>>might not even be the main culprit. >>>> >>>>I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There >>>>are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they >>>>already have. >>> >>>Very true. And unfortunately there are some who think it is "fun to >>>kill some people". >> >>That's nothing new. > > Sorry, the quote should have been "It's fun to shoot some people" - > Gen. Mattis Here's the FULL quote from CBS News' article about it: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling." He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in671617.shtml I don't disagree with him. There are certain people in this world deserving of a swift kick to the ass and more. >>>>>I don't think meat eating is the >>>>>main culprit - Ghandi disagreed saying that meat eating made people >>>>>mean-spirited. I don't think there's much scientific evidence to back >>>>>that up but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it. >>>> >>>>There's no science to back it up and no anecdotal evidence of it, >>>>either. India is a nation not without conflict. It's a deadly place to >>>>be Muslim or Christian -- those vegetarian Hindus can be some nasty ****ers: >>>>http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sasia/india-religion.htm >>>>http://www.dailyherald.com/special/p...ndia/hindu.asp >>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0307/p06s01-wosc.html >>>>http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/India.htm >>>>http://www.saag.org/papers/paper31.html >>>> >>>>Etc. >>> >>>Good points. Again, vegetarian !-> ethical. >>>(does not imply) >>> >>> >>>>>>>Nowhere have I found him specifically say that meat eating would fill >>>>>>>the hospitals or alone require more doctors (though I would argue that >>>>>>>it does both these today). >>>>>> >>>>>>Even if you distinguish between moderate consumption of healthful meats >>>>>>-- especially lean cuts -- and gluttonous consumption of the more >>>>>>unhealthful ones? I would strongly disagree with your generalization. >>>>> >>>>>The diseases that are most responsible for filling the hospitals and >>>>>requiring more doctors are correlated with animal protein consumption. >>>>>Better? >>>> >>>>No. "Animal protein consumption" doesn't cause clogged arteries or >>>>strokes; lack of exercise, smoking, and excessive consumption of >>>>saturated fat and excessive sugar does. That's why you'll find hospitals >>>>filled with the *very same* maladies -- cancers, diabetes, heart >>>>disease, stroke, etc. -- around the world, including in predominantly >>>>vegetarian nations. For example: >>>>http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralacalljan04/p26-28.pdf >>> >>>Interesting. Despite (presumably) far less meat consumption their >>>infectious disease rate is almost as high as the US.. though the >>>biggest difference in the populations is clearly less cancer for the >>>Keralins. >> >>Clearly less defined by what standard? Americans get more cancer because >>we live longer. >> "In developing countries people are starting to live longer," >> said Otis Brawley, a cancer researcher at Emory. >> >> "We may be looking at a simple biological principle that the >> older we get, we end up with more malignancies. ... Developing >> counties are also being exposed to the carcinogens that have >> been causing higher cancer rates in the industrialized world for 100 >>years." >> >> According to the World Health Organization, life expectancies in >> the developing world's most populous countries, China and India, >> have lengthened considerably. In 1950, the average life >> expectancy was about 40 years old. By 2000, the figure had risen >> to 62." >> http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/03/09/cancer.study/ > > Another factor in our cancer rate is that we eat meat and smoke > cigarettes, both activities are correlated with cancer, Tobacco use continues to escalate in other parts of the world while it decreases (at least in the aggregate; I didn't look at data about individual groups) here. http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=327861 > although > exactly why they are correlated is still not known conclusively for > either of the sources. Meat isn't correlated to cancer rates, per se. High consumption of certain kinds of meat is. >>>The lesson is: vegetarian !-> healthy. >> >>Wrong. You're discounting more important variables at play like >>increased longevity. > > Sorry for my notation. I mean that vegetarian does -not- imply health. > One can be an unhealthy vegetarian, getting no excercise, mineral-poor > crops, etc. Okay. Overall cancer rates are similar between East and West regardless of diet. Certain cancers are more prevalent in the East than the West and vice versa. The one factor which veg-n activists have long overlooked is longevity and its role in a variety of cancers. We're learning more as longevity in developing nations increases and their populations are developing the very same cancers at similar rates as we have in the West. >>>Also interesting is that the oft sited >> >>cited... oft-cited by whom? > > Thank you - by vegetarian proponents and cancer reserachers I guess. Vegetarian activists. >>>Harris meta-study of disease - >>>diet correlations leaves India out of the picture. >> >>Was it geographically-focused (to south Asia)? > > No. > www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm I've yet to see this cited by any "cancer researcher." Immediately, I'm struck that his data relies on meat and sugar consumption from the *1970s*: I included additional vital statistics from The Book of World Rankings (6,7) for birth rate, female life expectancy, GNP/caput($), infant mortality, male life expectancy, male/female cancer ratios, meat consumption (kg/caput/yr early 70's), sugar consumption (kg/caput/yr -1976), and total population. A lot in the world has changed in the thirty years since those data were valid. The world has seen tremendous expansion of free markets and prosperity from it; accordingly, people who couldn't afford as much meat or sugar or other "luxury" foods can now. Additionally, "sugar" is quite misleading. Thirty years ago, most processed foods were made with sugar. Now most are made with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or a combination of HFCS and sugar. See: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5143e/y5143e0t.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications...997/ao238g.pdf I'm NOT impressed with his "findings." Nor am I surprised they're on an activist/veg-oriented website. >>>I don't think he >>>weighted countries for population when doing the correlation either. >>>Some day I'd like to repeat his study and see if anything new comes up. >>> A nice exercise in statistics and internet database research. >> >>Probably every bit as irrelevant as Hindhede's conjecture. I note your >>whiff at my last post about that. Let me refresh your memory: >> >>--- START --- >> >> > What happened in 1918 involved millions of people. >> >> >>Wrong. *Not* millions. There are only about five and a half million >>Danes today. >>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/da.html > > Thanks - Welcome. >> > It has been written >> > about in at least a few medical journals (likely several), >> >> >>No, it hasn't. This one obscure letter to the editor of JAMA has been >>repeatedly offered as "proof" by activists despite the fact that it (a) >>is NOT a study and (b) doesn't lead to the conclusion the activists >>claim it does. >> >> > and has been >> > noted by military strategists and economists as well as "vegan >> > activists". >> >> >>I doubt that very seriously. I just searched using the words denmark, >>hindhede, and jama at Google. I got seven hits. Two of them are from >>mindfully.org, two from europeanvegetarian.org, one from IVU, one from >>an archive of food newsgroups, and one from the website of the American >>Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which it's cited in an article entitled >>"Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?" >> >>The authors of that article wrote, "During World Wars I and II, wartime >>food restrictions that virtually eliminated meat consumption in >>Scandinavian countries were followed by a decline in the mortality rate >>(by {approx}2 deaths/1000) that returned to prewar levels after the >>restriction was lifted." > > Thanks for your research report. I'll have to look into it further. Welcome. >>Nevermind the fact that this 0.2% difference in mortality rates was >>noted *acutely* -- *immediately* -- rather than over a period of time as >>occurs with the diseases connected to over-consumption of fatty foods. >>That difference could be explained by a number of variables including a >>warmer than normal winter, lack of rampant influenza, or -- if you want >>to add risks associated with meat consumption -- a reduction in >>food-borne illness from tainted meat. > > Your percentage calculation is off. No, it isn't. Hindhede's data consisted of deaths of males between 18-65 over a three year period among a nation of ~five million people. > A change of 2 deaths/1000 is an > infinite percentage change from none, Wrong. It's two deaths less per 1000. > you need to consider the previous > number. The previous number would be from 1917, the last year of the war. That's the entire problem with using a *small* population over a *small* timeframe with a *many* possible variables. > In Hindhede's paper he quotes the figure 34%. It's not a paper. It's a *letter to the editor* of JAMA. > Also, if you rely heavily on animal protein in your diet you will > notice the difference to e.g. your stamina very quickly if you switch > to mostly plant diet. Irrelevant to the situation in post-war Scandinavia. They hadn't eaten a lot of meat because of the war, and they imposed rationing after the war. That's the issue, shev. Hindhede's inferences were based on some very peculiar circumstances, and I find that he leaped to a very unreasonable conclusion. Further, you should be concerned that you were only able to find this obscure reference from an admittedly biased site and that its only other mention in any scientific literature is almost entirely anecdotal. > True, cancers take a long time to develop, but > other things can be affected immediately. Hindhede never sorted through those "things," did he. >>What Hindhede found was a statistically insignificant reduction in >>mortality which he failed to adequately explain. >> >> > [...] >> > >> > >> > Do you question that the death rate in Denmark dropped substantially >> > over the 3 year period? >> >>I don't think 0.2% is substantial, especially over three years. Let's >>take a look at the other variables and see just how much of that 0.2% >>was directly attributable to reduced meat consumption given the fact >>that most diseases associated with over-consumption of fatty foods -- >>cancers, heart disease, stroke, etc. -- take more than three years to >>manifest themselves. > > It's not the fat that's the problem! It is in the case of heart disease, stroke, and certain cancers. > It's the protein. Ipse dixit. > The effects can manifest in minutes. Ipse dixit. > 34% is substantial. Two-per-thousand isn't, following a world war and among a small population over a brief period of time. >> > Do you question that the lack of meat in the >> > diets had an impact in that drop? >> >> >>Absolutely. There are too many variables which aren't discussed, either >>for the pupose of exclusion or inclusion. > > It certainly isn't a proof of causation, merely correlation. It doesn't prove any correlation. > However, sometimes an inference is appropriate. Not in this case, for reasons re-stated above. > Do you think cigarettes can > CAUSE lung cancer? There's a difference between saying "cigs cause cancer" and "cigs can cause cancer." The latter is scientifically more acceptable than the former. > The evidence is similar - only a correlation is > observed. Not in Hindhede's LETTER TO THE EDITOR (not study). See Rick's example of correlations between consumption of carrots and death. That's a better analogy for Hindhede's letter. >>>[...] >> >> >>> but I am interested and I'll take a look at some other >> >>> translations to see more. >> >> >> >> >> >> Translations have nothing to do with it. Plato never recounted any such >> >> dialogue. >> >> >> >>> From what I read >> >> >> >> >> >> Where? On an activist website (like mindfully.org) or in Plato's works? >> >> >> >> >> >>> there is more to it than >> >>> just gluttony, and the land resources argument you mention below. >> >> >> >> >> >> I await either your detailed response about it or an admission (and >> >> apology) that you were repeating something you found on an activist >> >> website, book, or post. >> > >> > >> > Give me a few days on that one, parakalo. >> >>I've read your other post and you get highest props for investigating to >>see if the vegan activsts are right or if I am. Others here, like >>"Scented Nectar," should learn a lot from your desire and your >>commendable *willingness* to get to the truth. > > Thank you! You were right about Socrates so I guess I'm going to have > to research Hindhede a bit more now too. Please do. Start your investigation by determining if it was a study or just a letter to the editor of JAMA. That's an important distinction to make, and one which should make the rest of your investigation go easier. > [...] > >> >> >> >> Prophylactic antibiotics are withdrawn from feeds 10-30 days before >> >> slaughter for most animal species. Meat is tested for antibiotic >> >> residues (statistical sampling) before being allowed into the human food >> >> supply. >> > >> > >> > Thanks for that info about the hogs/poultry! I didn't realize that - >> > thanks for correcting my error here. >> >>It's an error perpetrated by anti-meat activists. I think the second >>point about antibiotics being withdrawn prior to slaughter and testing >>meat for residue is also very important given the wild claims >>perpetrated by activists. Many large-scale producers only use >>antibiotics when flocks are already ill or very much likely to become >>ill (due to weather extremes, regional outbreak of illness, etc.). The >>practice of force-feeding antibiotics to livestock is hardly as >>prevalent as activists claim. That said, the benefits of such practices >>outweigh the risks: >> >> According to a recent American Academy of Microbiology report, >> The Role of Antibiotics in Agriculture, intensive and extensive >> antibiotic use leads to the establishment of a pool of >> antibiotic resistance genes in the environment. >> >> The AAM report claims that both pathogenic bacteria and >> organisms that do not cause disease may become resistant to >> antibiotics, and bacteria of human and animal origin can serve >> as reservoirs for resistance genes. >> >> The University of Minnesota researchers therefore decided to >> develop a mathematical model to evaluate the potential human >> health risks and benefits of the use of the antibiotic, tylosin, >> in chickens. They compared the potential risks associated with >> increased levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat with >> the potential benefits associated with decreased risk of >> food-borne illness. >> >> "Antibiotic resistance is a problem in both human medicine and >> animal production agriculture," said Singer. >> >> "But our model demonstrated that the reduced number of >> infections and illness days associated with the use of tylosin >> in chicken far exceeded the increased human health risks >> associated with antibiotic resistance due to tylosin use." >>http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/...its-of-poultry >> >>And if you're unwilling to consume animals which *may* have been treated >>by prophylaxis (and withdrawn and tested for residues before it's sold), >>you still have the option of buying from farms which openly promote >>their objection to such practices. > > Thanks. In general, I think farm animals raised for food get -better- > medical care than people. Look at the amount of mineral supplements in > the feed at your ag store (30 - 40 minerals) - compare to baby food in > the grocery store (5-10 minerals). Apples to oranges. Requirements for food labels are different for humans. > An owner of a herd of beef, be they well treated or not, is not going > to spend the money on antibiotics if he doesn't have to. He isn't > going to spring 100k for hip replacements either - instead he'll try to > use vegetable based calcium supplements in the feed. Cattle don't get hip replacements. >> > Very good advice! And I hope you question USDA advice every bit as >> > much as you question mine. >> >> >>I do. When I hold the USDA and activists to the same standard, the USDA >>wins over 90% of the time. >> >>--- END --- >> >>Do you still think differences of 0.2% over three years are >>"substantial" when not considering other possibilities like flu >>outbreaks, the end of the war, and so on? > > Yes! Wrong answer. > Especially when combined with further statistics that lead to the > same conclusion. > > Another example: > http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china1.html I snickered when I saw that Campbell's book is being discussed in another thread. It's funny that your source is another activist site. Even funnier that Campbell's book is sold at a discount with a book about veganism at Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/b2zxp Please read: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml and re-evaluate your conclusions accordingly. BTW, that site is run by a vegetarian who's more interested in truth than peddling unfounded dogma. > Thanks as Usual for your correspondance - shev. You're welcome. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote:
> wrote: > > usual suspect wrote: > > > wrote: > >> > >>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality > >>>>>might not even be the main culprit. > >>>> > >>>>I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There > >>>>are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they > >>>>already have. > >>> > >>>Very true. And unfortunately there are some who think it is "fun to > >>>kill some people". > >> > >>That's nothing new. > > > > Sorry, the quote should have been "It's fun to shoot some people" - > > Gen. Mattis > > Here's the FULL quote from CBS News' article about it: > "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of > a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront > with you, I like brawling." > > He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women > around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis > continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left > anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in671617.shtml > > I don't disagree with him. There are certain people in this world > deserving of a swift kick to the ass and more. > Good afternoon- His superiors certainly thought the same thing - he deserved a swift kick to the ass and more. Do you think Mattis was around in Afghanistan for 5 years snooping around before he had his fun shooting some people? Do you think he even witnessed one enemy casualty slapping a woman around? Do you think he treats women well, given that he thinks those w/out manhood are fun to shoot? > >>>>>I don't think meat eating is the > >>>>>main culprit - Ghandi disagreed saying that meat eating made people > >>>>>mean-spirited. I don't think there's much scientific evidence to back > >>>>>that up but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it. > >>>> > >>>>There's no science to back it up and no anecdotal evidence of it, > >>>>either. India is a nation not without conflict. It's a deadly place to > >>>>be Muslim or Christian -- those vegetarian Hindus can be some nasty ****ers: > >>>>http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sasia/india-religion.htm > >>>>http://www.dailyherald.com/special/p...ndia/hindu.asp > >>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0307/p06s01-wosc.html > >>>>http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/India.htm > >>>>http://www.saag.org/papers/paper31.html > >>>> > >>>>Etc. > >>> Are these the "bleeding heart liberals" you were talking about? [...] > >>>The lesson is: vegetarian !-> healthy. > >> > >>Wrong. You're discounting more important variables at play like > >>increased longevity. > > > > Sorry for my notation. I mean that vegetarian does -not- imply health. > > One can be an unhealthy vegetarian, getting no excercise, mineral-poor > > crops, etc. > > Okay. Overall cancer rates are similar between East and West regardless > of diet. Certain cancers are more prevalent in the East than the West > and vice versa. The one factor which veg-n activists have long > overlooked is longevity and its role in a variety of cancers. We're > learning more as longevity in developing nations increases and their > populations are developing the very same cancers at similar rates as we > have in the West. > Depending on who you actually mean by east and west, it sounds like you are seriously downplaying major differences. THe link you sent showed large differences in cancer rates for that particular Indian population, compared to the US. The US has the most expensive medical care system in the world - nearly 20% of GDP I think. Of course, there are so many differences that attributing something to a certain aspect of diet is very questionable (your beyondveg link points that out well). [snip Harris discussion, my message too long already - sorry] > >> > >>Probably every bit as irrelevant as Hindhede's conjecture. I note your > >>whiff at my last post about that. Let me refresh your memory: > >> > >>--- START --- > >>[...] > >> > It has been written > >> > about in at least a few medical journals (likely several), > >> > >> > >>No, it hasn't. This one obscure letter to the editor of JAMA has been > >>repeatedly offered as "proof" by activists despite the fact that it (a) > >>is NOT a study and (b) doesn't lead to the conclusion the activists > >>claim it does. > >> a) it IS a study - some work was put into it. It is cited in peer reviewed literature. Argue the results but don't argue that. b) it leads to -some- conclusions that activists claim - reduced animal protein in Scandinavian diets was correlated with improved health and longevity. > >> > and has been > >> > noted by military strategists and economists as well as "vegan > >> > activists". > >> > >> > >>I doubt that very seriously. I just searched using the words denmark, > >>hindhede, and jama at Google. I got seven hits. Two of them are from > >>mindfully.org, two from europeanvegetarian.org, one from IVU, one from > >>an archive of food newsgroups, and one from the website of the American > >>Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which it's cited in an article entitled > >>"Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?" > >> > >>The authors of that article wrote, "During World Wars I and II, wartime > >>food restrictions that virtually eliminated meat consumption in > >>Scandinavian countries were followed by a decline in the mortality rate > >>(by {approx}2 deaths/1000) that returned to prewar levels after the > >>restriction was lifted." > > > > Thanks for your research report. I'll have to look into it further. > > Welcome. > Here are 5 other publications supporting his findings, from the bibliography of the source you are quoted from: # Friderica LS. Nutritional investigations in Denmark during the War, 1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:255-9. # Tikka J. Conditions and research into human nutrition in Finland during the war years. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:260-3. # Hansen OG. Food conditions in Norway during the war, 1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:263-70. # Bang HO, Dyerberg J. Personal reflections on the incidence of ischemic heart disease in Oslo during the Second World War. Acta Med Scand 1981;210:245-8.[Medline] # Abramson E. Nutrition and nutritional research in Sweden in the years of the war, 1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:271-6. But I haven't found any more about WW1 yet. From: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 526S-532S, September 2003 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S "Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity." No surprises there. > >>Nevermind the fact that this 0.2% difference in mortality rates was > >>noted *acutely* -- *immediately* -- rather than over a period of time as > >>occurs with the diseases connected to over-consumption of fatty foods. > >>That difference could be explained by a number of variables including a > >>warmer than normal winter, lack of rampant influenza, or -- if you want > >>to add risks associated with meat consumption -- a reduction in > >>food-borne illness from tainted meat. > > > > Your percentage calculation is off. > > No, it isn't. Hindhede's data consisted of deaths of males between 18-65 > over a three year period among a nation of ~five million people. > > > A change of 2 deaths/1000 is an > > infinite percentage change from none, > > Wrong. It's two deaths less per 1000. > You've gone from 0 to 2. The percentage change is ~ 2/0 = infinity. > > you need to consider the previous > > number. > > The previous number would be from 1917, the last year of the war. That's > the entire problem with using a *small* population over a *small* > timeframe with a *many* possible variables. > > > In Hindhede's paper he quotes the figure 34%. > > It's not a paper. It's a *letter to the editor* of JAMA. > Published letters to editors subject to peer review are OK to call papers I think. JAMA letters are quite prestigious I imagine. > > Also, if you rely heavily on animal protein in your diet you will > > notice the difference to e.g. your stamina very quickly if you switch > > to mostly plant diet. > > Irrelevant to the situation in post-war Scandinavia. They hadn't eaten a > lot of meat because of the war, and they imposed rationing after the > war. That's the issue, shev. Hindhede's inferences were based on some > very peculiar circumstances, and I find that he leaped to a very > unreasonable conclusion. Further, you should be concerned that you were > only able to find this obscure reference from an admittedly biased site > and that its only other mention in any scientific literature is almost > entirely anecdotal. > Well now we have five more scientific sources with similar findings to contend with. If you include other countries and time periods the list is much longer. > > True, cancers take a long time to develop, but > > other things can be affected immediately. > > Hindhede never sorted through those "things," did he. > It was never his intention. > >>What Hindhede found was a statistically insignificant reduction in > >>mortality which he failed to adequately explain. > >> > >> > [...] > >> > > >> > > >> > Do you question that the death rate in Denmark dropped substantially > >> > over the 3 year period? > >> > >>I don't think 0.2% is substantial, especially over three years. Let's > >>take a look at the other variables and see just how much of that 0.2% > >>was directly attributable to reduced meat consumption given the fact > >>that most diseases associated with over-consumption of fatty foods -- > >>cancers, heart disease, stroke, etc. -- take more than three years to > >>manifest themselves. > > > > It's not the fat that's the problem! > > It is in the case of heart disease, stroke, and certain cancers. > Do you have evidence of that? Why shold we blame the fat? Of course, fat intake is correlated with animal protein intake so it's tough to separate in a study.. [..] > >> > Do you question that the lack of meat in the > >> > diets had an impact in that drop? > >> > >> > >>Absolutely. There are too many variables which aren't discussed, either > >>for the pupose of exclusion or inclusion. > > > > It certainly isn't a proof of causation, merely correlation. > > It doesn't prove any correlation. > > > However, sometimes an inference is appropriate. > > Not in this case, for reasons re-stated above. > > > Do you think cigarettes can > > CAUSE lung cancer? > > There's a difference between saying "cigs cause cancer" and "cigs can > cause cancer." The latter is scientifically more acceptable than the former. > Agreed. Animal protein consumption -can- cause cancer. > > The evidence is similar - only a correlation is > > observed. > > Not in Hindhede's LETTER TO THE EDITOR (not study). See Rick's example > of correlations between consumption of carrots and death. That's a > better analogy for Hindhede's letter. > Rick points out that everyone who eats carrots will eventually die. This is not a correlation but something even better - a simple fact. If Rick could show that the death rate fluctuated in concert with the carrot consumption rate, that would be a correlation. That being said, rabbits do have a shorter lifetime. Draw your own conclusions. > >>>[...] > >> > >> >> > >> >> I await either your detailed response about it or an admission (and > >> >> apology) that you were repeating something you found on an activist > >> >> website, book, or post. > >> > > >> > > >> > Give me a few days on that one, parakalo. > >> > >>I've read your other post and you get highest props for investigating to > >>see if the vegan activsts are right or if I am. Others here, like > >>"Scented Nectar," should learn a lot from your desire and your > >>commendable *willingness* to get to the truth. > > > > Thank you! You were right about Socrates so I guess I'm going to have > > to research Hindhede a bit more now too. > > Please do. Start your investigation by determining if it was a study or > just a letter to the editor of JAMA. That's an important distinction to > make, and one which should make the rest of your investigation go easier. > > > [...] Your reference to American Journal of Clinical Nutrition was a good starting place. I'll post more if I come to any revelations. > > > > Thanks. In general, I think farm animals raised for food get -better- > > medical care than people. Look at the amount of mineral supplements in > > the feed at your ag store (30 - 40 minerals) - compare to baby food in > > the grocery store (5-10 minerals). > > Apples to oranges. Requirements for food labels are different for humans. > Also, profit is directly affected if your chicken are all dying of brain embalysms - you can learn and adjust the diet next year. This isn't true for our children, we only get a couple tries and don't have as good statistics. > > An owner of a herd of beef, be they well treated or not, is not going > > to spend the money on antibiotics if he doesn't have to. He isn't > > going to spring 100k for hip replacements either - instead he'll try to > > use vegetable based calcium supplements in the feed. > > Cattle don't get hip replacements. > Right - cheaper and better to butcher them and buy another. However, next time you'll know to invest a little money in chelated cal/mag/zinc + D. > >> > Very good advice! And I hope you question USDA advice every bit as > >> > much as you question mine. > >> > >> > >>I do. When I hold the USDA and activists to the same standard, the USDA > >>wins over 90% of the time. > >> > >>--- END --- > >>[..] > > > Especially when combined with further statistics that lead to the > > same conclusion. > > > > Another example: > > http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china1.html > > I snickered when I saw that Campbell's book is being discussed in > another thread. It's funny that your source is another activist site. > Even funnier that Campbell's book is sold at a discount with a book > about veganism at Amazon: > http://tinyurl.com/b2zxp > They both look like they could be good resources. I haven't read either yet so that's just an educated guess. > > Please read: > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml > and re-evaluate your conclusions accordingly. BTW, that site is run by a > vegetarian who's more interested in truth than peddling unfounded dogma. > Thanks. That is a nice list of criticisms that apply to most of all large scale epidemiology and economics. It's important to keep those things in mind - and repeat the mantra that correlation is not necessarily causation. CHeers - shev |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
>>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality >>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. >>>>>> >>>>>>I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There >>>>>>are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they >>>>>>already have. >>>>> >>>>>Very true. And unfortunately there are some who think it is "fun to >>>>>kill some people". >>>> >>>>That's nothing new. >>> >>>Sorry, the quote should have been "It's fun to shoot some people" - >>>Gen. Mattis >> >>Here's the FULL quote from CBS News' article about it: >> "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of >> a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront >> with you, I like brawling." >> >> He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women >> around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis >> continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left >> anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." >>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in671617.shtml >> >>I don't disagree with him. There are certain people in this world >>deserving of a swift kick to the ass and more. > > Good afternoon- > > His superiors certainly thought the same thing - he deserved a swift > kick to the ass and more. Only because it was something the media could take out of context to make a pretext. > Do you think Mattis was around in Afghanistan for 5 years snooping > around before he had his fun shooting some people? Do you think he > even witnessed one enemy casualty slapping a woman around? Do you > think he treats women well, given that he thinks those w/out manhood > are fun to shoot? I believe the human rights abuses of the Taliban were well enough documented that one needn't spend five years in theater to observe the abuses first hand. I encourage you to find a copy of the video "Behind the Veil" by RAWA. Their website is www.rawa.org. They have a gallery of pre- and post-liberation abuses by the Taliban. Additionally, here is a link to a pre-9/11 article from the BBC on the efforts of RAWA to publicize the abuses of the Taliban on women: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1410061.stm General Mattis was right. So were groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who called attention to the misogynistic brutality (be sure to look at the public beatings and hangings and shootings of women by the Taliban). Some of their reports were cited by various governments, including the US government, post-9/11 in calling attention to the problems in Afghanistan. http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/pres...-Talibans.html >>>>>>>I don't think meat eating is the >>>>>>>main culprit - Ghandi disagreed saying that meat eating made people >>>>>>>mean-spirited. I don't think there's much scientific evidence to back >>>>>>>that up but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it. >>>>>> >>>>>>There's no science to back it up and no anecdotal evidence of it, >>>>>>either. India is a nation not without conflict. It's a deadly place to >>>>>>be Muslim or Christian -- those vegetarian Hindus can be some nasty ****ers: >>>>>>http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sasia/india-religion.htm >>>>>>http://www.dailyherald.com/special/p...ndia/hindu.asp >>>>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0307/p06s01-wosc.html >>>>>>http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/India.htm >>>>>>http://www.saag.org/papers/paper31.html >>>>>> >>>>>>Etc. >>>>> > > Are these the "bleeding heart liberals" you were talking about? No. > [...] > >>>>>The lesson is: vegetarian !-> healthy. >>>> >>>>Wrong. You're discounting more important variables at play like >>>>increased longevity. >>> >>>Sorry for my notation. I mean that vegetarian does -not- imply health. >>> One can be an unhealthy vegetarian, getting no excercise, mineral-poor >>>crops, etc. >> >>Okay. Overall cancer rates are similar between East and West regardless >>of diet. Certain cancers are more prevalent in the East than the West >>and vice versa. The one factor which veg-n activists have long >>overlooked is longevity and its role in a variety of cancers. We're >>learning more as longevity in developing nations increases and their >>populations are developing the very same cancers at similar rates as we >>have in the West. > > Depending on who you actually mean by east and west, it sounds like you > are seriously downplaying major differences. No. > THe link you sent showed > large differences in cancer rates for that particular Indian > population, compared to the US. You cannot compare the cancer rates of one nation with life expectency into the 80s against one just now hitting 60. As longevity in India has increased, so has its rate of cancers. > The US has the most expensive medical > care system in the world - nearly 20% of GDP I think. Non sequitur. > Of course, there > are so many differences that attributing something to a certain aspect > of diet is very questionable (your beyondveg link points that out > well). Then why do you continue to do it? > [snip Harris discussion, my message too long already - sorry] > > >>>>Probably every bit as irrelevant as Hindhede's conjecture. I note your >>>>whiff at my last post about that. Let me refresh your memory: >>>> >>>>--- START --- >>>>[...] >>>> >>>>>It has been written >>>>>about in at least a few medical journals (likely several), >>>> >>>> >>>>No, it hasn't. This one obscure letter to the editor of JAMA has been >>>>repeatedly offered as "proof" by activists despite the fact that it (a) >>>>is NOT a study and (b) doesn't lead to the conclusion the activists >>>>claim it does. > > a) it IS a study - some work was put into it. No, it's a letter to an editor. It is speculation based on a small sampling under some very peculiar situations. There are no controls. There is nothing but pointing to A from B and deciding the answer is C. > It is cited in peer > reviewed literature. Irrelevant that it's cited in at least one study which cites it anecdotally. I find literature -- fiction -- often quoted in research studies to make points. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was a scientist or that something from _Macbeth_ should be taken as some kind of fact. > Argue the results but don't argue that. I have to argue both that the evidence doesn't support Hindhede's conjecture and that his letter was NOT a study in any meaningful sense of the word. > b) it leads to -some- conclusions that activists claim - reduced animal > protein in Scandinavian diets was correlated with improved health and > longevity. Again, irrelevant. Hindhede's letter to the editor had no controls, it was idle speculation based on a very small sampling of the population during a very peculiar time. Activists may find it interesting, but no scientist would for reasons given above. Additionally, activists would make the same claims regardless of whether or not they had Hindhede's letter. They're not pushing scientific fact, they're pushing their agenda. >>>>>and has been >>>>>noted by military strategists and economists as well as "vegan >>>>>activists". >>>> >>>> >>>>I doubt that very seriously. I just searched using the words denmark, >>>>hindhede, and jama at Google. I got seven hits. Two of them are from >>>>mindfully.org, two from europeanvegetarian.org, one from IVU, one from >>>>an archive of food newsgroups, and one from the website of the American >>>>Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which it's cited in an article entitled >>>>"Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?" >>>> >>>>The authors of that article wrote, "During World Wars I and II, wartime >>>>food restrictions that virtually eliminated meat consumption in >>>>Scandinavian countries were followed by a decline in the mortality rate >>>>(by {approx}2 deaths/1000) that returned to prewar levels after the >>>>restriction was lifted." >>> >>>Thanks for your research report. I'll have to look into it further. >> >>Welcome. > > Here are 5 other publications supporting his findings, Not findings, conjecture. Idle speculation in the absence of a study. > from the > bibliography of the source you are quoted from: > > # Friderica LS. Nutritional investigations in Denmark during the War, > 1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:255-9. > # Tikka J. Conditions and research into human nutrition in Finland > during the war years. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:260-3. > # Hansen OG. Food conditions in Norway during the war, 1939-1945. > Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:263-70. > # Bang HO, Dyerberg J. Personal reflections on the incidence of > ischemic heart disease in Oslo during the Second World War. Acta Med > Scand 1981;210:245-8.[Medline] > # Abramson E. Nutrition and nutritional research in Sweden in the years > of the war, 1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:271-6. You can list more and it's still irrelevant for the reasons given above. > But I haven't found any more about WW1 yet. > > From: > American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 526S-532S, > September 2003 > > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S > > "Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North > America > and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that > includes a > very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity." > > No surprises there. No surprise, either, that you left out the rest of their conclusion. Like this part of it: Further investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in other cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data. >>>>Nevermind the fact that this 0.2% difference in mortality rates was >>>>noted *acutely* -- *immediately* -- rather than over a period of time as >>>>occurs with the diseases connected to over-consumption of fatty foods. >>>>That difference could be explained by a number of variables including a >>>>warmer than normal winter, lack of rampant influenza, or -- if you want >>>>to add risks associated with meat consumption -- a reduction in >>>>food-borne illness from tainted meat. >>> >>>Your percentage calculation is off. >> >>No, it isn't. Hindhede's data consisted of deaths of males between 18-65 >>over a three year period among a nation of ~five million people. >> >> >>>A change of 2 deaths/1000 is an >>>infinite percentage change from none, >> >>Wrong. It's two deaths less per 1000. > > You've gone from 0 to 2. The percentage change is ~ 2/0 = infinity. No. I haven't gone from zero. I've started from the open-minded position that this rationing began immediately following a major war in which the death rate was dramatically higher than it was in the years of the rationing. I'm also open-minded to the fact that there are more variables than "meat-no meat" in such statistics. Hindhede's letter to the editor was idle speculation which *only* considered "meat-no meat" as a variable to explain the 0.2% decrease in disease-related deaths among males aged 18-65 in Denmark. >>>you need to consider the previous >>>number. >> >>The previous number would be from 1917, the last year of the war. That's >>the entire problem with using a *small* population over a *small* >>timeframe with a *many* possible variables. >> >> >>>In Hindhede's paper he quotes the figure 34%. >> >>It's not a paper. It's a *letter to the editor* of JAMA. > > Published letters to editors subject to peer review are OK to call > papers I think. I disagree. > JAMA letters are quite prestigious I imagine. Read their letters sometime and you'll probably disagree. Their letters, and the same is true of many other medical and scientific journals, are just that: letters. They're published together, seperate from studies. >>>Also, if you rely heavily on animal protein in your diet you will >>>notice the difference to e.g. your stamina very quickly if you switch >>>to mostly plant diet. >> >>Irrelevant to the situation in post-war Scandinavia. They hadn't eaten a >>lot of meat because of the war, and they imposed rationing after the >>war. That's the issue, shev. Hindhede's inferences were based on some >>very peculiar circumstances, and I find that he leaped to a very >>unreasonable conclusion. Further, you should be concerned that you were >>only able to find this obscure reference from an admittedly biased site >>and that its only other mention in any scientific literature is almost >>entirely anecdotal. > > Well now we have five more scientific sources with similar findings to > contend with. No, those five "sources" only mention Hindhede's letter. That's not evidence of anything except that it's been noted by others. > If you include other countries and time periods the list > is much longer. And the same is true for findings contrary to those you listed. >>>True, cancers take a long time to develop, but >>>other things can be affected immediately. >> >>Hindhede never sorted through those "things," did he. > > It was never his intention. Precisely, yet you call it a study. >>>>What Hindhede found was a statistically insignificant reduction in >>>>mortality which he failed to adequately explain. >>>> >>>> >>>>>[...] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Do you question that the death rate in Denmark dropped substantially >>>>>over the 3 year period? >>>> >>>>I don't think 0.2% is substantial, especially over three years. Let's >>>>take a look at the other variables and see just how much of that 0.2% >>>>was directly attributable to reduced meat consumption given the fact >>>>that most diseases associated with over-consumption of fatty foods -- >>>>cancers, heart disease, stroke, etc. -- take more than three years to >>>>manifest themselves. >>> >>>It's not the fat that's the problem! >> >>It is in the case of heart disease, stroke, and certain cancers. > > Do you have evidence of that? http://tinyurl.com/awzhn > Why shold we blame the fat? More precisely, saturated fats and transfats. > Of course, > fat intake is correlated with animal protein intake so it's tough to > separate in a study.. No, it isn't. Consider the role of oily cold-water fish in the maintenance of heart disease and high serum cholesterol, as well as research into specific oils (monounsaturated versus polyunsaturated versus saturated versus hydrogenated). > [..] > > >>>>>Do you question that the lack of meat in the >>>>>diets had an impact in that drop? >>>> >>>> >>>>Absolutely. There are too many variables which aren't discussed, either >>>>for the pupose of exclusion or inclusion. >>> >>>It certainly isn't a proof of causation, merely correlation. >> >>It doesn't prove any correlation. >> >> >>>However, sometimes an inference is appropriate. >> >>Not in this case, for reasons re-stated above. >> >> >>>Do you think cigarettes can >>>CAUSE lung cancer? >> >>There's a difference between saying "cigs cause cancer" and "cigs can >>cause cancer." The latter is scientifically more acceptable than the former. > > Agreed. Animal protein consumption -can- cause cancer. Ipse dixit and unfounded. >>>The evidence is similar - only a correlation is >>>observed. >> >>Not in Hindhede's LETTER TO THE EDITOR (not study). See Rick's example >>of correlations between consumption of carrots and death. That's a >>better analogy for Hindhede's letter. > > Rick points out that everyone who eats carrots will eventually die. > This is not a correlation but something even better - a simple fact. > If Rick could show that the death rate fluctuated in concert with the > carrot consumption rate, that would be a correlation. > That being said, rabbits do have a shorter lifetime. Draw your own > conclusions. Dittos for Hindhede's idle speculation in his letter to the editor. >>>>>[...] >>>> >>>>>>I await either your detailed response about it or an admission (and >>>>>>apology) that you were repeating something you found on an activist >>>>>>website, book, or post. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Give me a few days on that one, parakalo. >>>> >>>>I've read your other post and you get highest props for investigating to >>>>see if the vegan activsts are right or if I am. Others here, like >>>>"Scented Nectar," should learn a lot from your desire and your >>>>commendable *willingness* to get to the truth. >>> >>>Thank you! You were right about Socrates so I guess I'm going to have >>>to research Hindhede a bit more now too. >> >>Please do. Start your investigation by determining if it was a study or >>just a letter to the editor of JAMA. That's an important distinction to >>make, and one which should make the rest of your investigation go easier. >> >> >>>[...] > > Your reference to American Journal of Clinical Nutrition was a good > starting place. I'll post more if I come to any revelations. Okay. >>>Thanks. In general, I think farm animals raised for food get -better- >>>medical care than people. Look at the amount of mineral supplements in >>>the feed at your ag store (30 - 40 minerals) - compare to baby food in >>>the grocery store (5-10 minerals). >> >>Apples to oranges. Requirements for food labels are different for humans. > > Also, profit is directly affected if your chicken are all dying of > brain embalysms - you can learn and adjust the diet next year. This > isn't true for our children, we only get a couple tries and don't have > as good statistics. I still reject your point in comparing animal feed to baby food. Humans don't grow as fast as chickens and don't have the same nutritional needs. Just because a mineral isn't listed on a baby food label doesn't mean it's not in the jar. Nutritional labels are required to state certain minerals, not all. We're not short-changing kids because of such labeling. >>>An owner of a herd of beef, be they well treated or not, is not going >>>to spend the money on antibiotics if he doesn't have to. He isn't >>>going to spring 100k for hip replacements either - instead he'll try to >>>use vegetable based calcium supplements in the feed. >> >>Cattle don't get hip replacements. > > Right - cheaper and better to butcher them and buy another. Injured cattle fit in the "Four D" category: dead, diseased, dying, or disabled (or "down"). They're rendered, not slaughtered. > However, > next time you'll know to invest a little money in chelated cal/mag/zinc > + D. Broken hips are not a problem in beef cattle. Dairy producers may have that problem because their herds generally live longer than beef cattle, but the problem isn't widespread. >>>>>Very good advice! And I hope you question USDA advice every bit as >>>>>much as you question mine. >>>> >>>> >>>>I do. When I hold the USDA and activists to the same standard, the USDA >>>>wins over 90% of the time. >>>> >>>>--- END --- >>>>[..] >> >>>Especially when combined with further statistics that lead to the >>>same conclusion. >>> >>>Another example: >>>http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china1.html >> >>I snickered when I saw that Campbell's book is being discussed in >>another thread. It's funny that your source is another activist site. >>Even funnier that Campbell's book is sold at a discount with a book >>about veganism at Amazon: >>http://tinyurl.com/b2zxp > > They both look like they could be good resources. I haven't read > either yet so that's just an educated guess. They're both twaddle from vegan activists (and that's what Campbell has become). >>Please read: >>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml >>and re-evaluate your conclusions accordingly. BTW, that site is run by a >>vegetarian who's more interested in truth than peddling unfounded dogma. > > Thanks. That is a nice list of criticisms that apply to most of all > large scale epidemiology and economics. It's important to keep those > things in mind - and repeat the mantra that correlation is not > necessarily causation. The criticisms are fair. I don't think Campbell's work is entirely objective, especially given his vegan bent. Catch him if he hits a bookstore, university, or shoe shop in your locale (and be sure to load yourself with skeptical questions for his Q&A afterward); I didn't get to see him when he was here, but people I know -- vegan and not -- attended and weren't too impressed with his answers (but he was smooth during his "unimpeded BS session," as one non-vegan friend called it). |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > >>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality > >>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There > >>>>>>are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they > >>>>>>already have. > >>>>> > >>>>>Very true. And unfortunately there are some who think it is "fun to > >>>>>kill some people". > >>>> > >>>>That's nothing new. > >>> > >>>Sorry, the quote should have been "It's fun to shoot some people" - > >>>Gen. Mattis > >> > >>Here's the FULL quote from CBS News' article about it: > >> "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of > >> a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront > >> with you, I like brawling." > >> > >> He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women > >> around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis > >> continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left > >> anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." > >>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in671617.shtml > >> > >>I don't disagree with him. There are certain people in this world > >>deserving of a swift kick to the ass and more. > > > > Good afternoon- > > > > His superiors certainly thought the same thing - he deserved a swift > > kick to the ass and more. > > Only because it was something the media could take out of context to > make a pretext. > > > Do you think Mattis was around in Afghanistan for 5 years snooping > > around before he had his fun shooting some people? Do you think he > > even witnessed one enemy casualty slapping a woman around? Do you > > think he treats women well, given that he thinks those w/out manhood > > are fun to shoot? > > I believe the human rights abuses of the Taliban were well enough > documented that one needn't spend five years in theater to observe the > abuses first hand. I encourage you to find a copy of the video "Behind > the Veil" by RAWA. Their website is www.rawa.org. They have a gallery of > pre- and post-liberation abuses by the Taliban. > > Additionally, here is a link to a pre-9/11 article from the BBC on the > efforts of RAWA to publicize the abuses of the Taliban on women: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1410061.stm > > General Mattis was right. General Mattis was wrong!! It isn't "fun to shoot some people", even when such action is necessary. Disgusting! How could you think to defend that statement? > So were groups like Amnesty International and > Human Rights Watch who called attention to the misogynistic brutality > (be sure to look at the public beatings and hangings and shootings of > women by the Taliban). Some of their reports were cited by various > governments, including the US government, post-9/11 in calling attention > to the problems in Afghanistan. > http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/pres...-Talibans.html > I am definitely not going to defend the Taliban. If you like the 'human rights abuses in Afghanisan' genre you should also check out: "Massacre in Mazar" "The Convoy of Death" > > > The US has the most expensive medical > > care system in the world - nearly 20% of GDP I think. > > Non sequitur. > You think it is unrelated? It's another wrench to throw in our understanding of statistical correlations / epidemiology. > > Of course, there > > are so many differences that attributing something to a certain aspect > > of diet is very questionable (your beyondveg link points that out > > well). > > Then why do you continue to do it? > There's no other choice when studying nutrition, economics, psychology, epidemiology. > > > b) it leads to -some- conclusions that activists claim - reduced animal > > protein in Scandinavian diets was correlated with improved health and > > longevity. > > Again, irrelevant. Hindhede's letter to the editor had no controls, it > was idle speculation based on a very small sampling of the population > during a very peculiar time. Activists may find it interesting, but no > scientist would for reasons given above. > Taken alone, you are right about Hindhede's letter. With other examples and explanations however, it makes sense. > > > > Here are 5 other publications supporting his findings, > > Not findings, conjecture. Idle speculation in the absence of a study. > He looked up figures on mortality in Denmark over the years 1900-1920. He researched time periods of meat import obstructions. This is more than idle speculation. > > > > # Friderica LS. Nutritional investigations in Denmark during the War, > > 1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:255-9. > > # Tikka J. Conditions and research into human nutrition in Finland > > during the war years. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:260-3. > > # Hansen OG. Food conditions in Norway during the war, 1939-1945. > > Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:263-70. > > # Bang HO, Dyerberg J. Personal reflections on the incidence of > > ischemic heart disease in Oslo during the Second World War. Acta Med > > Scand 1981;210:245-8.[Medline] > > # Abramson E. Nutrition and nutritional research in Sweden in the years > > of the war, 1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:271-6. > > You can list more and it's still irrelevant for the reasons given above. > I'll tell you if I find anything in there. Haven't checked a single one yet, sorry. > > > > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S > > > > "Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North > > America > > and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that > > includes a > > very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity." > > > > No surprises there. > > No surprise, either, that you left out the rest of their conclusion. > Like this part of it: > Further investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in > other cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized > herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data. > Further investigation is always needed. I bet he has a grant proposal in mind. > > JAMA letters are quite prestigious I imagine. > > Read their letters sometime and you'll probably disagree. Their letters, > and the same is true of many other medical and scientific journals, are > just that: letters. They're published together, seperate from studies. > Good point. Also we should note that there is plenty of krap published every day, and at an ever-growing rate. Just because somebody printed it, and maybe someone signed off on it, doesn't mean it's quality research. Paper - yes. Worth the weight of the ink - remains to be seen. > > >>>>>[...] > >>>Thanks. In general, I think farm animals raised for food get -better- > >>>medical care than people. Look at the amount of mineral supplements in > >>>the feed at your ag store (30 - 40 minerals) - compare to baby food in > >>>the grocery store (5-10 minerals). > >> > >>Apples to oranges. Requirements for food labels are different for humans. > > > > Also, profit is directly affected if your chicken are all dying of > > brain embalysms - you can learn and adjust the diet next year. This > > isn't true for our children, we only get a couple tries and don't have > > as good statistics. > > I still reject your point in comparing animal feed to baby food. Humans > don't grow as fast as chickens and don't have the same nutritional > needs. Just because a mineral isn't listed on a baby food label doesn't > mean it's not in the jar. Nutritional labels are required to state > certain minerals, not all. We're not short-changing kids because of such > labeling. > It's not just the kids, it's the adults too. None of us are on a maximum-nutrition diet - we aren't managed and fed by people who rely on our health for their livelihood. We're not "short-changing" kids, we're preparing them for a life in which food consumption is not just a nutritive undertaking - it is social, religious, political, and more. THat being said, I imagine many kids are being "short-changed", nutrition wise. > >>>An owner of a herd of beef, be they well treated or not, is not going > >>>to spend the money on antibiotics if he doesn't have to. He isn't > >>>going to spring 100k for hip replacements either - instead he'll try to > >>>use vegetable based calcium supplements in the feed. > >> > >>Cattle don't get hip replacements. > > > > Right - cheaper and better to butcher them and buy another. > > Injured cattle fit in the "Four D" category: dead, diseased, dying, or > disabled (or "down"). They're rendered, not slaughtered. > New terminology to me. Send the beef up here then - I never refuse free food. > > However, > > next time you'll know to invest a little money in chelated cal/mag/zinc > > + D. > > Broken hips are not a problem in beef cattle. Dairy producers may have > that problem because their herds generally live longer than beef cattle, > but the problem isn't widespread. > They can be a problem for studs, and they would be a problem if they didn't get proper nutrition. > > >>Please read: > >>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml > >>and re-evaluate your conclusions accordingly. BTW, that site is run by a > >>vegetarian who's more interested in truth than peddling unfounded dogma. > > > > Thanks. That is a nice list of criticisms that apply to most of all > > large scale epidemiology and economics. It's important to keep those > > things in mind - and repeat the mantra that correlation is not > > necessarily causation. > > The criticisms are fair. I don't think Campbell's work is entirely > objective, especially given his vegan bent. Catch him if he hits a > bookstore, university, or shoe shop in your locale (and be sure to load > yourself with skeptical questions for his Q&A afterward); I didn't get > to see him when he was here, but people I know -- vegan and not -- > attended and weren't too impressed with his answers (but he was smooth > during his "unimpeded BS session," as one non-vegan friend called it). Thanks- I'll get some ammunition ready if he comes to town. This isn't the same C. Campbell who wrote "The coming global oil crisis" is it? See you - |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality >>>>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I realize there are some who think it is, but I don't think so. There >>>>>>>>are plenty of people in this world who are content with what they >>>>>>>>already have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Very true. And unfortunately there are some who think it is "fun to >>>>>>>kill some people". >>>>>> >>>>>>That's nothing new. >>>>> >>>>>Sorry, the quote should have been "It's fun to shoot some people" - >>>>>Gen. Mattis >>>> >>>>Here's the FULL quote from CBS News' article about it: >>>> "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of >>>> a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront >>>> with you, I like brawling." >>>> >>>> He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women >>>> around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis >>>> continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left >>>> anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." >>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in671617.shtml >>>> >>>>I don't disagree with him. There are certain people in this world >>>>deserving of a swift kick to the ass and more. >>> >>>Good afternoon- >>> >>>His superiors certainly thought the same thing - he deserved a swift >>>kick to the ass and more. >> >>Only because it was something the media could take out of context to >>make a pretext. >> >> >>>Do you think Mattis was around in Afghanistan for 5 years snooping >>>around before he had his fun shooting some people? Do you think he >>>even witnessed one enemy casualty slapping a woman around? Do you >>>think he treats women well, given that he thinks those w/out manhood >>>are fun to shoot? >> >>I believe the human rights abuses of the Taliban were well enough >>documented that one needn't spend five years in theater to observe the >>abuses first hand. I encourage you to find a copy of the video "Behind >>the Veil" by RAWA. Their website is www.rawa.org. They have a gallery of >>pre- and post-liberation abuses by the Taliban. >> >>Additionally, here is a link to a pre-9/11 article from the BBC on the >>efforts of RAWA to publicize the abuses of the Taliban on women: >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1410061.stm >> >>General Mattis was right. > > General Mattis was wrong!! No, he's right. > It isn't "fun to shoot some people", Maybe not for you, but it is for him and his Marines. > even > when such action is necessary. Disgusting! How could you think to > defend that statement? Quite easily. I don't object to members of the military enjoying their work. You may not be well-suited to military service, but there are plenty who are. >>So were groups like Amnesty International and >>Human Rights Watch who called attention to the misogynistic brutality >>(be sure to look at the public beatings and hangings and shootings of >>women by the Taliban). Some of their reports were cited by various >>governments, including the US government, post-9/11 in calling attention >>to the problems in Afghanistan. >>http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/pres...-Talibans.html > > I am definitely not going to defend the Taliban. If you like the > 'human rights abuses in Afghanisan' genre I don't like any human rights abuses anywhere. > you should also check out: > > "Massacre in Mazar" > "The Convoy of Death" I find Jamie Doran's claims -- and those made by his fellow travelers -- outrageous. Have prisoners died under a variety of circumstances, including suspicious ones? Absolutely. Were thousands of prisoners systematically killed by US armed forces? Absolutely NOT. Were thousands of prisoners executed by other soldiers under US military supervision? Highly unlikely that ~4000 were, but it's reasonable to assume a few were for a variety of reasons (e.g., attempted escape, insurrection). What's more questionable, though, is the original head count, if there even was one. In the absence of concrete numbers, all we have is speculation about how many prisoners there were at the start and how many there were at the end. We don't know anything else about the transportation of prisoners -- if they tried to flee, if they provoked something, etc. >>>The US has the most expensive medical >>>care system in the world - nearly 20% of GDP I think. >> >>Non sequitur. > > You think it is unrelated? I disagree there's a correlation between *expense* and longevity. Much of our medical expense is related to one thing which has NO ****ing thing to do with medical ca lawsuits. That issue affects doctors' insurance premiums, the cost of medications (prescription and non-), etc., having to do with health care. http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/533.html > It's another wrench to throw in our > understanding of statistical correlations / epidemiology. You mean your misunderstanding of the same. That's evident from your insistence that Hindhede's letter to the editor was a meaningful study. >>>Of course, there >>>are so many differences that attributing something to a certain aspect >>>of diet is very questionable (your beyondveg link points that out >>>well). >> >>Then why do you continue to do it? > > There's no other choice when studying nutrition, economics, psychology, > epidemiology. Yes, there is. You can look at a variety of studies -- whole studies, not merely abstracts -- rather than ones you think support your case. You can also address the issue of other variables which haven't been excluded (as in the case of Hindhede's letter). >>>b) it leads to -some- conclusions that activists claim - reduced animal >>>protein in Scandinavian diets was correlated with improved health and >>>longevity. >> >>Again, irrelevant. Hindhede's letter to the editor had no controls, it >>was idle speculation based on a very small sampling of the population >>during a very peculiar time. Activists may find it interesting, but no >>scientist would for reasons given above. > > Taken alone, you are right about Hindhede's letter. Case closed. > With other examples There are no other examples. There's like a circle jerk of "researchers" (some of whom are on the boards of various veg-n advocacy groups) who point to the same set of "studies" or, in this case, letter. > and explanations however, it makes sense. No, it doesn't. None of the studies you'll cite compare people on healthful veg-n diets to people on healthful diets which include meat; further, very few studies of relevance take into account a variegty of lifestyle factors which may be of extreme importance (e.g., a physically-active meat-eater will generally be healthier than an obese vegetarian couch potato). You're forever comparing apples to oranges. >>>Here are 5 other publications supporting his findings, >> >>Not findings, conjecture. Idle speculation in the absence of a study. > > He looked up figures on mortality in Denmark over the years 1900-1920. > He researched time periods of meat import obstructions. This is more > than idle speculation. Only among males 18-65 who died of DISEASE in a three-year period. He accounted for only *certain diseases*, but not for others. It is idle speculation to suggest that the meat ban was directly responsible for any decrease, even if it's only 0.2%. >>># Friderica LS. Nutritional investigations in Denmark during the War, >>>1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:255-9. >>># Tikka J. Conditions and research into human nutrition in Finland >>>during the war years. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:260-3. >>># Hansen OG. Food conditions in Norway during the war, 1939-1945. >>>Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:263-70. >>># Bang HO, Dyerberg J. Personal reflections on the incidence of >>>ischemic heart disease in Oslo during the Second World War. Acta Med >>>Scand 1981;210:245-8.[Medline] >>># Abramson E. Nutrition and nutritional research in Sweden in the years >>>of the war, 1939-1945. Proc Nutr Soc 1947;5:271-6. >> >>You can list more and it's still irrelevant for the reasons given above. > > I'll tell you if I find anything in there. Haven't checked a single > one yet, sorry. Ahhh. >>>http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S >>> >>> "Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North >>>America >>> and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that >>>includes a >>> very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity." >>> >>>No surprises there. >> >>No surprise, either, that you left out the rest of their conclusion. >>Like this part of it: >> Further investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in >> other cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized >> herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data. > > Further investigation is always needed. Yet you've made up your mind. That the protein in meat is what causes disease, rather than eating too much meat or the wrong (fatty) kinds. > I bet he has a grant proposal > in mind. No doubt. That doesn't minimize the fact that the authors admitted their study is small and (they didn't admit this part) somewhat selective. >>>JAMA letters are quite prestigious I imagine. >> >>Read their letters sometime and you'll probably disagree. Their letters, >>and the same is true of many other medical and scientific journals, are >>just that: letters. They're published together, separate from studies. > > Good point. Also we should note that there is plenty of krap published > every day, and at an ever-growing rate. Just because somebody printed > it, and maybe someone signed off on it, doesn't mean it's quality > research. Paper - yes. Worth the weight of the ink - remains to be > seen. Which is why I find it amusing that you like to use obscure sources found on "biased" (the guy's own description) sites like mindless.org or whatever it's called. >>>>>>>[...] >>>>> >>>>>Thanks. In general, I think farm animals raised for food get -better- >>>>>medical care than people. Look at the amount of mineral supplements in >>>>>the feed at your ag store (30 - 40 minerals) - compare to baby food in >>>>>the grocery store (5-10 minerals). >>>> >>>>Apples to oranges. Requirements for food labels are different for humans. >>> >>>Also, profit is directly affected if your chicken are all dying of >>>brain embalysms - you can learn and adjust the diet next year. This >>>isn't true for our children, we only get a couple tries and don't have >>>as good statistics. >> >>I still reject your point in comparing animal feed to baby food. Humans >>don't grow as fast as chickens and don't have the same nutritional >>needs. Just because a mineral isn't listed on a baby food label doesn't >>mean it's not in the jar. Nutritional labels are required to state >>certain minerals, not all. We're not short-changing kids because of such >>labeling. > > It's not just the kids, it's the adults too. None of us are None of us IS. None is from the old English "ne an" -- meaning "not one." The indefinite pronouns another, each, either, none and neither as well as those ending in -one, -body, -thing are always singular and take a singular verb . EX: Each of my friends feels sorry for my plight. None of us knows the answer to the question. http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/g...tence/2_1e.htm > on a > maximum-nutrition diet - we aren't managed and fed by people who rely > on our health for their livelihood. Do the people at Gerber's continue making money off the sale of baby food to parents if their baby dies of malnutrition? No. > We're not "short-changing" kids, we're preparing them for a life in > which food consumption is not just a nutritive undertaking - it is > social, religious, political, and more. > > THat being said, I imagine many kids are being "short-changed", > nutrition wise. This goes far beyond the point at issue. >>>>>An owner of a herd of beef, be they well treated or not, is not going >>>>>to spend the money on antibiotics if he doesn't have to. He isn't >>>>>going to spring 100k for hip replacements either - instead he'll try to >>>>>use vegetable based calcium supplements in the feed. >>>> >>>>Cattle don't get hip replacements. >>> >>>Right - cheaper and better to butcher them and buy another. >> >>Injured cattle fit in the "Four D" category: dead, diseased, dying, or >>disabled (or "down"). They're rendered, not slaughtered. > > New terminology to me. I got just under 95k hits at google for "4d meat." > Send the beef up here then - I never refuse > free food. No. It's unsuitable for human consumption. >>>However, >>>next time you'll know to invest a little money in chelated cal/mag/zinc >>>+ D. >> >>Broken hips are not a problem in beef cattle. Dairy producers may have >>that problem because their herds generally live longer than beef cattle, >>but the problem isn't widespread. > > They can be a problem for studs, and they would be a problem if they > didn't get proper nutrition. > >>>>Please read: >>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml >>>>and re-evaluate your conclusions accordingly. BTW, that site is run by a >>>>vegetarian who's more interested in truth than peddling unfounded dogma. >>> >>>Thanks. That is a nice list of criticisms that apply to most of all >>>large scale epidemiology and economics. It's important to keep those >>>things in mind - and repeat the mantra that correlation is not >>>necessarily causation. >> >>The criticisms are fair. I don't think Campbell's work is entirely >>objective, especially given his vegan bent. Catch him if he hits a >>bookstore, university, or shoe shop in your locale (and be sure to load >>yourself with skeptical questions for his Q&A afterward); I didn't get >>to see him when he was here, but people I know -- vegan and not -- >>attended and weren't too impressed with his answers (but he was smooth >>during his "unimpeded BS session," as one non-vegan friend called it). > > Thanks- I'll get some ammunition ready if he comes to town. This isn't > the same C. Campbell who wrote "The coming global oil crisis" is it? The author of the so-called China Study is T Colin Campbell, and the global oil guy is Colin J Campbell. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality > >>>>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. > >>>>>>>> [...] > > > It isn't "fun to shoot some people", > > Maybe not for you, but it is for him and his Marines. > > > even > > when such action is necessary. Disgusting! How could you think to > > defend that statement? > > Quite easily. I don't object to members of the military enjoying their > work. You may not be well-suited to military service, but there are > plenty who are. > You are digging your hole even deeper my friend. Should an executioner "enjoy his work"? The military are -paid- for a reason: it isn't "fun to shoot some people". Damn, and you were trying to argue some kind of moral standpoint in this forum? As his superiors said, and any other rational soldier will agree, someone with that attitude is ill-suited to military service. He was confused, trying to get a cheap laugh, not being serious. Move on. > >>>The US has the most expensive medical > >>>care system in the world - nearly 20% of GDP I think. > >> > >>Non sequitur. > > > > You think it is unrelated? > > I disagree there's a correlation between *expense* and longevity. Much > of our medical expense is related to one thing which has NO ****ing > thing to do with medical ca lawsuits. That issue affects doctors' > insurance premiums, the cost of medications (prescription and non-), > etc., having to do with health care. > > http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/533.html > I share your disdain for legal share of health care costs. > > >>>b) it leads to -some- conclusions that activists claim - reduced animal > >>>protein in Scandinavian diets was correlated with improved health and > >>>longevity. > >> > >>Again, irrelevant. Hindhede's letter to the editor had no controls, it > >>was idle speculation based on a very small sampling of the population > >>during a very peculiar time. Activists may find it interesting, but no > >>scientist would for reasons given above. > > > > Taken alone, you are right about Hindhede's letter. > > Case closed. > > > With other examples > > There are no other examples. There's like a circle jerk of "researchers" > (some of whom are on the boards of various veg-n advocacy groups) who > point to the same set of "studies" or, in this case, letter. > > > and explanations however, it makes sense. > > No, it doesn't. None of the studies you'll cite compare people on > healthful veg-n diets to people on healthful diets which include meat; > further, very few studies of relevance take into account a variegty of > lifestyle factors which may be of extreme importance (e.g., a > physically-active meat-eater will generally be healthier than an obese > vegetarian couch potato). You're forever comparing apples to oranges. > Those lifestyle effects, and other pseudo-random disease factors, will on average lower the correlation. That a correlation is still observed is a testament to the effect of the diet. The arguments you give are reasons to put more weight on the correlation, not less. > >>>Here are 5 other publications supporting his findings, > >> > >>Not findings, conjecture. Idle speculation in the absence of a study. > > > > He looked up figures on mortality in Denmark over the years 1900-1920. > > He researched time periods of meat import obstructions. This is more > > than idle speculation. > > Only among males 18-65 who died of DISEASE in a three-year period. He > accounted for only *certain diseases*, but not for others. It is idle > speculation to suggest that the meat ban was directly responsible for > any decrease, even if it's only 0.2%. > He is reporting a statistical correlation. That is the job of epidemiologists. > > >>>http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S > >>> > >>> "Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North > >>>America > >>> and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that > >>>includes a > >>> very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity." > >>> > >>>No surprises there. > >> > >>No surprise, either, that you left out the rest of their conclusion. > >>Like this part of it: > >> Further investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in > >> other cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized > >> herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data. > > > > Further investigation is always needed. > > Yet you've made up your mind. That the protein in meat is what causes > disease, rather than eating too much meat or the wrong (fatty) kinds. > I never said that quantity is unimportant. That would be ridiculous. I've seen no evidence that only the fat or the protein is solely responsible for meat eating / disease correlations - therefore I blame the part that is greater (more massive). > >>>JAMA letters are quite prestigious I imagine. > >> > >>Read their letters sometime and you'll probably disagree. Their letters, > >>and the same is true of many other medical and scientific journals, are > >>just that: letters. They're published together, separate from studies. > > > > Good point. Also we should note that there is plenty of krap published > > every day, and at an ever-growing rate. Just because somebody printed > > it, and maybe someone signed off on it, doesn't mean it's quality > > research. Paper - yes. Worth the weight of the ink - remains to be > > seen. > > Which is why I find it amusing that you like to use obscure sources > found on "biased" (the guy's own description) sites like mindless.org or > whatever it's called. > I like to judge a book by its contents. > >>>>>>>[...] None of us are > > None of us IS. None is from the old English "ne an" -- meaning "not one." > > The indefinite pronouns another, each, either, none and neither > as well as those ending in -one, -body, -thing are always > singular and take a singular verb . > > EX: Each of my friends feels sorry for my plight. > None of us knows the answer to the question. > http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/g...tence/2_1e.htm > Thank you! Please excuse my grammar and I appreciate the corrections. > > >>>>>An owner of a herd of beef, be they well treated or not, is not going > >>>>>to spend the money on antibiotics if he doesn't have to. He isn't > >>>>>going to spring 100k for hip replacements either - instead he'll try to > >>>>>use vegetable based calcium supplements in the feed. > >>>> > >>>>Cattle don't get hip replacements. > >>> > >>>Right - cheaper and better to butcher them and buy another. > >> > >>Injured cattle fit in the "Four D" category: dead, diseased, dying, or > >>disabled (or "down"). They're rendered, not slaughtered. > > > > New terminology to me. > > I got just under 95k hits at google for "4d meat." > > > Send the beef up here then - I never refuse > > free food. > > No. It's unsuitable for human consumption. > What? A broken hip and you won't eat it? You are one picky eater. BTW, I'm surprised you didn't make an important argument, which is: who cares? Longevity is a pretty horrible goal in itself - after all many of us drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes.. that meat is correlated with lower lifespan is not a reason in itself to be vegetarian. > > > > Thanks- I'll get some ammunition ready if he comes to town. This isn't > > the same C. Campbell who wrote "The coming global oil crisis" is it? > > The author of the so-called China Study is T Colin Campbell, and the > global oil guy is Colin J Campbell. THanks - cheers - sorry about extetensive snips -shev. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality >>>>>>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>[...] >> >>>It isn't "fun to shoot some people", >> >>Maybe not for you, but it is for him and his Marines. >> >> >>>even >>>when such action is necessary. Disgusting! How could you think to >>>defend that statement? >> >>Quite easily. I don't object to members of the military enjoying their >>work. You may not be well-suited to military service, but there are >>plenty who are. > > You are digging your hole even deeper my friend. I'm not in a hole, nor am I digging one. > Should an executioner "enjoy his work"? Of all the jobs involving the deaths of other human beings, absolutely. I would personally consider it an honor to carry out justice in such fashion. I wouldn't experience any remorse for removing the likes of these cold-blooded ****ers from the face of our planet: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm Read through some of the death row rap sheets and tell me why an executioner should be remorseful and resent executing someone who raped and murdered a little girl, someone who murdered his or her own child, someone who murdered a baby she was babysitting, someone who terrorized an entire family before killing them one by one. > The military are -paid- for a reason: So am I. The military are paid far less than I am and receive fewer benefits for a lot more work. There is no correlation between their pay and their service: the disparity between the two is why we thank them for their sacrifice (not merely of lives, but of everything they're giving up to serve for family and country). > it isn't "fun to shoot some people". Ipse dixit and non sequitur (at least for the reason given above). Speak for yourself and your own bleeding heart. > Damn, and you were trying to argue some kind of > moral standpoint in this forum? Yes. I think it's moral to kill certain people, particularly those who wantonly kill others. I also don't think it's something which should cause remorse, though I appreciate that some people experience it. > As his superiors said, and any other rational soldier will agree, > someone with that attitude is ill-suited to military service. That isn't quite what General Hagee said. Hagee said, "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor. I have counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully. While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war." You've probably played video games at some point in your life during which you killed off enemies. Ironically, you enjoyed killing them one by one, or, when having some form of ordinance like a grenade at the ready, wiping out several at a time. I realize there's a difference between video images and real blood and guts, but real combat (or police pursuits, etc.) will produce the very same enjoyment from the adrenaline rush. > He was confused, No, he was merely impolitic. I agree his remarks were insensitive, but his sentiments were fair. Most of our Marines, solider, sailors, and airmen enjoy their jobs. > trying to get a cheap laugh, not being serious. Move on. Then why all the outrage over his remarks? >>>>>The US has the most expensive medical >>>>>care system in the world - nearly 20% of GDP I think. >>>> >>>>Non sequitur. >>> >>>You think it is unrelated? >> >>I disagree there's a correlation between *expense* and longevity. Much >>of our medical expense is related to one thing which has NO ****ing >>thing to do with medical ca lawsuits. That issue affects doctors' >>insurance premiums, the cost of medications (prescription and non-), >>etc., having to do with health care. >> >>http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/533.html > > I share your disdain for legal share of health care costs. To be precise, I have a disdain for lawyers. >>>>>b) it leads to -some- conclusions that activists claim - reduced animal >>>>>protein in Scandinavian diets was correlated with improved health and >>>>>longevity. >>>> >>>>Again, irrelevant. Hindhede's letter to the editor had no controls, it >>>>was idle speculation based on a very small sampling of the population >>>>during a very peculiar time. Activists may find it interesting, but no >>>>scientist would for reasons given above. >>> >>>Taken alone, you are right about Hindhede's letter. >> >>Case closed. >> >> >>>With other examples >> >>There are no other examples. There's like a circle jerk of "researchers" >>(some of whom are on the boards of various veg-n advocacy groups) who >>point to the same set of "studies" or, in this case, letter. >> >> >>>and explanations however, it makes sense. >> >>No, it doesn't. None of the studies you'll cite compare people on >>healthful veg-n diets to people on healthful diets which include meat; >>further, very few studies of relevance take into account a variegty of >>lifestyle factors which may be of extreme importance (e.g., a >>physically-active meat-eater will generally be healthier than an obese >>vegetarian couch potato). You're forever comparing apples to oranges. > > Those lifestyle effects, and other pseudo-random They're not pseudo-random. > disease factors, will > on average lower the correlation. That a correlation is still observed > is a testament to the effect of the diet. Not at a rate of 0.2%. > The arguments you give are > reasons to put more weight on the correlation, not less. Quite the contrary. >>>>>Here are 5 other publications supporting his findings, >>>> >>>>Not findings, conjecture. Idle speculation in the absence of a study. >>> >>>He looked up figures on mortality in Denmark over the years 1900-1920. >>>He researched time periods of meat import obstructions. This is more >>>than idle speculation. >> >>Only among males 18-65 who died of DISEASE in a three-year period. He >>accounted for only *certain diseases*, but not for others. It is idle >>speculation to suggest that the meat ban was directly responsible for >>any decrease, even if it's only 0.2%. > > He is reporting a statistical correlation. That is the job of > epidemiologists. He was neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist. This is relevant because he based his conclusion on raw data with only one test (meat-no meat) and no control. >>>>>http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S >>>>> >>>>> "Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North >>>>>America >>>>> and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that >>>>>includes a >>>>> very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity." >>>>> >>>>>No surprises there. >>>> >>>>No surprise, either, that you left out the rest of their conclusion. >>>>Like this part of it: >>>> Further investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in >>>> other cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized >>>> herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data. >>> >>>Further investigation is always needed. >> >>Yet you've made up your mind. That the protein in meat is what causes >>disease, rather than eating too much meat or the wrong (fatty) kinds. > > I never said that quantity is unimportant. That would be ridiculous. > I've seen no evidence that only the fat or the protein is solely > responsible for meat eating / disease correlations - therefore I blame > the part that is greater (more massive). Which is a very faulty premise from which to operate. Review studies of fish consumption and reduced serum cholesterol. Review studies of diets including CLA-rich meats (e.g., grass-fed beef) and compare them to the other studies. Review studies about lifestyle factors (including diet) and various diseases. There are more variables than "animal protein" involved in all these studies. >>>>>JAMA letters are quite prestigious I imagine. >>>> >>>>Read their letters sometime and you'll probably disagree. Their letters, >>>>and the same is true of many other medical and scientific journals, are >>>>just that: letters. They're published together, separate from studies. >>> >>>Good point. Also we should note that there is plenty of krap published >>>every day, and at an ever-growing rate. Just because somebody printed >>>it, and maybe someone signed off on it, doesn't mean it's quality >>>research. Paper - yes. Worth the weight of the ink - remains to be >>>seen. >> >>Which is why I find it amusing that you like to use obscure sources >>found on "biased" (the guy's own description) sites like mindless.org or >>whatever it's called. > > I like to judge a book by its contents. In this case, the content is one obscure letter to an editor. The cover is an admittedly biased source of contrarian/alternative information. There are pretty good reasons for the obscurity of Hindhede's letter (see my running critique of it) and for ignoring certain sources of (dis)information. >>>>>>>>>[...] None of us are >> >>None of us IS. None is from the old English "ne an" -- meaning "not one." >> >> The indefinite pronouns another, each, either, none and neither >> as well as those ending in -one, -body, -thing are always >> singular and take a singular verb . >> >> EX: Each of my friends feels sorry for my plight. >> None of us knows the answer to the question. >>http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/g...tence/2_1e.htm >> > > Thank you! Please excuse my grammar and I appreciate the corrections. No problem. >>>>>>>An owner of a herd of beef, be they well treated or not, is not going >>>>>>>to spend the money on antibiotics if he doesn't have to. He isn't >>>>>>>going to spring 100k for hip replacements either - instead he'll try to >>>>>>>use vegetable based calcium supplements in the feed. >>>>>> >>>>>>Cattle don't get hip replacements. >>>>> >>>>>Right - cheaper and better to butcher them and buy another. >>>> >>>>Injured cattle fit in the "Four D" category: dead, diseased, dying, or >>>>disabled (or "down"). They're rendered, not slaughtered. >>> >>>New terminology to me. >> >>I got just under 95k hits at google for "4d meat." >> >> >>>Send the beef up here then - I never refuse >>>free food. >> >>No. It's unsuitable for human consumption. > > What? A broken hip and you won't eat it? You are one picky eater. I don't eat meat. > BTW, I'm surprised you didn't make an important argument, which is: > who cares? I was pointing out something because there's already enough disinformation about meat in the food supply, some of which we've already discussed. Pork and poultry are NEVER given growth hormones, and all meat is withdrawn from antibiotics and sampled for antibiotic residue before entering the human food supply. Etc. I didn't want you or anyone else reading this to assume a lame animal would end up in the food supply because that's banned. > Longevity is a pretty horrible goal in itself - after all many of us > drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes.. that meat is correlated > with lower lifespan Wrong. The correlation to which you refer is OVER-consumption of certain kinds of meat, not sensible, moderate consumption. > is not a reason in itself to be vegetarian. Many of the reasons generally cited for going vegetarian are invalid. We've already addressed some of them. >>>Thanks- I'll get some ammunition ready if he comes to town. This isn't >>>the same C. Campbell who wrote "The coming global oil crisis" is it? >> >>The author of the so-called China Study is T Colin Campbell, and the >>global oil guy is Colin J Campbell. > > THanks - cheers - sorry about extetensive snips No problem. Have a nice weekend. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality > >>>>>>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>[...] > >> > >>>It isn't "fun to shoot some people", > >> > >>Maybe not for you, but it is for him and his Marines. > >> > >> > >>>even > >>>when such action is necessary. Disgusting! How could you think to > >>>defend that statement? > >> > >>Quite easily. I don't object to members of the military enjoying their > >>work. You may not be well-suited to military service, but there are > >>plenty who are. > > > > You are digging your hole even deeper my friend. > > I'm not in a hole, nor am I digging one. > > > Should an executioner "enjoy his work"? > > Of all the jobs involving the deaths of other human beings, absolutely. > I would personally consider it an honor to carry out justice in such > fashion. I wouldn't experience any remorse for removing the likes of > these cold-blooded ****ers from the face of our planet: > http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm > > Read through some of the death row rap sheets and tell me why an > executioner should be remorseful and resent executing someone who raped > and murdered a little girl, someone who murdered his or her own child, > someone who murdered a baby she was babysitting, someone who terrorized > an entire family before killing them one by one. > I never said the executioner should be remoresful, or resent doing his job. Shouldn't the executioner wish these crimes had never occured? Shouldn't the executioner be happier without having to do the deed? Or do you think the executioner should hope for more gruesome murders, so he can have his "adrenaline rush" - that it's "fun to kill some folks" ? > > > it isn't "fun to shoot some people". > > Ipse dixit and non sequitur (at least for the reason given above). Speak > for yourself and your own bleeding heart. > You are the one with the bleeding heart - claiming that more US tax dollars (and servicemen) should go to help welfare of Afghani women. > > Damn, and you were trying to argue some kind of > > moral standpoint in this forum? > > Yes. I think it's moral to kill certain people, particularly those who > wantonly kill others. I also don't think it's something which should > cause remorse, though I appreciate that some people experience it. > Again, you avoid the question. Yes, it can be moral to kill certain people. Sometimes it can even be necessary. Remorse may not be appropriate. Pride may even be appropriate. But enjoyment? "Fun to kill some people"? Really, you have not a leg to stand on there. Mattis' words suggested he was happy about 9/11 - those events enabled him to go have his "fun". And you defend his comments? > > As his superiors said, and any other rational soldier will agree, > > someone with that attitude is ill-suited to military service. > > That isn't quite what General Hagee said. Hagee said, "Lt. Gen. Mattis > often speaks with a great deal of candor. I have counseled him > concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words > more carefully. While I understand that some people may take issue with > the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the > unfortunate and harsh realities of war." > > You've probably played video games at some point in your life during > which you killed off enemies. Ironically, you enjoyed killing them one > by one, or, when having some form of ordinance like a grenade at the > ready, wiping out several at a time. I realize there's a difference > between video images and real blood and guts, but real combat (or police > pursuits, etc.) will produce the very same enjoyment from the adrenaline > rush. > So you think this a good motiviation for armed conflict? I think you are baiting me. > > He was confused, > > No, he was merely impolitic. I agree his remarks were insensitive, but > his sentiments were fair. Most of our Marines, solider, sailors, and > airmen enjoy their jobs. > Hello, he said a little more than that, don't you think? > > trying to get a cheap laugh, not being serious. Move on. > > Then why all the outrage over his remarks? > He made our military look bad. I was outraged. You should be too. If taken at face value it means we are spending billions to give this guy his kicks. > >>>>>http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S > >>>>> > >>>>> "Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North > >>>>>America > >>>>> and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that > >>>>>includes a > >>>>> very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity." > >>>>> > >>>>>No surprises there. > >>>> > >>>>No surprise, either, that you left out the rest of their conclusion. > >>>>Like this part of it: > >>>> Further investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in > >>>> other cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized > >>>> herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data. > >>> > >>>Further investigation is always needed. > >> > >>Yet you've made up your mind. That the protein in meat is what causes > >>disease, rather than eating too much meat or the wrong (fatty) kinds. > > > > I never said that quantity is unimportant. That would be ridiculous. > > I've seen no evidence that only the fat or the protein is solely > > responsible for meat eating / disease correlations - therefore I blame > > the part that is greater (more massive). > > Which is a very faulty premise from which to operate. Review studies of > fish consumption and reduced serum cholesterol. Review studies of diets > including CLA-rich meats (e.g., grass-fed beef) and compare them to the > other studies. Review studies about lifestyle factors (including diet) > and various diseases. There are more variables than "animal protein" > involved in all these studies. > Agreed. Sorry if I insinuated all animal protein was bad. You are correct that it depends on the quantity and the type of meat in question. However for a study involving major portions of the population these details are unfortunately washed out. > >>>>>JAMA letters are quite prestigious I imagine. > >>>> > >>>>Read their letters sometime and you'll probably disagree. Their letters, > >>>>and the same is true of many other medical and scientific journals, are > >>>>just that: letters. They're published together, separate from studies. > >>> > >>>Good point. Also we should note that there is plenty of krap published > >>>every day, and at an ever-growing rate. Just because somebody printed > >>>it, and maybe someone signed off on it, doesn't mean it's quality > >>>research. Paper - yes. Worth the weight of the ink - remains to be > >>>seen. > >> > >>Which is why I find it amusing that you like to use obscure sources > >>found on "biased" (the guy's own description) sites like mindless.org or > >>whatever it's called. > > > > I like to judge a book by its contents. > > In this case, the content is one obscure letter to an editor. The cover > is an admittedly biased source of contrarian/alternative information. > There are pretty good reasons for the obscurity of Hindhede's letter > (see my running critique of it) and for ignoring certain sources of > (dis)information. > The discussion in the letter seemed entirely rational to me. I believe his conclusions. You are right to point out they aren't very strong - the conclusions are really nothing more than showing we don't really need meat - it may even be healthful to avoid it sometimes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Cattle don't get hip replacements. > >>>>> > >>>>>Right - cheaper and better to butcher them and buy another. > >>>> > >>>>Injured cattle fit in the "Four D" category: dead, diseased, dying, or > >>>>disabled (or "down"). They're rendered, not slaughtered. > >>> > >>>New terminology to me. > >> > >>I got just under 95k hits at google for "4d meat." > >> > >> > >>>Send the beef up here then - I never refuse > >>>free food. > >> > >>No. It's unsuitable for human consumption. > > > > What? A broken hip and you won't eat it? You are one picky eater. > > I don't eat meat. > When? Why not? > > BTW, I'm surprised you didn't make an important argument, which is: > > who cares? > > I was pointing out something because there's already enough > disinformation about meat in the food supply, some of which we've > already discussed. Pork and poultry are NEVER given growth hormones, and > all meat is withdrawn from antibiotics and sampled for antibiotic > residue before entering the human food supply. Etc. I didn't want you or > anyone else reading this to assume a lame animal would end up in the > food supply because that's banned. > > > Longevity is a pretty horrible goal in itself - after all many of us > > drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes.. that meat is correlated > > with lower lifespan > > Wrong. The correlation to which you refer is OVER-consumption of certain > kinds of meat, not sensible, moderate consumption. > That also applies to the alcohol, tobacco, and automotive correlations. Sorry I left it out. And you have a good weekend too - |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality >>>>>>>>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>[...] >>>> >>>>>It isn't "fun to shoot some people", >>>> >>>>Maybe not for you, but it is for him and his Marines. Restoring his quote in context: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling." He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in671617.shtml >>>>>even >>>>>when such action is necessary. Disgusting! How could you think to >>>>>defend that statement? >>>> >>>>Quite easily. I don't object to members of the military enjoying their >>>>work. You may not be well-suited to military service, but there are >>>>plenty who are. >>> >>>You are digging your hole even deeper my friend. >> >>I'm not in a hole, nor am I digging one. >> >> >>>Should an executioner "enjoy his work"? >> >>Of all the jobs involving the deaths of other human beings, absolutely. >>I would personally consider it an honor to carry out justice in such >>fashion. I wouldn't experience any remorse for removing the likes of >>these cold-blooded ****ers from the face of our planet: >>http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm >> >>Read through some of the death row rap sheets and tell me why an >>executioner should be remorseful and resent executing someone who raped >>and murdered a little girl, someone who murdered his or her own child, >>someone who murdered a baby she was babysitting, someone who terrorized >>an entire family before killing them one by one. > > I never said the executioner should be remoresful, or resent doing his > job. Shouldn't the executioner wish these crimes had never occured? > Shouldn't the executioner be happier without having to do the deed? This isn't Utopia. > Or do you think the executioner should hope for more gruesome murders, so > he can have his "adrenaline rush" - that it's "fun to kill some folks" > ? Hyperbole based on one part of what he said. Do you object to his enjoyment of fighting and brawling, too? What about those who box either professionally or for fitness? Are they "bad" for enjoying pummeling others? >>>it isn't "fun to shoot some people". >> >>Ipse dixit and non sequitur (at least for the reason given above). Speak >>for yourself and your own bleeding heart. > > You are the one with the bleeding heart No. > - claiming that more US tax > dollars (and servicemen) should go to help welfare of Afghani women. Afghani people. Most males suffered under the Taliban, too. We didn't go there to "help their welfare," per se, we went there to **** up al-Qaeda and those who harbored them. The people of Afghanistan have benefitted from our pursuit of their oppressors and from our generous aid. >>>Damn, and you were trying to argue some kind of >>>moral standpoint in this forum? >> >>Yes. I think it's moral to kill certain people, particularly those who >>wantonly kill others. I also don't think it's something which should >>cause remorse, though I appreciate that some people experience it. > > Again, you avoid the question. I never avoided the question. I've written all along that I wouldn't begrudge Marines or soldiers any enjoyment they may get from their work, even when they have to kill people. It's unfortunate that wars happen, but I'd rather we have happy warriors who enjoy their work than brooding navel-gazers who are too self-absorbed in their own melancholy to return fire on the enemy. > Yes, it can be moral to kill certain > people. Sometimes it can even be necessary. Remorse may not be > appropriate. Pride may even be appropriate. But enjoyment? Absolutely. Contrary to your assertion about the money, they're not paid enough to do what they do even with additional pay for serving in a combat zone. They could work fewer hours and still earn more money working in most retail jobs. Other branches have similar payscales: http://www.army.com/money/payrates_enlisted_a05.html Remember, these guys and gals are on-call 24/7. That pay isn't for a 40-hour work week. Why do they do it? Patriotism. Pride. Because they enjoy it? > "Fun to > kill some people"? Really, you have not a leg to stand on there. You're emoting. > Mattis' words suggested he was happy about 9/11 - No, they didn't. > those events enabled > him to go have his "fun". And you defend his comments? Absolutely. General Mattis' remarks were only impolitic, but they were quite reasonable given his job (Marine infantry commander). I don't think it's accurate to portray him by the one or two sentences you originally took out of context. Consider his other remarks to his Marines, such as the speech quoted in the link below. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/114028.shtml >>>As his superiors said, and any other rational soldier will agree, >>>someone with that attitude is ill-suited to military service. >> >>That isn't quite what General Hagee said. Hagee said, "Lt. Gen. Mattis >>often speaks with a great deal of candor. I have counseled him >>concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words >>more carefully. While I understand that some people may take issue with >>the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the >>unfortunate and harsh realities of war." >> >>You've probably played video games at some point in your life during >>which you killed off enemies. Ironically, you enjoyed killing them one >>by one, or, when having some form of ordinance like a grenade at the >>ready, wiping out several at a time. I realize there's a difference >>between video images and real blood and guts, but real combat (or police >>pursuits, etc.) will produce the very same enjoyment from the adrenaline >>rush. > > So you think this a good motiviation for armed conflict? The motivations for armed conflict were (a) the fatwah UBL issued against the US in 1998 and (b) the carrying out of the fatwah on the morning of 11 September 2001. > I think you are baiting me. No, the point above is that you enjoy the adrenaline rush you get from playing video games in which you try to stay alive by killing those who try to kill you. Those euphoric, enjoyable feelings are similar to those who battle others in real life, whether it's warfare, police work, or even certain sports (which, of course, don't require bloodshed or death). >>>He was confused, >> >>No, he was merely impolitic. I agree his remarks were insensitive, but >>his sentiments were fair. Most of our Marines, solider, sailors, and >>airmen enjoy their jobs. > > Hello, he said a little more than that, don't you think? I disagree, particularly when you choose to focus only on one or two sentences instead of the entire context. >>>trying to get a cheap laugh, not being serious. Move on. >> >>Then why all the outrage over his remarks? > > He made our military look bad. No, he didn't. > I was outraged. You should be too. I'm not. > If > taken at face value it means we are spending billions to give this guy > his kicks. We're spending billions to make our world safer and more secure. >>>>>>>http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North >>>>>>>America >>>>>>> and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that >>>>>>>includes a >>>>>>> very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No surprises there. >>>>>> >>>>>>No surprise, either, that you left out the rest of their conclusion. >>>>>>Like this part of it: >>>>>> Further investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in >>>>>> other cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized >>>>>> herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data. >>>>> >>>>>Further investigation is always needed. >>>> >>>>Yet you've made up your mind. That the protein in meat is what causes >>>>disease, rather than eating too much meat or the wrong (fatty) kinds. >>> >>>I never said that quantity is unimportant. That would be ridiculous. >>>I've seen no evidence that only the fat or the protein is solely >>>responsible for meat eating / disease correlations - therefore I blame >>>the part that is greater (more massive). >> >>Which is a very faulty premise from which to operate. Review studies of >>fish consumption and reduced serum cholesterol. Review studies of diets >>including CLA-rich meats (e.g., grass-fed beef) and compare them to the >>other studies. Review studies about lifestyle factors (including diet) >>and various diseases. There are more variables than "animal protein" >>involved in all these studies. > > Agreed. Sorry if I insinuated all animal protein was bad. You are > correct that it depends on the quantity and the type of meat in > question. However for a study involving major portions of the > population these details are unfortunately washed out. Elaborate on the last sentence, please. >>>>>>>JAMA letters are quite prestigious I imagine. >>>>>> >>>>>>Read their letters sometime and you'll probably disagree. Their letters, >>>>>>and the same is true of many other medical and scientific journals, are >>>>>>just that: letters. They're published together, separate from studies. >>>>> >>>>>Good point. Also we should note that there is plenty of krap published >>>>>every day, and at an ever-growing rate. Just because somebody printed >>>>>it, and maybe someone signed off on it, doesn't mean it's quality >>>>>research. Paper - yes. Worth the weight of the ink - remains to be >>>>>seen. >>>> >>>>Which is why I find it amusing that you like to use obscure sources >>>>found on "biased" (the guy's own description) sites like mindless.org or >>>>whatever it's called. >>> >>>I like to judge a book by its contents. >> >>In this case, the content is one obscure letter to an editor. The cover >>is an admittedly biased source of contrarian/alternative information. >>There are pretty good reasons for the obscurity of Hindhede's letter >>(see my running critique of it) and for ignoring certain sources of >>(dis)information. > > The discussion in the letter seemed entirely rational to me. I believe > his conclusions. Speculations, not conclusions. > You are right to point out they aren't very strong - Especially in light of other studies. > the conclusions are really nothing more than showing we don't really > need meat - That's a non sequitur. > it may even be healthful to avoid it sometimes. Or in large quantities. Whatever you think of Hindhede's letter, it fits in the same old apples  ranges comparison that veg-ns make when relyingon studies (or letters to the editor, lol). They only compare meat-included diets which involve OVER-consumption issues against diets which are more moderate in nature, and from this disparity of measuring an extreme against moderation they determine something not even studied. So let's see studies which measure healthful diets -- moderate consumption of meat, consumption of lean meats and/or reduced-fat dairy, etc. -- against other healthful diets which don't include meat and let the chips fall where they may. We don't learn anything from comparing an unhealthful diet (overconsumption of meat, sugar, whatever) to a more moderate, balanced diet, just that overconsumption is unhealthful. I cannot accept the premise that one should avoid all animal products just because studies show that over-consuming them is unhealthful, nor can I use such a study to exaggerate correlations which probably don't exist. That, though, is what activists do when they refer to the aforementioned studies (or even Hindhede's letter). >>>>>>>>Cattle don't get hip replacements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Right - cheaper and better to butcher them and buy another. >>>>>> >>>>>>Injured cattle fit in the "Four D" category: dead, diseased, dying, or >>>>>>disabled (or "down"). They're rendered, not slaughtered. >>>>> >>>>>New terminology to me. >>>> >>>>I got just under 95k hits at google for "4d meat." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Send the beef up here then - I never refuse >>>>>free food. >>>> >>>>No. It's unsuitable for human consumption. >>> >>>What? A broken hip and you won't eat it? You are one picky eater. >> >>I don't eat meat. > > When? Ever. I had a few pieces of sashimi earlier this year. Other than that, it's been a while. > Why not? I don't care for the flavor or texture of most meats (I do like fish and other seafood, though). >>>BTW, I'm surprised you didn't make an important argument, which is: >>>who cares? >> >>I was pointing out something because there's already enough >>disinformation about meat in the food supply, some of which we've >>already discussed. Pork and poultry are NEVER given growth hormones, and >>all meat is withdrawn from antibiotics and sampled for antibiotic >>residue before entering the human food supply. Etc. I didn't want you or >>anyone else reading this to assume a lame animal would end up in the >>food supply because that's banned. >> >> >>>Longevity is a pretty horrible goal in itself - after all many of us >>>drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes.. that meat is correlated >>>with lower lifespan >> >>Wrong. The correlation to which you refer is OVER-consumption of certain >>kinds of meat, not sensible, moderate consumption. > > That also applies to the alcohol, tobacco, and automotive correlations. > Sorry I left it out. > > And you have a good weekend too - Thanks. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality > >>>>>>>>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>[...] > >>>> > >>>>>It isn't "fun to shoot some people", > >>>> > >>>>Maybe not for you, but it is for him and his Marines. > > Restoring his quote in context: > "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of > a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront > with you, I like brawling." > > He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women > around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis > continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left > anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in671617.shtml > > >>>>>even > >>>>>when such action is necessary. Disgusting! How could you think to > >>>>>defend that statement? > >>>> > >>>>Quite easily. I don't object to members of the military enjoying their > >>>>work. You may not be well-suited to military service, but there are > >>>>plenty who are. > >>> > >>>You are digging your hole even deeper my friend. > >> > >>I'm not in a hole, nor am I digging one. > >> > >> > >>>Should an executioner "enjoy his work"? > >> > >>Of all the jobs involving the deaths of other human beings, absolutely. > >>I would personally consider it an honor to carry out justice in such > >>fashion. I wouldn't experience any remorse for removing the likes of > >>these cold-blooded ****ers from the face of our planet: > >>http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm > >> > >>Read through some of the death row rap sheets and tell me why an > >>executioner should be remorseful and resent executing someone who raped > >>and murdered a little girl, someone who murdered his or her own child, > >>someone who murdered a baby she was babysitting, someone who terrorized > >>an entire family before killing them one by one. > > > > I never said the executioner should be remoresful, or resent doing his > > job. Shouldn't the executioner wish these crimes had never occured? > > Shouldn't the executioner be happier without having to do the deed? > > This isn't Utopia. > > > Or do you think the executioner should hope for more gruesome murders, so > > he can have his "adrenaline rush" - that it's "fun to kill some folks" > > ? > > Hyperbole based on one part of what he said. Do you object to his > enjoyment of fighting and brawling, too? What about those who box either > professionally or for fitness? Are they "bad" for enjoying pummeling others? > Yes, if they don't have consent from those others (duh). Otherwise consenting adults can do whatever they like. > >>>it isn't "fun to shoot some people". > >> > >>Ipse dixit and non sequitur (at least for the reason given above). Speak > >>for yourself and your own bleeding heart. > > > > You are the one with the bleeding heart > > No. > > > - claiming that more US tax > > dollars (and servicemen) should go to help welfare of Afghani women. > > Afghani people. Most males suffered under the Taliban, too. We didn't go > there to "help their welfare," per se, we went there to **** up al-Qaeda > and those who harbored them. The people of Afghanistan have benefitted > from our pursuit of their oppressors and from our generous aid. > That is a classic liberal argument for the forced redistribution of wealth. Anyway I am not convinced the people there are better off under foreign occupation, and I'm not convinced I am better off paying for that occupation. > >>>Damn, and you were trying to argue some kind of > >>>moral standpoint in this forum? > >> > >>Yes. I think it's moral to kill certain people, particularly those who > >>wantonly kill others. I also don't think it's something which should > >>cause remorse, though I appreciate that some people experience it. > > > > Again, you avoid the question. > > I never avoided the question. I've written all along that I wouldn't > begrudge Marines or soldiers any enjoyment they may get from their work, > even when they have to kill people. It's unfortunate that wars happen, > but I'd rather we have happy warriors who enjoy their work than brooding > navel-gazers who are too self-absorbed in their own melancholy to > return fire on the enemy. > The hole is indeed getting bigger. I'm not begrudging anyone who enjoys their work. I'm begrudging those who enjoy killing and brawling for its own sake. There aren't only people who enjoy killing and brawling for its own sake, and others who are too self-absorbed to return fire. THere are also sane people who are good soldiers and do what they have to. > > Yes, it can be moral to kill certain > > people. Sometimes it can even be necessary. Remorse may not be > > appropriate. Pride may even be appropriate. But enjoyment? > > Absolutely. Contrary to your assertion about the money, they're not paid > enough to do what they do even with additional pay for serving in a > combat zone. They could work fewer hours and still earn more money > working in most retail jobs. > > Other branches have similar payscales: > http://www.army.com/money/payrates_enlisted_a05.html > > Remember, these guys and gals are on-call 24/7. That pay isn't for a > 40-hour work week. > > Why do they do it? Patriotism. Pride. Because they enjoy it? > Because they enjoy their job, you mean. If he said "we enjoy doing our job, we have pride and patriotism, even when it means shooting some people", then that's great. He said he enjoys brawling and shooting people. Big difference. > > Mattis' words suggested he was happy about 9/11 - > > those events enabled > > him to go have his "fun". And you defend his comments? > > Absolutely. General Mattis' remarks were only impolitic, but they were > quite reasonable given his job (Marine infantry commander). I don't > think it's accurate to portray him by the one or two sentences you > originally took out of context. Consider his other remarks to his > Marines, such as the speech quoted in the link below. > > http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/114028.shtml > Mattis remarks there looked fine. The reporter who wrote the piece certainly makes no sense, but it's good to see Mattis may have some sense after all when he's talking to his men (that's more imporatant than the press conferences anyway). And you were criticizing me for linking mindfully.org! > >>>As his superiors said, and any other rational soldier will agree, > >>>someone with that attitude is ill-suited to military service. > >> > >>That isn't quite what General Hagee said. Hagee said, "Lt. Gen. Mattis > >>often speaks with a great deal of candor. I have counseled him > >>concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words > >>more carefully. While I understand that some people may take issue with > >>the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the > >>unfortunate and harsh realities of war." > >> > >>You've probably played video games at some point in your life during > >>which you killed off enemies. Ironically, you enjoyed killing them one > >>by one, or, when having some form of ordinance like a grenade at the > >>ready, wiping out several at a time. I realize there's a difference > >>between video images and real blood and guts, but real combat (or police > >>pursuits, etc.) will produce the very same enjoyment from the adrenaline > >>rush. > > > > So you think this a good motiviation for armed conflict? > > The motivations for armed conflict were (a) the fatwah UBL issued > against the US in 1998 and (b) the carrying out of the fatwah on the > morning of 11 September 2001. > OK thank you, glad to hear you disagree with Mattis on the motivation then. > > I think you are baiting me. > > No, the point above is that you enjoy the adrenaline rush you get from > playing video games in which you try to stay alive by killing those who > try to kill you. Those euphoric, enjoyable feelings are similar to those > who battle others in real life, whether it's warfare, police work, or > even certain sports (which, of course, don't require bloodshed or death). > True, but that's not what he said. Maybe you should draft the appropriate caveats for his next press conference. > >>>He was confused, > >> > >>No, he was merely impolitic. I agree his remarks were insensitive, but > >>his sentiments were fair. Most of our Marines, solider, sailors, and > >>airmen enjoy their jobs. > > > > Hello, he said a little more than that, don't you think? > > I disagree, particularly when you choose to focus only on one or two > sentences instead of the entire context. > It's really only those one or two sentences that cause the problems. > > > If > > taken at face value it means we are spending billions to give this guy > > his kicks. > > We're spending billions to make our world safer and more secure. > I hope so. His comments suggested it isn't always so. > >>>>>>>[..] > > > > Agreed. Sorry if I insinuated all animal protein was bad. You are > > correct that it depends on the quantity and the type of meat in > > question. However for a study involving major portions of the > > population these details are unfortunately washed out. > > Elaborate on the last sentence, please. > If you are just looking at per capita animal protien, the information about what protein, and how it is distributed (evenly vs. some gluttons) is unavailable. > > > it may even be healthful to avoid it sometimes. > > Or in large quantities. Whatever you think of Hindhede's letter, it fits > in the same old apples ranges comparison that veg-ns make when relying> on studies (or letters to the editor, lol). They only compare > meat-included diets which involve OVER-consumption issues against diets > which are more moderate in nature, and from this disparity of measuring > an extreme against moderation they determine something not even studied. > The point is the OVER-consumption is common. Letters to editors such as his highlight that. > So let's see studies which measure healthful diets -- moderate > consumption of meat, consumption of lean meats and/or reduced-fat dairy, > etc. -- against other healthful diets which don't include meat and let > the chips fall where they may. We don't learn anything from comparing an > unhealthful diet (overconsumption of meat, sugar, whatever) to a more > moderate, balanced diet, just that overconsumption is unhealthful. > Agreed. I would like to see such a study - unfortunately the difficulties in controlling people's diets to such degrees over the required time periods are substantial. > I cannot accept the premise that one should avoid all animal products > just because studies show that over-consuming them is unhealthful, nor > can I use such a study to exaggerate correlations which probably don't > exist. That, though, is what activists do when they refer to the > aforementioned studies (or even Hindhede's letter). > It's not that we should avoid -all- animal products. Rather, most meat consumption that does goes on is unhealthy. > >>>>>>>>[..] > >> > >>I don't eat meat. > > > > When? > > Ever. I had a few pieces of sashimi earlier this year. Other than that, > it's been a while. > > > Why not? > > I don't care for the flavor or texture of most meats (I do like fish and > other seafood, though). > I agree completely, minus cooked tuna & other large fish. CHeers- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I'll try to avoid the topic of "causes of war", inequality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>might not even be the main culprit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>[...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>It isn't "fun to shoot some people", >>>>>> >>>>>>Maybe not for you, but it is for him and his Marines. >> >>Restoring his quote in context: >> "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of >> a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront >> with you, I like brawling." >> >> He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women >> around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis >> continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left >> anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." >>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in671617.shtml >> >> >>>>>>>even >>>>>>>when such action is necessary. Disgusting! How could you think to >>>>>>>defend that statement? >>>>>> >>>>>>Quite easily. I don't object to members of the military enjoying their >>>>>>work. You may not be well-suited to military service, but there are >>>>>>plenty who are. >>>>> >>>>>You are digging your hole even deeper my friend. >>>> >>>>I'm not in a hole, nor am I digging one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Should an executioner "enjoy his work"? >>>> >>>>Of all the jobs involving the deaths of other human beings, absolutely. >>>>I would personally consider it an honor to carry out justice in such >>>>fashion. I wouldn't experience any remorse for removing the likes of >>>>these cold-blooded ****ers from the face of our planet: >>>>http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm >>>> >>>>Read through some of the death row rap sheets and tell me why an >>>>executioner should be remorseful and resent executing someone who raped >>>>and murdered a little girl, someone who murdered his or her own child, >>>>someone who murdered a baby she was babysitting, someone who terrorized >>>>an entire family before killing them one by one. >>> >>>I never said the executioner should be remoresful, or resent doing his >>>job. Shouldn't the executioner wish these crimes had never occured? >>>Shouldn't the executioner be happier without having to do the deed? >> >>This isn't Utopia. >> >> >>>Or do you think the executioner should hope for more gruesome murders, so >>>he can have his "adrenaline rush" - that it's "fun to kill some folks" >>>? >> >>Hyperbole based on one part of what he said. Do you object to his >>enjoyment of fighting and brawling, too? What about those who box either >>professionally or for fitness? Are they "bad" for enjoying pummeling others? > > Yes, if they don't have consent from those others (duh). Otherwise > consenting adults can do whatever they like. The people General Mattis referred to as "some people" were likewise adults fully consenting to war activities with US and Northern Alliance forces. >>>>>it isn't "fun to shoot some people". >>>> >>>>Ipse dixit and non sequitur (at least for the reason given above). Speak >>>>for yourself and your own bleeding heart. >>> >>>You are the one with the bleeding heart >> >>No. >> >> >>>- claiming that more US tax >>>dollars (and servicemen) should go to help welfare of Afghani women. >> >>Afghani people. Most males suffered under the Taliban, too. We didn't go >>there to "help their welfare," per se, we went there to **** up al-Qaeda >>and those who harbored them. The people of Afghanistan have benefitted >>from our pursuit of their oppressors and from our generous aid. > > That is a classic liberal argument You probably don't understand what "classic liberal" means. I encourage you to read any of the books by or about Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, Milton Friedman, or Thomas Sowell for an introduction. > for the forced redistribution of > wealth. Forced redistribution of wealth is not a "classic liberal" argument or policy; it is absolutely antithetical to "classic liberal" thought. That said, my argument in favor of our action in Afghanistan has NOTHING whatsoever to do with funding programs in their country. My support for the war was based on the fact that those leading Afghanistan in September of 2001 were harboring those who conspired acts which killed innocent Americans on airplanes and in office buildings. My support for financial assistance to the new Afghanistan government is based on (a) ensuring that Afghanistan's government remains stable, (b) building goodwill with the government AND people of Afghanistan, and (c) assisting in rebuilding Afghanistan the same manner as we did in Japan and Germany following WW2. We have a history of leaving nations with whom we've had wars in better condition than we found them in war. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with redistributing wealth. > Anyway I am not convinced the people there are better off > under foreign occupation, Did you look at the videos or galleries on the RAWA website? Public hangings and beheadings are down. Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents are still causing grief to the people. But overwhelmingly, and notwithstanding the misreporting by Michael Isikoff of NEWSWEEK, the people of Afghanistan appreciate what we've helped them do in casting off the tyrrany of the Taliban. > and I'm not convinced I am better off paying > for that occupation. We're not occupying their nation. They have their own government, and they're continuing to rebuild their infrastructure -- including an efficient military which can deal with the insurrection of the jihadists and those who harbored them in the previous government. I think we're much better off for decimating al-Qaeda's network in Afghanistan. Their infrastructure of training camps is no longer right out in the open and protected by the government, if they have any training camps at all anymore. We've captured or killed most of al-Qaeda's leadership. Their remaining leadership are on the run and in hiding. We're still chasing them down. We've cut off most of their funding sources. They're being bled dry. They've turned their attention to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" and their insurrection is off our shores. We've caused them more ruin than they caused us in September of 2001. Does that mean I don't fear any further terrorist attacks on our soil? No, but I do think we're making a significant dent in preventing such attacks. >>>>>Damn, and you were trying to argue some kind of >>>>>moral standpoint in this forum? >>>> >>>>Yes. I think it's moral to kill certain people, particularly those who >>>>wantonly kill others. I also don't think it's something which should >>>>cause remorse, though I appreciate that some people experience it. >>> >>>Again, you avoid the question. >> >>I never avoided the question. I've written all along that I wouldn't >>begrudge Marines or soldiers any enjoyment they may get from their work, >>even when they have to kill people. It's unfortunate that wars happen, >>but I'd rather we have happy warriors who enjoy their work than brooding >> navel-gazers who are too self-absorbed in their own melancholy to >>return fire on the enemy. > > The hole is indeed getting bigger. Yours is. I'm not in a hole. > I'm not begrudging anyone who > enjoys their work. I'm begrudging those who enjoy killing and brawling > for its own sake. And that's a strawman! General Mattis was SPECIFIC about whom he enjoys killing: *some* people, and specifically, extremists typified by the rampant misogyny of the Taliban. > There aren't only people who enjoy killing and brawling for its own > sake, and others who are too self-absorbed to return fire. THere are > also sane people who are good soldiers and do what they have to. Continue pummelling your strawman. I won't begrudge you your pleasure. >>>Yes, it can be moral to kill certain >>>people. Sometimes it can even be necessary. Remorse may not be >>>appropriate. Pride may even be appropriate. But enjoyment? >> >>Absolutely. Contrary to your assertion about the money, they're not paid >>enough to do what they do even with additional pay for serving in a >>combat zone. They could work fewer hours and still earn more money >>working in most retail jobs. >> >>Other branches have similar payscales: >>http://www.army.com/money/payrates_enlisted_a05.html >> >>Remember, these guys and gals are on-call 24/7. That pay isn't for a >>40-hour work week. >> >>Why do they do it? Patriotism. Pride. Because they enjoy it? > > Because they enjoy their job, you mean. Their job is killing people and destroying things. > If he said "we enjoy doing our > job, we have pride and patriotism, even when it means shooting some > people", then that's great. He said he enjoys brawling and shooting > people. Big difference. Bigger difference: he said shooting SOME people, and he described whom they are. >>>Mattis' words suggested he was happy about 9/11 - >>>those events enabled >>>him to go have his "fun". And you defend his comments? >> >>Absolutely. General Mattis' remarks were only impolitic, but they were >>quite reasonable given his job (Marine infantry commander). I don't >>think it's accurate to portray him by the one or two sentences you >>originally took out of context. Consider his other remarks to his >>Marines, such as the speech quoted in the link below. >> >>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/114028.shtml > > Mattis remarks there looked fine. The reporter who wrote the piece > certainly makes no sense, I think he makes perfect sense. The media were giving Professor Churchill a free ride in calling people in the WTC towers "little Eichmanns" but impugning General Mattis for enjoying his job. > but it's good to see Mattis may have some > sense after all when he's talking to his men (that's more imporatant > than the press conferences anyway). I think you've reached an unfair conclusion by misstating the contextual meaning of what Mattis actually said about shooting SOME people. His record is exemplary and his character, in and out of battle, is impeccable. > And you were criticizing me for linking mindfully.org! Here, we're discussing politics (or impolitics), where I think we both would admit reasonable people can agree or disagree on various or all points; political theory has subjective components to it (though I would argue the empirical results of policies show that there are objective conclusions which can be reached about those policies). You linked to mindlessly.org when discussing what should be an objective, scientific-based discussion rather than one with a biased agenda. The issues are completely distinct, and so are the standards for discussing them. >>>>>As his superiors said, and any other rational soldier will agree, >>>>>someone with that attitude is ill-suited to military service. >>>> >>>>That isn't quite what General Hagee said. Hagee said, "Lt. Gen. Mattis >>>>often speaks with a great deal of candor. I have counseled him >>>>concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words >>>>more carefully. While I understand that some people may take issue with >>>>the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the >>>>unfortunate and harsh realities of war." >>>> >>>>You've probably played video games at some point in your life during >>>>which you killed off enemies. Ironically, you enjoyed killing them one >>>>by one, or, when having some form of ordinance like a grenade at the >>>>ready, wiping out several at a time. I realize there's a difference >>>>between video images and real blood and guts, but real combat (or police >>>>pursuits, etc.) will produce the very same enjoyment from the adrenaline >>>>rush. >>> >>>So you think this a good motiviation for armed conflict? >> >>The motivations for armed conflict were (a) the fatwah UBL issued >>against the US in 1998 and (b) the carrying out of the fatwah on the >>morning of 11 September 2001. > > OK thank you, glad to hear you disagree with Mattis on the motivation > then. I didn't say I disagree with General Mattis; I disagree with you about his motivations for war. You've built a caricature of Mattis based on strawmen and taking him out of context. >>>I think you are baiting me. >> >>No, the point above is that you enjoy the adrenaline rush you get from >>playing video games in which you try to stay alive by killing those who >>try to kill you. Those euphoric, enjoyable feelings are similar to those >>who battle others in real life, whether it's warfare, police work, or >>even certain sports (which, of course, don't require bloodshed or death). > > True, but that's not what he said. He also didn't say what you've said he said. > Maybe you should draft the > appropriate caveats for his next press conference. Maybe you should stop taking him out of context to make pretexts. >>>>>He was confused, >>>> >>>>No, he was merely impolitic. I agree his remarks were insensitive, but >>>>his sentiments were fair. Most of our Marines, solider, sailors, and >>>>airmen enjoy their jobs. >>> >>>Hello, he said a little more than that, don't you think? >> >>I disagree, particularly when you choose to focus only on one or two >>sentences instead of the entire context. > > It's really only those one or two sentences that cause the problems. When taken out of context. He didn't say killing people is fun. He said killing SOME people -- and he explained specifically *which* people -- is fun. >>>If >>>taken at face value it means we are spending billions to give this guy >>>his kicks. >> >>We're spending billions to make our world safer and more secure. > > I hope so. His comments suggested it isn't always so. Especially when you keep screwing up what he actually said. >>>>>>>>>[..] >>> >>>Agreed. Sorry if I insinuated all animal protein was bad. You are >>>correct that it depends on the quantity and the type of meat in >>>question. However for a study involving major portions of the >>>population these details are unfortunately washed out. >> >>Elaborate on the last sentence, please. > > If you are just looking at per capita animal protien, the information > about what protein, and how it is distributed (evenly vs. some > gluttons) is unavailable. Okay, I disagree (at least with respect to meat; protein in and of itself is a separate issue, but I disagree that animal protein is inherently different from the amino acid profiles found in vegetarian diets -- amino groups are ubiquitous throughout food types). We're able to track consumption rates and correlate effects through surveys and other studies. Moderate consumption of meat, infrequent consumption of meat, etc., is not shown to cause deleterious health problems. Overconsumption does. So, too, does overconsumption of sugary and/or fried foods. So, too, does insufficient exercise. So, too, do other variables for which we can correlate to benefit or detriment. >>>it may even be healthful to avoid it sometimes. >> >>Or in large quantities. Whatever you think of Hindhede's letter, it fits >>in the same old apples ranges comparison that veg-ns make when relying>>on studies (or letters to the editor, lol). They only compare >>meat-included diets which involve OVER-consumption issues against diets >>which are more moderate in nature, and from this disparity of measuring >>an extreme against moderation they determine something not even studied. > > The point is the OVER-consumption is common. Letters to editors such > as his highlight that. His letter to the editor didn't highlight that. He leaped to his conclusion a couple years after a major war which caused rampant starvation across Europe. There was under-consumption during and immediately following the war. Indeed, it was that UNDER-consumption which caused the ban on meat in the first place! If Hindhede wanted to make a conclusion, he could've attributed the 0.2% decreased rate to a reduced aggregate caloric intake during and following the war -- something others have suggested leads to increased longevity. Hindhede didn't break down the data further than males aged 18-65, so we don't know if older people were living longer or if younger people were dying of reduced disease. His data are unsuitable for reaching ANY conclusion, but sufficient for leaping to all kinds of conclusions. That's why I'm loath to accept his letter as any validation of *anything*. >>So let's see studies which measure healthful diets -- moderate >>consumption of meat, consumption of lean meats and/or reduced-fat dairy, >>etc. -- against other healthful diets which don't include meat and let >>the chips fall where they may. We don't learn anything from comparing an >>unhealthful diet (overconsumption of meat, sugar, whatever) to a more >>moderate, balanced diet, just that overconsumption is unhealthful. > > Agreed. I would like to see such a study - unfortunately the > difficulties in controlling people's diets to such degrees over the > required time periods are substantial. I think we can make inferences from studies already published. We know that people who consume moderate amounts of even fatty meats don't experience the higher mortality rate or rates of various diseases experienced by the heaviest consumers of fatty (or red) meats. We also know that people who consume fish, poultry, and other lean cuts have lower incidence of certain cancers, of heart disease, of diabetes, etc., than the general population -- a protective benefit has been observed in certain studies. Additionally, studies on populations on Okinawa, throughout the Mediterranean, etc., show that moderate consumption of meat is compatible with a long and healthy life. http://okinawaprogram.com/news/chicago_tribune.html http://food.naturalhealthperspective...riesstudy.html http://tinyurl.com/7fph4 Etc. >>I cannot accept the premise that one should avoid all animal products >>just because studies show that over-consuming them is unhealthful, nor >>can I use such a study to exaggerate correlations which probably don't >>exist. That, though, is what activists do when they refer to the >>aforementioned studies (or even Hindhede's letter). > > It's not that we should avoid -all- animal products. Rather, most meat > consumption that does goes on is unhealthy. Then discourage overconsumption and encourage consumption of healthier cuts. See the links above. Relatively high consumption of fish, moderate consumption of other meats and dairy (probably not skimmed, either). High consumption of fresh produce and wholegrains. They're as healthy as any group of healthy vegetarians even with all their fish and their moderate consumption of meat. >>>>>>>>>>[..] >>>> >>>>I don't eat meat. >>> >>>When? >> >>Ever. I had a few pieces of sashimi earlier this year. Other than that, >>it's been a while. >> >> >>>Why not? >> >>I don't care for the flavor or texture of most meats (I do like fish and >>other seafood, though). > > I agree completely, minus cooked tuna & other large fish. Now I'm yearning for sushi again. Thanks a lot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > wrote: >> I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet for a new >> america". > > It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled screed. Actually, it presents several hundreds of credible citations; YOU however never can support your claims with research, so YOU are the propagandist, not Robbins. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laurie wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > > wrote: > >> I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet for a new > >> america". > > > > It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled screed. > Actually, it presents several hundreds of credible citations; YOU > however never can support your claims with research, so YOU are the > propagandist, not Robbins. > > Laurie Exactly. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Fruity wrote:
>>>I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet for a new >>>america". >> >>It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled screed. > > Actually, it presents several hundreds of credible citations; You're only impressed by the number of footnotes rather than by their relevance (or in Robbins' case, irrelevance). Your pseudoscience website is similar in that regard. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
>>>>I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet for a new >>>>america". >>> >>>It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled screed. >> >> Actually, it presents several hundreds of credible citations; YOU >>however never can support your claims with research, so YOU are the >>propagandist, not Robbins. > > Exactly. You're another brainless twit who doesn't care if Robbins is factually correct, you're just overwhelmed by the number of sources he cites. Let's deal with his staggering estimate that it takes sixteen pounds of grain to make a pound of meat: The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm BTW, what was Robbins' "source" for that 16:1 claim? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > >>>>I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet for a new > >>>>america". > >>> > >>>It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled screed. > >> > >> Actually, it presents several hundreds of credible citations; YOU > >>however never can support your claims with research, so YOU are the > >>propagandist, not Robbins. > > > > Exactly. > > You're another brainless twit who doesn't care if Robbins is factually > correct, you're just overwhelmed by the number of sources he cites. First off, define "factually correct" if you dare. Your gutless and whiny argument ad hominem is duly noted. > BTW, what was Robbins' "source" for that 16:1 claim? Probably some hard and factual science. I wonder why this is even an issue, unless you seem intent on spreading meatie-centric disinformation here on this NG. Take a hike Usual Dipsh*te. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote in message ups.com... > > > usual suspect wrote: >> wrote: >> >>>>I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet >> >>>>for a new >> >>>>america". >> >>> >> >>>It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled >> >>>screed. >> >> >> >> Actually, it presents several hundreds of credible >> >> citations; YOU >> >>however never can support your claims with research, so YOU >> >>are the >> >>propagandist, not Robbins. >> > >> > Exactly. >> >> You're another brainless twit who doesn't care if Robbins is >> factually >> correct, you're just overwhelmed by the number of sources he >> cites. > > First off, define "factually correct" if you dare. > > Your gutless and whiny argument ad hominem is duly noted. > > >> BTW, what was Robbins' "source" for that 16:1 claim? > > Probably some hard and factual science. ================= Translation: I've got nothing, so I'll just whiff-off now.... I wonder why this is even an > issue, unless you seem intent on spreading meatie-centric > disinformation here on this NG. Take a hike Usual Dipsh*te. >================= The dis-information is all from vegan loons, killer... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pinnochio Homo wrote:
>>>>>>I first heard such claims from the excellent book "diet for a new >>>>>>america". >>>>> >>>>>It isn't an "excellent" book. It's a propaganda-filled screed. >>>> >>>> Actually, it presents several hundreds of credible citations; YOU >>>>however never can support your claims with research, so YOU are the >>>>propagandist, not Robbins. >>> >>>Exactly. >> >>You're another brainless twit who doesn't care if Robbins is factually >>correct, you're just overwhelmed by the number of sources he cites. > > First off, define "factually correct" if you dare. Restoring what you snipped first: Let's deal with his staggering estimate that it takes sixteen pounds of grain to make a pound of meat: The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm End restore. "Factually correct" means getting the story right and telling the truth. Activists don't do that. They're not concerned about the truth. They have an agenda and its promotion is their only concern. Robbins, an activist, claims that it takes sixteen pounds of feed to make a pound of beef. According to the information you snipped and I restored above, it takes far less that that -- 2 to 3.6 pounds of finishing ration -- to make a pound of meat. Why did Robbins claim it takes 4-8x more grain than it actually does? Why do you vegans perpetuate such unfounded and exaggerated myths? > Your gutless and whiny argument ad hominem is duly noted. And your unethical snippage of the substance of my argument is noted, ****. >>BTW, what was Robbins' "source" for that 16:1 claim? > > Probably some hard and factual science. Probably? How about the following from SCIENTISTS at a major university's agriculture department? Let's deal with the estimate that it takes sixteen pounds of grain to make a pound of meat again: The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm Why do you snip this? > I wonder why this is even an issue, You wonder because you vegans don't care about being "factually correct," you only care about your agenda. > unless you seem intent on spreading meatie-centric > disinformation here on this NG. How is that disinformation, much less "meatie-centric"? It's just the truth. I've repeatedly shown you vegans that NO livestock requires 16 ****ing pounds of feed to make a pound of meat. I've also shown you that your 16:1 ratio applies to products like gluten and tofu and products made from them (i.e., fake meat products). Why should you assholes get a free pass on your wild claims when it turns out your OWN substitutes are more "wasteful" than food you complain about? ======================================= SOURCE INFO FOR ABOVE CLAIMS: ---- GLUTEN Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be hydrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a tremendous amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and water resources and requires more water and grain per pound than a turkey would. See also: http://tinyurl.com/crax7 http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/mar99/import.htm http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7736.Bc.r.html TOFU Tofu is mostly water. According to the following article, one pound of soybeans should yield 3.5-4 pounds of tofu. The recipe itself yields 22-26 ounces depending how much water is pressed out (soft vs firm). The weight of the water input is >13x the weight of the soybeans -- 11 cups of water is just over 2.6 liters, or 5.72 pounds of water by weight. A cup of soybeans weighs seven ounces -- less than 1/2 pound. Recipe: http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...ctober/The_Boo... soybean volume:weight conversion: http://www.fareshare.net/conversions...to-weight.html ------ It is often claimed that feeding cereals to animals and then eating the animals is much less efficient than eating the cereals directly (Millward, 1999). Frequently gross calculations about animal production and grain use are made. For example production figures have been presented to show that it requires 2 kg, 4 kg and 6 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of poultry, pork and beef respectively (Khush, 2001). The implication is that this is an inefficient use of scarce food materials. However this is a rather simplistic analysis and takes little account of the actual forms and types of grains used and of the mechanisms of animal nutrition and production using modern techniques. All animal and human nutrition ultimately depends upon only five basic types of raw materials, all of plant origin; forages, oilseeds, cereals, fruits and vegetables. These five classes of materials must feed both humans and animals. A very large proportion of the five basic classes of food raw materials cannot be utilised directly by humans especially forages and many other feed ingredients are actually inedible by-products of human food manufacturing. Humans as omnivores require foods of both animal and plant origin for optimum growth and development. Forages which include pasture, silages, hay and straw are produced in very large quantities and cannot be utilized by humans at all in their native state. Consequently ruminants play an important role in the ecosystem as they can digest these high fibre forages which humans cannot utilise and convert them into valuable human food products such as meat and milk. Ruminants are also an important source of non-food items such as leather and wool. It should also be emphasised that many animal feeds for non-ruminants such as pigs and poultry actually contain a large amount of raw materials which are basically inedible for humans. ...Modern ruminant production also relies less and less on feeding animals human food-grade cereals. For example dairy rations can be, and frequently are, produced without any cereal components whatsoever. Dairy cows can be adequately fed upon a forage source, usually silage or fresh grass together with a manufactured concentrate feed that does not necessarily contain any human food-grade cereals. http://www.afma.co.za/AFMA_Template/20034.htm See also: http://www.eugrainlegumes.org/summary/ ------ A 20-25kg hog will feed for 40-50 days on 82-91kg of feed and gain about 32kg. That's not an 8:1 ratio [as "Rupert" claimed], it's a ~3:1 ratio. http://tinyurl.com/85e6j ======================================= I ask again, Where did Robbins get his information? I've shown you substantively why I reject exaggerated vegan claims about feed:meat ratios. Why can't you support your arguments with facts (aside from repeating Robbins' made-up numbers)? > Take a hike Usual Dipsh*te. I'm staying right here until you address the issues at hand, mother****er. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:27:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
[..] > Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of > grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows > are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 > pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of > ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef > animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. > Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not > occur. False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell are familiar with the beef industry and show that over 6% of all beef in the UK is intensively reared, meaning they spend their entire lives in a feedlot. http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm Unless intensive rearing is prohibited in the US, your source of information contains a falsehood.. > In fact No, a lie. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's Uncle Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:27:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > [..] > >> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >> occur. > > > False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell > are familiar with the beef industry Are they really? Wow. > and show that over 6% of > all beef in the UK is intensively reared, meaning they spend > their entire lives in a feedlot. > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm That does NOT mean they spend their entire lives in feedlots because the definition of "intensive systems" is based on number of animals per land unit. At least you cede that ~94% of cattle in the UK are grazed. Additionally, your own source says: In contrast to the other systems, intensive beef systems showed a fall in the average number of cattle sold between 1991/92 to 1994/95, from 135.5 to 118.0. Next time READ your source more closely. > Unless intensive rearing is prohibited in the US, your source > of information contains a falsehood.. Or maybe you haven't considered what your sources actually say in your haste to respond. >> In fact > > No, a lie. Where in any of Professors Winter (any relation to Karen?), Rutherford, and Gaskell do they say that it takes sixteen pounds of feed for cattle to gain a pound? That's the issue, Nash. Nothing in your source contradicts other professors' claims (such as what follows) that cattle and pigs gain a pound for about every three pounds of feed consumed. The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm It is often claimed that feeding cereals to animals and then eating the animals is much less efficient than eating the cereals directly (Millward, 1999). Frequently gross calculations about animal production and grain use are made. For example production figures have been presented to show that it requires 2 kg, 4 kg and 6 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of poultry, pork and beef respectively (Khush, 2001). The implication is that this is an inefficient use of scarce food materials. However this is a rather simplistic analysis and takes little account of the actual forms and types of grains used and of the mechanisms of animal nutrition and production using modern techniques. All animal and human nutrition ultimately depends upon only five basic types of raw materials, all of plant origin; forages, oilseeds, cereals, fruits and vegetables. These five classes of materials must feed both humans and animals. A very large proportion of the five basic classes of food raw materials cannot be utilised directly by humans especially forages and many other feed ingredients are actually inedible by-products of human food manufacturing. Humans as omnivores require foods of both animal and plant origin for optimum growth and development. Forages which include pasture, silages, hay and straw are produced in very large quantities and cannot be utilized by humans at all in their native state. Consequently ruminants play an important role in the ecosystem as they can digest these high fibre forages which humans cannot utilise and convert them into valuable human food products such as meat and milk. Ruminants are also an important source of non-food items such as leather and wool. It should also be emphasised that many animal feeds for non-ruminants such as pigs and poultry actually contain a large amount of raw materials which are basically inedible for humans. ...Modern ruminant production also relies less and less on feeding animals human food-grade cereals. For example dairy rations can be, and frequently are, produced without any cereal components whatsoever. Dairy cows can be adequately fed upon a forage source, usually silage or fresh grass together with a manufactured concentrate feed that does not necessarily contain any human food-grade cereals. http://www.afma.co.za/AFMA_Template/20034.htm See also: http://www.eugrainlegumes.org/summary/ ------ A 20-25kg hog will feed for 40-50 days on 82-91kg of feed and gain about 32kg. http://tinyurl.com/85e6j ----- Try to deal with the issue at hand for once, bluefoot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote:
> Claire's Uncle Derek wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:27:56 GMT, usual suspect > >> wrote: >> [..] >> >>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>> occur. >> >> >> >> False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell >> are familiar with the beef industry > > Are they really? Wow. Very interesting source, Derek, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do about the amount of feed required to make a pound of beef. They do point to the importance of cattle grazing to the local environment: ...Hitherto, much of the discussion of heather decline has focused on sheep stocking rates and has rather neglected the significance of cattle. But there is an *increasing consensus that cattle have a pivotal role in grazing and trampling course grasses and trampling bracken*. *As sheep have replaced cattle in the uplands so the problems have increased*. Vegetation change is not the only issue of importance. Cattle, especially the traditional and distinctive hill breeds (such as Welsh Black, Highland and Galloway), play an important role in the cultural landscape of British upland areas (Evans and Yarwood 1995). From the perspective of cultural aesthetics the uplands *would be a poorer place without them*. One thing to note about your comments and my response. Their definitions distinguish between "extensive" and "intensive" systems: Extensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter which at some stage in their lives graze outdoors but may be housed at certain times. Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives. The professors do not, however, mention anything about how much feed it requires per pound of meat from ANY of the systems they discussed. You have not made a dent in the information from other professors I've quoted: The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm You failed to address the issue at hand. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:55:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:27:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >> [..] >> >>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>> occur. >> >> False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell >> are familiar with the beef industry > >Are they really? Wow. Yes, they are, which shows that the author of your pro-meat propaganda lied when declaring, "Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur." >> and show that over 6% of >> all beef in the UK is intensively reared, meaning they spend >> their entire lives in a feedlot. >> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm > >That does NOT mean they spend their entire lives in feedlots Yes, it does. Go to the page and read where it defines intensive rearing and finishing systems above table 4. "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives." [snipped pro-meat propaganda and lies] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's Uncle Derek wrote:
>>>[..] >>> >>> >>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>>> occur. >>> >>>False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell >>>are familiar with the beef industry >> >>Are they really? Wow. > > Yes, they are, which shows that the author of your > pro-meat propaganda Pro-meat propaganda? You mean like Professors Winter, Rutherford, and Gaskell who wrote: ...Hitherto, much of the discussion of heather decline has focused on sheep stocking rates and has rather neglected the significance of cattle. But there is an *increasing consensus that cattle have a pivotal role in grazing and trampling course grasses and trampling bracken*. *As sheep have replaced cattle in the uplands so the problems have increased*. Vegetation change is not the only issue of importance. Cattle, especially the traditional and distinctive hill breeds (such as Welsh Black, Highland and Galloway), play an important role in the cultural landscape of British upland areas (Evans and Yarwood 1995). From the perspective of cultural aesthetics the uplands *would be a poorer place without them*. > "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef > animals reared for slaughter and housed for > their entire lives." Your professors do not, however, mention ANYTHING about how much feed it requires per pound of meat from ANY of the systems they discussed. You have not made a dent in the information from other professors I've quoted: The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm You failed to address the issue at hand, fatso. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:27:46 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>usual suspect wrote: >> Derek wrote: >>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:27:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> [..] >>> >>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>>> occur. >>> >>> False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell >>> are familiar with the beef industry >> >> Are they really? Wow. Yes, they are, which shows that the author of your pro-meat propaganda lied when declaring, "Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur." >Very interesting source, Derek, even though it has nothing whatsoever to >do about the amount of feed required to make a pound of beef. Your source confirms that by stating; "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained." The information I provided shows that over 6% of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held their entire lives in feedlots. Go to the page and read where it defines intensive rearing and finishing systems above table 4. "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives." http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm [snipped pro-meat propaganda and lies] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:03:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>>>> occur. >>>> >>>>False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell >>>>are familiar with the beef industry >>> >>>Are they really? Wow. >> >> Yes, they are, which shows that the author of your >> pro-meat propaganda > >Pro-meat propaganda? Yes. The author of it has clearly lied and duped you into believing no beef animals are kept their entire lives in a feedlot. "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur." The information I provided shows that over 6% of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held their entire lives in feedlots. Go to the page and read where it defines intensive rearing and finishing systems above table 4. "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives." http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's Uncle Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:27:46 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>usual suspect wrote: >> >>>Claire's Uncle Derek wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:27:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>[..] >>>> >>>> >>>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>>>> occur. >>>> >>>>False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell >>>>are familiar with the beef industry >>> >>>Are they really? Wow. > > > Yes, they are, which shows that the author of your > pro-meat propaganda lied when declaring, "Those > familiar with the beef industry know that this does > not occur." > > >>Very interesting source, Derek, even though it has nothing whatsoever to >>do about the amount of feed required to make a pound of beef. > > The information I provided shows that over 6% > of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held > their entire lives in feedlots. No, fatso, those are raised *indoors*. The link you provided does NOT say those animals are fed grain their entire lives. > Go to the page and > read where it defines intensive rearing and > finishing systems above table 4. Non sequitur: just because they're reared indoors doesn't mean they're fed only grains. Why don't you go back and tell us where it says those cattle are fed exclusively on grains, dummy. > "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef > animals reared for slaughter and housed for > their entire lives." > http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm You failed to address the issue at hand as usual, fatso. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:11:43 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:27:46 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>usual suspect wrote: >>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:27:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>>>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>>>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>>>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>>>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>>>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>>>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>>>>> occur. >>>>> >>>>>False. Professor M. Winter, J.A. Rutherford, & Dr P Gaskell >>>>>are familiar with the beef industry >>>> >>>>Are they really? Wow. >> >> Yes, they are, which shows that the author of your >> pro-meat propaganda lied when declaring, "Those >> familiar with the beef industry know that this does >> not occur." I'm glad to see you agree. >>>Very interesting source, Derek, even though it has nothing whatsoever to >>>do about the amount of feed required to make a pound of beef. >> >> The information I provided shows that over 6% >> of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held >> their entire lives in feedlots. > >No Yes. >> Go to the page and >> read where it defines intensive rearing and >> finishing systems above table 4. > >Non sequitur: just because they're reared indoors doesn't mean they're >fed only grains. Do they eat the concrete floor they stand on? >> "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef >> animals reared for slaughter and housed for >> their entire lives." >> http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's Uncle Derek wrote:
>>>>>Are they really? Wow. >>> >>>Yes, they are, which shows that the author of your >>>pro-meat propaganda lied when declaring, "Those >>>familiar with the beef industry know that this does >>>not occur." > > I'm glad to see you agree. I don't; you're replying to what you wrote, you drunk asshole. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:24:33 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: > >>>>>>Are they really? Wow. >>>> >>>>Yes, they are, which shows that the author of your >>>>pro-meat propaganda lied when declaring, "Those >>>>familiar with the beef industry know that this does >>>>not occur." >> >> I'm glad to see you agree. > >I don't You have no option but to agree. Your source did two things. 1) It clearly lied and duped you into believing no beef animals are kept their entire lives in a feedlot. "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur." The information I provided shows that over 6% of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held their entire lives in feedlots. Go to the page and read where it defines intensive rearing and finishing systems above table 4. "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives." http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm 2) It confirmed that such animals do in fact require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound of meat. "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained." Thanks. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat cuckolded Uncle Derek wrote:
> 2) It confirmed that such animals do in fact Where, fatso? Show me the part that says those animals require sixteen pounds of grain per pound of meat. > require 16 pounds of feed to produce a > pound of meat. No! It did *NOT* confirm that. It was *entirely silent* on that point. You have again used a spurious source which does NOT support your claim. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:04:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: > >> 2) It confirmed that such animals do in fact > >Where If you left my post intact without snipping away the damning evidence against you and the pro- meat propaganda you peddle, you would've seen where. <unsnip> Your source did two things. 1) It clearly lied and duped you into believing no beef animals are kept their entire lives in a feedlot. "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur." The information I provided shows that over 6% of all beef in the UK is produced by animals held their entire lives in feedlots. Go to the page and read where it defines intensive rearing and finishing systems above table 4. "Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives." http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm 2) It confirmed that such animals do in fact require 16 pounds of feed to produce a pound of meat. "Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained." Thanks. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:29:24 -0500, VSA > wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:15:24 +0100, Derek > >wrote the following in alt.food.vegan: > >>>Non sequitur: just because they're reared indoors doesn't mean they're >>>fed only grains. >> >>Do they eat the concrete floor they stand on? > >Have you ever actually been to a farm? > >http://tinyurl.com/dlbjk Are you trying to tell me that intensively reared beef animals are fed nothing but silage? They're fed with grains and similar foods to what other steers are fed while in a feedlot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:18:17 -0500, VSA > wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:09:55 +0100, Derek > >wrote the following in alt.food.vegan: >>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:29:24 -0500, VSA > wrote: >>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:15:24 +0100, Derek > >>>wrote the following in alt.food.vegan: >>> >>>>>Non sequitur: just because they're reared indoors doesn't mean they're >>>>>fed only grains. >>>> >>>>Do they eat the concrete floor they stand on? >>> >>>Have you ever actually been to a farm? >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/dlbjk >> >>Are you trying to tell me that intensively reared >>beef animals are fed nothing but silage? > >No, but you were trying to imply that since they were standing on a >concrete floor, then they must be fed only grain. No, I did not imply any such thing. Steers are fed on a mixture of grains, soybean meal and corn silage. >I was simply showing >that they are fed other things besides grain. I already knew that. >> They're >>fed with grains and similar foods to what other >>steers are fed while in a feedlot. > >They are also fed silage and hay, besides grain. That's correct. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:50:51 -0500, VSA > wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:36:13 +0100, Derek > >wrote the following in alt.food.vegan: >>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:18:17 -0500, VSA > wrote: >>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:09:55 +0100, Derek > >>>wrote the following in alt.food.vegan: >>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:29:24 -0500, VSA > wrote: >>>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:15:24 +0100, Derek > >>>>>wrote the following in alt.food.vegan: >>>>> >>>>>>>Non sequitur: just because they're reared indoors doesn't mean they're >>>>>>>fed only grains. >>>>>> >>>>>>Do they eat the concrete floor they stand on? >>>>> >>>>>Have you ever actually been to a farm? >>>>> >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/dlbjk >>>> >>>>Are you trying to tell me that intensively reared >>>>beef animals are fed nothing but silage? >>> >>>No, but you were trying to imply that since they were standing on a >>>concrete floor, then they must be fed only grain. >> >>No, I did not imply any such thing. > >Read again what you wrote in reply to "usual suspect" above: > >usual suspect: "Non sequitur: just because they're reared indoors >doesn't mean they're fed only grains." > >You replied: "Do they eat the concrete floor they stand on?" > >The implication is clear No, it is not clear that I've implied they only eat grains at all. Nice try, but I've been arguing this issue for years, and I can tell that you simply don't know what you're talking about. Let me take you to something I wrote on this subject back in 2003. [start] 6.1% of the beef systems in England use intensive rearing and finishing systems where beef animals are reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives, http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/li*vesto...ceed*ings/wint... Also, figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3.0 pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound yearling steer is: Pounds Corn 14.7 Soybean meal 0.52 Corn silage 10.00 Limestone 0.17 Total 25.83 http://muextension.missouri.ed*u/xpl...ci/g02052.*htm So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain 3 pounds of flesh we have a feed to weight ratio of 8.61:1, but that's not the end of it because the bones etc. have to be removed. On-the-hook: This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed beef carcass. A typical 1200 lb. Holstein Steer from Geske Farms will yield approximately 500-pounds of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound Choice carcass. http://www.geskefarms.com/term*s.htm#T&E From this we can calculate that only 41.6% of the animal is eaten. If we divide the amount of feed required (8.61) to produce 1 pound of steer by the 41.6% of actual beef we get from it ( 8.61 /0.416 ) we arrive at the final feed to beef ratio of 20.69:1 It takes 20.7 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound of edible beef. Derek Jun 26 2003 http://tinyurl.com/8nwmv |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
| I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
| Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan | Vegan | |||
| new vegetarian needs help. | Vegan | |||
| FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
