Post Reply
Page 4 of 33  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33 Next
Switch to Forum Live View How to Get Diabetes
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 8:34PM #31
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833
I think genetic predisposition along with strenuous physical labor have a lot to do with preventing diabetes.

Relatives on my father's side of the family nearly all smoked but were primarily farmers, and there wasn't a single case of diabetes among them and few overweight.

As far as I know, none of my blood relatives were ever diabetic. All but a very few tended to a wiry build and high activity level.

What people eat can be a factor, but it's only one element in the combination of genetics, personal habits and environment that may combine to produce a certain disease.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 9:28PM #32
solfeggio
Posts: 8,942

Obviously, mylons has a BIG problem with people who choose not to eat animal flesh, which is probably why he makes such stupid, idiotic remarks about vegans.  Screw vegans?  Gee, thanks for such intelligent insights.


Well, right back at ya, fellow - Screw the meat-eaters who agree with the barking mad philosophy you espouse that exploiting sentient beings for human pleasure is somehow ethical.


Rocketsquirrel and Abner -


People go vegan for the simple reason that we do not believe it is morally right to exploit our fellow animals (or our fellow humans, either, for that matter.)   Basically, veganism is not only better for our health, better for the animals, and certainly better for the planet.


Or, look at it this way:  I think we can all agree that it is morally wrong to shoot an elephant.  And we can agree that it is morally wrong to kill a dolphin.  So, where's the difference between an elephant or a dolphin or a cow or chicken?  They're all sentient beings and they all value their lives just as much as humans value theirs.


But there's more to it than that.  Although it is true that milking a cow does not cause harm to the cow as such, ALL dairy cows end up in the slaughterhouses at some point, and always after they have lived only a few years of what could have been a much longer life.  And nobody but nobody can possibly claim that there is anything even remotely easy about a death in a slaughterhouse.


Therefore, supporting the dairy industry really does mean sentencing sentient creaturs to the horrors of the slaughterhouse at some point.  But, there's more to it than that.  Since dairy products are in no way a natural human food, there is no real reason to consume them.  And, it is a fact that cattle herds pollute the environment.


All told, I don't see any good reason for a dairy industry to exsist at all.


Bottom line:  Humans eat animals and animal products, which is completely unnecessary and serves only our palate pleasure, and they think it is OK to impose suffering and death upon animals simply because they like the taste of their flesh.  And this is morally wrong.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 9:32PM #33
Mlyons619
Posts: 16,374

...Obviously, mylons has a BIG problem with people who choose not to eat animal flesh, which is probably why he makes such stupid, idiotic remarks about vegans...



Nope, I have a problem with those folks that take a single study, and use it as club to convert sinful, wicked meateaters to their fundamentalist vegan-ian faith. 


Those folks are as obnoxious as the fundie evangelists they continually bash...


You wouldn't happen to know anyone like that, would you sof...?


...The OP doesn't impress me as such, but {name withheld} is into her crusades. That's ok even if I don't buy in...



LOL!


 

"No freedom without education"
            --Thomas Jefferson

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition"
            -- Monty Python
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 9:40PM #34
solfeggio
Posts: 8,942

You know what, mylons?  You don't know what you're talking about.  Vegetarianism/veganism as a lifestyle cannot in any way be compared to fundamentalist religious nutters. 


For one thing, the benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet have long been proven by numerous scientific studies.  We humans don't need to eat animal flesh in order to live healthy, happy lives.  And that's a fact.


Where a meatless diet is concerned, we're talking facts.  Where fundamentalist religion is concerned, we're talking myth and folklore.  People running around quoting their holy books are quoting stuff written by anonymous peasants thousands of years ago who were so ignorant of science that they tought the earth was the centre of the universe.  A wheelbarrow would have been high tech for those people.


Religious beliefs really are nonsense.  There's nothing even remotely scientific about any religion.


And I'll take science over religion any day of the week.


When I start a thread like this, posting the results of a study showing a causative link between meat consumption and diabetes, it is to make the public aware of something that could help them live a healthier life. 


It's called a mitzvah.  And it has nothing to do with promoting veganism or vegetarianism.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 9:54PM #35
Abner1
Posts: 6,359

Solfeggio wrote:


> Vegetarianism/veganism as a lifestyle cannot in any way be compared to


> fundamentalist religious nutters.


Depends on how people go about it.  Almost anything can become a religion if approached in a religious manner.  I know vegans or vegetarians for whom it is a lifestyle choice ... and I know vegans or vegetarians for whom it is a religion.  It depends on how they approach it.


If a vegan says "I don't eat meat or any other animal product as a personal choice", they are making a lifestyle choice.  If a vegan says "Eating meat is murder, animal lives are obviously equal to human lives, and anyone who disagrees with that is selfish, hasn't studied the issue, is helping destroy the earth, is a monster, etc. etc." they quickly show they are taking the same approach as the typical 'fundamentalist religious nutter', as you call them.


> For one thing, the benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet have long been proven by


> numerous scientific studies.


Odd that you haven't been able to produce a single study showing an advantage of vegans or vegetarians over people who eat a moderate diet, despite being challenged to do so multiple times.  Just as an example, the study at the beginning of this post had nothing to do with veganism or vegetarianism - it compared people who ate red meat daily to people who ate red meat moderately (about once a week).  In other words, people like you weren't the control group - people like me were.  No vegans or vegetarians were involved in the comparison.


> Religious beliefs really are nonsense.  There's nothing even remotely scientific


> about any religion.


Nor is there anything even remotely scientific about your belief that killing an animal is murder.  That's a religious belief (or, if you refuse that title despite its aptitude, then it's a philosophical belief) - it's not at all scientific.


> And it has nothing to do with promoting veganism or vegetarianism.


*laughs*

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 9:55PM #36
farragut
Posts: 3,944

Bah, mitzvah.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 9:57PM #37
Erey
Posts: 18,448

Aug 11, 2011 -- 9:40PM, solfeggio wrote:


You know what, mylons?  You don't know what you're talking about.  Vegetarianism/veganism as a lifestyle cannot in any way be compared to fundamentalist religious nutters. 


For one thing, the benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet have long been proven by numerous scientific studies.  We humans don't need to eat animal flesh in order to live healthy, happy lives.  And that's a fact.


Where a meatless diet is concerned, we're talking facts.  Where fundamentalist religion is concerned, we're talking myth and folklore.  People running around quoting their holy books are quoting stuff written by anonymous peasants thousands of years ago who were so ignorant of science that they tought the earth was the centre of the universe.  A wheelbarrow would have been high tech for those people.


Religious beliefs really are nonsense.  There's nothing even remotely scientific about any religion.


And I'll take science over religion any day of the week.


When I start a thread like this, posting the results of a study showing a causative link between meat consumption and diabetes, it is to make the public aware of something that could help them live a healthier life. 


It's called a mitzvah.  And it has nothing to do with promoting veganism or vegetarianism.


 




 


You know Solf I see many, many similarities between a vegan like yourself and a rabid fundamentalist.  Sorry


 


What about the farmers who are growing crops but have to kill the animals that are destroying the crops?  That happens all the time.


 


AGain, the red meat article is bunk because India has the highest rate of diabetes and is one of the lowest per capita meat consumers - that would be any kind of meat not just the red stuff. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 9:58PM #38
Mlyons619
Posts: 16,374

Yup sof, you wuz just providing info, right?


Is that why you wrote this?


...Will this information cause people to actually stop and think about what they are eating?  Nah. 

The taste of the steak or sausage is so very much more important than whether the eating of it might just push your body over the edge and into one of the most miserable of diseases, diabetes.

Because, hey, people have always eaten meat, haven't they?  And screw all those doctors and scientists that are trying to spoil your fun with their stupid studies.  They're always coming up with something new every day, anyway.  And, hell, you only eat red meat in moderation, so what difference does it make...?



All you needed to do was add a big HALLELUIA and it would've read like Dobson...

"No freedom without education"
            --Thomas Jefferson

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition"
            -- Monty Python
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 10:00PM #39
solfeggio
Posts: 8,942

Erey -


Good point about India having the most diabetes.  In fact, there was a piece about that in the New York 'Times' awhile back:


www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/world/asia/13...


As you can see from the article, it was the adoption of the Western diet that is causing so much trouble in India.  They have gone from a more vegetarian society to embracing all the fast foods and high meat consumption so typical of the industrialised West.


And, of course, this also means they're eating too much sugar as well.  The result is that they're getting fatter, which also predisposes people to developing diabetes.


In other words, Westernised countries are more likely to have a high incidence of diabetes.


Why is the number of people with type 2 diabetes increasing?  Other than diet, two factors must certainly be increasing prevalence of obesity and inactivity.


And, just for good measure, I might add that vegetarians are less likely to develop type 2 diabetes, as shown in recent studies:


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21411506


news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/health/20...


healthhubs.net/diabetes/vegetarians-less...


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 10:06PM #40
Abner1
Posts: 6,359

Solfeggio wrote:


> Well, right back at ya, fellow - Screw the meat-eaters who agree with the barking


> mad philosophy you espouse that exploiting sentient beings for human pleasure


> is somehow ethical.


The really odd thing is that you can't see how your many statements like the above are just like those of the fundamentalists you so despise.


> Rocketsquirrel and Abner -


> People go vegan for the simple reason that we do not believe it is morally right to


> exploit our fellow animals (or our fellow humans, either, for that matter.)


Not always; people go vegan for any number of reasons, and the above is only one of them.  One of the members of the department I teach in is a vegan, and has been for 14 years ... but I know him well enough to know that he is a vegan because he believes it has health effects, not because he believes it is immoral to eat meat.


You are making the mistake of thinking that all vegans are members of your religion (or, if you insist, your philosophy).


> Basically, veganism is not only better for our health, better for the animals, and


> certainly better for the planet.


Not necessarily, for the reasons I have already given.


By the way, you never did answer those questions I gave you in the last thread - and I think they were important questions.  Would you be willing to answer them this time around?


> Or, look at it this way:  I think we can all agree that it is morally wrong to shoot an elephant.


Not everyone agrees with that; assuming that everyone agrees with that is a mistake, and it's related to your most fundamental error: assuming that everyone else has to start from the same premises you do.  You make that mistake quite often, and as a result many of your arguments go badly off the mark.


> They're all sentient beings and they all value their lives just as much as humans value theirs.


That is debatable - I wish you were interested in debating it.


> Since dairy products are in no way a natural human food, there is no


> real reason to consume them.


That's your opinion - but people can reasonably disagree with that opinion, no matter how much you cannot acknowledge that.


> And, it is a fact that cattle herds pollute the environment.


All human activities have some impact on the environment; how much impact, and whether that impact is managable or not, depends on how they are managed, of course.  But IMO that's all a red herring on your part, as is any health impact on the eater.  You don't really care about those, those are just convenient arguments for you to use because you know your fundamental argument isn't getting much traction: your fundamental argument is your belief that eating meat is immoral.  Everything else is just window dressing.


> Bottom line:  Humans eat animals and animal products, which is completely


> unnecessary and serves only our palate pleasure, and they think it is OK to impose


> suffering and death upon animals simply because they like the taste of their flesh. 


> And this is morally wrong.


Then your arguments based on 'meat is bad for you' or 'meat is bad for the environment' are just arguments of convenience, like someone claiming that women should all wear burqas because it would lower the rates of skin cancer.  Your fundamental argument is the above - and it is a matter of belief, not science.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 33  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook