I've always noticed whenever I start a thread showing health problems associated with meat-eating that there will always be somebody who will insist that the scientific studies are bunk.

And there will always be somebody who will assert that, since s/he has been eating this or that meat all of his/her life, and this person has remained healthy, that the studies must be wrong for this reason.

You also have people who, for some idiotic reason, decide to shoot the messenger, as it were, by comparing vegetarians/vegans to bible thumpers.  It makes no sense at all, because the two are in no way comparable, but it seems to make the meat people feel better if they can vent in this way.

Finally, there are always the people who will say that they agree in general that meat can be unhealthy, but they are not worried because they only eat meat in moderation.  That moderation argument is heard again and again.  Everybody does everything in moderation all the time.

People don't have a clue as to what it means, but it is a nice-sounding phrase, and it makes eating just about anything safe, so they use it.

Nobody really wants to own up to the unpalatable facts about meat consumption.  But, since this is an open forum where anybody can post, I'll keep putting the articles out there, in the hopes that some day, somebody might just 'get' the message and act on it.

Nobody really wants to get cancer or diabetes or heart disease if they can possibly avoid it.

Solfeggio wrote:

> I've always noticed whenever I start a thread showing health problems associated

> with meat-eating that there will always be somebody who will insist that the

> scientific studies are bunk.  And there will always be somebody who will assert

> that, since s/he has been eating this or that meat all of his/her life, and this person

> has remained healthy, that the studies must be wrong for this reason.

Odd, then, that the respondents in this thread made different arguments, not either of the above ... and you ignored our actual arguments.  Ah well.  

> You also have people who, for some idiotic reason, decide to shoot the messenger, as it

> were, by comparing vegetarians/vegans to bible thumpers.

Not at all.  They didn't compare vegetarians/vegans to bible thumpers, they compared *you* to a bible thumper.  There are plenty of vegetarians and vegans that don't act like bible thumpers ... but there are some who do, and IMO one of them is you.

> Finally, there are always the people who will say that they agree in general that

> meat can be unhealthy, but they are not worried because they only eat meat in

> moderation.  That moderation argument is heard again and again.  Everybody

> does everything in moderation all the time.

And you have failed utterly to address moderate meat-eating; your studies have repeatedly showed that heavy meat-eating is a problem.  One of them involved people who ate meat 6-7 meals a week.  That isn't moderation.

> Nobody really wants to own up to the unpalatable facts about meat consumption.

Or maybe we disagree with you for valid reasons, and your responses to those reasons either don't address those reasons (by pretending, for example, that eating meat once a week must have the same effects as eating it seven times a week) or consist purely of abuse of everyone who doesn't share your ideology.

>  But, since this is an open forum where anybody can post, I'll keep putting the articles

> out there, in the hopes that some day, somebody might just 'get' the message and act on it.

And we'll continue to respond and get the substance of our responses ignored.  Ah well, such is life.

Aug 11, 2011 -- 9:28PM, solfeggio wrote:

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.

 

I like Angie Harmon's new Get Milk promotion. Americans drink milk and many of our children have thrived on it. Just how it is.

Fortunately none of my middle-aged children have diabetes. No one in my family had it either.

Besides tending to your cats what do you do for fun? Your crusades are yours. As I've often said my American heritage is Irish/English. We eat a bit of meat, potatoes and veggies and fruit. My grandchildren are at least fifth generation eating thusly. These grandchildren will be fifth generation college-degreed, too. We rarely eat much processed food and children are not given soft drinks.

You've created your own moral system. Mine is different from yours.

Abner -

Enough already with the 'fundamentalist' crap.  Vegetarianism/veganism is a lifestyle, not a religion.  It has nothing to do with basing beliefs on some ancient nonsense.  It has everything to do with eating a healthier diet as well as treating our fellow animals decently.

And yes, plenty of people go veggie or become vegans for health reasons.  My husband and I went veggie years ago for health reasons.  We got into the ethical side of it over the years as we continued to study the philosophy and realised that we agreed with those scientific studies showing that nonhuman animals were sentient beings.  Also, we determined that we did not want to contribute to the exploitation of those beings.

Also, our philosophy had a lot to do with our reading of Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation.  I think it would be fair to say that this book had an enormous impact upon our thinking.  Also, we were strongly influenced by Gary Francione's book Animals as Persons.

You mentioned some questions from another thread which I did not answer.  I'm afraid I don't know to which questions you refer.  Please repeat them, and I'll endeavour to give you some answers.

I think it is always good to see that we are all the sum total of our parts.  We aren't just one thing or another to the exclusion of all else.  I'm a vegan, but I'm many other things as well. 

I'm always happy to have a sensible debate about subjects in which I'm interested, which include ethology, of course.  On the other hand, as a music lover, I'd be glad to discuss the relative merits of the Berlin Philharmonic in its interpretation of Beethoven's symphonies.  And as a devotee of the subgenre of Film Noir, I'd be interested in which of these films you especially like. 

Oh, and let's see.  I'm presently reading a volume of the memoirs of Averell Harriman regarding the role he played in WWII as an emissary from Roosevelt to Churchill.  The role the U.S. played in the early years of the European war, before that country was actively involved, is a fascinating one.

The care and feeding of domestic cats is a big topic in our family, since over the years we have rescued so many of them. 

Along with classical music, my big musical passion is 1920s to 1940s jazz, especially the Big Band era, of which I am enamoured, although I am a fervant fan of Bix and Louis and other icons of the jazz era.

Aug 11, 2011 -- 8:34PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

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.

Agree. My grandmother was a diabetic and died from her second diabetic coma. She never took care of herself prior to having diabetes and definitely didn't take care of herself after being diagnosed. When she died, she was still smoking, still eating whatever she wanted, and was over 300 pounds. There was no physical activity in her life, because she just didn't want to do it.