Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Meat eaters absolved, professor in the dock
3 years ago  ::  Sep 11, 2011 - 1:34PM #11
rabello
Posts: 22,031

Sep 11, 2011 -- 8:19AM, arielg wrote:


Wow!  What a relief! Meat eaters were right all along.  They are not boorish. It is not fair to scare them like that. Some of them were probably trinking on cutting down on those burgers. People can be so cruel.




:)


I'll stick with what biochemistry teaches us and what groups like the Humane Society informs us of, like the abuse of living cows who were too sick to be "steered" to their deaths on their own two feet.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 11, 2011 - 4:15PM #12
solfeggio
Posts: 9,470

I wouldn't term people who eat meat as boorish, which simply means rude and clumsy, but they can be termed naive, or lacking critical judgment in that they ignore all the scientifically proven data showing that, in general, meat really isn't all that healthy.


As well, you could take this further and say that people who eat whatever they please in whatever quantities they wish, which would include most meat eaters, surely, could be described as indulgent.


Since this is a meat-eating culture to an enormous degree, anybody who steps out of the culture and decides, for health or philosophical reasons, not to eat meat anymore, could be described as an independent thinker, or even somebody with decidedly unorthodox views.


None of this makes anybody necessarily boorish.


In any case, I would wish that more attention would be paid to the horrific abuses found in the animal agriculture industry than in what some pseudo-scientist has to say about meat eating in general.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 12, 2011 - 8:02AM #13
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

Sep 11, 2011 -- 4:15PM, solfeggio wrote:


I wouldn't term people who eat meat as boorish, which simply means rude and clumsy, but they can be termed naive, or lacking critical judgment in that they ignore all the scientifically proven data showing that, in general, meat really isn't all that healthy.



Numerous times, your insistence that it's been scientifically proven that meat-eating isn't healthy has been countered.


"Lacking critical judgment" merely demeans the many rational people who have examined the evidence and disagree with you.


As well, you could take this further and say that people who eat whatever they please in whatever quantities they wish, which would include most meat eaters, surely, could be described as indulgent.



Assuming this to be the generic you, anyone who does so is engaging in complete poppycock since it's completely illogical to state that "most meat eaters...could be described as indulgent" in the sense of eating "whatever they please in whatever quantities they wish." Numerous people here have attested to the fact that they balance their diets carefully and endeavor to restrain their impulsive food choices. 


Once again, people who eat ANY amount of meat are maligned, and in this instance, all out of proportion to known reality.


Since this is a meat-eating culture to an enormous degree, anybody who steps out of the culture and decides, for health or philosophical reasons, not to eat meat anymore, could be described as an independent thinker, or even somebody with decidedly unorthodox views.



More logically, anyone who does so could be described as a person who has chosen not to eat meat. That they do this one thing does not necessarily mean they are independent thinkers or possess any unorthodox views since they might easily be refraining from meat for religious reasons which hardly makes them independent or unorthodox (in more than one sense...pun intended).


In any case, I would wish that more attention would be paid to the horrific abuses found in the animal agriculture industry than in what some pseudo-scientist has to say about meat eating in general.



With this much, I heartily agree.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 12, 2011 - 8:56AM #14
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Sep 12, 2011 -- 8:02AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


Numerous times, your insistence that it's been scientifically proven that meat-eating isn't healthy has been countered.


"Lacking critical judgment" merely demeans the many rational people who have examined the evidence and disagree with you.



This is true...


In line with the topic of this thread: I suspect a "methodological error" in this kind of reasoning. It's always linearly interpolating results for meat consumption on health. Linear thinking where real life may be non-linear.


When meat eating of magnitude X results in bad health of magnitude Y, that does not prove that meat eating of magnitude one tenth of X results in bad health of magnitude one tenth of Y.


Coupling this insight with the fact from statistics that linear models are sensitive to outliers (here, the extreme meat consumers) one can quickly see that many studies estimating effects of meat consumption need to be interpreted with caution.


Even if they are not fraudulent (as the Stapel-Vonk-Zeelenberg study from the opening post).

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 12, 2011 - 9:11AM #15
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833
Precisely, Charikleia, and as your conclusion suggests, the topic is that a scientist was found to have engaged in fraud.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook