| 2 years ago :: Sep 11, 2011 - 1:34PM #11 | |
:) 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
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Sep 11, 2011 - 4:15PM #12 | |
|
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
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Sep 12, 2011 - 8:02AM #13 | |
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.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Sep 12, 2011 - 8:56AM #14 | |
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
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Sep 12, 2011 - 9:11AM #15 | |
|
Precisely, Charikleia, and as your conclusion suggests, the topic is that a scientist was found to have engaged in fraud.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|