Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:47 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2001 11:44 pm 
http://www.peta .com
check this link out,milk is bad meat is bad,leather is bad ,wool is bad,the family farm is bad,pets are bad.
Hmmmmm I get it man bad soya good! Give me a break.

What gives these people the right to campaign to children? This movement IMHO is evil. Then again My family has lived off of animals since the beginning of time.

There's always more than 1 point of view check these out. http://www.fegan.net/peta.htm http://www,bvra.org/

Laird


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2001 1:09 am 
whoops try this
http://www.peta.com
or the other point of view
http://www.bvra.org/

[This message has been edited by uglyelk (edited March 24, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by uglyelk (edited March 24, 2001).]


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2001 8:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uglyelk:
check this link out,milk is bad meat is bad,leather is bad ,wool is bad,the family farm is bad,pets are bad.


The hardest time I have with sites like this is that they do have valid information sometimes. I happen to disagree with their intent, but not all of their points are erroneous. There are health hazards associated with eating animals products produced en masse in filthy conditions. Of course, there are also health hazards associated with eating vegetable products that have been sprayed with poisons.
But I personally just eat whatever tastes good because I'd rather face those risks than incur the hassle and expense of relying exclusively on the alternatives.

[Quote]
What gives these people the right to campaign to children? This movement IMHO is evil.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting question about whether anybody at all should be allowed to campaign to children. I tend to think that you can't single out certain political causes and prohibit them from advertising to children.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Then again My family has lived off of animals since the beginning of time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's quite a lineage. Image Seriously though, for my own opinion on animals rights things, I see nothing wrong with using animals for a variety of purposes (food, clothing, science, etc) but I think there is also a case to be made for not unnecesarily making them miserable. The "neccessarily" part is the tough one though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2001 4:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
We seem to have a lot of tolerance in this society for causing animals unnecessary pain, which is something I don't approve of. There are also a bunch of reasons I'm a vegetarian which include:

1) Don't need to kill animals for food (can have a perfectly healthy diet without) and you don's miss it after a while
2) The animal suffers, then dies
3) Animals as food are wasteful (can feed 11 people with grain or one with meat)
4) Animals as food is bad for the planet (deforestation, rivers of chicken and pig poop, destruction of fish, whale etc stocks)
5) Meat costs more
6) Vegetarian foods are usually healthier
7) Public health problems like bovine spongiform encephalopathy, hoof and mouth, E Coli 0157, various bugs in seafood, concentration of toxins like heavy metals in animal foods, and serious antibiotic resistance problems caused by indiscriminate use of drugs not to treat infections but to maximize profit.

BUT the peta people get a bit out of hand.

Notice that they support fixing pets. But their ideological approach seems to be that animals aren't owned pets but companions we should coexist with more equally, much like a roommate. I wonder how they'd feel about involuntarily fixing a roommate? How can we possibly have the paternalistic power to remove their goands without their being rightfully considered pets instead of equals?

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited March 27, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2001 7:50 am 
Valkenar:

In regards to their intent. I also disagree,that's the reason I posted the peta link. IMO the intent is not to educate as to the benefits of a vegan diet but to indoctrinate the reader in the beliefs of the animal rights movement.

Campaigning to children:

I see your point. McDonalds (That fine Scottish ethnic restaurant) Image has built a huge global operation by doing exactly that.
(I think we can all agree the toy of the week was aimed at the kids and not the big folk)

Another side of the coin is organizations like the man/child love society. These folks feel that it is okay in fact there right to have sex with children.Do we want these people campaigning to our children?

The folks from Peta what side of the line do they fall on? They challenge my traditional way of life and my traditional diet. They even challenge the Canada Food guide. My position eat what you want but leave my kids alone.

unnecessary/necessary/miserable:

It is a stupid farmer that abuses his stock. Yields go down and profits drop,most animal abusers don't last in the business long. The same is true of crop farmers who abuse there lands,they eventually put them selves out of business. Think the secret is moderation,both diet and farming practices.

Laird


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2001 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:

We seem to have a lot of tolerance in this society for causing animals unnecessary pain, which is something I don't approve of.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vegan or Carnivore... Hmmmm... I have these natural growths called "canine teeth". Their purpose is to rip and tear flesh. Being a vegitarian/vegan is a choice, but eating meat is an instinct. For me, the rarer the better... sashimi or steak tartar are just fine. However, don't think for a second that that means I tolerate causing animals unnecessary pain and suffering. I'm the rather large burly man that sits crying every time I've ever had to euthanize an animal. I'm the big, insensitive brute that refuses to euthanize a cat even though it's costing me the time to hand-feed it (30 minutes, three times a day), give it expensive medication (on the order of $50/week) and special-order expensive food (on the order of 2-3 $2.00 cans of food per day). I'm the nasty carnivore that pays $140 per month for my arthritic 12 year old dog's medication and my 11 year old dog's seizure medication. I don't like the idea of torturing animals to test cosmetics, but I'm just insensitive enough to think that the animal tests that produced the medications and techniques that have kept my Momma alive for the last 13 years were all completely worth it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
1) Don't need to kill animals for food (can have a perfectly healthy diet without) and you don's miss it after a while


I guess the people that I know who've had problems on a Vegan diet were just anomolies. I know one woman who went to the doctor after being on a Vegan diet for around a year. The doctor ran tests on her and wrote her a prescription that said, "Go eat a steak, you're anemic!"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>2) The animal suffers, then dies
3) Animals as food are wasteful (can feed 11 people with grain or one with meat)
4) Animals as food is bad for the planet (deforestation, rivers of chicken and pig poop, destruction of fish, whale etc stocks)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So. You don't really think that if every human went Vegan right this second, animals would magically stop suffering and dying? Animals would stop being food for other animals? That little "food chain" thing has been around far longer than humans have graced this cosmic hunk of debris, and yet there are still forests, still rivers, still oceans, still fish, still whales and still a planet. Perhaps the world would be a better place for humans if there only weren't any humans... Ummmm... Oops. Image

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
5) Meat costs more


S'OK, I can pay for that stuff for my pets, so I don't have a problem obtaining meat for my own consumption. If you don't want to purchase or harvest meat as part of your diet, that's fine. But the cost is not the issue. In fact, I noticed the other night at the grocery store that I spent more for the week's veggies than I did for the week's meat. I actually thought for a minute that I'd purchased incorrect amounts, but then looked... Yep, chicken: $.69 per pound (even has the little pop-up thingy); ground beef: $1.69 per pound (OK, a little more cause I ended up getting the leaner stuff); broccoli: $1.39 per bunch (~1#); cauliflower: $.99 per head (~1#); spinach: $1.29 for a 10oz bag... Hmmmmm... Fresh veggies aren't cheap!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
6) Vegetarian foods are usually healthier


There are a lot of factors in health as you know from being a medical person. Eating meat doesn't necessarily mean eating healthier as shown by the varied health and diets of different cultures worldwide. Some of the healthiest peoples in the world eat meat, while some of the most emaciated don't. Then again, I'm sure that's why you said "usually".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
7) Public health problems like bovine spongiform encephalopathy, hoof and mouth, E Coli 0157, various bugs in seafood, concentration of toxins like heavy metals in animal foods, and serious antibiotic resistance problems caused by indiscriminate use of drugs not to treat infections but to maximize profit.


Ummmmm... Alar, DDT, irradiated veggies, genetically engineered plants, selective pollenation and an endless list of pesticides and other chemicals to maximize profits. Image

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
Notice that they support fixing pets. But their ideological approach seems to be that animals aren't owned pets but companions we should coexist with more equally, much like a roommate. I wonder how they'd feel about involuntarily fixing a roommate?


I really don't like that term... "fixing" your pet... Image You're not "fixing" anything! The plumbing was working properly before the operation! Ummm... sorry. I do believe in spaying an neutering pets to prevent overpopulation... just as I believe in harvesting certain wildlife to keep those populations under control as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
How can we possibly have the paternalistic power to remove their goands without their being rightfully considered pets instead of equals?


And as much as I'm doing for my pets and as much as I don't believe in unnecessarily harming animals... They are not equals! Make no mistake about it, there is a pecking order here and if it's a choice between my pet or one of my family members, the pet isn't going to get the $5000 kidney operation, while every penny I have will go towards keeping my loved ones safe and healthy.


I don't eat at Mickey-Ds because their beef comes from aging dairy cows that have stopped producing milk... some of which are diseased. I don't eat at Burger Fling because their beef is imported from South America where there isn't the livestock health oversight that we have in the U.S. Regardless, the indoctrination of young children into these "PC" concepts that are contrary to traditional American ways and beliefs is insidious.

Laird,

Adult/child sex is it's own "tough issue". If you want to start a thread along those lines that's fine. My thought is to try and keep the subjects from getting jumbled.

Be good to each other...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2001 6:39 pm 
Ian;I don't believe society has a lot of tolerance for causing animals unnecessary pain. We have and always will consume meat as a society.The animals are not tortured,they are killed and processed.This isn't something new it's been going on forever.

1. Don't need to kill animals for food.....
consider the Inuit who live in the arctic,if they don't consume high quantities of animal fats they freeze to death. Last time I checked there are not huge plots of grain and garden vegetables thriving in this environment.Most cultures find it advantageous to consume the foods that are found in the local environment. That's why coastal regions tend to have high seafood consumption. Northern regions tend to consume higher than average quantities of venison and seal fat,whale blubber etc.

When fur trading was introduced to the Inuit many opted for a non traditional life style and diet.This resulted in starvation for many of the Inuit. Farley Mowatt's "People of the Deer" will give you some insights into the impact of the nontraditional diet on these people.

2. The animal suffers and then dies
So do we Image Seriously it is not acceptable to cause the suffering of ones livestock. Unhappy,unhealthy animals produce fewer eggs,less milk,and weigh less than livestock that has been properly cared for. It's poor business not to look after your livelihood.

3.Animals as food are wasteful....
Actually that cow or sheep that you want to displace with a grain farm provides us with more than meat. I find the leather and wool most beneficial in clothing my self. Leather boots last longer than synthetic foot wear. Wool keeps me warm even when it's wet,no synthetic product can do that.

When my leather boots and wool coat have out lived there usefulness they get composted. The compost is spread on the garden giving me a bumper crop of vegetables with which to supplement my diet.

The vagen folks advocate synthetics only so the boots on my feet and the coat on my back would be produced of petroleum based products.Lets build more factories to pump more poisons into the environment? When these products wear out haul them to the landfill?

4.Animals as food bad for the planet (deforestation,rivers of poop........

I've start labelling my venison with a " no trees were destroyed in the harvesting of this product label" Image Are trees not destroyed and wild habitat not lost in the creation of vegetable or grain operations?

Over fishing or over harvesting of any wild species must be stopped ,better management is required not a change in diet or traditional occupations.

Clearing forests to plant more soya beans or create more rice paddies robs the earth of her lungs.

Rivers of pooh,graphic image Ian! How about oceans of pooh.The sewage treatment facilities for LA or even Boston must be huge.
Maybe the problem is not with livestock farming , but with population. The extremists within Peta don't want animal testing for medical research. Polio and TB are living things too. Their mantra is man bad,doctor bad,disease good. Nothing like a plague that wipes out 3 billion people to kick start the old environment. Image

5. Meat costs more........

So does single malt scotch,fine wine,good art,and reliable vehicles. I don't see your point here. Radiccio sold for $7.00/lb this winter a red pepper(capsicum) $5.00 each. These foods are all imported. Meat grows here,it's cheap.

6. Vegetarian foods are usually healthier?

Doesn't the AMA advocate a balanced diet?

I've stopped consuming sprouts,apple cider,raw veggies. To many cases of E Collis 0157,Salmonella,The high number of insects present in organic vegetables,and the presence of pesticides and other chemicals in mass produced veggies is alarming.

It could be that both diets have there pitfalls.What is needed may be food handling procedures from the processors and the consumer that are safer.

Ian,Panther suggested we be good with each other. Let me know if I cross the line ,these animal rights folks can get me pretty wound up. My fathers family has lived off the land for the past 200 years ,hunting and trapping. My mothers people were farmers. I believe we all have the choice of how we live and what we eat. I kind of resent the political lobby from P.E.T.A.

BTW I am interested in the vegetarian diet. My daughter is now dabbling in a meatless diet. I have classical training as a chef so understand nutritional requirements but find it very difficult to provide them within the limits of this cuisine. She also refuses to eat beans and is allergic to soya products.

I am very concerned with iron,protein and amino acids. Any suggestions or recommended reading would be appreciated. You may e-mail me directly if you wish.

Laird


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2001 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Good replies and good points from all sides...

Laird,

It seems that everyone is being good to each other, so I'm a happy feline...

Ian,

Good reply, however, I have quite a number of food-based allergies which include (these are just the worst ones) all dairy products (not lactose, but rather I don't properly breakdown the proteins... casein, whey, and a few others), certain nuts (especially peanuts, but I still have a few on occasion), wheat (unless it is so damn refined that it's worthless nutritionally Image ), and to a lesser extent some other grains.

Oh, and one more thing... let me clarify that I didn't mean in any way that any infringements on anyone's First Amendment Right to free speech should be made, what I was not clear in referring to was the methods that are being used by some groups to indoctrinate children who don't have any other basis for an opinion and aren't getting any opposing views. That's what I meant was "insidious and contrary to traditional American ways"... but I wasn't very clear and it was easy to read it from a different perspective. (Just a little clarification. Image )

Good discussion folks...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2001 7:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 6023
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
Some of the points made sound like the Macrobiotic philosophy. "Eat foods that are native to your area." This means a diet that is different for Northerners than for those living in Southern climates.

As a boy, I was raised on a farm. Remember my Uncle telling me how important crop rotation was. Some grains depleted the soil of all nutrients. If a farmer got greedy by planting the same money producing but nutrient depleting crop, season after season, he would soon end up with barron soil.

Very interesting topic.

------------------
GEM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2001 7:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 6023
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
P.S.

As a youngster, I remember the first time we used chemical additives on the soil! Never used them until my uncle heard that he could plant more lucrative crops for more seasons, using the chemicals!

------------------
GEM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2001 11:25 pm 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gmattson:
[B]As a boy, I was raised on a farm. Remember my Uncle telling me how important crop rotation was.

Anyone ever hear of the dirty thirties drought and poor crop rotation caused most of the top soil in the prairies to just blow away.

Not only should crops be rotated it's a good practice to let the land lie fallow every 4 years. (a practice were by the land is seeded with natural grasses and live stock is turned out on it to fertilize it naturally.)This is the most environmentally effective method discovered to date to restore nutrients to the earth.

My grandfather use to grow potatoes on a island in the river. Every year during runoff the island would be submerged. Every spring when the waters receded there would be a new layer of fertile silt.That little island grew great spuds! Next to no weeding but a real pain to haul them all home by canoe(but worth the effort) I remember as a kid going there to collect the odd turtle egg,and all the water snakes that scared the s*** out of me.

Funny how the old timers seemed to have all the answers concerning food/farming worked out.Maybe we as a society need to listen a little more closely to the old folks.

Laird


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
Maybe we as a society need to listen a little more closely to the old folks.



This is an interesting point I think, because people tend to fall into two camps on this issue. There are those that think that old ways are stupid and should be left behind, and those that think the old ways are probably the best ways and we should get back to them. Maybe what I'm saying will seem trivially true to people, but it seems to me that no matter how desirable the old ways of farming were, no matter how ecologically friendly, that it's just not possible to go back to that and still feed as many people as we have, in the society we have. That is, unless a large percentage of the jobs that exist are subsistance farming, it becomes neccesary to have large-scale farms that can process large quantities of food with comparatively little human input. And an unfortunate effect of this is decreased efficiency in term of soil use, even though in terms of human time use it's better.

So that was way off topic and probably uninteresting, innacurate and who knows what else. Well, maybe somebody will enjoy it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2001 5:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uglyelk:
Valkenar:
Another side of the coin is organizations like the man/child love society. These folks feel that it is okay in fact there right to have sex with children.Do we want these people campaigning to our children?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly see your point, and the obvious answer is that "no, I don't want my children persuaded to believe things I disagree with" (when I have children someday). But despite this, I think I'd rather have NAMBLA be allowed to campaign in most any way they want (barring obvious things like slander, copyright violations, intentional lies), and just make sure that I teach my children what I believe is right. Basically, I feel that people shouldn't have children until they're in a position to spend the time it takes to educate them properly.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
It is a stupid farmer that abuses his stock. Yields go down and profits drop,most animal abusers don't last in the business long.


Is this really true? I would think this depends on what you call "Abuse" I would say abuse is pretty much any situation that makes the animal's life unpleasant. That is, things like keeping them in too-small pens all the time, for example. Admittedly I haven't done very much research on this topic, but most of what I've seen indicates that the majority of farms just go with whatever produces the largest volume for the least price, and don't really pay attention. And while it's true that if you abuse the animals enough they'll die too soon and become unusable, it seems to me that there's a lot of abuse that would save space on your farm without destroying your product.

Ian, Re: reasons to be a vegetarian:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
1)Don't need to kill animals for food...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clearly this is true, but the question then becomes whether avoidability makes it immoral. The obvious question I have, is do we think it is a moral error on the part of another omnivorous animal when such an animal kills and eats another animal? You could argue that it's not because the animal doesn't have the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong as we define it. However, when people who are incapable of defining right and wrong in society's view, we still punish them (institutionalization or prison) if they commit murder. And if you're not giving animals equal status as beings capable of choosing an action, I personally think that it becomes questionable whether those beings have a right to not be eaten. And no, I don't think we should eat the insane and mentally retarded. Image
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
3) Animals as food are wastefull...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough, but seeing as we already throw out loads of produce every year, it doesn't really seem like we're pressed for supplies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
4) Animals s food is bad for the planet...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, true, and I agree with this point. And since it's a reason for being a vegetarian rather than thinking it's morally wrong to eat meat, it's valid. Then again, I think there are plenty of opprotunities to eat meat on a small scale without damaging the planet (say if there weren't a meat industry, and your uncle shot a deer and sent you some venison).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
5) Meat costs more
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panther already spoke to this issue, and I agree with him for the most part. Also, a vegetarian diet requires a lot more time and energy placed into it (for proper nourishment) which is a "cost" if you're short on time and not so much on money (or if, like me, your feel short on both).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
6) Vegetarian foods are healthier
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I generally am very appreciative of medical science, but I am very suspicious of the nutrional segment because A> they change their minds radically, and often, and B> because it is subject to fashion related fads. Vegetarian meals are considered healthier now, but not so long ago red meat was considered the healthy thing, and carbohydrates were considered bad.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
7) Public Health problems like...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, these things are problems, but as Panther stated there are health problems with vegetables (though I disagree about the badness of genetically engineered and irradiated crops). Morever, while these problems exist, they are statistically fairly unlikely, and most can be avoided by simply cooking your food properly.



[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited March 28, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2001 5:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
The whole concept of "animal ethics" is really based on nothing at all. Canine teeth? Well, remnants thereof, I suppose. Go look at a tiger; we have teeth nothing like them. Then go look at a horse, and see the same is true. Fact is we have about the most unspecialized dentition out there. Second fact is that biology does not inform ethics. Humans have many destructive instincts. We especially seem to have an instinct to make war. Other than army ants, we're the only species on Earth that does this, however, it doesn't make it right.

Consistency is, however, a concept that I place more stock in, and I fail to see how some animals are worth considerable time and effort and money and others are only fit to grow up in a crate so they can be killed for five minutes pleasure. Or to look at it another way, why do Americans get upset that some Asian cultures cook dogs? What's so morally superior about only eating less cute animals?

Vegan diets (which I do not endorse anyway) tend to be related to several health problems if care is not taken:

1) Iron deficiency. Meat has plenty of iron. So does steak and wheat; so does, in fact, an IRON SUPPLEMENT. Fe is not a justification for killing animals. As a matter of fact for MEN, meat's Fe can be bad because it appears to be related to increased heart attack risk; men seem to live longer if they take in less iron and donate blood. Of note, Fe overload is the most common (and potentially lethal) genetic disease in whites.

2) Protein deficiency. Vegetable proteins are incomplete and must be balanced (beans and corn, for example). However americans eat many times more protein than required. Plus adding nonlethal animal proteins makes the whole thing simple: a bit of cheese, or egg.

3) B12 deficiency. This vitamin comes from animals. Fact is though that most of us get enough just from the amounts of bugs and poop that gets mixed into our grains and the like. Egg and milk eliminate this problem too.

In sum, yes, your friend was an anomaly.

I never said that eating animals would destroy the "planet," although there i little doubt that we are harming it. Vegetarian diets would cause less environmental damage and animal suffering; that's all there is to it. Just because we can't eliminate either one doesn't mean we should write them off as insignificant if they result in tasty meals. Or did I misunderstand your paragraph?

Re: food prices, well, go look at the cost of a plate of spaghetti and a steak next time you eat out.

Re healthy diets, most vegetarian diets are better for you than meaty ones. Lean meats like trimmed chicken and fish are quite good for you. Beef ain't. Eating tons of cheese and oils and goop that's vegetarian is not healthy BUT eating a meat restricted diet high in vegetables (the pritikin diet) plus exercising has shown to be able to reverse severe heart disease caused by eating decades of garbage. Note: emaciation results from starvation, not vegetables. Perhaps these starving people were eating vegetables because only rich, nonstarving societies can afford tons of meat?

"Ummmmm... Alar, DDT, irradiated veggies, genetically engineered plants, selective pollenation and an endless list of pesticides and other chemicals to maximize profits."

If I recall, Alar turned out to be essentially harmless. DDT is used for pest control broadly, for example for mosquito control. Any food can be irradiated but no irradiated food has been shown to be harmful. Any meat must be based on a plant diet therefore any problem associated with vegetables is not avoided with meats, but multiplied 11 times. This is how much more vegetable needs to be grown to serve meat instead. Note again that the toxins on one plate of veggies will be concentrated over the life of the animal and made worse (like eating the toxins in at elast 11 plates of veggies). Genetic engineering I am not too hot on but selective pollination has been the engine behind the development of all the much more productive strains in use today. (PS do you think that cows aren't selectively pollinated? I believe they call it artificial insemination).

In short, try this fill-in-the-bank: Europeans are burning thousands of (brocolli / animal) carcasses and avoiding the consumption of (turnips / beef) for fear it causes a deadly brain disease.

"...indoctrination of young children into these "PC" concepts that are contrary to traditional American ways and beliefs is insidious."

Eating meat is the American way? I bet if you polled people about the American way you'd get more hits for free speech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2001 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
"However, when people who are incapable of defining right and wrong in society's view, we still punish them (institutionalization or prison) if they murder. ...I personally think that it becomes questionable whether those beings have a right to not be eaten."

Actually, if someone is truly insane and unable to tell right from wrong, they're institutionalized to protect others and to treat them, not to punish them. And I would agree animals don't have a right to life; I DO think its a nice thing not to kill them when I can avoid it. I'm not obligated, but its the right thing to do, in my book.

My vegetarian diet has resulted in no inconvenience. If I want something simple as cooking a piece of chicken, I can make an omlette or a garden burger with cheese or something like that. Haven't suffered any ill effects, and my cholesterol ratio was about the best in my med school class (1.2 when <2.8 desired).

Health problems with meat aren't quite "rare," even if the meat is well done Image... antibiotic resistance affects the whole community. Livestock spread disease affects most of Europe. Most chickens and ground beef have enough bacteria to cause serious illness if not properly cooked... Same does apply to my eggs however.

I know the nutrition rec's change daily, but some things are stable. I predict veggies will be healthy forever. Trimmed well cooked chicken and fish will also be healthy. Beef because of its saturated fat will remain in the avoid pile.

"We have and always will consume meat as a society." --Momentum and tradition are not ethical arguments.

"The animals are not tortured,they are killed and processed." Many to MOST meat eaters I know don't like seeing meat in recognizable pieces and think images from slaughterhouses are disgusting. (Not true for the farm raised, of course.) IMHO, this means they believe they are doing something wrong by eating meat and choose to ignore this fact by avoiding thinking about the process.

Re: the inuit... we're not. If I were in a situation where sustainable and humane animal eating were the best way to get a healthy diet, I'd probably do it. But right now I have the luxury of a diet available to me both healthy and animal free, so there's no reason to eat animals. I guess I'd have to be in a situation which would make it ok for me to eat cats, since I don't view cows as below cats ethically, even if they're ugly stupid and smelly.

Plastics piling up in landfills is not good; but I doubt many leather shoes or wool coats are actually composted. In theory the polarfleece we make from plastic bottles could live again once worn out; not so for natural products. Trees are destroyed to plant; however, significantly more land is destroyed for meat. Again, think of the pile of veggies it takes to raise a cow to slaughter. Desertification is one thing that ought not to happen with farming, unless your farmer is really bad.

I agree that overpopulation is an issue whatever we eat, but that of course much more poop rivers are required if we're to eat lots of meat Image I am also not a peta person and think legitimate research (NOT on cosmetics, which the planet could do without entirely) on animals are beneficial. I for one regretfully sacrificed a beagle last year (destined for destruction) after practicing intubation, chest tube placement, venous cutdown, suture and other procedures on it. It's a question of benefit, and I want to be a competent doctor, but don't need a steak to be happy.

As far as the nutrition questions, I get all the protein I need through egg and dairy, which complete the perfectly acceptable protein found in plants even if they aren't complete in themselves, for example through pairing of grains and legumes. I don;t worry about iron because I don't menstruate, to be honest; but there are always supplements and wheat; beans would be another good source if she ate them.

Thanks for the clarification Panther--one might wonder, however, if the mainstream wasn't the counterpoint you suggested to PETA. No matter how you feel about the issues I am about to refer to, this would be the reason we don't need straight pride, white history month, or NOM. At a minimum these kids are going to go home and raise these issues and hear the other side from parents, and the lot of them won't suffer to think about what's for dinner and why the furred pet rubbing up against their legs under the table would never suffer the same fate.

Lastly the thing about PETA is that they'll never be able to stop meat from being available, so at least we'll be free to choose.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group