Vegetarian vs Meat Eaters

[wiiiire]

well this is what it is about isn't it?

Nope, it's not about winning at all. You need to lose this attitude if you want to progress Good luck.

[bystander]

Originally Posted by wiiiire

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, The American Dietetic Association, The Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and The National Cancer Institute ?

*raises eyebrow*

its not just about the source it's also the content.

take a look at the titles:
Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians:. comparison much?
Mortality in British vegetarians. - there's that word again.
Position of the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets - ahh

but this one:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...d.0040325&ct=1
this is the only one I find "not" biased. it discusses both eating vegetables and meat. but it says, do not eat meat excessively

In conclusion, a diet high in red or processed meat was associated with an elevated risk of both colorectal and lung cancer; in addition, red meat was associated with an elevated risk of esophageal and liver cancer. A decrease in the consumption of red and processed meat could reduce the incidence of cancer at multiple sites.

in which I say is true.

[bystander]

Originally Posted by wiiiire

Nope, it's not about winning at all. You need to lose this attitude if you want to progress Good luck.

nope, this attitude opens me up lots of wisdom and knowledge. I don't really care much about winning... well maybe but its more inclined onto persuading or convincing. I am open minded and I question a lot and I like to argue (only in my interests). I want to see all sides of the story. I see the black and white areas, and I step into the grey area. I also don't take sides. In which you see, I promote eating both plants and animals. lolololol

[jdp]

Originally Posted by wiiiire

Eating meat has been directly linked to heart disease, colon cancer, prostate cancer and many other conditions.

Yep.

Originally Posted by wiiiire

It is estimated that meat consumption in the US causes tens of billions of dollars of medical costs.

Yep, and we still have the highest life expectancy in the western hemisphere. Pretty cool, huh? Unlike our forbears and unlike so many in the world, Americans live productive, long lives while enjoying the great taste of meat.

You want to take that away. I do not.

Originally Posted by wiiiire

It takes more energy to produce meat than it provides the consumer.

That is what energy is for.

Originally Posted by wiiiire

Open your mind... Google stuff... Try not to assume the person who disagrees with you does so because of some "moral high ground" just because they think they're probably right. It's not a very progressive way of discussing anything.

Yet that is your position, that people who eat meat are immoral.

My position is the consumption of meat has no moral content whatever. It's a preference, like a choice between crayons.

The one whose mind is closed is yours, not mine. I have considered and rejected vegetarian diets because I don't like them. I am not, however, trying to change the dietary habits of vegetarians. Graze on, vegan, graze on.

[jdp]

Originally Posted by Jorge1907

hardly jdp - american agriculture is as efficient as any in the world.

Actually that was my point, that the agriculture practiced in starving nations isn't nearly as efficient as it could be.

[wiiiire]

Originally Posted by bystander

its not just about the source it's also the content.

take a look at the titles:
Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians:. comparison much?
Mortality in British vegetarians. - there's that word again.
Position of the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets - ahh

Yes, clinical studies into vegetarianism will tend to mention the word vegetarian in their titles... obviously. Why the hell would you use a different word? :/

[wiiiire]

My position is the consumption of meat has no moral content whatever. It's a preference, like a choice between crayons.

Yeah, you made that quite clear with some of your earlier statements about infants. You seem to think that choice absolves responsibility, whereas I think it creates it.

I have considered and rejected vegetarian diets because I don't like them. I am not, however, trying to change the dietary habits of vegetarians.

I'm just trying to get people to think about the consequences of their actions and take some stock of them in the way they act. Some people are totally unwilling to do so.

Graze on, vegan, graze on.

Sure will. And i'm sure you'll keep causing undue suffering to satisfy your whims and failing to consider implications.

[bystander]

Originally Posted by wiiiire

Yes, clinical studies into vegetarianism will tend to mention the word vegetarian in their titles... obviously. Why the hell would you use a different word? :/

go figure

how do you find out if its not biased?

[jdp]

Originally Posted by wiiiire

Yeah, you made that quite clear with some of your earlier statements about infants. You seem to think that choice absolves responsibility, whereas I think it creates it.

Responsibility to whom? My choice to eat meat impacts no one but myself.

Originally Posted by wiiiire

I'm just trying to get people to think about the consequences of their actions and take some stock of them in the way they act. Some people are totally unwilling to do so.

What consequences? There is plenty of land in the United States on which to graze or dry-lot livestock. No one's house is being torn down to make room for cattle.

As for the health consequences, that, thankfully, is still a private matter, or are you suggesting the government dictate by fiat what people can or can't eat?

Originally Posted by wiiiire

Sure will. And i'm sure you'll keep causing undue suffering to satisfy your whims and failing to consider implications.

I have yet to hear from a single steer, hog or chicken that it objects to being slaughtered for human consumption, or that it would rather be slaughtered with less "suffering." I keep checking my emails, voice messages, blogs -- nothing.

I am more than supremely confident that American farmers aren't sadists. There is no profit in torturing livestock. The idea is to dispatch the creatures as efficiently as possible. There isn't undue suffering in that.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Amaris

i agree with you. you can't really believe the findings of research are true unless you've done it yourself.
it makes sense to me that it's more efficient to eat what grows than to eat that which eats what grows. lots of people are vegetarian purely for this reason.
if we were using ALL the land we have for food to grow vegetables we would get more, right? there are a lot of fields that are ONLY used for cattle. i know that's true.

a lot of livestock is fed grain.
again i say: twenty five thousand men, women and children die of starvation everyday.

You stated a false generalization. Yes some farmers only rasise cattle, but that is what they do. While some farmers raise cattle and grow crops switching fields every so often for seaonal purposes. Its a known fact by farmers in this nation at least that it takes LESS land to raise a head of cattle then to irrigate, seed, pick the crop and then store it. Point is, there is nothing wrong with eating meat for our bodies and our minds. If wiiire does not want to eat meat, go ahead, but to think you can put morals on this issue is nuts....She/he should be more worried about pitbull dog fights, then cattle raising.