[Stradlater]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Vast areas in the amazon have been clear cut for lumber as well as to make room for cattle. I am talking about killing animals off forever field mice are in no danger of extinction.

Ah, well I'm against that

Originally posted by shmerek:
Spliff's link is a good one. It does show some flaws in the harvesting argument.

And has some flaws of its own.

Originally posted by shmerek:
If you do eat grains then the blood of these doomed mice is on your hands as well . You said it could be cut out to minimize death but is it?

Like I said, I don't have any moral problems with it, "moral" vegetarians do...

Originally posted by shmerek:
The "moral" vegetarian could get you with this one.
veggie "I eat grains therefore I am responsible for the death of 1 billion animals"
meatie " I eat meat and grain therefore I am responsible for the death of 1 billion animals + 48 million"
Which is more damaging?

Let's see: the difference between 1 and 1.05 is miniscule. Most "moral" vegetarians don't think they do any harm at all, at least they would be taking responsibility if they said that. And if they want to tell me they're 1.05 times better than me, whatever, it's not a big difference, they can keep it to themselves.

[icruise]

I think what you are ignoring is that the number of animals killed for the amount of food produced is considerably different. Not to mention the fact that there are other types of harm than death, as the article does a good job of explaining.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I think what you are ignoring is that the number of animals killed for the amount of food produced is considerably different. Not to mention the fact that there are other types of harm than death, as the article does a good job of explaining.

I didn't ignore the latter, I addressed it. As for the former, what do you mean? More animals theoretically die to produce all the vegetables than all the ruminant meat. 48 million cows feed a LOT of mouths...

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I didn't ignore the latter, I addressed it. As for the former, what do you mean? More animals theoretically die to produce all the vegetables than all the ruminant meat. 48 million cows feed a LOT of mouths...

How many of those 48 million are grazing cattle and how many are factory farmed?

[icruise]

In particular, consider the following quote from the article linked to above:

To obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals.

This means that an omnivorous diet would kill more animals even if we didn't take into account the number of animals killed for food. If you add in the number of cows/chickens/pigs/etc killed it sounds to me that the numbers would be MUCH in favor of the vegan/vegetarian diet. Hardly '"the 1 billion vs. 1 billion 48 million deaths" you quoted earlier.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by shmerek:
How many of those 48 million are grazing cattle and how many are factory farmed?

No idea, but if I only eat free-range cattle, am I now not responsible for the factory-farmed ones? Wow, even less harm and more morals!

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Icruise:
In particular, consider the following quote from the article linked to above:

This means that an omnivorous diet would kill more animals even if we didn't take into account the number of animals killed for food. If you add in the number of cows/chickens/pigs/etc killed it sounds to me that the numbers would be MUCH in favor of the vegan/vegetarian diet. Hardly '"the 1 billion vs. 1 billion 48 million deaths" you quoted earlier.

it's ALL subjective. it's all data that easily manipulated. Some vegetarians are probably responsible for more deaths than some meat-eaters with their particular food, and some meat-eaters are probably responsible for more deaths than some vegetarians... but as a whole, the argument stands. All I'm trying to say is that vegetarians are not inherently better people than meat-eaters, as some vegetarians morally claim to be.

[icruise]

Yes, I thought you'd probably question the data, although you seemed very confident in it when you were quoting something that supported your argument.

I don't think there is any way that you can reasonably deny that a vegetarian diet results in less animals dying.

This is a separate issue from whether vegetarians are "better people" but I find your repeated attempts to prove that vegetarians are either hypocrites or morons to be quite annoying.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
No idea, but if I only eat free-range cattle, am I now not responsible for the factory-farmed ones? Wow, even less harm and more morals!

I am assuming you don't eat any pork, chicken or fish?

The fact of the matter is that most meat eaters do not restricted there meat intake strictly to free range beef. Health wise the thing most people cut is the red meat. I still do not buy the argument, the math was flawed, as was the land usage for the two systems

Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis�s math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population._

This quote goes more in line with my amazon kick

What should such utilitarians think about Davis�s proposal to increase the number of grazed animals in the United States by a factor of ten? I doubt they should support it.




We have a few reasons to think feeding a vegetarian population allows more animals to exist than feeding an omnivorous population. With only one-fifth of U.S. beef cattle grass-fed, the negative effects of overgrazing on wildlife populations are already well-documented (Donahue 1999). These ruminants graze on 160 million hectares, which is about three times the land area used to grow crops for human consumption. What would happen if the number of grazed animals were multiplied by ten, as Davis proposes? More forest and grassland would have to be converted to pasture, more soil erosion and watershed contamination would occur, and more wild habitats would be destroyed.

We have been going on at length about this one point what about the environmental effects of a meat eaters diet? Pig farming is contaminating ground water all over the place, creating toxic algae in rivers and lakes, destruction of habitat, 9 billion chickens produce a whole lot of ****, factory farms are pretty big polluters and then there are health issues as well.

For me I cannot boil my choice down just to X number of dead animals there are numerous factors. If I was an first nations aboriginal living 200 years ago I wouldn't of had a problem with killing my dinner and eating it but that isn't the case anymore.
Hey on Star Trek they don't eat meat (unless you are a klingon) _

Time for bed it's late.

[Stradlater]

Okay, all I'm trying to get across here is that vegetarians ARE morally responsible for animals deaths as well, but meat-eating isn't inherently morally worse. The problem is not the food, but the methods of acquiring it. Don't fight meat as a whole, fight factory-farming, fight the pollution. It IS possible for a meat-eater to buy meat from free-range places, and in effect you are perhaps making more of a statement about the poor conditions in factory-farming and perhaps elsewhere than you would if you gave up meat altogether. Vegetarians are not morally-exempt, and meat-eaters are not necessarily morally worse off.

[NYCFarmboy]

Factory farming has brought food costs down in the United States to the lowest level as a percentage of income of any nation on the face of the earth, allowing Americans to have the highest standard of living of any people on earth. The average American farm today is about 2,000 acres. In 1950 it was about 200. Because farms are larger food prices have dropped exponentially factoring in inflation.

If you adjust dairy/meat prices for what they were in 1950 and calculate a 2% inflation rate per year you would have food costs today that are triple what they are. or more.

Low food costs allow for more personal computers (Macs) to be purchased, more cars to be owned by families, and a higher standard of living for human beings of all income levels, including those on fixed incomes and on low incomes.

Raising food prices by banning meat eating and effiecient farming methods will only lower the standard of living for human beings.

It is interesting that protein is what allows humans to develop from monkeys. Diets with protein allowed the brains to grow over time. It is a scientific fact that vegerarian and Vegan children have smaller brains than meat eaters.

Carrying veganism to its logical conclusion over hundreds of thousands of years would result in a regression in evolution and human kind returning to the trees over history as brain size reverted back to ape size.

But I guess we have to climb the trees anyway to get the bananas?

[icruise]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:

It is interesting that protein is what allows humans to develop from monkeys. Diets with protein allowed the brains to grow over time. It is a scientific fact that vegerarian and Vegan children have smaller brains than meat eaters.

Carrying veganism to its logical conclusion over hundreds of thousands of years would result in a regression in evolution and human kind returning to the trees over history as brain size reverted back to ape size.

I was going to try and respond to you, but I think you've done a better job discrediting yourself than I ever could. Thanks!

[shmerek]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:

It is interesting that protein is what allows humans to develop from monkeys. Diets with protein allowed the brains to grow over time. It is a scientific fact that vegerarian and Vegan children have smaller brains than meat eaters.

Carrying veganism to its logical conclusion over hundreds of thousands of years would result in a regression in evolution and human kind returning to the trees over history as brain size reverted back to ape size.

But I guess we have to climb the trees anyway to get the bananas?

Maybe the third time is a charm so I ask again: Prove it otherwise you are just a wank blowing hot air.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Okay, all I'm trying to get across here is that vegetarians ARE morally responsible for animals deaths as well, but meat-eating isn't inherently morally worse. The problem is not the food, but the methods of acquiring it. Don't fight meat as a whole, fight factory-farming, fight the pollution. It IS possible for a meat-eater to buy meat from free-range places, and in effect you are perhaps making more of a statement about the poor conditions in factory-farming and perhaps elsewhere than you would if you gave up meat altogether. Vegetarians are not morally-exempt, and meat-eaters are not necessarily morally worse off.

The thing is just existing causes death. I am sure when somebody walks down the road they step on bugs by accident. If you ride in a car or bus you will squish bugs and other things as well. What do you want people to do?

Whey can I not fight the problems as a whole if I see the production of meat at the root of varying problems why would I go after all the issues separately?

Ye is is possible for meat eaters to buy only free range beef but how many do that? How many restrict themselves only to free range beef and don't eat chicken and pork? I would guess not too many.

I never claimed moral exemption but I refute the one article's numbers and arguments it is flawed. Without exact statistics in correlation to types of crops and farm machinery vs animal deaths it is all speculation.

There is also organic farming in which pesticides are not used and hydroponics form various vegetables etc etc. Too many factors and not enough data to back up Davis's argument

I'm not going to get into the whole "bugs vs. cows" death thing but I just have to mention something about free-range animals. While some feel less guilt about eating these animals, free-range animals are still bred to be killed. There isn't a herd of old, wild cows roaming through the country waiting to be rounded up and led to the slaughter, is there? Sure, these "free range" animals get to munch on grass for a little while but their existence is only to satisfy your hunger!

[Nicko]

Originally posted by screamingFit:
I'm not going to get into the whole "bugs vs. cows" death thing but I just have to mention something about free-range animals. While some feel less guilt about eating these animals, free-range animals are still bred to be killed. There isn't a herd of old, wild cows roaming through the country waiting to be rounded up and led to the slaughter, is there? Sure, these "free range" animals get to munch on grass for a little while but their existence is only to satisfy your hunger!

Have you tried free range meat? Its awsome, tastes so much better. I guess it must have something to do with all that running around in the feild instead of spending their existance in a tiny cell.

On a related note, in some countries you can get things like chicken freshly slaughtered as you order it. The fresher the better!

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by screamingFit:
I'm not going to get into the whole "bugs vs. cows" death thing but I just have to mention something about free-range animals. While some feel less guilt about eating these animals, free-range animals are still bred to be killed. There isn't a herd of old, wild cows roaming through the country waiting to be rounded up and led to the slaughter, is there? Sure, these "free range" animals get to munch on grass for a little while but their existence is only to satisfy your hunger!

Ummm...consider the difference between factory-farmed cows and free-range cows...I think vegetarians and meat-eaters alike would agree that the living conditions of free-range are MUCH better.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by shmerek:
The thing is just existing causes death. I am sure when somebody walks down the road they step on bugs by accident. If you ride in a car or bus you will squish bugs and other things as well. What do you want people to do?

Whey can I not fight the problems as a whole if I see the production of meat at the root of varying problems why would I go after all the issues separately?

Yes, things kill each other for survival, meat has always held a place in our diet because our bodies are used to digesting it and it does things to our bodies and development that would either be harder to do or impossible in the vegetarian. Now while some of NYCFarmboy's claims seem bogus, I HAVE read the scientific claim that vegetarian children develop smaller brains (if you really want proof, I'll look it up for you). Obviously, we eat meat for some purpose (it used to be an omnivorous survival tactic: eat whatever you can to survive), and while it may not be as important in our adult lives (who knows? it could be), many vegetarian parents force the lifestyle onto their children.

Originally posted by shmerek:
Ye is is possible for meat eaters to buy only free range beef but how many do that? How many restrict themselves only to free range beef and don't eat chicken and pork? I would guess not too many.

Probably not, it would take some effort to make that statement; perhaps more so than buying vegetables instead. Oh, and I'm sure you can buy free-range chicken and pork (free-range eggs are available, after all) The number of deaths and living conditions of free-range animals are much lower and much better respectively. Personally, I think an increase in buying free-range meat would have a greater impact than foregoing the purchase of meat altogether.

Originally posted by shmerek:
I never claimed moral exemption but I refute the one article's numbers and arguments it is flawed. Without exact statistics in correlation to types of crops and farm machinery vs animal deaths it is all speculation.

There is also organic farming in which pesticides are not used and hydroponics form various vegetables etc etc. Too many factors and not enough data to back up Davis's argument

I never claimed the article to be the definitive answer, but it DOES make you think and does not rule out the idea that vegetarians may have no claim to moral superiority over their meat-eating contemporaries. There are other fights to fight, many in our own race. I'd think it would be more important to fix the way humans treat each other, then it would probably be easier to change the way humans treat other animals.

And remember, it's ALL relative, some vegetarians are probably responsible for more animals deaths than some meat-eaters and vice versa, depending on how much they eat and where they get their food. You are a vegetarian with good reason, I have mostly been referring to those that claim to be completely exempt from animal deaths and claim to be morally superior. That just goes into karma and I'm sure there are plenty of meat-eaters that do more for the world than many vegetarians. I understand that you are vegetarian because you feel it's the right thing to do, but please don't try to convert people...if anything, encourage them to eat free-range food.

You're still murdering another creature for your palatable enjoyment.

I think "Free Range" is a scam - nothing more than making people feel good about meat again after all the scares of disease and bio-engineering led to mass vegetarianism.

For example of being nice to the animals while they wait for their turn on your plate:

From: http://animalaid.org.uk/youth/topics/veggie/faq.htm

Does free-range mean cruelty-free?

The term 'free-range' suggests a happy farmyard full of animals wandering around contentedly. However, most 'free-range', 'freedom foods' and organically produced animals are still almost as intensively reared. For example, Pigs can have as little as 1m square of indoor floor space each, which is not much more than a phone box! Sheep and goats have 1.5m each when they are kept indoors during winter.

Organically reared and free-range chickens are usually kept in crowded sheds with access to an outdoor run. Outside, up to 2,500 chickens can be kept per hectare.

Organically farmed animals are still treated like mass-produced factory items, and they are slaughtered in exactly the same way as other animals. All the unwanted male chicks produced by the free-range egg industry are still killed, by being ground up alive or gassed.

And, from http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/qaeggs.htm

"Free-range" is not a legal industry term; therefore it is essentially meaningless. Farmers use the term to imply that they practice a more humane standard of production but, in reality, there is no regulation regarding how the word is interpreted or used. Although most consumers imagine free-range hens have access to the outdoors with plenty of sunlight, vegetation, and normal social interaction, to most egg producers, the "range" is simply a bigger cage than those in which battery-caged hens are kept.

Free-range egg farming is, above all else, a business. Consequently, profit surpasses concern for the animals' comfort, welfare, or behavioral needs. In addition, it is common for free-range layers to be debeaked just like battery-caged layers.

But even if free-range hens were treated with kindness and given all the space they could use, they will still be killed for meat when their egg production wanes, usually after one or two years, even though in a natural environment a hen could live fifteen years. And, like all other animals raised for food, they will be subjected to the horrors and abuses of transportation, handling, and slaughter.

An inherent problem with all egg production, whether free-range or battery-caged, is the disposal of unwanted male chicks at the hatchery. Because male chicks don't lay eggs and do not grow fast enough to be raised profitably for meat, they are deemed a financial liability, except for the few used as rooster studs. On average, one rooster is used to service ten hens. Hence, nine out of ten male chicks are considered virtually useless and will be killed by the cheapest means available, including suffocation and being ground up alive.

No matter what words or systems are used to candy coat animal production, when we treat sentient beings as commodities we invariably invite abuse. From a vegan perspective, the use of animals for human profit or gain, regardless of how they are raised or treated, is incompatible with vegan principles and the practice of compassionate living.

Murder is still murder.

[NYCFarmboy]

Doesn't anyone have any feelings at all for plant life?

Vegetarians are evil for eating plants.

Plants have feelings too!

I think it would be best for all vegetables if human beings left earth.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Now while some of NYCFarmboy's claims seem bogus, I HAVE read the scientific claim that vegetarian children develop smaller brains (if you really want proof, I'll look it up for you).

Please do. I'd be most interested to read about that. But in any case you do realize that there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence, yes?

[icruise]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Doesn't anyone have any feelings at all for plant life?

Vegetarians are evil for eating plants.

Plants have feelings too!

You sir, are a moron. We have already discussed this issue.

I think it would be best for all vegetables if human beings left earth.

I agree! Why don't you be the first to leave?

[Lerkfish]

*not having time to read the entire thread*
--has anyone brought up yet that animals kill other animals for food? In fact, the largest consumer of insects are other insects.
Even if human all became vegetarians, animals would still be eaten.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Icruise:


You sir, are a moron. We have already discussed this issue.



I agree! Why don't you be the first to leave? [/B]

I'm still waiting on the Animal Care Certified, Cruelty Free, Free Range, Organic, Non Vegetable, Meat Free, Non-Animal Care Tested Cyanide based kool-aid drink popular with the Jim Jones crowd in Guyana.

Speaking of which..weren't the followers of Jim Jones also forced to be vegetarian?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Please do. I'd be most interested to read about that. But in any case you do realize that there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence, yes?

It does among the same species (and there is definitely SOME correlation between species, even cows, animals much larger than humans, have much smaller brains...but yes, size is not quite as important to consider as complexity). We're talking about brain DEVELOPMENT here, though. The children in vegan families often don't develop their brains as thoroughly or quickly as they should, this is due to B12 deficiency (which could be overcome with supplements, I guess, but comes from milk, which vegans are without...oh and breastmilk from vegan mothers lack the vitamin, as well), excessive soy intake (soy milk-fed children intake a lot of estrogen, a hormone that affects their development), as well as fatty acids like DHA that are quite pivotal to the growth of a child (both inside and outside of the womb, and inside, they get all the DHA from food the mother eats...which won't be much from a vegetarian mother). Beyond development, it is believed that we developed from apes to humans today because of our eating of animal fats, the fatty acids helping us develop our brains.

Some sources I found:
http://www.aquarianonline.com/Wellness/soy2.html
http://www.healthwell.com/hnbreakthr...8/dhasrole.cfm

There are MANY more scientific reasons out there as to why meat should be included in our diet. I will bring them out if you so wish.

[Stradlater]

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

I found this link while scouring the web for more scientific information. An interesting read with excellent bibliography. The doctor has compiled quite a bit of information supporting that vegetarianism may not be as healthy as vegetarians will have people believe. I particularly agree with this:

Meat eaters must have sympathy for and agree with the animal rights campaigner where animals, which should be grazing in fields, are confined to pens and battery houses while their natural habitat is turned into golf courses and leisure grounds for us...

The only way to eradicate the forms of intensive farming which are so disliked, is to control and reduce the population and, hence, the need for such a system.

Not only will undertaking unnatural dietary practices not provide a solution, they are much more likely to exacerbate the situation.

Here's another site with a similar compilation:
http://drtong.com/what's_good_for_health.html

Please read and rebut if you can...I'm interested in hearing arguments against these.

[Stradlater]

If you're really worried about morals, join these guys:

http://niejedzenie.pl/english/breatharians.html
http://www.breatharian.com/

[icruise]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
*not having time to read the entire thread*
--has anyone brought up yet that animals kill other animals for food? In fact, the largest consumer of insects are other insects.
Even if human all became vegetarians, animals would still be eaten.

Yes, it's obvious that you didn't read the thread. This is a totally irrelevant point. Sorry, but it's true.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
It does among the same species

I assume, then, that you would agree that women are less intelligent than men, since they have smaller brains on average?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I assume, then, that you would agree that women are less intelligent than men, since they have smaller brains on average?

Maybe you shouldn't quote only part of my entry, I said complexity was the main issue. The brain size difference between men and women is minimal, and actually, men and women DO excel at different tasks, so yes, men are on the average "smarter" about some things, and women are on the average "smarter" about other things. (by "smarter" I mean that a portion of their brain is better developed and more suited for certain tasks).

OH, and size has nothing to do with development, which is the main issue here... The smaller size of vegetarian brains is due to slower and less development.

Sigh...now I'm waiting for a better argument.

[icruise]

I am not quoting out of context. Your argument goes as follows (correct me if I'm wrong):

Vegetarians have smaller brains.

Smaller brains mean less intelligence.

Vegetarians are less intelligent than meat eaters.

This is bull, since brain size is not related to IQ.

Show me the study that says vegetarians have less complex brains than meat eaters.

I can't believe I have to put up with this sh!t.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Icruise:


Please do. I'd be most interested to read about that. But in any case you do realize that there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence, yes? [/B]

Actually maybe the reason brain size is smaller in children of Vegetarians and Vegans is that Vegetarian & Vegan parent brain size is smaller to begin with?

If God had not meant for humans to eat meat, he wouldn't have made it taste so good.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I am not quoting out of context. Your argument goes as follows (correct me if I'm wrong):

Vegetarians have smaller brains.

Smaller brains mean less intelligence.

Vegetarians are less intelligent than meat eaters.

This is bull, since brain size is not related to IQ.

Show me the study that says vegetarians have less complex brains than meat eaters.

I can't believe I have to put up with this sh!t.

Here is your correction:

I said vegetarian children brain development is slower and that the eventual size of their brains are smaller. So yes, these children are likely less intelligent than they could have been. Let's go without so many variables:

Two children, identical genes, boys
One vegetarian, smaller, underdeveloped brain
One omnivore, larger, fully-developed brain

Do you understand now?

As for studies, the links I provided just above cite studies. You "can't believe [you] have to put up with this sh!t"? Likewise

[icruise]

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Icruise:

Is that the sound of you realizing that maybe you should be eating meat?

[Arkham_c]

I don't know which is worse, people from Las Vegas or "people" from planet Vega.

(sorry, couldn't resist)


Vegetarianism requires way too much self control for me to ever become one. I look forward to that very-rare beef tenderloin (wrapped in bacon during cooking) that my mother-in-law cooks for Christmas for 11 months of the year

I will say that I respect people who are committed to vegetarianism, whether for health or moral reasons. I just don't want people telling me what I personally can and cannot eat, because I'm willing to accept that I may be contributing to the cruelty to herd animals if that's what it takes. For what it's worth, my wife is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine with a BS in Agriculture/Animal Health (all food-animals) and she eats meat.

[icruise]

Stradlater

You know, I'm a reasonable person and a pacifist. I do not flame people, and in fact I always do my best to be civil.

But arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall. Actually, the brick wall would be preferable, since it wouldn't insult me or my beliefs, or use very questionable logic and sources to back up its arguments.

I'm outta here.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Icruise:
You know, I'm a reasonable person and a pacifist. I do not flame people, and in fact I always do my best to be civil.

But arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall. Actually, the brick wall would be preferable, since it wouldn't insult me or my beliefs, or use very questionable logic and sources to back up its arguments.

I'm outta here.

Funny, I don't think I was too offensive and I don't think I was uncivil. The moral arguments were more variable, on both of our parts. I think my "questionable" sources (some with extensive scientific bibliography) were better than no sources at all. Look, I brought some decent scientific arguments to the table towards the end, and I can't think of much of an argument against most of it. So I guess if you're quitting now because you can't argue it, then so be it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't approve of the conditions that most of these animals live in, but unfortunately, society has made it this way. Humans are SUPPOSED to eat meat, especially children. Vegans could not survive without artificial supplements. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians are better off than vegans, but they still could be healthier. I'm not saying meat-eaters are always healthier, I'm saying a delicate balance of both is probably healthiest. Again, I stand by this quotation:

Meat eaters must have sympathy for and agree with the animal rights campaigner where animals, which should be grazing in fields, are confined to pens and battery houses while their natural habitat is turned into golf courses and leisure grounds for us...

The only way to eradicate the forms of intensive farming which are so disliked, is to control and reduce the population and, hence, the need for such a system.

Not only will undertaking unnatural dietary practices not provide a solution, they are much more likely to exacerbate the situation.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
So I guess if you're quitting now because you can't argue it, then so be it.

I just KNEW you'd say that.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I just KNEW you'd say that.

Roll your eyes all you want. I urge you to prove the scientific studies wrong, then. I really am interested in hearing your arguments.

Really, you've responded to less and less of what I've typed as we've proceeded. Do you completely disagree with me? I have morals in mind, but I also have health in mind.

[icruise]

Fine, let's start over. Put all of your points into one post and I'll refute them.

[Spliff]

Stradlater,

I recently read an article about the Rolling Stones. The writer mentioned how small Mick Jagger and his bandmates are. They're small men because of rationing after WWII. Mick said that this is true for many Brits that grew up immediately after the war.

I'm sure that their brains are also smaller due to the food rationing. I'm sure that they didn't always get ideal nutrition for their brain development. But it doesn't follow that it affected them intellectually. Otherwise, there would be a whole generation of Brits will lower than average IQs.

Even the US governments own food and health scientists recommend a vegetarian diet for all ages. And if anyone has an interest in maintaining a healthy cattle industry, it's the US Government.

Here are some links:
"Growth and Development of Vegetarian Children"
http://www.europeanvegetarian.org/ev.../children.html

Should children be vegetarians?
http://www.aapn.org/vegkids.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/livin...ids020717.html

[Spliff]

http://www.drgreene.com/21_958.html

Vegetarian Kids

I often hear from parents who are concerned because their children will not eat meat, for one reason or another. A study published in the May 2002 issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine provides some encouraging news. Researchers looked at the diets of almost 5000 students at over 30 different middle and high schools, to find out how well they were meeting the Healthy People 2010 nutrition guidelines established by the US Department of Health and Human Services. On average, vegetarian kids had healthier diets and were more likely to meet the Healthy People 2010 standards. Notably, they had a healthier total fat intake, a healthier saturated fat intake, more servings of vegetables, more servings of fruits, less fast food, less junk food, and less fruit drinks and regular soda. On the down side, they did consume more diet soda, more caffeine, and less vitamin B12. Many parents ask me, �What about iron?� Vegetarians did a better job of getting the iron they need than their non-vegetarian peers. Whatever may be true theoretically, the typical vegetarian diet found in real life was significantly healthier than the typical non-vegetarian diet.

_
Alan Greene MD FAAP
May 15, 2002

[Spliff]

http://www.healthwell.com/hnbreakthr...l98/veggie.cfm

From "Your Vegetarian Children":

"In fact, well-fed vegetarian children may actually be healthier because they escape contamination from hormones and other chemicals fed to food animals. Eating lower on the food chain means children accumulate fewer pesticides and other toxic organochlorines such as PCBs and dioxin.20 These chemicals accumulate from birth in fat tissue, so healthy childhood diets can provide lifelong protection.

Adult vegetarians with a healthy lifestyle have a 30 percent lower chance of dying prematurely, and most causes of adult death are long-term conditions that may actually begin in childhood.21 Children who eat healthily from birth are instilled with intelligent eating habits--a skill that can mean a lifetime of good health."

[Spliff]

Vegan Diet Damages Baby�s Brain � Sensationalism!

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdou...tDamagesPF.htm

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Yes, it's obvious that you didn't read the thread. This is a totally irrelevant point. Sorry, but it's true.

Its obvious being a vegan does not improve one's diplomatic skills.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Its obvious being a vegan does not improve one's diplomatic skills.

I'm actually not vegan. But honestly, the point had nothing to do with what we were discussing. Actually, I think it's more rude of someone to jump into a thread without reading it and make comments. Nothing personal, though, Lerk.

[Spliff]

Neurologic Impairment in Children Associated with Maternal Dietary Deficiency of Cobalamin --- Georgia, 2001

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5204a1.htm

"Persons who follow vegetarian diets should ensure adequate cobalamin intake. The only reliable unfortified sources are animal products, including meat, dairy products, and eggs. Most naturally occurring plant sources of cobalamin are not bioavailable; however, plant foods fortified with cobalamin, such as some cereals, meat analogs, soy or rice beverages, and nutritional yeast (7), can be reliable and regular sources. The content of fortified food is usually listed on the food label and ingredient list. Fortified food and supplements made from cobalamin (e.g., cyanocobalamin) provide cobalamin that is physiologically active in humans (6). Products whose labels do not specify cobalamin and list only vitamin B12 might include nonbioavailable sources. Vegetarians, particularly women during pregnancy and lactation, should be knowledgeable about the cobalamin content of their food or seek nutritional advice. Few of the common infant-toddler cereals are fortified with cobalamin (8). Breast milk from mothers with adequate nutritional status, infant formula, cow's milk, or a cobalamin-fortified soy or rice beverage provide a cobalamin source for infants and children. If it is not possible to acquire the recommended dietary intake of cobalamin through food, a daily supplement should be taken that contains at least the recommended dietary intake of cobalamin from a reliable source."

[Zimphire]

veg�e�tar�i�an __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(vj-t�r-n)
n.
Old Indian word. Means "Those who cannot hunt"

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Stradlater,

I recently read an article about the Rolling Stones. The writer mentioned how small Mick Jagger and his bandmates are. They're small men because of rationing after WWII. Mick said that this is true for many Brits that grew up immediately after the war.

I'm sure that their brains are also smaller due to the food rationing. I'm sure that they didn't always get ideal nutrition for their brain development. But it doesn't follow that it affected them intellectually. Otherwise, there would be a whole generation of Brits will lower than average IQs.

Even the US governments own food and health scientists recommend a vegetarian diet for all ages. And if anyone has an interest in maintaining a healthy cattle industry, it's the US Government.

Here are some links:
"Growth and Development of Vegetarian Children"
http://www.europeanvegetarian.org/ev.../children.html

Should children be vegetarians?
http://www.aapn.org/vegkids.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/livin...ids020717.html

I'm curious as to who is to say that the intelligence levels of these British people aren't lower (albeit perhaps no terribly lower) than they could have been? None of these articles refute the lack of fatty acids that people can benefit from. They also stand by their soy products, which may not be as healthy as one might think, with high levels of estrogen, soy milk and products consumed by children may offset their hormones. Soy milk also contains denatured proteins, anti-nutrients, lysinealine (cancer-causing), and reduces the amount of some of our amino acids. Vegans often force soy-based formula onto their infants, which can lead to zinc deficiency and brain damage. Soy formula also does not have very much cholesterol, important for brain and nervous system growth, and contains 10x more aluminum than regular milk (100x more than breast milk). Vegans cannot consume a natural diet, they HAVE to consume fortified cereals and vitamins in order to get everything their body needs to be somewhat healthy (B12, Zinc, et cetera).

Some of the articles point out that children are healthier as vegetarians. On the whole this could be true, but it doesn't discount that omnivorous children potentially can be even healthier (and more easily) than vegetarians.