Meat diets vs. vegetarianism

Ridiculous, Ian. It's only vegans who miss out on vitamins and other important nutrients.

More seriously: yes, of course - and, not that you need to confirm so obvious a fact, it is elementary to confirm it via any of the various web apps that allow you to check the nutrient profiles of different foods; web apps such as https://nutritiondata.self.com/ and https://cronometer.com/ to name but two.

Regarding this, I'm sure you're aware but thought I'd just mention... the nutrient profiles in the foods are not the only thing to consider... there's also absorption, bioavailability, and necessity for different metabolic processes (i.e. vitamin C is necessary to process carbs, but not fat), and probably more.

 I believe a normal average person not exposed to pathogens or harmful chemicals or injected with allergens, should be able to tolerate and thrive on a very wide variety of foods if they keep sugar/alcohol intake to a minimum, eat local organic foods, and don't artificially mess with macro-nutrients (e.g. don't eat "low-fat" things, eat whole things).

I say this as I eat Chik-fil-a chicken biscuits... dammit a vendor brought them to work this morning and I can't resist!

[Laird]

Great post, Hurm.

Based on what I know of biology, a typical healthy human has the ability to adapt to a wide range of diets

Agreed. Though I am (understandably) broadly sympathetic to the claims of superior health on a vegan ("plant-based") diet, that which you state is, I think, the basic fact from which we extend. Humans can survive, even to an at least relatively healthy extent, on almost anything.

Some vegans are ideologically opposed to meat based on empathy for animals which is completely understandable

Yes. This is my fundamental position, before even getting to health and environmental concerns: if harm (to sentient life) can be avoided, then it should be avoided. It is complicated though by the - in my view - likelihood that plants, too, are sentient beings. Were it not for that "complication" (really, in my view: recognition), then things would be a lot simpler and more absolute.

Many omnivores and carnivores are opposed to factory farming for the same reason - empathy for animals

Of which (the empathy and opposition) I know without even having to ask you are totally supportive - as of course am I.

Re the left-wing (global warming and environment) versus right-wing ideologies, you won't be surprised that I lean left - just as I wouldn't (won't) be surprised by your tendency towards the right...

So much more in your "fibrous" (!) post will have to be responded to by others...

[Laird]

Regarding this, I'm sure you're aware but thought I'd just mention... the nutrient profiles in the foods are not the only thing to consider... there's also absorption, bioavailability, and necessity for different metabolic processes (i.e. vitamin C is necessary to process carbs, but not fat), and probably more.

Am aware, yes, but not particularly well-informed...

To be serious for once and giving my thoughts about this topic, I’m feeling rather confused and left with a kind of “ what the hell’s all this about?” type of vibe.

To be honest, only in the last year or so am I trying to eat only prawns or fish on a daily basis, but would rather eat left over meat occasionally than see it thrown in the bin. I don’t bat an eyelid if we go for dinner somewhere and there’s only a meat dish on the table, Eithne knows this. I know, prawns and fish meat is meat! I tried vegetarianism for a short while at school, because a girl I liked convinced me to do so. Living off lettuce and tomato sandwiches alone isn’t good for you, and as my mum had little sympathy for my eating habits, it was basically all I ate. For a week or so!

I like to think that fisherpeople are more likely to be connected to the sea and have some love and respect for the things therein. It’s not the same with land animals. In my ignorance, I like to believe that prawns and fish are somehow less able to feel that their ‘world’ is less limited, even if they are in a tank. The way that we treat the animals we eat is often shameful, the factory farming practises that go on are a disgrace. If I had to kill the animals myself, I probably could, but possibly not. I don’t kill anything except by accident. Is that hypocrisy? It possibly is. The whole topic’s a minefield! What I frequently see is the total lack of empathy for these animals by those in the business. That is why I try not to eat them. Am I wrong? Who knows, I’m just trying my best.

I remember raising the subject with a fighter pilot pal of mine many years ago, little did I know that he had a degree in botany! In my ignorance I had unwittingly stepped into a minefield! He ripped apart my defence of vegetarianism with the very argument that Laird is aware of, that plants are sentient beings too. I made a hasty retreat and immediately changed the subject back to swept wings and high paid airline jobs!!!!

Now the same guy is retired from the airlines and he and his wife are committed Jehovahs Witnesses.

The Eating and Drinking passage from The Prophet seems to point towards a truth, but even it doesn’t fully satisfy :

http://www.katsandogz.com/oneating.html

As I’ve said, my wife (Eithne) has been looking into these things much more than I have. I have read a couple of books and a few articles and maybe twenty YouTube videos, mainly on the low carb diet as its the only one that has worked for me. David Bailey introduced me to the Cholestorol debate some years back on the Skeptiko forum. As most of you might know, I don’t think I’m a conformist where things like this are concerned and most of the videos I watched and books like The Great Cholestorol Con added to my sceptical picture.

Laird vs David.

Who knows who is ‘right’? Probably neither and both.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To be serious for once and giving my thoughts about this topic, I’m feeling rather confused and left with a kind of “ what the hell’s all this about?” type of vibe.

To be honest, only in the last year or so am I trying to eat only prawns or fish on a daily basis, but would rather eat left over meat occasionally than see it thrown in the bin. I don’t bat an eyelid if we go for dinner somewhere and there’s only a meat dish on the table, Eithne knows this. I know, prawns and fish meat is meat! I tried vegetarianism for a short while at school, because a girl I liked convinced me to do so. Living off lettuce and tomato sandwiches alone isn’t good for you, and as my mum had little sympathy for my eating habits, it was basically all I ate. For a week or so!

I like to think that fisherpeople are more likely to be connected to the sea and have some love and respect for the things therein. It’s not the same with land animals. In my ignorance, I like to believe that prawns and fish are somehow less able to feel that their ‘world’ is less limited, even if they are in a tank. The way that we treat the animals we eat is often shameful, the factory farming practises that go on are a disgrace. If I had to kill the animals myself, I probably could, but possibly not. I don’t kill anything except by accident. Is that hypocrisy? It possibly is. The whole topic’s a minefield! What I frequently see is the total lack of empathy for these animals by those in the business. That is why I try not to eat them. Am I wrong? Who knows, I’m just trying my best.

I remember raising the subject with a fighter pilot pal of mine many years ago, little did I know that he had a degree in botany! In my ignorance I had unwittingly stepped into a minefield! He ripped apart my defence of vegetarianism with the very argument that Laird is aware of, that plants are sentient beings too. I made a hasty retreat and immediately changed the subject back to swept wings and high paid airline jobs!!!!

Now the same guy is retired from the airlines and he and his wife are committed Jehovahs Witnesses.

The Eating and Drinking passage from The Prophet seems to point towards a truth, but even it doesn’t fully satisfy :

http://www.katsandogz.com/oneating.html

As I’ve said, my wife (Eithne) has been looking into these things much more than I have. I have read a couple of books and a few articles and maybe twenty YouTube videos, mainly on the low carb diet as its the only one that has worked for me. David Bailey introduced me to the Cholestorol debate some years back on the Skeptiko forum. As most of you might know, I don’t think I’m a conformist where things like this are concerned and most of the videos I watched and books like The Great Cholestorol Con added to my sceptical picture.

Laird vs David.

Who knows who is ‘right’? Probably neither and both.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m with you on this Stan. Perhaps it’s a question of degree to some extent. To equate mammals and plants isn’t a line of argument I find convincing.

At least you’re making an effort. Seems to me that’s a step in the direction of your conscience even if it isn’t perfect or the final step. It’s not as if there’s any need to compel others to follow your example. Life’s a journey imho.

I’m with you on this Stan. Perhaps it’s a question of degree to some extent. To equate mammals and plants isn’t a line of argument I find convincing.

At least you’re making an effort. Seems to me that’s a step in the direction of your conscience even if it isn’t perfect or the final step. It’s not as if there’s any need to compel others to follow your example. Life’s a journey imho.

Strangely enough, I do find it convincing. At least convincing enough that I’m disturbed by it!

[Laird]

Strangely enough, I do find it convincing. At least convincing enough that I’m disturbed by it!

I think it's reasonable to be convinced, especially when you have evidence like this:

Mythbusters - Plants have feelings (primary perception)



The best response of "skeptics" seems to be "Yes, plants react to human thoughts, but it's a non-conscious reaction", which in turn I don't find convincing...

Edit: to elaborate a little on why: a thought is by definition associated with consciousness, so in the absence of physical mediation of the thought - which indeed does seem to be absent in this case - we are left with the likelihood that this is mind-to-mind communication, which (likely) entails that plants have minds and thus are sentient.

I guess it depends why a person is avoiding meat. If the suggestion is that plants respond in some way to stimulus or show signs of intelligence so it’s ok to slaughter mammals (or anything else for that matter) I don’t buy it. Each to their own I guess..

I think plants have some form of sentience, but it seems unlikely that their sentience is on the same level as animals (would anyone seriously claim it is?). 

 Counter intuitively - vegans and vegetarians are responsible for the harvesting of less plants anyway. This is due to the amount of plants fed to the livestock that are then eaten.