Animal Rights

Studies have come out recently in Atkins favor. Secondly, weight loss clinics such as Lindora have been getting people out of morbid obesity and into healthy lifestyles through rapid weight loss by ketogenic diets. I highly doubt Lindora would still be in business after 30 years if people were dropping dead from their diet. Secondly, most of studies concerning high protein content diets were looking at diets that were high in both protein and carbohydrates. And guess what? The protein in high protein diets can come from soy.

Obesity is NOT caused by eating meat or protein in and amongst themselves, it is caused by eating excess calories, which usually comes from a poor diet such as a diet high in fat and simple carbohydrates such as sugars, cereals, and white breads.

All of the evidence out there suggests that a balanced diet will have mostly non-starchy vegatables, fruits, whole grains, and lean meats or lean soy products. Suggesting that meat alone is causing heart attacks or obesity is patently false.

 

>>>I've seen the Atkins diet work. Although it doesn't entirely justify everyone eating meat it certainly demonstrates the need for duality in a balanced diet.<<<

I already posted an assessment of the Atkins diet in response to a post by JediMasterMom. In it you will find that the American Dietetic Association labled the Atkins diet a "nightmare".

>>>How I feel really has nothing to do with it. I'm not going to post such on opinion only to have it slandered by supposed facts. My answer is in the form of a question. If eating meat were not beneficial to humans, then how have we populated this planet faster than any other animal?<<<

Well you question is easily dismissed considering a plethera of animals have reached populous numbers that far surpass humans.

As far as your opinion is concerned, why not try facts? You see, I post data from reputable sources. Either you are ignoring it or you are claiming that it is suspect. If you are stating that it is not reputable, then call me out as I would you.

>>>We've eaten meat for thousands of years. Clearly we've evolved as omnivores. Now just because we can get by without eating meat, we should all live on beans? Just because we can doesn't make the decision obligatory. Science doesn't fully understand the body, how can science say that everyone will benefit from eating no meat? "Man has learned new ways of surviving" should really include a denotation of theory.<<<

Yes, but only on such a grand and horribly inhumane way for the last century. Of course you are not obligated to choose a vegetarian diet. Who says that you are?

>>So why is tradition not a valid reason for eating meat? Thousands of years of human experience shouldn't be just thrown out just because we can. History proves that if you do this without consideration then nothing is sacred. The lines have to be drawn somewhere. If one wants so dearly to extend a portion of human rights to animals then there will be someone that will want to do the same for vegetables and plants. Tradition draws the line at animals.<<<

Again, the current status of factory farming has NOT go on for thousands of years.

And for the record...again...I don't want to extend human rights to animals. I want you to extend a little bit of compassion to them. Just a small drop. Are we so incapable? Truly disgusting we have become when we bend the facts and argue that murder and brutality are to be followed blindly out of tradition. That change is something that we are unwilling to make at any price and at any cost. I feel a swell of pity for the human race, including myself that we have become so egotistical and blind that we assume that the world and all of its resouces are our playground to do with as we choose without consequence or responsiblity.

>>>While we're on the subject of pets...what should we feed them? Dogs won't eat beans, nor should they be forced to. We'd still need a meat industry to feed man's best friends. We'd still be killing millions of animals. Unless you want to feed Dispo pills.<<<

Actually, companies such as Purina are legally able to gather euthanized dogs and cats, grind them and incorporate them into dog food. Yum! Dogs do eat vegetables and they enjoy them as well. Another statement that has no facts to back it up.

Here you go!

 

>>>All of the evidence out there suggests that a balanced diet will have mostly non-starchy vegatables, fruits, whole grains, and lean meats or lean soy products. Suggesting that meat alone is causing heart attacks or obesity is patently false.<<<

Man! Ever feel like you are backed into a corner?

chibiangi

Of course, a well-balanced diet is going to be much more healthy than the American standard. I don't argue to the contrary. I have never and will never suggest that meat is the sole cause of heart disease, but you cannot argue that excessive meat-comsumption is a contributing factor and a substantial one at that.

Head back a few pages, I have posted the amount of meat prodced in the United States. It is staggering and it hardly suggests a diverse diet.

 

Oh, just start eating Kosher red and white meats everybody!

It's the way to go. No chemicals, no cruelty, painless death!

On the other subject, I did the Atkin's diet about 4 years ago. It worked real well for me. I dropped the 20 pounds I gained when I spent the summer at my dad's doing nothing but loafing around and drinking beer and eating fatty foods. Got me back to the lean mean fighting machine I was before that summer.

Dropped the 20 pounds in 2 and a half weeks with the Atkins.

 

Sources from the web are not reputable.

Edit: Even reputable sources can be incorrect. In fact they frequently are.

Edit2: Calling this a reputable source is nuts. More propaganda from the extreme. I mean "all-creatures.org"? Doesn't that ring bias to anyone else? If not then look at the text.

Vegan - Vegetarian - Human Rights - Animal Rights - People - Animals - Love - Compassion - Peace - Justice - Righteousness - God - Bible - Jewish - Christian - Jesus - Christ - Holy Spirit - Soul - Spirit - Wisdom - Knowledge - Environment

Talk about search bait...

 

JediTre11

>>>Sources from the web are not reputable.

Edit: Even reputable sources can be incorrect. In fact they frequently are.

Edit2: Calling this a reputable source is nuts. More propaganda from the extreme. I mean "all-creatures.org"? Doesn't that ring bias to anyone else? If not then look at the text.<<<

How about web sources directly from the USDA in regards to USDA data? Pretty sad that you would contest that. Keep grasping. I would refute your data, however, you haven't supplied any.

As far as Your primary EDIT, would you care to issue a challenge to any of my sources. If so, please name it and propose data that refutes it. Thanks.

Edit 2: I never called that particular link a source. HELLO, you asked me what my dog ate and I answered. Nice spin though! I gave you a web site that list numerous companies that sell vegetarian dog food. Maybe you should look at the site before making such outlandish statements. Are you saying that these vegetarian dogs foods do not exist because they are listed on a site that promotes animal rights? I am really starting to question your motivations here.

Since you attempted to call me out, why don't you take one post to respond to my retort instead of jumping ahead, as is the normal pattern developing here.

Atkins diet

Any diet in which you reduce your caloric intake will result in a loss of body mass plain and simple. I would tend to question one that advocates eliminating healthy grains and vegetables in favor of meat and so would a large portion of the medical community, including this REPUTABLE sources:

"The American Heart Association (AHA) has published a position statement against high-protein diets. An article in the AHA journal Circulation published on October 9, 2001, explains that weight loss that occurs as a result of a high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet is likely to be mostly water weight.

The AHA states: "High-protein diets may be associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease. . .When diets high in protein are severely limited in carbohydrates, food choices become restrictive and overall nutrient adequacy and long-term palatability are also of concern. Successful weight loss occurs most frequently when a nutritionally adequate diet that allows for caloric deficits. . .is tailored according to individual food preferences. A minimum of 1,200 calories per day for women and 1,500 calories per day for men should be provided. . .Over the long term, diet should be consistent with a balanced eating plan that supports weight maintenance and lowers chronic disease risk."

In any case, it seems that you only wish to attempt to discredit my data while offering none of your own. I provide links and facts to back up my statements. You do not. You don't challenge my data, nor can you provide any to the contrary. The best you can do is try to discredit the entire web as a resource, even calling into question reputable government data. As I said, grasping at straws.

 

DEA, I need to quote from biased websites now do I? LOL. Mate, my cousin owns a sheep station in WA. I can't remember the figures but it is several thousand hectares in size. I've been there many, many times. It's what you'd call a "Mom and Pop" operation, which is the norm in Australia. I know how farming works in this country I've seen it, obviously you haven't. I've also seen how they slaughter chickens in NSW. I visited for my studies. Chickens are slaughtered humanely in Australia, I saw no signs of cruelty, in fact it was a very slick operation, that's why I was there whilst studying engineering.

 

DEA, I need to quote from biased websites now do I? LOL. Mate, my cousin owns a sheep station in WA. I can't remember the figures but it is several thousand hectares in size. I've been there many, many times. It's what you'd call a "Mom and Pop" operation, which is the norm in Australia. I know how farming works in this country I've seen it, obviously you haven't. I've also seen how they slaughter chickens in NSW. I visited for my studies. Chickens are slaughtered humanely in Australia, I saw no signs of cruelty, in fact it was a very slick operation, that's why I was there whilst studying engineering.

Personal experience means nothing in a debate like this. Only verifiable statistics will convince anyone. What you've seen with your own eyes is about as reliable as the Bush family. It irritates me when people say "I've seen a farm so that's how they must all be." Show us something we can double-check. That's what counts.

- Scarlet.

 

I'm not hoping to convince DEA or you of anything. I could point you to the NSW State Government regulations in regards to proper handling and slaughtering of livestock but you or DEA will say it's not regulated so it's useless like he did before. I could go to meateatersRus.com for a little "unbiased" information about eating meat, but I really don't think there's any reason to. I'm not the one trying to change anything.

I honestly don't care if you think that my personal experience is not enough for you. It's enough for me. You people are the ones trying to convince me and others that meat consumption is bad. I'm telling you why I disagree. I don't have to prove anything to you. You haven't proven anything to me.

Labelling us Nazis and comparing us to Hitler is an especially brilliant move.

 

How about web sources directly from the USDA in regards to USDA data?

Do you mean the actual USDA website? The USDA isn't an agency that is meant to publish on the web. Meaning the information on the web is also published in print as a primary source. When its on the web, its not a primary source. Its been dumbed down in content for the average web user. A researcher or a lobbyist won't cite a web publication, they'll cite the print.

Yes I am refuting the data you've given. You're statistics are not from the studies, they are to general to be anything but a sum of everything. This is a typical move for any politician wanting to get ahead. Its what prompted Konstantin Pobedonostsev to say, and I quote, "[The people are]explioted with success by politicians who seek power; the art of creating generalities serves for them as a most convenient instrument." in his Reflections of a Russian Statesman, published in 1898 by Grant Richards of London. Pobedonostsev goes on to imply that a person that is not part of a mob, that can think for themselves isn't convinced or persuaded by such generalities.

Scarlet, if you haven't read Pobedonostsev I'm sure you'd like it. Its the political version of Marxist criticisms of western economics.

 

JediTre11,

>>>The USDA isn't an agency that is meant to publish on the web.<<<

That's why they set up the NASS, a division that is expressly meant to tabulate and publish data, both on paper and on the web.

Of course, if you would have actually taken the time to look at any of it you would have noticed the footnotes that reference the hard copy. I guess it doesn't matter if it is reputable or not since you only ignore it anyway. Typical. Take of the blinders and have a looksee, or are you afraid of what is there?

>>>Yes I am refuting the data you've given. You're statistics are not from the studies, they are to general to be anything but a sum of everything.<<<

Wrong, they are the studies as I stated above. Care to post an example? They are not a summation as they go into great detail. Again, if you would have so much as glanced it over, you would have known this.

>>>This is a typical move for any politician wanting to get ahead.<<<

Funny, I am not running for office and the USDA isn't going anywhere anytime soon. What, pray tell, do you mean by this statement?

>>>Pobedonostsev goes on to imply that a person that is not part of a mob, that can think for themselves isn't convinced or persuaded by such generalities.<<<

Ah, but why then are you ignoring the data and choosing to keep chugging along with the mob? You didn't make the descision to eat meat, it was made for you as a child. Now, instead of taking a look at it's effect upon the world and yourself, you blindly continue to follow the mob.

It's all here in the thread, I am the extremeist on the outside of the mob, remember. Pobedonostsev would have loved me.

Give life a chance.

 

DEA, please refrain from making personal jabs.

JediTre, I trust you will refrain from responding in kind.

 

DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY said Give life a chance

Well that rules out eating everything but synthetic proteins doesn't it?

Bon Apetite!

 

Ofcourse. I've read the TOS.

 

The fact of the matter still remains that no one has supplied any data the the contrary of mine.

If anyone would care to provide data that counters mine in anyway, please post it. If not, calling mine false is just an empty comment with nothing to support it.

JediTre11, questioned data from the USDA's statistics arm, the NASS. Since one the USDA's principal mandates is to promote agriculture, I think that if any biased exists within the organization, it is definatley not one that would seek to aid my side of the argument.

So, you say that the USDA source is not credible? Why? I have already reponded to the allegation that the data is generalzed for the web (false) and that the data is used for political means (false).

So, again I issue a request. Anyone who has data from a credible source that would like to present it as a challenge to my data's credibility or correctness, please do so now. Otherwise, let's accept it and move on.

 

Since we seem to be stuck on the dietary aspects of our society, let's break it down further. I will list reasons why I feel that a vegetarian diet is more beneficial for humans to employ than the current diet. I will refrain from using a moral or religious argument and stick mainly to the factual information. Please list your reasons that a carnivorous is superior to a vegetarian diet.

Employing a vegetarian diet would allow for a much greater food supply that is needed to feed starving humans throughout the world over. Without increasing agricultural production, and instead rerouting the foodstores away from cattle and to humans, many people in need of food could be fed.

Vegetarian diets have been shown to be nutritionally sound and in many studies they have shown a marked increase in longevity, a decrease in cancer rates, and a decrease in heart related deaths.

Vegetarian diets do vastly less destruction to our world environment and ecosystem. They are less pollutant and consume far less resources to produce consumable food.


Please provide yours. If you would like to dispute any information that I have provided, please do so by providing information to the contrary along with a referenced source.

 

Let me ask a simple question(alright a few questions ):

It has been shown in studies that Chimps and Gorillas have the emotional and intellectual development of at least a four year old child has it not?

Why would people not accord the same rights and protections to the Great Apes we afford our own children?

I'm talking about protections basically.

Just a few questions.

 

Employing a vegetarian diet would allow for a much greater food supply that is needed to feed starving humans throughout the world over. Without increasing agricultural production, and instead rerouting the foodstores away from cattle and to humans, many people in need of food could be fed.

Actually, I see it more that worldwide, there is not a food shortage, but locally in some/many nations, there is. It is not that there is not enough food here, it is a matter of getting it to the places where it would do more good. Now if the nations that already have an excess have even more, maybe more of it would trickle to the places that need it, maybe not.

Also, can anyone wonder about the economic impacts of producing a lot more food for human consumption? With my too basic grasp of economics...if some or all of the food used for livestock were transfered to people, the market would be flooded and the price would go down to the point that it would not be profitable for farmers to farm.

Vegetarian diets have been shown to be nutritionally sound and in many studies they have shown a marked increase in longevity, a decrease in cancer rates, and a decrease in heart related deaths.

I am going to assume that is when compaired to the current diet (you said as such above). Is it still true for a truly ballanced diet? They are not the same thing despite what people eating the current diet believe. If a person beleives that they are eating a ballanced diet, and are not, then their beliefe is wrong, as wrong as me beleiving that I am floating instead of sitting in my chair.

Vegetarian diets do vastly less destruction to our world environment and ecosystem. They are less pollutant and consume far less resources to produce consumable food.

Um I am sure you have explained this, so forgive me for asking, but how so? Is it that we have to produce the feed for all the animals? Is it that we cook animals with fire?

 

"They are less pollutant and consume far less resources to produce consumable food."

If you're talking crops with chemical insect detterent, not organic. If you're talking organic, your argument is out the window.

It takes two to three times as much farmland and mositure to maintain organic crops. They can likewise be highly inefficient and wasteful. What a waste of food.

 

EnforcerSG,

There are many peoples who are suffering the blight of starvation. One region is far too many if you ask me.

As far as the economic difficulties that would arise out of a shift away from meat production, I am unsure. I do realize that no immediate end could ever be achieved. Things must be shifted gradually. I look at it as two paths that start at the same point. We have trodden down one for so long that to turn around and head towards the beginning of the other will not only take time, but also patience and resolve, but it CAN be done.

The diet statistics that I was referencing are usually compared to the national averages.

Environmental concerns.

Methane gas from cattle is a very significant contributor to "Greenhouse gasses". Try not to laugh, we are talking cow farts here.

Ammonia, fecal matter, and fertilizers contribute to ground water pollution and acid rain. In December 1997, the Senate Agricultural Committee released a report stating that animals raised for food produce 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population, roughly 68,000 pounds a second!

Inefficient use of natural resources. Millions of humans go hungry while the developed world has excess. In fact, food production animals utilize more water than all of the other uses combined. Estimates place one-pound of meat requiring 2500 gallons of water to produce while a grain, such as wheat takes 25. One-third of all fossil fuel used in the US goes directly to meat production.

Millions of acres of rain forest are cleared to make way for grazing pastures. Of all agricultural land in the U.S., 87 percent is used to raise animals for food. That's 45 percent of the total land mass in the U.S. About 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to produce our meat-centered diet.

Excessive grazing and land usage causes soil erosion and nutrient depletion. In the U.S., animals are fed more than 80 percent of the corn we grow and more than 95 percent of the oats. The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people -- more than the entire human population on Earth. According to the Worldwatch Institute

EnforcerSG,

What I would really like is what you believe the benefits of the current diet are to the human populous. What benefits outweigh the heavy price we must pay to continue to produce meat? Surely it can't be taste, there has to be something huge there to command such a heavy toll.

 

Thanks for the link DEA. I will read that piece.

But first a few ? What about fish and waterfowl? They do not consume near the amounts of cattle.

I agree with you that the containment and eventual slaughter of cattle is inhumane, but range cattle consume far more than slaughterhouse cattle. I'm not saying it's right, just that there's a difference in the amount of destruction and food consumed dependent on type of livestock.

 

It has been shown in studies that Chimps and Gorillas have the emotional and intellectual development of at least a four year old child has it not?

Why would people not accord the same rights and protections to the Great Apes we afford our own children

There was actually an attempt to get higher apes basic rights here in NZ a while back, but it didn't suceed ... something to do with it already being covered under animal rights laws.

In some countries, animals actually have more rights than children ... it is easier to be prosecuted and convicted of hitting an animal than of hitting a child.

 

"In some countries, animals actually have more rights than children ... it is easier to be prosecuted and convicted of hitting an animal than of hitting a child."

Well, that is ridiculous and counterproductive.

Great Apes in NZ? Huh?

 

Of course, if you would have actually taken the time to look at any of it you would have noticed the footnotes that reference the hard copy.

DEA, the fact that there are footnotes referencing the study means the data isn't a primary source. Its skimmed through and generalized on for the web (true).

The political reference wasn't aimed at you, I'm sorry you didn't see my generalization. Politicians do use statistics for their own ends (undeniably true).

Pobedonostsev believed in the general will. He did not support extremists. An extremist opinion is not the general will. Pobedonostsev would not have loved you. You were saying something about "glancing over"
as a reference for "knowledge"...?

We've been debating about cows, pigs, and various poultry. Any other animal...I won't eat it. I don't even eat chicken and pork more than once a month. I eat meat maybe twice a week. But we're forgeting about the rest of the oppressed animal kingdom. There does exist a fate worse than death.

Imagine being experimented on. All kinds of animals are used for this.
Imagine being taught tricks, and being made to perform for your food. Various aquatic animals are destined for this fate.
Imagine being mamed by a large metal prop. Left to die floating in the ocean, waiting for a predetor to come by, or for the decy to disable various life functions. Or to just starve to death because you were only injured and can't compete for food any longer.
Imagine being caged for simple observation. Zoos operate under the cloud of "education", but I don't buy it. Its preservation, a move for saving face when the animals eventually go the way of the Dodo in the wild.
Imagine being caged for mear visual appeasment and aesthetics. Billions of gold fish are condemned to be staved to death by neglegant children, or to swim from one end of the tank to the other in hospitals all over the world.

In comparison, killing cows, pigs and chickens seems like mercy. Don't ask for an example, this is an opinion any pessimistic extremist would entertain.

In defense of Americans and other western countries: we are very progessive in regaurd to animal rights. Fur is out of style, most animals are federally protected along with their habitats, various trades are outlawed and enforcement overseas comes in the form of foreign aid (bribes).

Why should we have meat in our diet? Because we already do so much. Consider our food the martyr of the animal kingdom. Just without the religious denotations.

 

Imagine being experimented on. All kinds of animals are used for this.

Which is why I avoid, at all cost, goods that are tested in this way. Do you?

Imagine being taught tricks, and being made to perform for your food. Various aquatic animals are destined for this fate.

Which is why these "parks" will never get a cent from me and why I will stand in front of them and let others know about them. Do you?

Imagine being caged for simple observation. Zoos operate under the cloud of "education", but I don't buy it. Its preservation, a move for saving face when the animals eventually go the way of the Dodo in the wild.

It's also a way to support "canned hunts", something many Zoos participate in. That is why I do not give them my money and why I protest them. Do you?

Imagine being caged for mear visual appeasment and aesthetics. Billions of gold fish are condemned to be staved to death by neglegant children, or to swim from one end of the tank to the other in hospitals all over the world.

I have actually complained at stores about the conditions that they keep their fish in. They are treated like a commodity, like bags of chips. I don't like retail pets stores of any kind and I let them know it. Do you?

In comparison, killing cows, pigs and chickens seems like mercy. Don't ask for an example, this is an opinion any pessimistic extremist would entertain.

Given the choice between having to live and die as a factory farm animal or as any of the animals you have named, I would choose the latter, every single time. The amount and length of suffering that factory farm animals endure dwarfs all of your example a hundred fold. Imagine being torn from your mother after a few short weeks only to be penned between cold bards where you cant som much as turn or lay down. Each and everytime you lift your head, an electric shock is delivered to your spine. Eventually you will be standing in a pile of your own urine and excrement along with thousands of others around you. The very food that is fed to you causes searing pain and vomitting. As soon as you reaxch weight you are haulled of the the slaughter house where, in many cases, thousands of animals are slaughtered by the hour, often while still fully conscious. Now multiply this by billions monthly and you will begin to understand, because the scenario have listed above is one of the most gentle treatments a farm animal will receive from a factor farm.

In defense of Americans and other western countries: we are very progessive in regaurd to animal rights. Fur is out of style, most animals are federally protected along with their habitats, various trades are outlawed and enforcement overseas comes in the form of foreign aid (bribes).

No, almost all European nations are far more progressive than we are. In fact, Germany recently adopted animals into their constitution along side humans. Fur is very in vogue, just head to any major department store in your area or open up any major fashion magazine, it's very blatant. As far as laws are concerned, number one they aren't enforced, number two the laws are designed to allow discretions to slip through. Many of them only come with a simple misdemeanor. Our nations farm bill is so watered down that is pratically provides no protection for animals.

Why should we have meat in our diet? Because we already do so much. Consider our food the martyr of the animal kingdom. Just without the religious denotations.

I was asking for a benefit to the human race that outweighed the positives of a vegetarian diet that I provided. Is your answer "because we already do"? Does that dismiss the heavy cost associated? We can change. I did.