(January 20, 2014 at 9:39 am)Aractus Wrote:

(January 20, 2014 at 9:21 am)jg2014 Wrote: I have never disagreed that SDA primarily promotes a vegetarian diet. Never the less as the study shows many SDA ists are vegan, and they have better health.

No it doesn't. You're misleading people by what you're saying. There are no objective studies anywhere that show that a vegan diet is healthier than a balanced omnivorous diet. There are plenty of studies, however, that prove what people in this thread have told you from their own personal experiences which is that the majority of Vegans are deficient in a number of important areas - iron deficiency, protein deficiency, etc.

You are removing all high quality protein on a Vegan diet!!

Quote:re processed food, if eat eating proceeded food is good, eg kills bacteria in meat and increase the available energy content of starchy foods, then why is it bad that vegans have to eat some processed food. If you think you could be healthy on an diet of unprocessed food, then you will run the risk of getting food poisoning from all the raw meat you will be eating.

Firstly, you can eat pasteurized raw meat safely. But honestly, most people don't want to eat raw meat. Cooking food doesn't make it processed. A processed food is a prepacked food with a number of ingredients that you didn't make yourself and is generally ready for immediate consumption.

---

(January 20, 2014 at 9:21 am)jg2014 Wrote: so the only thing you eat in these weeks of not eating processed food is raw meat, raw veg, fruit, milk and nuts. No bread or anything made from flour, no pasta, no vegetables which can't be eaten raw eg potatoes, no pulses which have to be cooked eg beans or lentils. is this the case? There is nothing wrong with eating processed food. Some processed food is good for health some bad. just like eating raw meat is generally bad.

Um no, I didn't say that. I said processed not uncooked.

1. Please provide a link to a study that shows vegans have a shorter life expectancy. The study I provided is widely regarded by nutritionists as the best study going. Give it a read. The evidence speaks for itself, and it is why the NHS and the ADS say that being vegans are healthy. If vegans are so deficient then why do the vegans in the study I adventist study live longer than meat eaters?

2. If a well planned vegan diet is protein deficient, and causes illness in people, then provide a study showing that this is the case

3. you do realise that all people do when they process food is to cook multiple ingredients to make a meal right? its not some type of magical process. Processed food can be unhealthy if too much fat, sugar or salt is added, but then so is food cooked at home. Fundamentally there is no difference between a processed food (eg a microwave pasta meal) and one you cooked at home. Processing food means exactly the same thing as cooking it.

Quote:You are removing all high quality protein on a Vegan diet!!

Protein is protein. A molecule of Amino Acid from a plant is identical to that found in beef Steak. There is no quality issue, that is a complete invention.

I push weights and keep muscle density and I am well into my fourties.

While most people would consider cooking or even pastuerising as "processing" I really don't want to get bogged down in definitions. So why do you consider obtaining B12 from bacteria bad? It is chemically identical to that in meat, it is even used to treat pernicious anaemia (which even meat eaters can get).

Being vegan is healthy, reduces the risk of acquiring a number of diseases and increases life expectancy. Eating meat on the other had is merely cruel.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And btw, I saw you have copied and pasted your paragraph about cows and bulls from some website or other. It doesn't lend credibility to your argument when you didn't write it yourself.

Everything I write here, unless in quotation marks, is written by me. However you are right, that some of what I write may also be found on other websites. How would you solve this logical puzzle?

---

(January 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Your whole argument seems to be that animals suffer, so we shouldn't eat them. Well, if animals didn't suffer would it be ok to eat them?

And besides, animals we eat have a better life than they would in the wild. No predators to worry about, a consistant supply of food, a safe place to sleep at night. And at the end, a relatively painless death. Euthanasia. Even we aren't allowed to do that to humans who are suffering. Most of the time, these animals actually get an easier death than humans. I would much rather be killed like a cow than lying in a hospital bed struggling to breath from old age. Or wasting away from cancer and some other disease.

---

Obsession with eating meat? No it doesn't work like that. Eating meat, is completely normal and natural. It is in fact you that has the obsession.

Firstly, any form of killing that prevents an animal from living its full life span is inducing a form of suffering.

Secondly, I would argue that life on a farm is far worse. At least in the wild I have a rich and complex environment to explore. On a farm it its monotonous, with every single young animal forcibly removed from its mother. Overfed and over weight, in a dense population were disease is easily spread. Udder infections branding, dehorning, clipping of the chickens beak. Its a horrible life. At least as a wild animals I have a chance.

Thirdly, ethical concerns comprise of the effects of actions of ethical beings. Animals are amoral, so the effects of their relations are similarly not of ethical concern. Your actions have are and eating meat is cruel and wrong.


Lastly, you say that your obsession with meat is not an obsession because it is natural and normal. Sounds like two fallacies in one sentence. Appeal to the people, and to nature.

---

(January 20, 2014 at 10:35 am)enrico Wrote: Question 1
I am vegetarian (almost vegan if wouldn't be for the mozzarella on the pizza) and i don't take B12 supplement.
I am still alive and well.
How is possible considering that somebody said that without B12 you can't make it?
Question 2
Herbivores do not eat meat (obviously) so how come that their flesh is full of B12?

Hi Enrico,

Mozzarella has B12, as do all cheeses/milk. If you were to stop eating cheese then supplemented food (a lot of food is supplemented with B12 these days, pretty much all breakfast cereals and soya/nut milks) or supplements would be required. Of course the effects wouldn't visible strait away, we have about 5 years worth of B12 stored in our bodies.

How do animals get it? Herbivores have bacteria in their intestines that produce it. We don't have these bacteria. Some people argue that B12 can also be found on unwashed vegetables, its not proven though. The ultimate test would be to give someone who has pernicious anaemia (sever B12 deficiency) some unwashed veg, and see if they get better. That would probably be quite unethical though, so the experiment has never been done (afaik)

(January 20, 2014 at 10:35 am)enrico Wrote: Question 1
I am vegetarian (almost vegan if wouldn't be for the mozzarella on the pizza) and i don't take B12 supplement.
I am still alive and well.

That is debatable

(January 19, 2014 at 5:51 pm)LastPoet Wrote: The paper he linked deals with the importance of making accurate shots when killing the animals and perform maintenance to the guns, it really doesn't support his 'argument' at all. If anything, recommends better practice, that I support (the meat has better quality if the animal is killed correctly).

Anyway, he has gone the deep end and calling everything a fallacy... Forgetting his all 'argument' since the beginning has been one big appeal to emotion.

It also says that even "despite being shot accurately, 13.6% bulls were inadequately stunned" The fact is killing animals causes suffering, no process is perfect and you will always be subjecting some animals to one of the most horrific deaths imaginable. Far better just to not eat meat. No cruelty, its better for your health and better for the environment.

http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.4.473

(January 19, 2014 at 11:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The same argument has been made for slavery. Have you asked the animals how THEY feel

Have you?

(January 19, 2014 at 11:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: about being locked up, force-fed and killed at the height of their health? Consider the possibility that there's a serious conflict of interest involved, in having people who want to eat animals being the sole determiners of the morality of doing so.

Would you still feel that way if the choice wasn't yours? What, for example, if the government decided 70 years is old enough, and a team of qualified professionals threw you onto a truck for your "painless euthanasia " against your will?

Not a valid comparison at all. You are talking about animals like they are humans. Like they understand what is going on around them. As if they have the power of humans to infer and imagine from what is happening around them. To feel fear and apprehension. The truth is, they are ignorant of that. And ignorance is bliss.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:00 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Not a valid comparison at all. You are talking about animals like they are humans. Like they understand what is going on around them. As if they have the power of humans to infer and imagine from what is happening around them. To feel fear and apprehension. The truth is, they are ignorant of that. And ignorance is bliss.

Many people argue that if one is conscious and has interests, then one should have the inherent right for those interests not to be disregarded and be treated as property, in much the same way as humans have an inherent right not to be treated as property ie not be a slave)

Apprehension or ignorance is irrelevant to this argument.

Anyhow, that is an aside. If the humans also had no fear because death was instantaneous and in one's sleep, then by your logic it would be ok to kill a human, right? Ignorance is, as you say, bliss.

(January 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Firstly, any form of killing that prevents an animal from living its full life span is inducing a form of suffering.

No, you don't get to define what suffering is to suit your argument.
And why? why is killing an animal before it dies of old age, suffering?

(January 19, 2014 at 11:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Secondly, I would argue that life on a farm is far worse. At least in the wild I have a rich and complex environment to explore. On a farm it its monotonous, with every single young animal forcibly removed from its mother. Overfed and over weight, in a dense population were disease is easily spread. Udder infections branding, dehorning, clipping of the chickens beak. Its a horrible life. At least as a wild animals I have a chance.

You have clearly anthropomorphised animals. You are in no position at all to argue this argument.

(January 19, 2014 at 11:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Lastly, you say that your obsession with meat is not an obsession because it is natural and normal. Sounds like two fallacies in one sentence. Appeal to the people, and to nature.

You are just being dense now. Does the chimpanzee have an obsession with meat because it can eat both meat and plants but sometimes chooses to eat meat? What about the brown bear?
They are omnivores because they require both meat and plant matter. A human is also an omnivore, meaning that eating meat is completely natural and not an obsession, we evolved to do this. A human with an obsession over meat would probably only eat meat..... in fact, I don't even know what an obsession with meat would look like? It is very clear that you have an obsession, of what, i don't know yet.

---

(January 20, 2014 at 1:05 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Many people argue that if one is conscious and has interests, then one should have the inherent right for those interests not to be disregarded and be treated as property, in much the same way as humans have an inherent right not to be treated as property ie not be a slave)

Yea, and many other people would argue that animals have no where near the level of consciousness for them to have interests other than eating, shitting and mating.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:05 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Apprehension or ignorance is irrelevant to this argument.

Anyhow, that is an aside. If the humans also had no fear because death was instantaneous and in one's sleep, then by your logic it would be ok to kill a human, right? Ignorance is, as you say, bliss.

No, the amount of mental gymnastics you have performed to come to that conclusion could win a medal.
Killing another person for no other reason than eating them is illegal, for good reason. It is very likely that this person knew other people and the psychological damage caused by breaking those relationships is not justified, just so you can eat them. However, if this person was a murderer or a rapist or something that deserved the death penalty, then sure, go ahead. They would only be wasting tax in a life jail sentance.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(January 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Firstly, any form of killing that prevents an animal from living its full life span is inducing a form of suffering.

No, you don't get to define what suffering is to suit your argument.
And why? why is killing an animal before it dies of old age, suffering?

(January 19, 2014 at 11:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Secondly, I would argue that life on a farm is far worse. At least in the wild I have a rich and complex environment to explore. On a farm it its monotonous, with every single young animal forcibly removed from its mother. Overfed and over weight, in a dense population were disease is easily spread. Udder infections branding, dehorning, clipping of the chickens beak. Its a horrible life. At least as a wild animals I have a chance.

You have clearly anthropomorphised animals. You are in no position at all to argue this argument.

(January 19, 2014 at 11:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Lastly, you say that your obsession with meat is not an obsession because it is natural and normal. Sounds like two fallacies in one sentence. Appeal to the people, and to nature.

You are just being dense now. Does the chimpanzee have an obsession with meat because it can eat both meat and plants but sometimes chooses to eat meat? What about the brown bear?
They are omnivores because they require both meat and plant matter. A human is also an omnivore, meaning that eating meat is completely natural and not an obsession, we evolved to do this. A human with an obsession over meat would probably only eat meat..... in fact, I don't even know what an obsession with meat would look like? It is very clear that you have an obsession, of what, i don't know yet.

Firstly just because an animal is old does not mean it is not happy, just as old people can be happy. I want to live as long as I canm, and animals express that same desire. By preventing an animal living its full life you are causing it harm, a form of suffering.

Neither you nor I can say what an animal truly prefers, but you are anthropomorphising animals as much as I, as it was you that said they would prefer life on a farm. the fact is animals that live in rich complex environments are in many ways happier (eg more resistant to depression http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23791932 ) it therefore stands to reason that animals would prefer the wild to the monotony of farms.

The difference between you and a chimpanzee is that you, I hope, are capable of some very complicated cognitive skills, and can hold values to be able to change your behaviour. You are obsessed to the extent that your desire to eat meat has negatively affected these cognitive processes ,so that you ignore the internal contradictions in your arguments to justify your behaviour.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:20 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Firstly just because an animal is old does not mean it is not happy, just as old people can be happy. I want to live as long as I canm, and animals express that same desire.

Instincts talking. If we had a previous life to compare to, no one would want to suffer their body slowly falling apart just so they could live as long as they could.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:20 pm)jg2014 Wrote: By preventing an animal living its full life you are causing it harm, a form of suffering.

No, you don't get to define harm or suffering.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:20 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Neither you nor I can say what an animal truly prefers, but you are anthropomorphising animals as much as I, as it was you that said they would prefer life on a farm.

You know what anthropomophising means right? It means giving animals, humans attributes and characteristics, something I haven't done. I said animals would have a better life on a farm, I said nothing about them prefering it.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:20 pm)jg2014 Wrote: the fact is animals that live in rich complex environments are in many ways happier (eg more resistant to depression http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23791932 ) it therefore stands to reason that animals would prefer the wild to the monotony of farms.

And farms are monotmous because?

(January 20, 2014 at 1:20 pm)jg2014 Wrote: The difference between you and a chimpanzee is that you, I hope, are capable of some very complicated cognitive skills, and can hold values to be able to change your behaviour. You are obsessed to the extent that your desire to eat meat has negatively affected these cognitive processes ,so that you ignore the internal contradictions in your arguments to justify your behaviour.

No matter how many times you shout 'obsession' and cover your ears, it doesnt make it any more true. If i am obsessed, then most of the world is obsessed.

And what 'internal contradictions' are these?