(January 23, 2014 at 6:51 pm)KUSA Wrote: If you have changed your eating habits because of the deranged misfits please chime in and let us know.

Yes, I will now double my consumption of steak. I just realized I have a moral and ethical obligation as a member of mankind to make up to the cowkind the suffering to which cowkind is entitled to expect another member of humanity, named ljg2014 here, but which he has shirk in his duty to deliver.

Good point Chuck. We need to eat what he doesn't.

(January 23, 2014 at 6:18 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 6:09 pm)jg2014 Wrote: No I would not eat it. Eating meat is bad for ones health

Would it be morally wrong to eat this animal this animal though?

Well the difficulty with that question concerns the link between things that make us unhealthy and ethics. For me as I don't find eating meat palatable, it would be wrong to eat it. For some one who enjoys meat, they would have balance that enjoyment against the increased chance of cardiovascular disease etc and negative effects on society of that increased burden of ill health. A difficult balance. Its similar to asking if it is wrong to smoke. Its a difficult one, but I would lean on the side of it being marginally wrong, but perhaps the best of all likely outcomes.

All this is assuming that we could grow the meat without harming the original source animal and that meat eating behaviour does not negatively affect people's wider perception of animal's (which it certainly does currently when people devalue animals cognitive abilities when their meat eating us threatened)

(January 23, 2014 at 4:37 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 3:44 pm)StoryBook Wrote: So excuse me for actually knowing about animals instead of claiming I know more then a vet.

Firstly, I said I was more qualified, but there will be many things that vets know that I do not. With regards to chemistry, do you not you agree that in principle anything that is in meat and is required for health can by synthesised or derived from non meat sources and used to create a vegan cat food?

If you do, and you really ought to, then I would suggest that you too know more than the vet in question. And if you understand enough chemistry to know that there is nothing magical about any chemical in meat, then I would also suggest that with regard to the question at hand, you are more qualified too.

You do know that pre-veterinarians,veterinarians, and even veterinary technicians, have to learn chemistry; right? (and it is not just basic chem.)

---

(January 23, 2014 at 6:09 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm)KUSA Wrote: 1. Agree
2. Disagree in this scenario
3. Don't care and never will

Answer me this. If we breed an animal that had essentially no brain would you eat it? I mean this animal basically didn't have a head and was just kept alive on a machine to grow it's flesh. There would be no brain to perceive any pain or suffering. How about it?

No I would not eat it. Eating meat is bad for ones health

All those un-healthy carnivores .

(January 23, 2014 at 7:22 pm)jg2014 Wrote: For me as I don't find eating meat palatable

Be honest and answer this. Have you ever eaten meat and enjoyed it?

(January 23, 2014 at 11:03 am)StoryBook Wrote: Oh so you are only against people eating meat, because it causes suffering...So you are ok with animal testing/research , that may also cause long term suffering?After all that also helps prevent human suffering. Did you ever think of cancer?

You can not end suffering! You mind as well just wait for the sun to exploded if you really want all the suffering to end.

This is clearly a false dilemma. The options are actually: 1) reduce suffering; 2) keep it the same; 3) increase it. If at least some suffering can be reduced or eliminated, with no important loss, then it is rational to eliminate the suffering, unless one has a total disregard for the suffering of other species.

Without regard to the ethics of medical research, meat eating, particularly in very copious amounts, is simply not required, and does lead to suffering. Since eating of large amounts of meat is not required, the suffering is not required, either. Will there still be suffering in the universe? Yes. But those animals who did not need to be eaten will not be bred into existence in order to suffer and be slaughtered. Your argument is kind of like saying, "We cannot stop the suffering of cancer victims, so we shouldn't bother stopping the suffering of people with broken arms." Same species, completely different cause of suffering.

Personally, I wouldn't argue that we should try to get people to be vegetarian-- many have a very high resistance to that life style, socially or even instinctually. However, I think it's a lose-lose when a 350-lb man is eating 3000 calories worth of greasy meat each day-- in this case, the animal has lost its life, and has not only not positive effect on the man's health, but contributes to a loss of health. I'd categorize this as an unhealthy addiction, not an act of liberty and enjoyment.

IF we could get people to eat meat for its nutritional value only, and not because grease triggers their monkey-pleasure centers, that would be a win-win.

(January 23, 2014 at 8:04 pm)StoryBook Wrote: You do know that pre-veterinarians,veterinarians, and even veterinary technicians, have to learn chemistry; right? (and it is not just basic chem.)

---

(January 23, 2014 at 6:09 pm)jg2014 Wrote: No I would not eat it. Eating meat is bad for ones health

All those un-healthy carnivores .

It is very basic chemistry they learn. Do you agree that there is no chemical in meat that could not in principle be synthesised to make a vegan pet food? The fact that the vet got this question wrong merely highlights how basic their understanding of chemistry is.

We are not carnivores. We are omnivours, with a number of physiological adaptions to be ABLE to eat meat. Never the less the evidence shows that vegans have an increased life expectancy

---

(January 23, 2014 at 8:35 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 7:22 pm)jg2014 Wrote: For me as I don't find eating meat palatable

Be honest and answer this. Have you ever eaten meat and enjoyed it?

Yes I have, a long time ago. I have also smoked, and enjoyed it.

(January 23, 2014 at 7:10 pm)Chuck Wrote: Yes, I will now double my consumption of steak.

From this study

"Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality...

In the substitution analyses, replacing 1 serving of total red meat with 1 serving of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, or whole grains daily was associated with a lower risk of total mortality: 7% for fish, 14% for poultry, 19% for nuts, 10% for legumes, 10% for low-fat dairy products, and 14% for whole grains."

Still rolling on the floor laughing out loud?

(January 23, 2014 at 9:04 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: What has your friend's Doctor/ Nutritionist said Daniel?

---

(Gluten intolerance= allergy to all wheat products. Also = Coeliac disease
more info HERE)

"Don't eat foods that contain gluten, here's a list" and "don't eat nuts". He isn't so allergic that it will kill him. I believe you're right about wheat.

(January 24, 2014 at 5:39 am)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 7:10 pm)Chuck Wrote: Yes, I will now double my consumption of steak.

From this study :link:

"Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality...

In the substitution analyses, replacing 1 serving of total red meat with 1 serving of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, or whole grains daily was associated with a lower risk of total mortality: 7% for fish, 14% for poultry, 19% for nuts, 10% for legumes, 10% for low-fat dairy products, and 14% for whole grains."

Still rolling on the floor laughing out loud?

So I need to eat more chicken and fish an a little less steak. No problem thanks for the tip.