jg2014, go back about 10 pages and read what Enrico is saying. If you agree with him, I shall have to conclude that you too are a nutcase.

(February 19, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 19, 2014 at 1:20 pm)jg2014 Wrote: I quoted a number of studies which demonstrated that meat eating increased all cause mortality and indeed a number of specific diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. Need I quote these again?

Well its obvious you haven't been reading the thread. And need I quote again? Correlation does not imply causation.

This is true. There are other correlations tied into this issue-- for example, people interested in special diets also tend to be more interested in exercise, which surely accounts for much of the difference.

That being said, looking at the issue from a moral perspective, if you can't demonstrate a meaningful health advantage, or better mortality rates, then it makes more sense to go with the partly unknown effects of the vegetarian diet than the partly unknown effects of a meat-eating diet.

Only if it makes you and your body happy to do so bennyboy.

(February 19, 2014 at 11:12 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: The effect of drugs and the effect of meat on the brain are completely different. Look it up.

Gee, this time i have to agree with you.
I never thought that to get an hard kick in the front of the head would be so different from getting kicked on the back of the head.

(February 20, 2014 at 8:54 am)enrico Wrote: Gee, this time i have to agree with you.
I never thought that to get an hard kick in the front of the head would be so different from getting kicked on the back of the head.

You are such an idiot.....

(February 19, 2014 at 6:30 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Well that's a relief.

Sorry to be the pest but would you mind linking me to one or two of those studies? It's a ruddy long thread to trawl through, I've only been dipping in and out.

Sure, here are a few

(February 19, 2014 at 8:49 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: jg2014, go back about 10 pages and read what Enrico is saying. If you agree with him, I shall have to conclude that you too are a nutcase.

As I already said, he is taking nonsense most of the time. But that does not mean that there are not grains of truth here and there. Another example is the similarity between the effects of taking certain drugs and meat. Both can cause activation of dopaminergic neurons to cause feelings of pleasure. Different mechanisms are involved of course, and I don't believe people can be addicted to meat in same way as one can be addicted to drugs, but you could argue that the pleasure meat brings reinforces the attempts to ethically justify it.

Thanks. I'll have a read.

(February 20, 2014 at 9:00 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 20, 2014 at 8:54 am)enrico Wrote: Gee, this time i have to agree with you.
I never thought that to get an hard kick in the front of the head would be so different from getting kicked on the back of the head.

You are such an idiot.....

You know boy that before i worked as a nurse i was driving taxis in Sydney.
Well i tell you something.
In those times (in the 80) the law was not very clear whether the passengers were allow or not to smoke in the taxis so everyday i and all other non smoking drivers had to put up with smokers who insist in smoking in the taxis.
Most of the time smokers understand our feeling and didn't smoke but sometime we had to argue and in some occasion even had a physical clash.
Anyway what most of the smokers were saying was that even the pollution that my taxi was generating produce cancer.
How can you argue with such idiots.
Even if you tell them that there is a difference between something that is essential like a taxi and something NON essential like tobacco smoking they still wouldn't understand.
The same story is repeated with meat negationists like you that come up with the story that even deodorant may cause diseases.
Well let me tell you how the story ended up.
After 10 years of putting up with these rotten smokers the N.S.W. government finally pass a law that prevent smokers not only to smoke in taxis if the driver put up a sign with NO SMOKING but also prevent smokers to smoke in other public transport, shopping centers and gov. buildings.
Now smokers are seen as filthy people more and more.
What is going to happen with meat eaters will have to follow the same pattern as to look after these people who get sick has become more and more unsustainable.

(February 20, 2014 at 9:28 am)jg2014 Wrote: As I already said, he is taking nonsense most of the time. But that does not mean that there are not grains of truth here and there.

No there is not. He is saying that all cardiovascular diseases are caused, single handedly, by meat. He is also saying that sick people in hospitals are sick and stay sick because of eating meat.

(February 20, 2014 at 9:28 am)jg2014 Wrote: Another example is the similarity between the effects of taking certain drugs and meat. Both can cause activation of dopaminergic neurons to cause feelings of pleasure.

That doesn't mean anything. The pleasure pathway is activated whenever we do something we like. In fact, that is why we like doing it. It could be anything from getting a high score on pac man to playing the piano.

(February 20, 2014 at 9:28 am)jg2014 Wrote: Different mechanisms are involved of course, and I don't believe people can be addicted to meat in same way as one can be addicted to drugs, but you could argue that the pleasure meat brings reinforces the attempts to ethically justify it.

As does anything else. Meat is not unique in this aspect. Stop encouraging him.

---

(February 20, 2014 at 9:49 am)enrico Wrote: You know boy that before i worked as a nurse i was driving taxis in Sydney.
Well i tell you something.
In those times (in the 80) the law was not very clear whether the passengers were allow or not to smoke in the taxis so everyday i and all other non smoking drivers had to put up with smokers who insist in smoking in the taxis.
Most of the time smokers understand our feeling and didn't smoke but sometime we had to argue and in some occasion even had a physical clash.
Anyway what most of the smokers were saying was that even the pollution that my taxi was generating produce cancer.
How can you argue with such idiots.
Even if you tell them that there is a difference between something that is essential like a taxi and something NON essential like tobacco smoking they still wouldn't understand.
The same story is repeated with meat negationists like you that come up with the story that even deodorant may cause diseases.

Once again. You fucking idiot. I was not at all implying that deodorant causes disease. I was comparing meat with deodorant in an attempt to show you how unfounded your accusations are. Clearly it didn't work since you didn't understand the simply point I was making.

(February 20, 2014 at 9:49 am)enrico Wrote: Well let me tell you how the story ended up.
After 10 years of putting up with these rotten smokers finally the N.S.W. government finally pass a law that prevent smokers not only to smoke in taxis if the driver put up a sign with NO SMOKING but also prevent smokers to smoke in other public transport, shopping centers and gov. buildings.
Now smokers are seen as filthy people more and more.
What is going to happen with meat eaters will have to follow the same pattern as to look after these people who get sick has become more and more unsustainable.

And the point of this anecdote was?

Quote: You know boy that before i worked as a nurse

Still chills me to the core to read that.