Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

[de_koraco]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

I'm sorry, de_koraco, I don't know which country you're in. You've indicated that you've visited a large number of farms--but how many of those were factory farms, as opposed to "natural" farms (for lack of a better term)?

I've visited both. Animals are usually healthier and live in better conditions on factory farms. This is Croatia, on the Balkans. There's not a whole lot of free range upkeep for catlle here, though there is a significant number of free range poultry. I'm not saying sh*t don't happen on factory farms, I'm just saying it's the exception rather than the rule.

[Qqmike]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

SteveRiley (Reply #29) ... Looks like you did only a quick google on the issue
Except for the last critique (at scoop)--which I would expect from "that" guy, none of those experts disagree with Barnard (or Fuhrman, for that matter). They conclude he's right but there are practical issues involved (including terminology) in implementing his recommendations. Fact is, Barnard is not inconsistent with the DASH diet (for hypertension). Both Barnard and Furhrman would be the first to agree that they do not expect their recommendations to become mainstream as most Americans are way too far gone with their meaty cuisine (which includes cheese and milk). At the other end, just for kicks, one should look closely at the ADA (Am Diabetic Assoc) diet which does little more than give lip service to the need for reducing animal fats and proteins. If you have diabetes, you better be damned careful what proteins happen to end up in your kidneys. Finally, if you are obsessed about a formal presentation of evidence-based analysis, that would be the Fuhrman book, complete with detailed citations, for starters.

To add to my previous comments about diet and health, perhaps the primary determinant in health, apart from all the words (vegan, omnivore, "meat-and-potatoes," etc.) is the importance of getting most (80%? 90%?) of your calories from plant-based sources, especially greens but to include "the rainbow" of veggies (some raw, some lightly cooked or cooked into soups which retain the liquids).

The whole idea of a plant-based diet is getting the most bang (nutrition) for the "cost" (the calories consumed). High nutritional content, low caloric content. All apart from ethical issues that some people have (DYK). I think DYK is absolutely correct in her view of industry practices. Ever see how KFC chickens were treated at one of their plants? It sort of decreases your enjoyment of a KFC meal (which is another issue anyway--loaded with major salt (the "secret"?) and fats).

[bsniadajewski]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

It really shouldn't matter what you eat as part of your diet, but how much you eat to maintain a good healthy life.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

I'm sorry, de_koraco, I don't know which country you're in. You've indicated that you've visited a large number of farms--but how many of those were factory farms, as opposed to "natural" farms (for lack of a better term)?

I've visited both. Animals are usually healthier and live in better conditions on factory farms. This is Croatia, on the Balkans. There's not a whole lot of free range upkeep for catlle here, though there is a significant number of free range poultry. I'm not saying sh*t don't happen on factory farms, I'm just saying it's the exception rather than the rule.

Thank you for clarifying the country you're in. All I can say is, come to the US and visit some factory farms here. You'll be appalled. They're clearly very different from what your concept of a factory farm is.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

It really shouldn't matter what you eat as part of your diet, but how much you eat to maintain a good healthy life.

Of course it should. When LIVING, sentient beings are involved, how they're treated should be at the forefront of decisions about one's diet. It's blatantly and inexplicably hypocritical to use a man-made point of demarcation that divides animals into those that are to be loved and pampered, and those that can be abused and killed.

Quinoa is a very good thing.

Yes indeed.

(Predatory) animals have been doing this for millions of years without any worries. I don't think we should worry too much about sentience in the foods that we eat (or choose not to).

While their prey is living, (predatory) animals don't lock them up in tiny cages. They don't deprive them of roaming free. They don't stop them from living with their relatives. They don't force feed them. They don't artificially inseminate them. They don't pump them up with hormones and antibiotics. They don't debeak them. They don't force them to live in deplorable conditions. And when they kill them, they typically do it swiftly. And, finally, they don't have the ability to REASON like humans can. We, as humans, are blessed with the ability to make choices that don't include killing other living beings.

[SteveRiley]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

And when they kill them, they typically do it swiftly. And, finally, they don't have the ability to REASON like humans can. We, as humans, are blessed with the ability to make choices that don't include killing other living beings.

Re: playing with your prey/food... have you watched housecats catch mice?

Re: human reason... I suggest you read Richard Dawkins's book The Selfish Gene. Raw survival, in many cases, overrides what we like to think of as advanced reasoning. An extension of this notion is how some species commandeer the brains of others, completely replacing the victim's genetic programming for survival to favor that of the attacker. Watch Dan Dennett's dangerous memes Ted talk for a fascinating example.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

And when they kill them, they typically do it swiftly. And, finally, they don't have the ability to REASON like humans can. We, as humans, are blessed with the ability to make choices that don't include killing other living beings.

Re: playing with your prey/food... have you watched housecats catch mice?

No, actually, but I know what you're getting at, i.e., that cats toy with them before killing them. Again, HUMANS have the ability to reason in a way other animals cannot, so your point is moot. By the way, when my cats see a cricket, moth or fly in the house, they pounce on them and pretty much finish them off immediately.

Oh, before anyone asks, YES, I do feed my cats animal-based food! Why? Because they're CATS. They need taurine and it's very, very difficult to provide a truly sufficient vegan diet for them. I rescued them to save their lives, knowing full well I'd have to feed them dead animals. I only buy seafood varieties as I feel that's less cruel than other choices. I fed my most recent Great Danes Nature's Recipe Vegetarian Allergy Formula food and they thrived on it.

Re: human reason... I suggest you read Richard Dawkins's book The Selfish Gene. Raw survival, in many cases, overrides what we like to think of as advanced reasoning. An extension of this notion is how some species commandeer the brains of others, completely replacing the victim's genetic programming for survival to favor that of the attacker. Watch Dan Dennett's dangerous memes Ted talk for a fascinating example.

When I get [yet another] new prescription for my glasses, I'll read the book. Right now I'm unable to read books, magazines, bills...pretty much anything in print. Thank goodness computers allow us to adjust things! But I'll check out the link.

[bsniadajewski]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

To me, it is NOT hypocritical that we use certain animal species as pets, but others as food (how we treat said "food" animals may be questionable at best). As I've written before, we've been doing that for thousands of years without any trouble. You may disagree with that first statement, while agree, but it is all in our (human) nature.

If logical consistency were a prerequisite of human sentimentality, we would certainly be living in a different world!

I suspect a large portion of people would hold that logic and sentiment are antonyms. Of course, perhaps that's exactly what you mean

'Nuff said.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

To me, it is NOT hypocritical that we use certain animal species as pets, but others as food

Would you mind explaining why? But do it logically. In other words, don't use the "we've been doing it for millennia" argument because that's not an actual explanation. (Remember that people used to have slaves, and the pro-slavery folks used the "we've been doing it for millennia" argument--but that didn't make it right, nor did it explain logically why one human being should be owned by another.)

(how we treat said "food" animals may be questionable at best).

And therein lies my whole problem. The fact is that animals raised for food on factory farms are treated horribly, up to and including how they're slaughtered. If there were no cruelty involved, I still wouldn't ever eat dead animals again, but perhaps I'd be [a tiny little bit] less passionate about this issue. When you explain your stance on the issue of using some animals for food, please do so keeping in mind the cruelty meat animals are subjected to.

As I've written before, we've been doing that for thousands of years without any trouble.

See above.

You may disagree with that first statement, while agree, but it is all in our (human) nature.

No, it's definitely not in ALL of our nature. I would no sooner eat the flesh of a non-human animal than I would that of a human animal.

[SteveRiley]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

Would you mind explaining why? But do it logically. In other words, don't use the "we've been doing it for millennia" argument because that's not an actual explanation. (Remember that people used to have slaves, and the pro-slavery folks used the "we've been doing it for millennia" argument--but that didn't make it right, nor did it explain logically why one human being should be owned by another.)

I'm not sure the comparison is valid. Unlike high-efficiency and low-cost protein acquisition, slavery doesn't confer evolutionary advantage for anyone. Indeed, it can be argued that slavery confers disadvantage: societies that still practice it tend to have greater quantities of people who suffer and short overall lifespans, while societies that abolished it have less suffering and greater lifespans. This selection pressure will, over time, force slavery practitioners into extinction, which has already been happening actually -- probably not as fast as we'd all wish, though.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

Would you mind explaining why? But do it logically. In other words, don't use the "we've been doing it for millennia" argument because that's not an actual explanation. (Remember that people used to have slaves, and the pro-slavery folks used the "we've been doing it for millennia" argument--but that didn't make it right, nor did it explain logically why one human being should be owned by another.)

I'm not sure the comparison is valid. Unlike high-efficiency and low-cost protein acquisition, slavery doesn't confer evolutionary advantage for anyone.

It doesn't need to. The point is that using an argument such as "we've been doing it for millennia"--REGARDLESS of what the argument is for--is invalid. There needs to be an actual REASON why a practice is okay, not a cop-out "well, gee, this is how it's always been!

By the way, inhumanely raising and killing animals doesn't confer evolutionary advantage for anyone, as it's completely unnecessary NOW for humans to consume dead animals. Indeed, people who do not eat dead animals tend to live longer, healthier lives than those who do. So the whole "we're at the top of the food chain," "humans have always eaten animals," "humans need protein--and you can only get that from dead animal flesh!" and so on are a bunch of crap.

Indeed, it can be argued that slavery confers disadvantage: societies that still practice it tend to have greater quantities of people who suffer and short overall lifespans, while societies that abolished it have less suffering and greater lifespans. This selection pressure will, over time, force slavery practitioners into extinction, which has already been happening actually -- probably not as fast as we'd all wish, though.

Right but, again, it doesn't matter as the point wasn't about slavery itself but the ARGUMENT used by pro-slavery folks to defend it.

[SteveRiley]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

It doesn't need to. The point is that using an argument such as "we've been doing it for millennia"--REGARDLESS of what the argument is for--is invalid. There needs to be an actual REASON why a practice is okay, not a cop-out "well, gee, this is how it's always been!

By the way, inhumanely raising and killing animals doesn't confer evolutionary advantage for anyone, as it's completely unnecessary NOW for humans to consume dead animals. Indeed, people who do not eat dead animals tend to live longer, healthier lives than those who do. So the whole "we're at the top of the food chain," "humans have always eaten animals," "humans need protein--and you can only get that from dead animal flesh!" and so on are a bunch of crap.

I loathe arguments from tradition as much as you. Matter of fact, I rather enjoy busting traditions, which has gotten me into trouble at times, and probably will again.

This is distinct from practices that confer advantage. Clearly, at some point in our evolution, the consuption of protein from animals was advantageous. I'm not as convinced as you are that the advantages are lost, though.

I spent some time looking for national per-capita vegetarian stats but couldn't find anything not published by vegetarian web sites. If such a table exists, it would be interesting to cross-tabulate that with Wikipedia's list of countries by life expectancy to see what might shake out. I found a report at the UN that lists more general information; it paints a fairly broad brush but does show more animal protein consumption in developed countries, which tend to hover near the top of Wikipedia's life expectancy table. I'd prefer higher quality data before drawing any conclusions, though.

[bsniadajewski]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

Maybe you can provide at least a link to that data when you find it, SR.

This is distinct from practices that confer advantage. Clearly, at some point in our evolution, the consuption of protein from animals was advantageous. I'm not as convinced as you are that the advantages are lost, though.

This is what I am trying to get at. There are areas where humans live, like the northern tundras of Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia, and Siberia, where there is very little, if any, plant growth. The Inuit or Eskimo rely mainly on animal meats/fats to merely survive the cold winters up in the near-polar regions. (Correct if I'm wrong though.)

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

Steve and bsniadajewski, I know I keep repeating myself, but the fact is that humans do not need animal-based protein. Humans need protein. We do not need animal-based protein. bsniadajewski, you're right about the Inuit and Eskimo populations relying on animals for sustenance, but they don't keep those animals in cruel factory farms. They hunt, which--although I am opposed to it in general--at least it's more humane than the factory farm method of raising "meat" animals.

Einstein, Gandhi, da Vinci, Pythagoras, Tolstoy, Plato and this guy named Sir Paul McCartney all seem to have done rather well without it. I bought several sheets of Peta's "I'm a vegetarian" stamps [they sold out almost immediately, but unlike the HP TouchPad, I got some of these!], and there are so many other famous veggies they're going to do another set later.

Since McCartney is the person I "know" best, if anyone would like to point out to me how he--or his famous daughter Stella--have suffered as a result of their compassionate lifestyle, I'd love to hear it. In fact, if you'd like to explain how ANY of these famous vegan/vegetarians have suffered by not consuming dead animals, please enlighten me!

First, a few famous athletes (source, no, not Peta or another vegetarian site, NursingSchools.net):

Joe Namath
Bill Walton
John Salley
Mike Tyson
Edwin Moses
Martina Navratilova
Carl Lewis
Tony La Russa

Other celebrities:

Bob Barker
Ellen DeGeneres
Alicia Silverstone
Grace Slick
Pamela Anderson
Vaslav Nijinsky (for those not balletomanes like me, one of the first male ballet superstars)
Isadora Duncan (another famous dancer)
Daryl Hannah
Natalie Portman
Anne Hathaway
Joan Jett
Billie Jean King
Cloris Leachman
Nikola Tesla
Yehudi Menuhin
Herschel Walker
Alyssa Milano
Dennis Weaver
Kevin Nealon

I could go on...and on...but the point isn't to name tons of famous vegetarians, but rather to point out that people who are veg*n do quite well.

Since most of you are straight males, let me offer you this--and I'd like you to point out to me the parts that look like they're suffering from not having animal-based protein, okay?

[img width=260 height=400]http://www.smartassproducts.com/images/kubuntuforums/PamelaAnderson.jpg[/img]

[bsniadajewski]

Re: Sacre Bleu! France willingly eats McD's..

That is their decision to eat what they (want to) eat; I, among others, will continue to eat what I like. We may disagree on the "need" for animal-based proteins, but I will respect your opinion. Vegetarians I really have no problem with, it's just those seemingly extremist PETA types, who probably wouldn't us to even harm a fly or mosquito (overexaggeration I hope), I don't like. It had a purpose, to bring light to the realities of animal cruelity, but they have seemed to go beyond it and make themselves look more extreme in the process.

what about mosquitoes, can we swat 'em? They are animals as well?

P.S. Darn those fig leaves

(ands too bad she's married, I'd show her... oh never mind, my mind was getting dirty) :-X