Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Of Meat and Myth

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 4:47:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Everybody "knows" that the meatpacking industry was horrible and unsanitary at the beginning of the 20th century. There were even cases in which men fell into grinders and were made into food and sold. We "know" this because of Upton Sinclair"s socialist novel, "The Jungle." But what if what everyone thinks he knows about this is a myth? If you believe this progressive fairy tale, you owe it to yourself to read some facts.
http://www.fee.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:55:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 4:47:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everybody "knows" that the meatpacking industry was horrible and unsanitary at the beginning of the 20th century. There were even cases in which men fell into grinders and were made into food and sold. We "know" this because of Upton Sinclair"s socialist novel, "The Jungle." But what if what everyone thinks he knows about this is a myth? If you believe this progressive fairy tale, you owe it to yourself to read some facts.
http://www.fee.org...

I don't know enough to comment on The Jungle or Sinclair. However, the modern meat industry *is* horrible and unsanitary and this has been documented by respected writers such as Peter Singer, Jonathan Safran Foar and Gary Francione. Their overall narritives of the meat industry are conceded as reliable even by their critics.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
VaLoR
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 12:28:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 4:47:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everybody "knows" that the meatpacking industry was horrible and unsanitary at the beginning of the 20th century. There were even cases in which men fell into grinders and were made into food and sold. We "know" this because of Upton Sinclair"s socialist novel, "The Jungle." But what if what everyone thinks he knows about this is a myth? If you believe this progressive fairy tale, you owe it to yourself to read some facts.
http://www.fee.org...

Yeah, deregulation and free markets work great for our food supply. Consider the success story that is the supplement industry! /sarcasm

As as nutrition major myself, I can safely declare this article utter horse sh!t. (in promoting free market fairy tales) To put the responsibility on the consumer is naive to the extreme and ignores not only the depth and complexity of such matters, but the underlying "trigger" psychology we as consumers operate on to save precious time and brain power.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 3:26:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 4:47:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everybody "knows" that the meatpacking industry was horrible and unsanitary at the beginning of the 20th century. There were even cases in which men fell into grinders and were made into food and sold. We "know" this because of Upton Sinclair"s socialist novel, "The Jungle." But what if what everyone thinks he knows about this is a myth? If you believe this progressive fairy tale, you owe it to yourself to read some facts.
http://www.fee.org...

Here he goes, advocating a bit of revisionist history designed to shore up his unjustifiably positive, and quite ideological view of capitalism.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 7:56:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 3:26:16 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/7/2014 4:47:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everybody "knows" that the meatpacking industry was horrible and unsanitary at the beginning of the 20th century. There were even cases in which men fell into grinders and were made into food and sold. We "know" this because of Upton Sinclair"s socialist novel, "The Jungle." But what if what everyone thinks he knows about this is a myth? If you believe this progressive fairy tale, you owe it to yourself to read some facts.
http://www.fee.org...

Here he goes, advocating a bit of revisionist history designed to shore up his unjustifiably positive, and quite ideological view of capitalism.

Good argument
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 11:27:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Upton Sinclair's novel can be relied upon for fact at least as much as Thomas Keneally,s work of fiction.

Not at all. It's politically incorrect to even try.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 10:31:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 3:55:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/7/2014 4:47:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everybody "knows" that the meatpacking industry was horrible and unsanitary at the beginning of the 20th century. There were even cases in which men fell into grinders and were made into food and sold. We "know" this because of Upton Sinclair"s socialist novel, "The Jungle." But what if what everyone thinks he knows about this is a myth? If you believe this progressive fairy tale, you owe it to yourself to read some facts.
http://www.fee.org...

I don't know enough to comment on The Jungle or Sinclair. However, the modern meat industry *is* horrible and unsanitary and this has been documented by respected writers such as Peter Singer, Jonathan Safran Foar and Gary Francione. Their overall narritives of the meat industry are conceded as reliable even by their critics.
I only know who one of those writers is, Singer, and I only sort of respect him, and not in the sense to buy what comes out of his mouth. (I respect him for calling out his fellow altruists on their inconsistency).

All food production looks unsanitary if you look closely enough with unfamiliar eyes. We grow vegetables in DIRT and POOP, did you know that? 100% of diseases involve organic matter, and so do all the things we eat! As long as humans are not cyborgs, we will either produce food in "unsanitary ways" or there will be widespread starvation. We can at best make it "less unsanitary." And beyond specific points, the costs of doing so will dramatically increase. Capitalism, communism, keynesianism, doesn't matter, this will be true in all systems. Different decisionmakers will accept different amounts of health risk in their food in exchange for different levels of flavor, cost, convenience, caloric adequacy, etc. And as long as no one defrauds anyone, it's a good thing to allow those different decisionmakers to make different decisions in their lives-- and it's a bad thing to mandate a one-size-fits-all risk-reward model of food.

I dunno what you mean by horrible.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 10:53:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I work for a biotech company which does abattoir work. My supervisor actually had a brief stint as a QA official on a kill floor. It is, in fact, a revolting industry. I don't blame regulators, private enterprise, or greedy corporations as much as I blame Americans who have, by and large, a very unhealthily, detached relationship with food. Next to no one thinks about the logistics of food production, of the sustainability (I hate to use a buzzword, but it is appropriate), of the raw science of it. The thought process seems to be: I'm hungry. I'm a manly American. Hungry, manly Americans eat red meat on a regular basis. (You could also replace manly with 'cawntry')Let's go get some. Nothing else registers, they simply are not cognizant of it. So an unrealistic demand fueled by gross ignorance on many levels feeds an unsustainable, dangerous, and altogether reprehensible system of production. Vox populi vox dei *eyeroll*
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 10:57:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
^My god not everyone shares my academic and professional interests! Let's add requirements to the curriculum!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 11:25:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 10:57:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
^My god not everyone shares my academic and professional interests! Let's add requirements to the curriculum!

I suggested no such thing. I'm just pointing out that people in general aren't all that they're cracked up to be, and that the result is bad decisions on many levels. Everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that I'm suggesting some strange solution when I simply point out how dismal a situation is. Most people are ignorant and disappointing. It's not going to change any time soon. Welcome to the human species.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 11:33:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 11:25:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/11/2014 10:57:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
^My god not everyone shares my academic and professional interests! Let's add requirements to the curriculum!

I suggested no such thing.
True, I'm being unfair, but I'm being unfair because it's a typical suggested corrective action when someone decries a problem of that structure in that tone.

Most people are ignorant and disappointing.
I would say this is true, but not with regard to your description of their behavior, because that behavior has a better explanation: most people realize that most people don't agonize over their food decisions and this seems to work okay, so why invest time that can be spent on other things they would enjoy doing more?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 11:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 11:33:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/11/2014 11:25:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/11/2014 10:57:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
^My god not everyone shares my academic and professional interests! Let's add requirements to the curriculum!

I suggested no such thing.
True, I'm being unfair, but I'm being unfair because it's a typical suggested corrective action when someone decries a problem of that structure in that tone.

I guess that's a forgivable assumption.

Most people are ignorant and disappointing.
I would say this is true, but not with regard to your description of their behavior, because that behavior has a better explanation: most people realize that most people don't agonize over their food decisions and this seems to work okay, so why invest time that can be spent on other things they would enjoy doing more?

The fact that most people consider thinking about something to be agonizing is precisely why I'm not all too impressed by the general public. Thinking is the best part of being human, and what fuels the molecular machinery which keeps your brain functioning is, at least in my opinion, a very good place to start thinking.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 11:16:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 4:47:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everybody "knows" that the meatpacking industry was horrible and unsanitary at the beginning of the 20th century. There were even cases in which men fell into grinders and were made into food and sold. We "know" this because of Upton Sinclair"s socialist novel, "The Jungle." But what if what everyone thinks he knows about this is a myth? If you believe this progressive fairy tale, you owe it to yourself to read some facts.
http://www.fee.org...

I was looking for contradictory facts--and I didn't find any. I found unsupported assertions, and the (granted, rightful) pointing out that the book was fiction.

I doubt Soylent Lard was people. The book obviously takes liberties--it has an agenda, after all, so if Jurgis had gotten a good job that paid well, it wouldn't really have served that. No, this was a book of awfulness, intended as such. Pointing out all the excesses, both real and exaggerated, in order to make a point. It wasn't sourced or claimed to be fully accurate, as even your article notes.

But the unsanitary conditions were accurate (and in some ways, arguably still are). Neill and Reynolds were revolted despite the places being cleaned prior to their arrival. And that article implies that Roosevelt read the Jungle and thought Sinclair was a crackpot, when in point of fact he thought Sinclair was a crackpot, then read the Jungle and said "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 2:18:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 10:31:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/7/2014 3:55:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/7/2014 4:47:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everybody "knows" that the meatpacking industry was horrible and unsanitary at the beginning of the 20th century. There were even cases in which men fell into grinders and were made into food and sold. We "know" this because of Upton Sinclair"s socialist novel, "The Jungle." But what if what everyone thinks he knows about this is a myth? If you believe this progressive fairy tale, you owe it to yourself to read some facts.
http://www.fee.org...

I don't know enough to comment on The Jungle or Sinclair. However, the modern meat industry *is* horrible and unsanitary and this has been documented by respected writers such as Peter Singer, Jonathan Safran Foar and Gary Francione. Their overall narritives of the meat industry are conceded as reliable even by their critics.
I only know who one of those writers is, Singer, and I only sort of respect him, and not in the sense to buy what comes out of his mouth. (I respect him for calling out his fellow altruists on their inconsistency).

Yes, that's something to respect, for sure. But I'm not sure the word "altruist" necessarily applies here. If you value the subjective experience of others who end up being victims, and you act on that personal value, I don't think that makes you an altruist in the sense you are using the word. Do you disagree?


All food production looks unsanitary if you look closely enough with unfamiliar eyes. We grow vegetables in DIRT and POOP, did you know that?

Yes. Why are you being rude?

100% of diseases involve organic matter, and so do all the things we eat! As long as humans are not cyborgs, we will either produce food in "unsanitary ways" or there will be widespread starvation. We can at best make it "less unsanitary." And beyond specific points, the costs of doing so will dramatically increase. Capitalism, communism, keynesianism, doesn't matter, this will be true in all systems. Different decisionmakers will accept different amounts of health risk in their food in exchange for different levels of flavor, cost, convenience, caloric adequacy, etc. And as long as no one defrauds anyone, it's a good thing to allow those different decisionmakers to make different decisions in their lives-- and it's a bad thing to mandate a one-size-fits-all risk-reward model of food.

The disease outbreaks of animal foods will never match those of plant-based foods. Consider that swine flu and avian flu have their origins in pig and chicken farms respectivly. HIV came from the consumption of fellow primates. The amount of antibiotics used in animal agriculture is rendering these drugs useless. Mad cow disease, salmonella outbreaks, ecoli, etc. There is nothing in plant-based agriculture that aproaches any of these diseases and problems in severity.



I dunno what you mean by horrible.

Wallstreat introduced the word. From what I know of The Jungle, I assumed he was refering to the inhumane treatement of workers as well as the animals they were killing. So I was echoing that meaning of the term.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 8:23:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 2:18:44 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Yes, that's something to respect, for sure. But I'm not sure the word "altruist" necessarily applies here. If you value the subjective experience of others who end up being victims, and you act on that personal value, I don't think that makes you an altruist in the sense you are using the word. Do you disagree?
I don't quite know what you mean.

The disease outbreaks of animal foods will never match those of plant-based foods.
Genetically, it stands to reason diseases adapted to prey upon things more similar to us are more adapted to prey upon us.

This is a cost of eating meat.

There are also benefits of eating meat. Such as enjoyment of the taste, along with a far easier time getting essential amino acids-- to the extent that if you eat a variety of fruits, veggies, and meats, you don't really have to spend any more time at all concerning yourself with nutrition beyond matching calories to exercise. It can mildly improve your health toseek more knowledge and apply it, but the basic problem of nutrition that has plagued most of human history is personally solved once you do those things in the present US economy.

Wallstreat introduced the word. From what I know of The Jungle, I assumed he was refering to the inhumane treatement of workers as well as the animals they were killing. So I was echoing that meaning of the term.

The fact that most people consider thinking about something to be agonizing
There's nothing wrong with being an agonist, as long as you don't try to be one in every story at once. Specialize. And if you specialize in nutrition-- agonize over how to come up with cheap, easy ways to make people healthier. Not complicated diets that will theoretically optimize health, at the expense of other things people value.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 9:36:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 8:23:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2014 2:18:44 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Yes, that's something to respect, for sure. But I'm not sure the word "altruist" necessarily applies here. If you value the subjective experience of others who end up being victims, and you act on that personal value, I don't think that makes you an altruist in the sense you are using the word. Do you disagree?
I don't quite know what you mean.

The disease outbreaks of animal foods will never match those of plant-based foods.
Genetically, it stands to reason diseases adapted to prey upon things more similar to us are more adapted to prey upon us.

This is a cost of eating meat.

There are also benefits of eating meat. Such as enjoyment of the taste, along with a far easier time getting essential amino acids-- to the extent that if you eat a variety of fruits, veggies, and meats, you don't really have to spend any more time at all concerning yourself with nutrition beyond matching calories to exercise. It can mildly improve your health toseek more knowledge and apply it, but the basic problem of nutrition that has plagued most of human history is personally solved once you do those things in the present US economy.

Wallstreat introduced the word. From what I know of The Jungle, I assumed he was refering to the inhumane treatement of workers as well as the animals they were killing. So I was echoing that meaning of the term.

The fact that most people consider thinking about something to be agonizing
There's nothing wrong with being an agonist, as long as you don't try to be one in every story at once. Specialize. And if you specialize in nutrition-- agonize over how to come up with cheap, easy ways to make people healthier. Not complicated diets that will theoretically optimize health, at the expense of other things people value.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that a bit rich coming from an Objectivist? Wasn't one of the big sticking points of Atlas Shrugged, and the crux of Stadler's villain status, the idea that one cannot stick to simply technology or philosophy, that an understanding of both morality and the physical world should shape our decisions? Should I just accept what specialists in any field say without cultivating the understanding and knowledge to understand their findings? Do you want to live in a world where specialists dictate to a ever-credulous public what the truth is? I find the notion completely incongruous to a philosophy which stresses the importance of reason as a person's guide in life.

Anyway, this often misattributed quote sums up my feelings on specialization:
"The expert knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing."
- Anonymous -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 11:13:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 9:36:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Not to be snarky, but isn't that a bit rich coming from an Objectivist? Wasn't one of the big sticking points of Atlas Shrugged, and the crux of Stadler's villain status, the idea that one cannot stick to simply technology or philosophy, that an understanding of both morality and the physical world should shape our decisions?
Certainly, everyone should have a basic knowledge of what they seek. Not everyone should be a philosopher as such however. Not everyone should seek a university education in the matter, seek to write books on the matter. They should know what they seek, and what they enjoy finding out, and the moral rules that delineate getting what they seek. Just like they should know to eat a variety of fruits, meats, and vegetables, or follow some other diet where the difference in effort and difference in usefulness for health is a good choice for their situation, but not everyone should plan to read all the latest studies on nutrition if they don't enjoy doing so, as they could either use that time on enjoyable things or things far more productive.

Should I just accept what specialists in any field say without cultivating the understanding and knowledge to understand their findings?
Well, what exactly you should do in a field depends on your interest and comparative advantages. What the average member of the public should do in regard to nutrition is notice the general health outcomes they like, and do what other people getting those health outcomes seem to typically do, unless they find out the juice isn't worth a squeeze. Or consult a health professional if they're having significant problems, and see whether what the professional says helps. Or follow a peer-reviewed diet if they find it tolerable and like the health outcomes they get from it. Or any number of similar things. If it works, and it's worth it, do it. If it's not worth it or it doesn't work, stop it. It's an individual judgment and not for me to dictate to them. But i make the observation that most of them will not choose an especially complicated and strenuous diet that extends life expectancy by perhaps 2 percent. It reduces most people's life enjoyment by, as it were, more than 2 percent.

Do you want to live in a world where specialists dictate to a ever-credulous public what the truth is?
The average member of the public has means of distinguishing among specialists whose programs have observable results. Regardless, I don't want to live in a world where everyone is expending great amounts of their life studying nutrition. It's okay and even beneficial for SOME PEOPLE to do that, and trade their knowledge with those who specialize in other things, but it's not beneficial for everyone to do so.

I find the notion completely incongruous to a philosophy which stresses the importance of reason as a person's guide in life.
It emphasizes the importance of reason as a person's guide to a life on Earth that has been finite in 100% of known historical cases. Time is a scarce resource and one must exercise reasoning with useful but incomplete information about how one expends it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 11:18:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
By analogy: I never seek to educate anyone in politics who has not expressed an interest in the subject, and if for professional reasons I needed to do so to acquire votes or some such, the message submitted to the apathetic demographic's consideration would amount to "Freedom is good and has my complete support." Detail-free, they can ask for more information or they can observe the results of my program or they can ignore me entirely as suits their judgment of their time value.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 1:40:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 8:23:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2014 2:18:44 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Yes, that's something to respect, for sure. But I'm not sure the word "altruist" necessarily applies here. If you value the subjective experience of others who end up being victims, and you act on that personal value, I don't think that makes you an altruist in the sense you are using the word. Do you disagree?
I don't quite know what you mean.

The disease outbreaks of animal foods will never match those of plant-based foods.
Genetically, it stands to reason diseases adapted to prey upon things more similar to us are more adapted to prey upon us.

This is a cost of eating meat.

There are also benefits of eating meat. Such as enjoyment of the taste, along with a far easier time getting essential amino acids-- to the extent that if you eat a variety of fruits, veggies, and meats, you don't really have to spend any more time at all concerning yourself with nutrition beyond matching calories to exercise.

Vegan diets are very simple. One day I just stopped eating meat, milk and eggs. I felt the same. Likely, the fats and proteins I got from animal products were replaced with much healthier sources, i.e., beans, grains, nuts and legumes. Eventually I started reading about the dietetics of veganism and learned that it's crucial to get B12 from fortified foods. Also, flax seed is a good source of Omega-3's. But none of this is hard. The B12 was already in the plant-based milk I was drinking and I just went out and bought some flaxseed oil (which is very tasty if it is flavored). I've really spent almost no time concerning myself with nutrition (except as an acedemic interest).

It can mildly improve your health toseek more knowledge and apply it, but the basic problem of nutrition that has plagued most of human history is personally solved once you do those things in the present US economy.

Yes that's true. However, there are diseases of affluence that result form successful economies. Heart disease is the number one killer in affluent societies. Cancer and diebetese follow closely behind. Vegan diets substantially reduces the likelyhood of suffering these agonizing fates. This fact isn't trivial. As you age, and see other people around you die of these diseases, the gravity of lifestyle choices like diet will be clearer.

Wallstreat introduced the word. From what I know of The Jungle, I assumed he was refering to the inhumane treatement of workers as well as the animals they were killing. So I was echoing that meaning of the term.

The fact that most people consider thinking about something to be agonizing
There's nothing wrong with being an agonist, as long as you don't try to be one in every story at once. Specialize. And if you specialize in nutrition-- agonize over how to come up with cheap, easy ways to make people healthier. Not complicated diets that will theoretically optimize health, at the expense of other things people value.

I was hoping you would answer my question on the role personal values play regarding alturism vs egoism. (Or maybe you did and I just didn't notice.) I'll ask it in a yes or no fashion: If some one values the welfare of a victim, and acts on that value, is he or she acting as an altruist or an egoist?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 5:38:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 1:40:50 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Vegan diets are very simple. One day I just stopped eating meat, milk and eggs. I felt the same. Likely, the fats and proteins I got from animal products were replaced with much healthier sources, i.e., beans, grains, nuts and legumes.
Beans and legumes is redundant. Also, I feel terrible if I eat a lot of nuts and legumes. Good in moderation, but not as a dominant part of the diet at least for me.

Eventually I started reading about the dietetics of veganism and learned that it's crucial to get B12 from fortified foods.
When you're talking about "fortified foods" as a necessity rather than merely a beneficial thing you've basically conceded my argument. You might as well say veganism is viable with pills, it's the same thing, just arranged on the table differently.

Also, flax seed is a good source of Omega-3's. But none of this is hard.
Perhaps not for you. Most people actually like meat. Like it a great deal.

The B12 was already in the plant-based milk I was drinking
You were already drinking plant based milk, before you were vegan. You are hardly a representative sample.

and I just went out and bought some flaxseed oil (which is very tasty if it is flavored).
I don't mind flaxseed occasionally, but it can't hold a candle to the deliciousness of seafood. Flaxseed is the kind of taste most people wouldn't enjoy however. I prefer my grains whole, most people prefer their grains processed to the point they're basically glue however, and nutritionally useless without essentially grinding pills into the flour. That's why I didn't mention grains as part of the no-effort nutrition above. Doubtless people engaging in such a diet will consume grains, but for most of them, those grains will not be nutritional contributors.

I've really spent almost no time concerning myself with nutrition (except as an acedemic interest).
You already conceded that with needing to look out for "fortified foods." And note that most, e.g., fortified breads on the market and fortified very well.

Yes that's true. However, there are diseases of affluence that result form successful economies.
That kill you at 60 or 70, rather than 30 or 40 like the historical diseases involved in nutrition. As in, a small number of years before you're dead either way. Worth doing something no-effort about, but contrary to your experience, most people experience a massive difference in enjoyment and convenience between a vegan and omnivorous diet.

I was hoping you would answer my question on the role personal values play regarding alturism vs egoism. (Or maybe you did and I just didn't notice.) I'll ask it in a yes or no fashion: If some one values the welfare of a victim, and acts on that value, is he or she acting as an altruist or an egoist?
Welfare of a victim of what? As a sole value? As I said earlier, I don't understand the question. Are you asking if their standard for whether they determine a person's welfare has value is whether that person is a victim of something? Or they value having victims, as such? Or they value helping victims as a means to some selfish or more generalist altruist end?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 6:58:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 5:38:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:40:50 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Vegan diets are very simple. One day I just stopped eating meat, milk and eggs. I felt the same. Likely, the fats and proteins I got from animal products were replaced with much healthier sources, i.e., beans, grains, nuts and legumes.
Beans and legumes is redundant. Also, I feel terrible if I eat a lot of nuts and legumes. Good in moderation, but not as a dominant part of the diet at least for me.

Eventually I started reading about the dietetics of veganism and learned that it's crucial to get B12 from fortified foods.
When you're talking about "fortified foods" as a necessity rather than merely a beneficial thing you've basically conceded my argument. You might as well say veganism is viable with pills, it's the same thing, just arranged on the table differently.

Yeah but you could say the same thing about living and working indoors. In order to maintain that lifestyle, vitamin D had to be artifically added to the food supply to reduces the rate of rickets. The B12 in fortified foods is better than that found in meat because it isn't bound to the protein and is easier to absorb. Older people who develop conditions that make it too difficult to absorb B12 from animal source rely on the easily absorbed B12 from suppliments and fortified foods so its a better form of B12. Besides, many foods are fortified with many other vitimins and minerals because it is generally recognized that getting adequete supplies of these is difficult for most people. That goes for any diet group.


Also, flax seed is a good source of Omega-3's. But none of this is hard.
Perhaps not for you. Most people actually like meat. Like it a great deal.

The B12 was already in the plant-based milk I was drinking
You were already drinking plant based milk, before you were vegan. You are hardly a representative sample.

Yeah, I tried to go from lacto-ovo to full vegan at first and failed. I stuck with the soy milk though because it tasted better.


and I just went out and bought some flaxseed oil (which is very tasty if it is flavored).
I don't mind flaxseed occasionally, but it can't hold a candle to the deliciousness of seafood. Flaxseed is the kind of taste most people wouldn't enjoy however.

Yeah, that's why I said flavored flaxseed. I think anyone would like the flavored variety.

I prefer my grains whole, most people prefer their grains processed to the point they're basically glue however, and nutritionally useless without essentially grinding pills into the flour. That's why I didn't mention grains as part of the no-effort nutrition above. Doubtless people engaging in such a diet will consume grains, but for most of them, those grains will not be nutritional contributors.

I think you bring up grains here because of the protein argument I was making. The plan fact about vegans and protein is that it isn't an issue. This has been studied and the conclusion that nutritionist come away with is that: as long as you get enough calories, you will be getting enough protein. If you can find a study that contradicts that last assertion, I would appreciate you sharing it.

I've really spent almost no time concerning myself with nutrition (except as an acedemic interest).
You already conceded that with needing to look out for "fortified foods." And note that most, e.g., fortified breads on the market and fortified very well.


Yes that's true. However, there are diseases of affluence that result form successful economies.
That kill you at 60 or 70, rather than 30 or 40 like the historical diseases involved in nutrition. As in, a small number of years before you're dead either way. Worth doing something no-effort about, but contrary to your experience, most people experience a massive difference in enjoyment and convenience between a vegan and omnivorous diet.

Deaths from heart disease, cancer and diebetes aren't simply illnesses that end you in a day or so. You live with them for years. That's a torturious way to die and it takes profound myopia to not want to avoid them at all costs.

Eshewing animal products does seem to be quite inconvenient to some people, I've noticed. It's clear, however, that tastes are developed from one's surrounding culture. The desire for animal products vanish over time. This is especially true of milk because lactase production ceases when milk is removed from an adult humans diet, which cause a mild revulsion to its smell and taste. I think that the fact that Hindus and Seventh-Day Advantists don't report feelings of culinary deprivation proves that the need for animal products to feel satiated is learned as a result of being a part of a meat eating culture.


I was hoping you would answer my question on the role personal values play regarding alturism vs egoism. (Or maybe you did and I just didn't notice.) I'll ask it in a yes or no fashion: If some one values the welfare of a victim, and acts on that value, is he or she acting as an altruist or an egoist?
Welfare of a victim of what? As a sole value? As I said earlier, I don't understand the question. Are you asking if their standard for whether they determine a person's welfare has value is whether that person is a victim of something? Or they value having victims, as such? Or they value helping victims as a means to some selfish or more generalist altruist end?

Let's say I know a person who has become homeless. I offer my home to him because I value his welbeing. That's to say, it bothers me that he is homeless because it is upsetting to me to consider his unhappiness. Letting him stay in my home is a significant inconvenience to me. Am I acting as an altruist or an egoist?

I think I am being an egoist because I am acting on my my own values. If I were to bring him into my home because a priest told me that some god wants me to, or because some other entity which is external to me has caused me to accept my sacrifice as a virtue, then I would be acting as an altruist. However, in this my hypothetical, I am acting on my person, internal desire to improve the welfare of this homeless man. Therefore, I am an egoist. Correct?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 9:50:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:58:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/13/2014 5:38:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:40:50 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Vegan diets are very simple. One day I just stopped eating meat, milk and eggs. I felt the same. Likely, the fats and proteins I got from animal products were replaced with much healthier sources, i.e., beans, grains, nuts and legumes.
Beans and legumes is redundant. Also, I feel terrible if I eat a lot of nuts and legumes. Good in moderation, but not as a dominant part of the diet at least for me.

Eventually I started reading about the dietetics of veganism and learned that it's crucial to get B12 from fortified foods.
When you're talking about "fortified foods" as a necessity rather than merely a beneficial thing you've basically conceded my argument. You might as well say veganism is viable with pills, it's the same thing, just arranged on the table differently.

Yeah but you could say the same thing about living and working indoors. In order to maintain that lifestyle, vitamin D had to be artifically added to the food supply to reduces the rate of rickets.
One enables a career. The other enables mild health benefits.

Yeah, I tried to go from lacto-ovo to full vegan at first and failed. I stuck with the soy milk though because it tasted better.
You see? It's literally something people try and fail!



and I just went out and bought some flaxseed oil (which is very tasty if it is flavored).
I don't mind flaxseed occasionally, but it can't hold a candle to the deliciousness of seafood. Flaxseed is the kind of taste most people wouldn't enjoy however.

Yeah, that's why I said flavored flaxseed. I think anyone would like the flavored variety.
Honestly, I don't even know what that is. They have little 70/30 flaxseed-granola mixes in my galley's to-go breakfasts, that's about my experience of flaxseed.

I prefer my grains whole, most people prefer their grains processed to the point they're basically glue however, and nutritionally useless without essentially grinding pills into the flour. That's why I didn't mention grains as part of the no-effort nutrition above. Doubtless people engaging in such a diet will consume grains, but for most of them, those grains will not be nutritional contributors.

I think you bring up grains here because of the protein argument I was making.
Nah, I brought it up because flaxseed.

Deaths from heart disease, cancer and diebetes aren't simply illnesses that end you in a day or so. You live with them for years. That's a torturious way to die and it takes profound myopia to not want to avoid them at all costs.
It's precisely because they don't end you quickly that no one pays attention. They end you slowly at a time when you're typically already being ended slowly anyway. And the people who want to avoid them that badly have options like exercise, it's not "no meat or this will happen." Exercise is painful, but I would still eat meat if I were allowed to stop PT if I went vegan.


Eshewing animal products does seem to be quite inconvenient to some people, I've noticed. It's clear, however, that tastes are developed from one's surrounding culture. The desire for animal products vanish over time. This is especially true of milk
I'lll note I didn't include milk. A few people would defend their ice cream as jealously as I guard my meat, but not as many really. Although a childhood without it would be brutal.

I think that the fact that Hindus and Seventh-Day Advantists don't report feelings of culinary deprivation proves that the need for animal products to feel satiated is learned as a result of being a part of a meat eating culture.
Seventh day-adventism is a hardcore church you do NOT join if ANY worldly concern is remotely capable of getting in your way. The same with the fully vegetarian castes of Hinduism. India is NOT a primarily vegetarian country. Traiditional hinduism had vegetarianism as a thing of the brahmin caste, not a thing of all castes.

And basically, "religious people do it" is a bad example to say that anything is no big deal. Religion, itself, is a big deal.

Let's say I know a person who has become homeless. I offer my home to him because I value his welbeing. That's to say, it bothers me that he is homeless because it is upsetting to me to consider his unhappiness. Letting him stay in my home is a significant inconvenience to me. Am I acting as an altruist or an egoist?

It's precisely that kind of 'altruist' who Singer condemned if they claimed the mantle of altruism (and if they didn't, he was, after all, an avowed altruist who wishes to convert people to altruism). Singer doesn't want you to take in some homeless person you coincidentally happened to know and get to claim the altruist mantle for it. He wants you to sell your home on the open market and donate to the poorest country you've ever heard of, until you are at its standard of living.

You can take on significant inconveniences for friends, and it might be either egoist or altruist, it is undiscoverable to any other than you what you value more and whether that is what you picked.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 7:23:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 9:50:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:58:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/13/2014 5:38:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:40:50 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Vegan diets are very simple. One day I just stopped eating meat, milk and eggs. I felt the same. Likely, the fats and proteins I got from animal products were replaced with much healthier sources, i.e., beans, grains, nuts and legumes.
Beans and legumes is redundant. Also, I feel terrible if I eat a lot of nuts and legumes. Good in moderation, but not as a dominant part of the diet at least for me.

Eventually I started reading about the dietetics of veganism and learned that it's crucial to get B12 from fortified foods.
When you're talking about "fortified foods" as a necessity rather than merely a beneficial thing you've basically conceded my argument. You might as well say veganism is viable with pills, it's the same thing, just arranged on the table differently.

Yeah but you could say the same thing about living and working indoors. In order to maintain that lifestyle, vitamin D had to be artifically added to the food supply to reduces the rate of rickets.

One enables a career. The other enables mild health benefits.

The benefits are far from mild:

A study of 44,500 people in England and Scotland showed vegetarians were 32% less likely to die or need hospital treatment as a result of heart disease.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Middle-aged people who eat protein-rich food are four times more likely to die of cancer than someone who only eats a little, according to a new study. The researchers said eating a lot of protein increased the risk of cancer almost as much as smoking 20 cigarettes a day.
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.independent.co.uk...

Yeah, I tried to go from lacto-ovo to full vegan at first and failed. I stuck with the soy milk though because it tasted better.
You see? It's literally something people try and fail!

Lol, yes I know: it isn't perfectly easy. Little worth doing is.




and I just went out and bought some flaxseed oil (which is very tasty if it is flavored).
I don't mind flaxseed occasionally, but it can't hold a candle to the deliciousness of seafood. Flaxseed is the kind of taste most people wouldn't enjoy however.

Yeah, that's why I said flavored flaxseed. I think anyone would like the flavored variety.
Honestly, I don't even know what that is. They have little 70/30 flaxseed-granola mixes in my galley's to-go breakfasts, that's about my experience of flaxseed.

They might be easier to find in health food stores.


I prefer my grains whole, most people prefer their grains processed to the point they're basically glue however, and nutritionally useless without essentially grinding pills into the flour. That's why I didn't mention grains as part of the no-effort nutrition above. Doubtless people engaging in such a diet will consume grains, but for most of them, those grains will not be nutritional contributors.

I think you bring up grains here because of the protein argument I was making.
Nah, I brought it up because flaxseed.

Deaths from heart disease, cancer and diebetes aren't simply illnesses that end you in a day or so. You live with them for years. That's a torturious way to die and it takes profound myopia to not want to avoid them at all costs.
It's precisely because they don't end you quickly that no one pays attention. They end you slowly at a time when you're typically already being ended slowly anyway.

These arguments could be applied to smoking. What can I say, some people prefer to smoke - usually because its too hard to quit. But I don't think that meat is as addictive as smoking is. I think dying of natural causes is preferable to dying a slow, agonizing death due to cancer or heart disease. At that age you have a lot of people who love you and who would rather you live as long as possible and to see you suffer a little as possible.

And the people who want to avoid them that badly have options like exercise, it's not "no meat or this will happen." Exercise is painful, but I would still eat meat if I were allowed to stop PT if I went vegan.



Eshewing animal products does seem to be quite inconvenient to some people, I've noticed. It's clear, however, that tastes are developed from one's surrounding culture. The desire for animal products vanish over time. This is especially true of milk
I'lll note I didn't include milk. A few people would defend their ice cream as jealously as I guard my meat, but not as many really. Although a childhood without it would be brutal.

I think you'd be surprised how many indulgences like ice cream are available for vegans. Just yesterday I bought coconut flavored ice cream and coconut ice cream bars for my 3 year-old. I also baked him chocolet chip cookies. He's doing fine in the sweets department.

Though I will concede that cheese is a major obstical for many aspiring vegans, especially if you don't like vegan cheese - which really isn't that great.


I think that the fact that Hindus and Seventh-Day Advantists don't report feelings of culinary deprivation proves that the need for animal products to feel satiated is learned as a result of being a part of a meat eating culture.
Seventh day-adventism is a hardcore church you do NOT join if ANY worldly concern is remotely capable of getting in your way. The same with the fully vegetarian castes of Hinduism. India is NOT a primarily vegetarian country. Traiditional hinduism had vegetarianism as a thing of the brahmin caste, not a thing of all castes.

And basically, "religious people do it" is a bad example to say that anything is no big deal. Religion, itself, is a big deal.

Yeah, maybe. Though my impression of the Seventh-day Advantist wasn't that they were particularly hard-core.

Anyway, about 2% of the population is vegan (about 5% is vegetarian). In Isreal (for some reason) I think there are about 5% vegan. I wonder why it's easy for some people to stop eating these products while other seem to have such a hard time. I mean, what exactly seperates you and me in biochemical terms? Giving up meat was one of the easiest things for me to do.

Either way, I think these tastes are culturally determined. I mean, could you imagine eating what French people do.


Let's say I know a person who has become homeless. I offer my home to him because I value his welbeing. That's to say, it bothers me that he is homeless because it is upsetting to me to consider his unhappiness. Letting him stay in my home is a significant inconvenience to me. Am I acting as an altruist or an egoist?

It's precisely that kind of 'altruist' who Singer condemned if they claimed the mantle of altruism (and if they didn't, he was, after all, an avowed altruist who wishes to convert people to altruism). Singer doesn't want you to take in some homeless person you coincidentally happened to know and get to claim the altruist mantle for it. He wants you to sell your home on the open market and donate to the poorest country you've ever heard of, until you are at its standard of living.

I thought his position on that was that people should donate 10% of their income to help the needy.

In my opinion, it's better to buy things (or invest in things) for your own selfish ends. Even an altruist should be able to see that that is indeed wealth redistribution since your money is going into the hands of people who need it. The only di
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:37:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:23:43 PM, vbaculum wrote:
A study of 44,500 people in England and Scotland showed vegetarians were 32% less likely to die or need hospital treatment as a result of heart disease.
Just reading the headline tells me they didn't go for the right statistic. The right statistic is net expected years added.

Honestly, I don't even know what that is. They have little 70/30 flaxseed-granola mixes in my galley's to-go breakfasts, that's about my experience of flaxseed.

They might be easier to find in health food stores.
See, just gets harder and harder as you go along. Anytime someone says "mmm, I love my tasty diet from the health food store:" They are lying and their wallet isn't happy either.

These arguments could be applied to smoking. What can I say, some people prefer to smoke - usually because its too hard to quit. But I don't think that meat is as addictive as smoking is.
I dunno, meat sure seems to catch a lot more flies.

I think dying of natural causes is preferable to dying a slow, agonizing death due to cancer or heart disease.
I think that's what "natural causes" usually refers to.

Yeah, maybe. Though my impression of the Seventh-day Advantist wasn't that they were particularly hard-core.
I dunno what Adventists you hang out with. Now granted, they aren't generally the kind of people who will shun you because omg atheist you might worship the devil; but, like Mormons; they're typically fairly extreme about their own conduct.


Anyway, about 2% of the population is vegan (about 5% is vegetarian). In Isreal (for some reason) I think there are about 5% vegan. I wonder why it's easy for some people to stop eating these products while other seem to have such a hard time. I mean, what exactly seperates you and me in biochemical terms? Giving up meat was one of the easiest things for me to do.
You have to attend special stores and already told me how you failed at it once.


Either way, I think these tastes are culturally determined. I mean, could you imagine eating what French people do.
Looks a bit gross sometimes, but I'll try anything once, and often wind up liking something I never grew up with. Raw beef pho, for example. Or those black bean burger things-- not a permanent replacement for meat in general, but might serve as a substitute on an occasional basis.

I thought his position on that was that people should donate 10% of their income to help the needy.

Maybe he's moderated in the years since he wrote what I had to read of his works.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 6:07:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 8:37:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:23:43 PM, vbaculum wrote:
A study of 44,500 people in England and Scotland showed vegetarians were 32% less likely to die or need hospital treatment as a result of heart disease.
Just reading the headline tells me they didn't go for the right statistic. The right statistic is net expected years added.

Honestly, I don't even know what that is. They have little 70/30 flaxseed-granola mixes in my galley's to-go breakfasts, that's about my experience of flaxseed.

They might be easier to find in health food stores.
See, just gets harder and harder as you go along. Anytime someone says "mmm, I love my tasty diet from the health food store:" They are lying and their wallet isn't happy either.

I think you're under some misconception here.


These arguments could be applied to smoking. What can I say, some people prefer to smoke - usually because its too hard to quit. But I don't think that meat is as addictive as smoking is.
I dunno, meat sure seems to catch a lot more flies.

And pathogens :)



I think dying of natural causes is preferable to dying a slow, agonizing death due to cancer or heart disease.
I think that's what "natural causes" usually refers to.


Yeah, maybe. Though my impression of the Seventh-day Advantist wasn't that they were particularly hard-core.
I dunno what Adventists you hang out with. Now granted, they aren't generally the kind of people who will shun you because omg atheist you might worship the devil; but, like Mormons; they're typically fairly extreme about their own conduct.

Mormons just appear to be extreme. They make a big deal about not drinking coffee because it has caffeine. But from what I can tell, they are all happy to drink caffeinated sofdrinks. It's just a matter of hanging on to those childhood aversion against coffee and alcohol, from what I can tell. Another example would be the prohibition against eating meat accept when necessary which was articulated in The Doctrines and Covenants. They appear barely aware of this prohibition by the way they eat meat. That's why I thought your argument about religion being a big deal wasn't very strong. Religious convictions are usually a show people put on. The better actor you are, the more pious you are considered to be.


Anyway, about 2% of the population is vegan (about 5% is vegetarian). In Isreal (for some reason) I think there are about 5% vegan. I wonder why it's easy for some people to stop eating these products while other seem to have such a hard time. I mean, what exactly seperates you and me in biochemical terms? Giving up meat was one of the easiest things for me to do.
You have to attend special stores and already told me how you failed at it once.

You don't have to take flaxseed in the same way you have to get B12. Flaxseed is analogous to fish oil. You take it because there is strong evidence it lowers the risk of heart disease.

Obviously, you can by plant-based foods at regular grocery stores. Health food stores are just more optimized for healthier diets (to be tautological).

I had said I failed once at becoming a full vegan: renouncing eggs and milk. When I was a teenager, I easily gave up meat. I think the reason why I was able to become a full vegan on my second attempt was because I had sat down and done research on the abuses visited on animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses. That caused the demands of my palate for cheese, etc. to just die. I'm so glad it did; I didn't need that desire in my system and I wish my parents hadn't put it in there in the first place with the unhealthy food they raised me on.



Either way, I think these tastes are culturally determined. I mean, could you imagine eating what French people do.
Looks a bit gross sometimes, but I'll try anything once, and often wind up liking something I never grew up with. Raw beef pho, for example. Or those black bean burger things-- not a permanent replacement for meat in general, but might serve as a substitute on an occasional basis.

I thought his position on that was that people should donate 10% of their income to help the needy.

Maybe he's moderated in the years since he wrote what I had to read of his works.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 6:52:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:07:34 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Mormons just appear to be extreme. They make a big deal about not drinking coffee because it has caffeine. But from what I can tell, they are all happy to drink caffeinated sofdrinks.
I was a mormon for a year. At least in the household where I learned the religion, there's a reason every soft drink in the house was labelled "caffeine free." There is a disagreement about this in the church: The original rule of conduct only prohibited coffee and tea; and not "because caffeine" but "because God said no coffee and tea for you gawldernit." Caffeine is something of a worldly attempt to provide reasoning for the rule; and those who follow the reasoning will avoid all caffeine (aside from chocolate because how many people even know there's caffeine in chocolate anyway) and sometimes will have no problem with noncaffeinated coffee and tea. As you might be able to tell from above, I was brought to church by folks of the "no caffeine" persuasion.

The very fact that such a thing could even become a question someone in their daily life would pay attention to is already indicative of a ridiculous level of devotion.

Another example would be the prohibition against eating meat accept when necessary which was articulated in The Doctrines and Covenants. They appear barely aware of this prohibition by the way they eat meat.
I think you're misreading a "prohibition." I believe you're referring to 89: 12-15 of that text, and the first thing it says is that they are ordained for use. You don't "ordain something for use" because it's acceptable only in an emergency, you do it because it's generally acceptable, nonsinful conduct. 89 seems, with about the usual clarity for scripture (i.e. muddled up in dumb contradictory language); to say that setting for oneself the rule to only eat meat in emergencies would be a praiseworthy option. You know, like how Jesus recommends celibacy (a line of the Bible that only Catholics really seem to do much with anymore, and the specialized Mormon scriptures are completely incompatible with even in the post-polygamy church), but that's hardly a Christian prohibition on sexuality in wedlock.

I had sat down and done research on the abuses visited on animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses.
You know what I think when I see an animal getting slaughtered? I think tasty.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 10:57:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:52:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/18/2014 6:07:34 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Mormons just appear to be extreme. They make a big deal about not drinking coffee because it has caffeine. But from what I can tell, they are all happy to drink caffeinated sofdrinks.
I was a mormon for a year. At least in the household where I learned the religion, there's a reason every soft drink in the house was labelled "caffeine free." There is a disagreement about this in the church: The original rule of conduct only prohibited coffee and tea; and not "because caffeine" but "because God said no coffee and tea for you gawldernit." Caffeine is something of a worldly attempt to provide reasoning for the rule; and those who follow the reasoning will avoid all caffeine (aside from chocolate because how many people even know there's caffeine in chocolate anyway) and sometimes will have no problem with noncaffeinated coffee and tea. As you might be able to tell from above, I was brought to church by folks of the "no caffeine" persuasion.

The very fact that such a thing could even become a question someone in their daily life would pay attention to is already indicative of a ridiculous level of devotion.

Another example would be the prohibition against eating meat accept when necessary which was articulated in The Doctrines and Covenants. They appear barely aware of this prohibition by the way they eat meat.
I think you're misreading a "prohibition." I believe you're referring to 89: 12-15 of that text, and the first thing it says is that they are ordained for use. You don't "ordain something for use" because it's acceptable only in an emergency, you do it because it's generally acceptable, nonsinful conduct. 89 seems, with about the usual clarity for scripture (i.e. muddled up in dumb contradictory language); to say that setting for oneself the rule to only eat meat in emergencies would be a praiseworthy option. You know, like how Jesus recommends celibacy (a line of the Bible that only Catholics really seem to do much with anymore, and the specialized Mormon scriptures are completely incompatible with even in the post-polygamy church), but that's hardly a Christian prohibition on sexuality in wedlock.

I think this is the verse I was referring to
And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.
https://www.lds.org...

The way I read this, it says every Mormon living in a modern, industrialized setting should be a vegetarian.



I had sat down and done research on the abuses visited on animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses.
You know what I think when I see an animal getting slaughtered? I think tasty.

That's a defence mechanism.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 5:34:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 10:57:16 AM, vbaculum wrote:
I think this is the verse I was referring to
And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.
He has a need. The need is for food. It is not absolutely vital that the food be meat, but meat definitely fulfills the need. Virtually every Mormon follows that rule under its standard interpretation: i.e., no sport hunting. Poor wording? Of course, it's a religion for chrissake.

I had sat down and done research on the abuses visited on animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses.
You know what I think when I see an animal getting slaughtered? I think tasty.

That's a defence mechanism.
No, it's an attack mechanism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.