Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:26:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 22:29:49
> I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues.
But this thread was supposed to be an ethical discussion!
>I deal with local farmers, and I am on a first name basis with my butcher (who does his own killing). I take responsibility for my meat intake, and I am happy to provide others with raw materials for leather goods, shampoos, and soap.
Right. And so my question for you is 'would you be on a first name basis with a butcher (who does his own killing) of human beings. Do you believe it is wrong to breed and kill human beings to eat them? And if killing people to eat them is wrong, then why do you think killing animals to eat them is acceptable?
> I'm still not convinced of the healthiness of vegetarian diets, even with supplements. I've seen too many "walking ghosts"... errrr....committed vegetarian skeletons, often skulking about in the shadows of health food emporiums.Ah. And by the same logic you would not believe how many grotesquely overweight meat eaters I have seen. Even with suppliments. I am still not convinced of the healthiness of a meat eating diet.
Like I said, I agree with you that most people do not eat a balanced diet. But that doesn't just apply to vegetarians / vegans. And that doesn't just apply to meat eaters. You don't have to be convinced that you can remain healthy. All I am saying is that the ethical considerations mean that we should at least give it a hell of a good try.
> Witness the vegans / vegetarians who are alive..
> ...in a manner of speaking.
I can say the same about meat eaters.
> It illustrates the variability within a population. What suits one, or a group, does not suit all.It falsifies the stats as showing us what we 'need' to be healthy. There are living counter-examples. The stats don't tell us that we need to eat meat anyway...
>I believe there is a lot of that sort of inappropriate generalization, a true logical fallacy, in nutritional science. Some *can* do it. *All* cannot.
Ah. So *some* may need suppliments... whereas others may not... This still doesn't tell us that we have to eat meat...
> > > In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.But *enough* may actually be a lot lower than FDA requirement for many... So they may actually be getting as much as they need
> > I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.
> I've studied their methodology at some depth, and it really is both rigorous and conservative. That would be the National Institutes of Health, a member of the Academy of Sciences, rather than the FDA.Hmm. What about the British FDA requirements then??? How is their methodology? Apparantly it is possible to eat a balanced diet and meet that FDA standard of health... That is the system nutritionists study over here.
> What is astounding, IMHO, is not the setting of the RDAs. It is what we commonly accept as normal and healthy. One if five with active mental illness. One in five with a bowel disorder. One in five with circulatory disease. One in five with blood sugar dysregulation. And so on. I'm starting to wonder just who the "normal healthy" individuals upon whom the RDAs were based actually are.Indeed...
> > I don't know. Maybe we all would be better off with suppliments. Maybe not. Until the comparisons are made between people on similar diets who get 1) no suppliments 2) placebo suppliments and 3) real suppliments I guess we won't know.
> You shan't be taking my advice, then?No. I struggle with money as it is. I won't 'gamble' with what I have.
> > I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...
> Yellow pee is proof enough.Proof that some of the colouring goes straight through us...
> ... but they're the best estimates yet.What about the English system???
> When I was on the land, I grew great quantities and varieties of organic veggies. I do miss the dirt under my nails, and the fruit of the land. I had over thirty kinds of apples. Plums. Grapes. Kiwis. 12 kinds of raspberries. Lots of stuff.
Yum.
> But I've always been drawn to sliced corpse as a central part of my diet. And I've yet to have the urge to change that.
I don't know what to say.
You don't mind that animals suffer.
There isn't anything I can say in response to someone who truely doesn't mind.
But if you think animals have interests
That they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain
Then I do not see how you can not think that it is wrong to condone a practice that denies them their most fundamental interests. That causes them so much pain. I don't understand how you can believe that it is morally justified. But I don't know. You didn't want to talk about the ethics of it I suppose.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465818.html