On Jun 9, 11:23*pm, Lance > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:37*am, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 12:12 am, "graham" > wrote:
>
> > > "Paul Grieg" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
> > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, "PG" > wrote:
>
> > > Wittgenstein thought food was too
> > > trivial to waste time over so had the same lunch every day (boiled egg
> > > & a lump of cheese).
>
> > > What a miserable sod he must have been!
> > > Graham
>
> > Why? Have you any research to show that following a simple diet makes
> > one a miserable sod? His final words we “Tell them I had a
> > wonderful life.” Doesn't sound miserable to me.
>
> I know that there is a Christian ideology that says that self-
> punishment is good for a person. It is the ideology that resulted in
> hairshirts and self-mutilation. But why any humanist should believe
> that the pleasure of food is worth throwing away is beyond me. In what
> way would eating well have hurt Wittgenstein, or anyone else? Surely
> the life of Wittgenstein having the same miserable food everyday is
> less good than the same life in which he had a variety of tasty
> breakfasts and lunches?
>
I'm not sure that puritanism is just a Christian ideology. Though I
agree that in the case of the old communist countries, some of the
killjoys and prigs may have had some christian influence as an excuse,
the Chinese and Koreans haven't. Communism is another puritan religion
- as, in some ways, is Islam. It runs pretty deep, the misanthropic
vein, I'm afraid!

"Lance" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 11:37 am, Paul Grieg > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 12:12 am, "graham" > wrote:
>
> > "Paul Grieg" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, "PG" > wrote:
>
> > Wittgenstein thought food was too
> > trivial to waste time over so had the same lunch every day (boiled egg
> > & a lump of cheese).
>
> > What a miserable sod he must have been!
> > Graham
>
> Why? Have you any research to show that following a simple diet makes
> one a miserable sod? His final words we “Tell them I had a
> wonderful life.” Doesn't sound miserable to me.

I know that there is a Christian ideology that says that self-
punishment is good for a person. It is the ideology that resulted in
hairshirts and self-mutilation. But why any humanist should believe
that the pleasure of food is worth throwing away is beyond me. In what
way would eating well have hurt Wittgenstein, or anyone else? Surely
the life of Wittgenstein having the same miserable food everyday is
less good than the same life in which he had a variety of tasty
breakfasts and lunches?

__________________________________________________ ______

I wonder if his attitude to music was similar.
Graham

valley wrote:
> "Lance" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jun 7, 11:37 am, Paul Grieg > wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 12:12 am, "graham" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Paul Grieg" > wrote in message
> >
> > ....
> > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, "PG" > wrote:
> >
> > > Wittgenstein thought food was too
> > > trivial to waste time over so had the same lunch every day (boiled egg
> > > & a lump of cheese).
> >
> > > What a miserable sod he must have been!
> > > Graham
> >
> > Why? Have you any research to show that following a simple diet makes
> > one a miserable sod? His final words we �Tell them I had a
> > wonderful life.� Doesn't sound miserable to me.
>
> I know that there is a Christian ideology that says that self-
> punishment is good for a person. It is the ideology that resulted in
> hairshirts and self-mutilation. But why any humanist should believe
> that the pleasure of food is worth throwing away is beyond me. In what
> way would eating well have hurt Wittgenstein, or anyone else? Surely
> the life of Wittgenstein having the same miserable food everyday is
> less good than the same life in which he had a variety of tasty
> breakfasts and lunches?
>
> __________________________________________________ ______
>
> I wonder if his attitude to music was similar.
> Graham

Wittgenstein's brother was a famous one-handed (due to war injuries)
pianist. I'm sure Wittgenstein loved music. But he may have witheld
the pleasure of music, perhaps, in order to make himself a bette
philsopher?

Lance

On Jun 9, 10:23 pm, Lance > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:37 am, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 12:12 am, "graham" > wrote:
>
> > > "Paul Grieg" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
> > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, "PG" > wrote:
>
> > > Wittgenstein thought food was too
> > > trivial to waste time over so had the same lunch every day (boiled egg
> > > & a lump of cheese).
>
> > > What a miserable sod he must have been!
> > > Graham
>
> > Why? Have you any research to show that following a simple diet makes
> > one a miserable sod? His final words we “Tell them I had a
> > wonderful life.” Doesn't sound miserable to me.
>
> I know that there is a Christian ideology that says that self-
> punishment is good for a person. It is the ideology that resulted in
> hairshirts and self-mutilation. But why any humanist should believe
> that the pleasure of food is worth throwing away is beyond me. In what
> way would eating well have hurt Wittgenstein, or anyone else? Surely
> the life of Wittgenstein having the same miserable food everyday is
> less good than the same life in which he had a variety of tasty
> breakfasts and lunches?

I just did a search for "egg" and "cheese" in Monk's biography on
Amazon look inside. Most amusing.

His simplicity extended to eating out with posh types, invariably this
meant egg, bread & milk at a cafe, worn jacket, no tie...

This was a great way of filtering out superficial young ladies (p.239)

He did at one stage have (every day) porridge for breakfast,
vegetables at lunch and a boiled egg in the evening. This is the only
complete account of his diet I can find -- and it looks pretty
healthy.

How are egg, porridge and vegetables miserable? Good simple fair...

He only had cheese sandwiches when staying with Norman Malcolm --
perhaps he didn't like his cooking :-)

Many philosophers have held that the difference between a simple,
healthy diet and the sort of a la carte existence you mention is
trivial. The time & money saving that comes with extreme simplicity is
much more important -- it gives you a significant amount of time for
higher matters.

Of course, if the philosopher is independently wealthy enough to eat
out a la carte all the time, why not. That's what Schopenhauer did,
though always at the same hotel.

Curtailment of trivia seems to be the main thing.

So it's not a hair shirt existence, it's replacing insignificant lower
pleasures with higher pleasures.

On Jun 10, 3:20 am, "valley" > wrote:
> "Lance" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jun 7, 11:37 am, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 12:12 am, "graham" > wrote:
>
> > > "Paul Grieg" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
> > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, "PG" > wrote:
>
> > > Wittgenstein thought food was too
> > > trivial to waste time over so had the same lunch every day (boiled egg
> > > & a lump of cheese).
>
> > > What a miserable sod he must have been!
> > > Graham
>
> > Why? Have you any research to show that following a simple diet makes
> > one a miserable sod? His final words we “Tell them I had a
> > wonderful life.” Doesn't sound miserable to me.
>
> I know that there is a Christian ideology that says that self-
> punishment is good for a person. It is the ideology that resulted in
> hairshirts and self-mutilation. But why any humanist should believe
> that the pleasure of food is worth throwing away is beyond me. In what
> way would eating well have hurt Wittgenstein, or anyone else? Surely
> the life of Wittgenstein having the same miserable food everyday is
> less good than the same life in which he had a variety of tasty
> breakfasts and lunches?
>
> __________________________________________________ ______
>
> I wonder if his attitude to music was similar.
> Graham

It was simple in that he didn't like anyone after Brahms, and even in
him he detected "the sound of machines". He preferred Mozart and
Beethoven. But he was forever bolting down his cheese sandwiches and
rushing to Cambridge classisal music performances. See if he'd got out
his cookbook he'd have missed the music, thereby replacing the
essential with the trivial.

On Jun 10, 9:54 am, Lance > wrote:
> valley wrote:
> > "Lance" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jun 7, 11:37 am, Paul Grieg > wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 12:12 am, "graham" > wrote:
>
> > > > "Paul Grieg" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
> > > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, "PG" > wrote:
>
> > > > Wittgenstein thought food was too
> > > > trivial to waste time over so had the same lunch every day (boiled egg
> > > > & a lump of cheese).
>
> > > > What a miserable sod he must have been!
> > > > Graham
>
> > > Why? Have you any research to show that following a simple diet makes
> > > one a miserable sod? His final words we �Tell them I had a
> > > wonderful life.� Doesn't sound miserable to me.
>
> > I know that there is a Christian ideology that says that self-
> > punishment is good for a person. It is the ideology that resulted in
> > hairshirts and self-mutilation. But why any humanist should believe
> > that the pleasure of food is worth throwing away is beyond me. In what
> > way would eating well have hurt Wittgenstein, or anyone else? Surely
> > the life of Wittgenstein having the same miserable food everyday is
> > less good than the same life in which he had a variety of tasty
> > breakfasts and lunches?
>
> > __________________________________________________ ______
>
> > I wonder if his attitude to music was similar.
> > Graham
>
> Wittgenstein's brother was a famous one-handed (due to war injuries)
> pianist. I'm sure Wittgenstein loved music. But he may have witheld
> the pleasure of music, perhaps, in order to make himself a bette
> philsopher?
>
> Lance

I recommend reading Monk's biography. It's a really good read, as
clear as Wittgenstein is obscure (!), and will clear up most of these
lifestyle speculations.

On Jun 10, 1:18*pm, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
>
> It was simple in that he didn't like anyone after Brahms, and even in
> him he detected "the sound of machines". He preferred Mozart and
> Beethoven. But he was forever bolting down his cheese sandwiches and
> rushing to Cambridge classisal music performances. See if he'd got out
> his cookbook he'd have missed the music, thereby replacing the
> essential with the trivial.
>
Cookery is essential, music not. Somebody who despises food is
probably a smoker or suffers from a lack of taste brought on by
chronic olfactory dysfunction. I don't think Wittgenstein had the
excuse of being a smoker. He went to the same school, though, as
Hitler, who ended up suffering from vegetarianism (and was also a non-
smoker), another form of food-hatred, so there might be a school
related connection.

We haven't discussed the philosophy of cookery here much. It might be
a worthy subject. There's a book with that title by Nancy Ogg, though
I think that Larousse Gastronomique and the companion book by
Curnonski might be more authentic for sauces.

"La sauce est tout" can certainly be read as a philosophical
statement.

Thinking of Lance's recent word puzzle, it might be interesting to
speculate on any significance in g-free gastronomy being the study of
the cosmos.

I think that, in recent times, Jane Grigson could be said to have
produced studies in the philosophy of cookery - though Mrs Beeton with
'first catch your hare' got there first, and, to some, perhaps, being
considerably less practical, more convincingly.

Music ought to be an accompaniment to good digestion and somebody who
inflicts a hasty cheese sandwich on his tum before a concert is very
likely doing digestion of both a disservice.

On Jun 10, 2:27 pm, Peter Brooks > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 1:18 pm, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
> > It was simple in that he didn't like anyone after Brahms, and even in
> > him he detected "the sound of machines". He preferred Mozart and
> > Beethoven. But he was forever bolting down his cheese sandwiches and
> > rushing to Cambridge classisal music performances. See if he'd got out
> > his cookbook he'd have missed the music, thereby replacing the
> > essential with the trivial.
>
> Cookery is essential, music not.

Food is essential, Jamie Oliver is not.

> Somebody who despises food is
> probably a smoker or suffers from a lack of taste brought on by
> chronic olfactory dysfunction. I don't think Wittgenstein had the
> excuse of being a smoker.

I don't think he despised food, just wanted to make as little fuss
about it as possible.

> He went to the same school, though, as
> Hitler, who ended up suffering from vegetarianism (and was also a non-
> smoker), another form of food-hatred, so there might be a school
> related connection.

Vegetarianism is nothing like a disease! There's quite a lot of
evidence that vegetarians living longer than omnivores, and little
showing the opposite. Certainly -- more evidence needed.

> We haven't discussed the philosophy of cookery here much.

Epicurus viewed food simply as a means remove the pain caused by
hunger. “Plain dishes offer the same pleasure as a luxurious table,
when the pain that comes from want is taken away.” Epicurus viewed the
want (or need as we often define it today) to gain wealth as unnatural
and unnecessary. Although wealth can certainly be seen as a tool for
gaining pleasure, the pain that is associated with it (the loss of
freedom, time with loved ones, and time to think) created greater pain
and anxiety than it cured.

> Music ought to be an accompaniment to good digestion and somebody who
> inflicts a hasty cheese sandwich on his tum before a concert is very
> likely doing digestion of both a disservice.

The rushing down the cheese sandwich was probably a bad guess. Maybe
his days were better arranged than that. Cheese sandwich at leisure
followed by a stroll to the concert hall was more likely, as he didn't
seem overly inflicted with teaching, administration or 'paper
writing' duties.

On Jun 10, 3:27*pm, Peter Brooks > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 1:18*pm, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
> > It was simple in that he didn't like anyone after Brahms, and even in
> > him he detected "the sound of machines". He preferred Mozart and
> > Beethoven. But he was forever bolting down his cheese sandwiches and
> > rushing to Cambridge classisal music performances. See if he'd got out
> > his cookbook he'd have missed the music, thereby replacing the
> > essential with the trivial.
>
> Cookery is essential, music not. Somebody who despises food is
> probably a smoker or suffers from a lack of taste brought on by
> chronic olfactory dysfunction. I don't think Wittgenstein had the
> excuse of being a smoker. He went to the same school, though, as
> Hitler, who ended up suffering from vegetarianism (and was also a non-
> smoker), another form of food-hatred, so there might be a school
> related connection.
>
> We haven't discussed the philosophy of cookery here much. It might be
> a worthy subject. There's a book with that title by Nancy Ogg, though
> I think that Larousse Gastronomique and the companion book by
> Curnonski might be more authentic for sauces.
>
> "La sauce est tout" can certainly be read as a philosophical
> statement.
>
> Thinking of Lance's recent word puzzle, it might be interesting to
> speculate on any significance in g-free gastronomy being the study of
> the cosmos.
>
> I think that, in recent times, Jane Grigson could be said to have
> produced studies in the philosophy of cookery - though Mrs Beeton with
> 'first catch your hare' got there first, and, to some, perhaps, being
> considerably less practical, more convincingly.
>
> Music ought to be an accompaniment to good digestion and somebody who
> inflicts a hasty cheese sandwich on his tum before a concert is very
> likely doing digestion of both a disservice.

I wondered as I read your comments whether you would mention the South
African philosopher Marthinus Versfeld -

http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marthinus_Versfeld

(The above is in Afrikaans).

He wrote a book called:

Food for Thought: A Philosopher"s Cookbook. (1983 & 1991 (2de
uitgawe))

Lance

On Jun 11, 12:25*am, Lance > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 3:27*pm, Peter Brooks > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 1:18*pm, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
> > > It was simple in that he didn't like anyone after Brahms, and even in
> > > him he detected "the sound of machines". He preferred Mozart and
> > > Beethoven. But he was forever bolting down his cheese sandwiches and
> > > rushing to Cambridge classisal music performances. See if he'd got out
> > > his cookbook he'd have missed the music, thereby replacing the
> > > essential with the trivial.
>
> > Cookery is essential, music not. Somebody who despises food is
> > probably a smoker or suffers from a lack of taste brought on by
> > chronic olfactory dysfunction. I don't think Wittgenstein had the
> > excuse of being a smoker. He went to the same school, though, as
> > Hitler, who ended up suffering from vegetarianism (and was also a non-
> > smoker), another form of food-hatred, so there might be a school
> > related connection.
>
> > We haven't discussed the philosophy of cookery here much. It might be
> > a worthy subject. There's a book with that title by Nancy Ogg, though
> > I think that Larousse Gastronomique and the companion book by
> > Curnonski might be more authentic for sauces.
>
> > "La sauce est tout" can certainly be read as a philosophical
> > statement.
>
> > Thinking of Lance's recent word puzzle, it might be interesting to
> > speculate on any significance in g-free gastronomy being the study of
> > the cosmos.
>
> > I think that, in recent times, Jane Grigson could be said to have
> > produced studies in the philosophy of cookery - though Mrs Beeton with
> > 'first catch your hare' got there first, and, to some, perhaps, being
> > considerably less practical, more convincingly.
>
> > Music ought to be an accompaniment to good digestion and somebody who
> > inflicts a hasty cheese sandwich on his tum before a concert is very
> > likely doing digestion of both a disservice.
>
> I wondered as I read your comments whether you would mention the South
> African philosopher Marthinus Versfeld -
>
> http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marthinus_Versfeld
>
> (The above is in Afrikaans).
>
> He wrote a book called:
>
> Food for Thought: A Philosopher"s Cookbook. (1983 & 1991 (2de
> uitgawe))
>
> Lance- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A source for Versfeld's book:

http://www.kalahari.net/books/Food-f.../28129685.aspx

Lance

On Jun 11, 12:25*am, Lance > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 3:27*pm, Peter Brooks > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 1:18*pm, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
> > > It was simple in that he didn't like anyone after Brahms, and even in
> > > him he detected "the sound of machines". He preferred Mozart and
> > > Beethoven. But he was forever bolting down his cheese sandwiches and
> > > rushing to Cambridge classisal music performances. See if he'd got out
> > > his cookbook he'd have missed the music, thereby replacing the
> > > essential with the trivial.
>
> > Cookery is essential, music not. Somebody who despises food is
> > probably a smoker or suffers from a lack of taste brought on by
> > chronic olfactory dysfunction. I don't think Wittgenstein had the
> > excuse of being a smoker. He went to the same school, though, as
> > Hitler, who ended up suffering from vegetarianism (and was also a non-
> > smoker), another form of food-hatred, so there might be a school
> > related connection.
>
> > We haven't discussed the philosophy of cookery here much. It might be
> > a worthy subject. There's a book with that title by Nancy Ogg, though
> > I think that Larousse Gastronomique and the companion book by
> > Curnonski might be more authentic for sauces.
>
> > "La sauce est tout" can certainly be read as a philosophical
> > statement.
>
> > Thinking of Lance's recent word puzzle, it might be interesting to
> > speculate on any significance in g-free gastronomy being the study of
> > the cosmos.
>
> > I think that, in recent times, Jane Grigson could be said to have
> > produced studies in the philosophy of cookery - though Mrs Beeton with
> > 'first catch your hare' got there first, and, to some, perhaps, being
> > considerably less practical, more convincingly.
>
> > Music ought to be an accompaniment to good digestion and somebody who
> > inflicts a hasty cheese sandwich on his tum before a concert is very
> > likely doing digestion of both a disservice.
>
> I wondered as I read your comments whether you would mention the South
> African philosopher Marthinus Versfeld -
>
> http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marthinus_Versfeld
>
> (The above is in Afrikaans).
>
> He wrote a book called:
>
> Food for Thought: A Philosopher"s Cookbook. (1983 & 1991 (2de
> uitgawe))
>
Thank you for reminding me - I bought a copy only a few months ago. He
was, according to my brother, well known for liking his mussels fresh
because he'd sit on the rocks with a big knife and the right
condiments, eating them as he scraped them off the rock.

On Jun 10, 9:13 pm, Peter Brooks > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:39 pm, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
> > I don't think he despised food, just wanted to make as little fuss
> > about it as possible.
>
> That seems to be on the way to despising it!

I don't see why.

Do you despise brushing your teeth or dressing? I take the minimum
time necessary to dental health in brushing, and minimum time
dressing. But I don't despise either activity. Quite the opposite. I
see them as necessary, not painful, sometimes mildly enjoyable
activities. I also see that they are necessary. Hardly a recipe for
despising them.

> > > He went to the same school, though, as
> > > Hitler, who ended up suffering from vegetarianism (and was also a non-
> > > smoker), another form of food-hatred, so there might be a school
> > > related connection.
>
> > Vegetarianism is nothing like a disease! There's quite a lot of
> > evidence that vegetarians living longer than omnivores, and little
> > showing the opposite. Certainly -- more evidence needed.
>
> There's plenty of evidence that eating a starvation diet makes mice
> live longer - but you don't find countries with massive starvation
> problems packed with octogenarians, which suggests that it isn't such
> a practical route.
>
> Similarly vegetarians in India have some of the lowest life
> expectancies known...

That's why I said more research needed.

But there is really no solid evidence for or against vegetraianism.

> Vegetarian Myths
>
> by Stephen Byrnes, ND, PhD, RNCP
>
> "An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account
> is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of
> fashionable opinion" -- Alfred North Whitehead

Good quote. But sometimes the evidencs is not there -- which, sums up
much of dietry 'science'.

> Bill and Tanya sat before me in my office in a sombre mood: they had
> just lost their first baby in the second month of pregnancy. Tanya was
> particularly upset: "Why did this happen to me? Why did I miscarry my
> baby?" The young couple had come to see me mostly because of Tanya's
> recurrent respiratory infections, but also wanted some advice as to
> how they could avoid the heartache of another failed pregnancy.
>
> Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her
> infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in
> her diet and was also mostly a vegetarian.

There are many vegetarians who do not miscarry, so he's just wrong in
suggesting that vegetarianism is a necessary and sufficient cause.

> Because of the plentiful
> media rhetoric about the supposed dangers of animal product
> consumption...

Lots of medics also indulge in this rhetoric. he can't just blame the
media.

> Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and
> a dietary prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats
> and meat.

What if their stance was a moral stance, and they refused to eat
animal products? He would be rather a poor doctor if he couldn't help
them find a balanced vegetarian diet.

> Along with the saturated fat and cholesterol scares of the past
> several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism is a healthier
> dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert and
> government health agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products
> and consume more vegetables, grains, fruits and legumes. Along with
> these exhortations have come assertions and studies supposedly proving
> that vegetarianism is healthier for people and that meat consumption
> causes sickness and death. Several medical authorities, however, have
> questioned these data, but their objections have been largely ignored.

I agree with this as far as it goes, but it has a carnivore bias.
Notice he doesn't say that a balanced vegetarain diet is less healthy
for people. There's surely a great difference between Tanya's trendy
diet and, say, the balanced diet of a Hindu woman. There are a lot of
Hindu's so vegetarainism doesn't automatically affect reproduction
(unless it encourages it!)

> ... but, as a practitioner who
> has dealt with several former vegans (total vegetarians), I know full
> well the dangerous effects of a diet devoid of healthful animal
> products.

Now he's shifting the ground from vegetarians to vegans. Maybe
realisng that he can't win the argument by using vegetarians as
examples. But his article was not entitled 'Vegan myths'! Keep to the
point!

Medicine is a vague and wooly science, maybe that's why so many
medical writers are vague and wooly.

> It is my hope that all readers will more carefully evaluate their
> position on vegetarianism after reading this article. It is important
> to note that there are different types of vegetarianism, including
> lacto-vegetarian diets (dairy products included) and lacto-ovo-
> vegetarian diets (dairy products and eggs included). The nutritional
> caveats that follow are primarily directed at veganism...

Primarily or wholly? Notice how he is blurring the boundary between
vegetarianism and veganism. Trying to save his daft article. Socrates
used to eat sophists like this for dinner (he wasn't vegan :-)

On Jun 11, 12:29*pm, Paul Grieg > wrote:
>
> > Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her
> > infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in
> > her diet and was also mostly a vegetarian.
>
> There are many vegetarians who do not miscarry, so he's just wrong in
> suggesting that vegetarianism is a necessary and sufficient cause.
>
As a clinician, he's looking for the most probable cause. They may
indeed have other problems besides the vegetrianism, but that is
presenting as the most likely cause.
>
> > Because of the plentiful
> > media rhetoric about the supposed dangers of animal product
> > consumption...
>
> Lots of medics also indulge in this rhetoric. he can't just blame the
> media.
>
Do they? I haven't encountered it myself. You seldom, if ever, find
that sort of thing in the BMJ.
>
> > Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and
> > a dietary prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats
> > and meat.
>
> What if their stance was a moral stance, and they refused to eat
> animal products? He would be rather a poor doctor if he couldn't help
> them find a balanced vegetarian diet.
>
If somebody has a 'moral stance' that they want to eat an unhealthy
diet, then it is the doctor's duty to dissuade them because of the
health problems. Of course, if you insist, say, that you're going to
starve yourself to death, it is your choice and your doctor may
suggest ways of making it less painful, but you couldn't accuse him of
being a bad doctor because he wasn't able to overcome your suicidal
desire...
>
> > Along with the saturated fat and cholesterol scares of the past
> > several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism is a healthier
> > dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert and
> > government health agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products
> > and consume more vegetables, grains, fruits and legumes. Along with
> > these exhortations have come assertions and studies supposedly proving
> > that vegetarianism is healthier for people and that meat consumption
> > causes sickness and death. Several medical authorities, however, have
> > questioned these data, but their objections have been largely ignored.
>
> I agree with this as far as it goes, but it has a carnivore bias.
> Notice he doesn't say that a balanced vegetarain diet is less healthy
> for people. There's surely a great difference between Tanya's trendy
> diet and, say, the balanced diet of a Hindu woman. There are a lot of
> Hindu's so vegetarainism doesn't automatically affect reproduction
> (unless it encourages it!)
>
> > ... but, as a practitioner who
> > has dealt with several former vegans (total vegetarians), I know full
> > well the dangerous effects of a diet devoid of healthful animal
> > products.
>
> Now he's shifting the ground from vegetarians to vegans. Maybe
> realisng that he can't win the argument by using vegetarians as
> examples. But his article was not entitled 'Vegan myths'! Keep to the
> point!
>
Apart from claiming to come from Vega, these people are vegetarians -
extreme, or radical, vegetarians, but still vegetarians.
>
> Medicine is a vague and wooly science, maybe that's why so many
> medical writers are vague and wooly.
>
> > It is my hope that all readers will more carefully evaluate their
> > position on vegetarianism after reading this article. It is important
> > to note that there are different types of vegetarianism, including
> > lacto-vegetarian diets (dairy products included) and lacto-ovo-
> > vegetarian diets (dairy products and eggs included). The nutritional
> > caveats that follow are primarily directed at veganism...
>
> Primarily or wholly? Notice how he is blurring the boundary between
> vegetarianism and veganism. Trying to save his daft article. Socrates
> used to eat sophists like this for dinner (he wasn't vegan :-)
>
You know about vegetarianins? People who, for moral reasons, don't eat
animals that eat other animals - no lions, leopards or sharks.

Of course, vegetarianins can't be cannibals either - apart from
vegetarians, which would be open to them as food.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Paul Grieg >
wrote:

>On Jun 10, 9:13 pm, Peter Brooks > wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 5:39 pm, Paul Grieg > wrote:

>> Along with the saturated fat and cholesterol scares of the past
>> several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism is a healthier
>> dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert and
>> government health agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products
>> and consume more vegetables, grains, fruits and legumes. Along with
>> these exhortations have come assertions and studies supposedly proving
>> that vegetarianism is healthier for people and that meat consumption
>> causes sickness and death. Several medical authorities, however, have
>> questioned these data, but their objections have been largely ignored.
>
>I agree with this as far as it goes, but it has a carnivore bias.
>Notice he doesn't say that a balanced vegetarain diet is less healthy
>for people. There's surely a great difference between Tanya's trendy
>diet and, say, the balanced diet of a Hindu woman. There are a lot of
>Hindu's so vegetarainism doesn't automatically affect reproduction
>(unless it encourages it!)

Hindus that are vegetarian are lacto-vegetarians. Butter and buffalo
milk or cow's milk figure prominently in their diet. Even then, at most
only 30% of the population is strictly vegetarian.