"Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.

"A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation for
a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in addition to
daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was a strict
vegetarian."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html


Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.

Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and healthy
life.

K wrote:

> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>
> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation for
> a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in addition to
> daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was a strict
> vegetarian."
>
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>
>
> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>
> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and healthy
> life.

Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
Eating meat will not.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Fred wrote:
> K wrote:
>
>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>
>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation for
>> a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in addition to
>> daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was a strict
>> vegetarian."
>>
>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>
>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and healthy
>> life.
>
> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
> Eating meat will not.

Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.

K wrote:

> Fred wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>
>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>
>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation for
>>> a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in addition to
>>> daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was a strict
>>> vegetarian."
>>>
>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>
>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and healthy
>>> life.
>>
>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>> Eating meat will not.
>
> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.

And you have to kill to get it and it comes laced with residues of growth
hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it look
good, and heaven knows what else. No thanks I'll never eat meat again.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Fred wrote:
> K wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>
>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation for
>>>> a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in addition to
>>>> daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was a strict
>>>> vegetarian."
>>>>
>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>
>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and healthy
>>>> life.
>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>>> Eating meat will not.
>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>
> And you have to kill to get it

Not a problem.


> and it comes laced with residues of growth
> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it look
> good, and heaven knows what else.

No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
any of that.


> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.

That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.

"Fred" > wrote in message
...
>K wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>
>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>> for
>>>> a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in addition
>>>> to
>>>> daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was a strict
>>>> vegetarian."
>>>>
>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>
>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and healthy
>>>> life.
>>>
>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>>> Eating meat will not.
>>
>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>
> And you have to kill to get it and it comes laced with residues of growth
> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
> look
> good, and heaven knows what else. No thanks I'll never eat meat again.

And you have to kill to produce soya beans and it comes laced with
herbicides and pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Maybe you should stop
eating altogether.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Fred" > wrote in message
> ...
>>K wrote:
>>
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>>
>>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>>> for
>>>>> a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in addition
>>>>> to
>>>>> daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was a strict
>>>>> vegetarian."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>> healthy
>>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>>>> Eating meat will not.
>>>
>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>
>> And you have to kill to get it and it comes laced with residues of growth
>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>> look
>> good, and heaven knows what else. No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>
> And you have to kill to produce soya beans and it comes laced with
> herbicides and pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Maybe you should stop
> eating altogether.

We should all thank our lucky stars that we are able to eat anything. I had
a bad colonoscopy, and had to undergo a complete purge (you do not want to
know) and I couldn't eat anything for two days prior to the next one.
Yesterday was the first day when I could eat, and my stomach had gone into
the hibernation mode, and I could barely get anything down. Today I had
plain white bread and boiled chicken sandwich. Tonight I will try something
more rough, like rye bread. The hot chili with jalapenos is some months
into the future, maybe.

K wrote:

> Fred wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>>
>>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>>> for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
>>>>> addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was
>>>>> a strict vegetarian."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>> healthy life.
>>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>>>> Eating meat will not.
>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>
>> And you have to kill to get it
>
> Not a problem.
>
Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.

>
>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>
> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
> any of that.
>
Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>
>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>
> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.

Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Billzz wrote:

> We should all thank our lucky stars that we are able to eat anything. I
> had a bad colonoscopy, and had to undergo a complete purge (you do not
> want to know) and I couldn't eat anything for two days prior to the next
> one. Yesterday was the first day when I could eat, and my stomach had gone
> into
> the hibernation mode, and I could barely get anything down. Today I had
> plain white bread and boiled chicken sandwich. Tonight I will try
> something
> more rough, like rye bread. The hot chili with jalapenos is some months
> into the future, maybe.

As hard as that was for you, it was harder on the chicken.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

On Jun 27, 11:27*am, Fred > wrote:

[snip]

> >>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. *Meat is
> >>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>
> >> And you have to kill to get it
>
> > Not a problem.
>
> * * * * Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.

Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.

> >> and it comes laced with residues of growth
> >> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
> >> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>
> > No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
> > any of that.
>
> * * * * Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?

In the UK that is pretty common, with all the major retailers offering
organic meat and produce.

> >> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>
> > That's your choice. *However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
> > particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>
> * * * * Humanist. *Caring people don't eat meat.

********. Humanist means one who has studied the humanities.

The only time caring comes to play in what you eat is when you make
certain that your food had a good life and was killed humanely. Easy
enough to do.

Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.

On Jun 27, 3:33*pm, Dragonblaze > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 11:27*am, Fred > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. *Meat is
> > >>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>
> > >> And you have to kill to get it
>
> > > Not a problem.
>
> > * * * * Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>
> Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
> kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
> to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.
>
> > >> and it comes laced with residues of growth
> > >> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
> > >> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>
> > > No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
> > > any of that.
>
> > * * * * Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>
> In the UK that is pretty common, with all the major retailers offering
> organic meat and produce.
>
> > >> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>
> > > That's your choice. *However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
> > > particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>
> > * * * * Humanist. *Caring people don't eat meat.
>
> ********. Humanist means one who has studied the humanities.
>
> The only time caring comes to play in what you eat is when you make
> certain that your food had a good life and was killed humanely. Easy
> enough to do.
>
> Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
> came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
> doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
> have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
> ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
> supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.
______________________________
Garden of Eden (protection in balance) was destroyed by same selective
taking of knowledge
of good and evil, reasons for eatting meat conveniently , then when
fruit of this action
without considering the ACT itself,fell from the tree, it led them to
be forced off the desolate land they
gathered and hunted to death, and later with their goats in tow,

Like the meat-eatters in this blog they covered their shame with fig
leaves, w/symblzd
'reason' or as we say logical excuse.....'well my meat eatting alone
couldn't be causing all
those deserts to be growing in america"...etc etc "I cant live without
my meatymeal"...and so on.

Dragonblaze wrote:
> On Jun 27, 11:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>> Not a problem.
>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>
> Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
> kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
> to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.

It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people who
claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are killed in
the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such thing as
produce that is free of animal deaths.


>>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>>> any of that.
>> Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>
> In the UK that is pretty common, with all the major retailers offering
> organic meat and produce.

In the U.S., it is quite common to find both organically produced meat,
and meat that isn't organic but is free of hormones, dyes and antibiotics.


>
>>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.
>
> ********. Humanist means one who has studied the humanities.
>
> The only time caring comes to play in what you eat is when you make
> certain that your food had a good life and was killed humanely. Easy
> enough to do.
>
> Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
> came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
> doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
> have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
> ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
> supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.

Fred wrote:
> K wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>>>> for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
>>>>>> addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was
>>>>>> a strict vegetarian."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>>> healthy life.
>>>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>>>>> Eating meat will not.
>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>> And you have to kill to get it
>> Not a problem.
>>
> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.

No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.


>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>> any of that.
>>
> Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>
> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.

Why don't you care anything about the many animals that were killed in
the course of producing your vegetables?

billyquealy wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:33 pm, Dragonblaze > wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 11:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>>> Not a problem.
>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>> Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
>> kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
>> to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.
>>
>>>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>>>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>>>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>>>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>>>> any of that.
>>> Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>> In the UK that is pretty common, with all the major retailers offering
>> organic meat and produce.
>>
>>>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>>>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>>>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>>> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.
>> ********. Humanist means one who has studied the humanities.
>>
>> The only time caring comes to play in what you eat is when you make
>> certain that your food had a good life and was killed humanely. Easy
>> enough to do.
>>
>> Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
>> came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
>> doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
>> have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
>> ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
>> supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.
> ______________________________
> Garden of Eden (protection in balance) was destroyed by same selective
> taking of knowledge
> of good and evil, reasons for eatting meat conveniently , then when
> fruit of this action
> without considering the ACT itself,fell from the tree, it led them to
> be forced off the desolate land they
> gathered and hunted to death, and later with their goats in tow,
>
> Like the meat-eatters in this blog they covered their shame with fig
> leaves,

Meat eaters are not ashamed of eating meat.

wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:10:33 -0700, K > wrote:
>
>> Dragonblaze wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 11:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>>>> Not a problem.
>>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>>> Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
>>> kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
>>> to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.
>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people who
>> claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are killed in
>> the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such thing as
>> produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>
>>
>
> Right! Well said and to the point!

Collateral animal deaths in agriculture completely negates so-called
"ethical vegetarianism", unless the "ethical" vegetarian grows every bit
of his own food. Of course, no one does that. Even if one did, there
is one's participation in all other aspects of modern life in which
animals are killed in the course of producing goods and services,
without consequence for the killers.

wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:11:48 -0700, K > wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>>>>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>>>>>> for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
>>>>>>>> addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was
>>>>>>>> a strict vegetarian."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>>>>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>>>>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>>>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>>>>> healthy life.
>>>>>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>>>>>>> Eating meat will not.
>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>>> Not a problem.
>>>>
>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>
>>
>
> I had an in-law that worked in a meat packing plant. The men who
> killed the cattle was watched very closely to make sure they did not
> enjoy killing. If they did they were fired!

That may be true, but meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the
people actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of animals
that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think about what happens
to animals along the way to becoming slices of meat in the supermarket
meat cases, or if they do, they're under a lot of illusion that the
animals are well treated from the time they're born all the way to the
point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true - the welfare of
animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is horrifically neglected.

But that doesn't change the fact that raising animals for meat, and
slaughtering them in order to obtain it, is *not* in and of itself
immoral. It's perfectly moral. What's needed is a major increase of
awareness among consumers of animal welfare issues, and a huge change in
the way the animals are treated during their lives, up to and including
being slaughtered.

On Jun 28, 12:34*am, billyquealy > wrote:

[snip]

> > Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
> > came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
> > doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
> > have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
> > ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
> > supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.
>
> ______________________________
> Garden of Eden (protection in balance) was destroyed by same selective
> taking of knowledge
> of good and evil, *reasons for eatting meat conveniently , then when
> fruit of this action
> without considering the ACT itself,fell from the tree, it led them to
> be forced off the desolate land they
> gathered and hunted to death, and later with their goats in tow,
>
> Like the meat-eatters in this blog they covered their shame with fig
> leaves, w/symblzd
> 'reason' or as we say logical excuse.....'well my meat eatting alone
> couldn't be causing all
> those deserts to be growing in america"...etc etc "I cant live without
> my meatymeal"...and so on.

Could I have that in English, please?

"Fred" > wrote
>K wrote:

>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>>
>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>
> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.

Intelligent people don't live according to fallacies.

The meat I eat comes from dead animals, therefore I am doing no harm by
eating it.

Someone kills the animals on my behalf to make this food is available to me,
but someone also kills animals so that I may have rice, bread, bananas and
cotton t-shirts, to name just a few.

Explain the difference between allowing someone to kill animals so that I
may have meat and allowing them to kill animals so I may have other things.

"K" > wrote
> Fred wrote:

[..]
>> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.
>
> Why don't you care anything about the many animals that were killed in the
> course of producing your vegetables?

Because veganism is about creating the feeling and appearance of living a
"compassionate" life in the midst of a cruel and uncaring society. It is a
very comforting fantasy which would only be dashed by acknowledging the
collateral cost of other products in animal suffering.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
> For starters, Jackson was not a vegetarian.

Proof?


>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>
>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>> healthy life.
>
> I know people who ate meat, who lived a long time, but the last two
> decades of their lives absolutely sucked thanks to cancer, heart
> disease, diabetes, and such. Sorry, but that's not living.

None of that can be blamed on meat consumption /per/ /se/, and I think
you know it. You just commited the /post/ /hoc/ fallacy, big time.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>
> Protein that you just **** down the drain.

False.


> We can get all the protein
> we need and then some from plant sources.

So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.


> And what "other nutrients" do
> you suggest we get from meat?

Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people who
>> claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are killed
>> in the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such thing as
>> produce that is free of animal deaths.
>
> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such a
> thing as produce that is free from animal deaths.

You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially
grown and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes
animals to die.

Other things you consume besides food also cause animals to die in the
course of their production and distribution.

You do *not* live a "death-free" "lifestyle" - no one does.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
> For starters, Jackson was not a vegetarian.
>
>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>
>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>> healthy life.
>
> I know people who ate meat, who lived a long time, but the last two
> decades of their lives absolutely sucked thanks to cancer, heart
> disease, diabetes, and such. Sorry, but that's not living.
>
> John

Sorry, but that's not solid reasoning John. How are you
differentiating the effect that meat had on those outcomes
with the effect of other dietary choices and other lifestyle
influences? What about obesity? Did they consume white flour
and sugar to excess? What about non-dietary environmental
factors? Where did they live? What did they do for a living?
What are the genetic factors? It is highly unlikely that a
moderate component of well-chosen meat in their diets would
have had anything but a neutral to positive overall impact
on their state of health in later life.

Dutch wrote:
> John Mayson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>
>> For starters, Jackson was not a vegetarian.
>>
>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half
>>> a dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their
>>> 90s and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>
>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>> healthy life.
>>
>> I know people who ate meat, who lived a long time, but the last two
>> decades of their lives absolutely sucked thanks to cancer, heart
>> disease, diabetes, and such. Sorry, but that's not living.
>>
>> John
>
> Sorry, but that's not solid reasoning John. How are you differentiating
> the effect that meat had on those outcomes with the effect of other
> dietary choices and other lifestyle influences? What about obesity? Did
> they consume white flour and sugar to excess? What about non-dietary
> environmental factors? Where did they live? What did they do for a
> living? What are the genetic factors? It is highly unlikely that a
> moderate component of well-chosen meat in their diets would have had
> anything but a neutral to positive overall impact on their state of
> health in later life.

*All* of those ailments he cites are ailments of old age. People get
those ailments because they live a long time. Very old vegetarians get
them, too.

K wrote:
> John Mayson wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>
>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>
>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>
> False.
>
>
>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>
> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>
>
>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>
> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.

Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from
animal sources.

Dutch wrote:
> K wrote:
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either.
>>>> Meat is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other
>>>> nutrients.
>>>
>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>
>> False.
>>
>>
>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>
>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>
>>
>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>
>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>
> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.

Good point. However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that
are unique to meat. Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't
any important nutrients found in meat. Nor was I claiming that meat is
necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to
the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.

What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty
that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument
entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder". It bugs
me when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to
abandon later on anyway.

K wrote:

> Fred wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently
>>>>>>> to get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>>>>> for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
>>>>>>> addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also
>>>>>>> was a strict vegetarian."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half
>>>>>>> a dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their
>>>>>>> 90s
>>>>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>>>> healthy life.
>>>>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving
>>>>>> out alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your
>>>>>> health. Eating meat will not.
>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>> Not a problem.
>>>
>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>
> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>
Why don't they show it on television? Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more vegetarians
around.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

"K" > wrote in message
news
> Dutch wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>
>>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>>
>>> False.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>>
>>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>>
>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>>
>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.
>
> Good point. However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that
> are unique to meat. Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't any
> important nutrients found in meat. Nor was I claiming that meat is
> necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to
> the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.
>
> What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty
> that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument
> entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder". It bugs me
> when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to abandon
> later on anyway.

It just demonstrates a fundamental insincerity. Proponents of veganism use
these utilitarian arguments like animal suffering, health, or the
environment until those arguments get shot down, then they switch to a
deontological perspective, asserting that humans have no_right to use
animals for their own purposes, regardless of the benefits. Sometimes the
shifting goes in the other direction.

"Fred" > wrote
>K wrote:

>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>
> Why don't they show it on television?

Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not entertaining to
watch.

Why don't they give people tours of
> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.

You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own consumer
choices.

> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
> vegetarians
> around.

Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many more
would simply starve.

Fred wrote:
> K wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently
>>>>>>>> to get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>>>>>> for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
>>>>>>>> addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also
>>>>>>>> was a strict vegetarian."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half
>>>>>>>> a dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their
>>>>>>>> 90s
>>>>>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>>>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>>>>> healthy life.
>>>>>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving
>>>>>>> out alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your
>>>>>>> health. Eating meat will not.
>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>>> Not a problem.
>>>>
>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>
>>
> Why don't they show it on television?

Why don't they show up-close-and-personal operation of sewage treatment
plants?

Why do you suggest that a decision to show, or not show, some activity
on television is the ultimate test of whether or not the activity is moral?



> Why don't they give people tours of
> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on?

Tell us about your visit to the sewage treatment plant, okay?
Wait...what?! You've never been to one?



> It's not something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.

You're right. I also don't have any wish to watch anyone change the oil
on my car, or submerge my clothes in dry cleaning fluid. So what?


> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more vegetarians
> around.

That's a common belief by so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and there's
no evidence to support it - *zero*. In fact, among rural people who
quite often /do/ see the slaughter of animals for food, and who also
hunt, the incidence of vegetarianism is much lower than in cities. So,
your claim is directly contradicted: witnessing the slaughter of
animals does not, in and of itself, put people off eating meat.

On Jun 29, 10:22*pm, Fred > wrote:

[snip]

> > No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>
> * * * * Why don't they show it on television? *Why don't they give people tours of
> the abattoirs? *Why do people prefer not to see that going on? *It's not
> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not. *
> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. *

Never bothered me. You see, I grew up on a farm and have seen animals
killed for food from early age on. I know precisely where my meat
comes from.

> If people had to
> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more vegetarians
> around.

I have not noticed that there were many vegetarians around when people
indeed did their own killing, either on their farms or in a hunter-
gatherer economy. So your argument does not match the facts.

Dragonblaze wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:22 pm, Fred > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>> Why don't they show it on television? Why don't they give people tours of
>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it.
>
> Never bothered me. You see, I grew up on a farm and have seen animals
> killed for food from early age on. I know precisely where my meat
> comes from.

I don't want to extrapolate too much from your case to all farm folks,
but it does tend to contradict the usual vegetarian line. That line
goes that if people could witness the slaughter of animals for meat, it
would put them off meat for good and they'd all become vegetarian. But
your experience, and the statistical experience of most rural residents,
is exactly the opposite. People who grow up on or around farms are far
more likely to have witnessed the slaughter of meat animals, yet the
incidence of vegetarianism among them is lower than in the urban
population. It clearly isn't the sight of seeing animals slaughtered
/per/ /se/ that might permanently put someone off meat. Now, the
/method/ by which a lot of commercially grown and slaughtered animals
are actually slaughtered is apparently often horrific. But - it isn't
the killing of animals /per/ /se/ that is offensive; it's how it's done
that matters.


>> If people had to
>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more vegetarians
>> around.
>
> I have not noticed that there were many vegetarians around when people
> indeed did their own killing, either on their farms or in a hunter-
> gatherer economy. So your argument does not match the facts.
>

K wrote:
> Dragonblaze wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 10:22 pm, Fred > wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>> Why don't they show it on television? Why don't they give
>>> people tours of
>>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
>>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
>>> not. Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not
>>> think about
>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it.
>>
>> Never bothered me. You see, I grew up on a farm and have seen animals
>> killed for food from early age on. I know precisely where my meat
>> comes from.
>
> I don't want to extrapolate too much from your case to all farm folks,
> but it does tend to contradict the usual vegetarian line. That line
> goes that if people could witness the slaughter of animals for meat, it
> would put them off meat for good and they'd all become vegetarian. But
> your experience, and the statistical experience of most rural residents,
> is exactly the opposite. People who grow up on or around farms are far
> more likely to have witnessed the slaughter of meat animals, yet the
> incidence of vegetarianism among them is lower than in the urban
> population. It clearly isn't the sight of seeing animals slaughtered
> /per/ /se/ that might permanently put someone off meat. Now, the
> /method/ by which a lot of commercially grown and slaughtered animals
> are actually slaughtered is apparently often horrific. But - it isn't
> the killing of animals /per/ /se/ that is offensive; it's how it's done
> that matters.

I question the veracity of reports of animal suffering in
the modern slaughterhouse. You know the old saying, if it
bleeds, it leads. I have never seen a report of anything I
had personal knowledge about come close to getting it right.
If you read independent audits like Temple Grandin's you get
a different picture.
http://www.grandin.com/survey/2008.r...nt.audits.html

wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:37:20 -0500, wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:17:33 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 10:22 pm, Fred > wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>> Why don't they show it on television? Why don't they give people tours of
>>>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
>>>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
>>>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
>>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it.
>>> Never bothered me. You see, I grew up on a farm and have seen animals
>>> killed for food from early age on. I know precisely where my meat
>>> comes from.
>>>
>>>> If people had to
>>>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more vegetarians
>>>> around.
>>> I have not noticed that there were many vegetarians around when people
>>> indeed did their own killing, either on their farms or in a hunter-
>>> gatherer economy. So your argument does not match the facts.
>> Where I grew up if you didn't kill it you didn't eat!
>> I still like goat meat!
>
> Yuk!

Haven't you ever eaten birria at a Mexican restaurant? It's actually
pretty good, although a bit on the bony side.

K wrote:

> Fred wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>
>>> Fred wrote:

>>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>
>>>
>> Why don't they show it on television?
>
> Why don't they show up-close-and-personal operation of sewage treatment
> plants?
>
Well they do.

> Why do you suggest that a decision to show, or not show, some activity
> on television is the ultimate test of whether or not the activity is
> moral?
>
That's not what I said. It is immoral, but this is not the test. If
you'll recall, the question was about whether killing animals without
compassion was evidence of psychopathy. Most people don't even want to
witness it because it would give them nightmares. That's why we don't see
it on television. If they don't have to think about where their food came
from life is more comfortable for them. It's called "denial."

>
>> It's not something that most of us want to think about whether we eat
>> meat or not.
>
> You're right. I also don't have any wish to watch anyone change the oil
> on my car, or submerge my clothes in dry cleaning fluid. So what?
>
And *that* is the logic of the psychopath!

>
>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>> vegetarians around.
>
> That's a common belief by so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and there's
> no evidence to support it - *zero*.

There might be. Regardless it's true because of what we know about human
nature, those of us who are not psychopaths know it, anyway.

> In fact, among rural people who
> quite often /do/ see the slaughter of animals for food, and who also
> hunt, the incidence of vegetarianism is much lower than in cities. So,
> your claim is directly contradicted: witnessing the slaughter of
> animals does not, in and of itself, put people off eating meat.

I've seen what you refer to and this is the first time you've even come
close to making a rational argument, congratulations, but it doesn't quite
make it. Developing a callous disregard for the suffering of others *is*
similar to a learned psychopathy, or a lesser degree of it. It is possible
to switch off that part of our brains that react to others by way of
sympathy or even empathy. When the suffering becomes too great, a reflex
action turns that area of the brain off to block the pain. It may be thought
of, at least, as a pseudo-psychopathy as the real psychopathic mechanism
hasn't been shown yet, but people must be working on it... I hope.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Dutch wrote:

>
> "K" > wrote in message
> news
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>>
>>>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>>>
>>>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>>>
>>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>>>
>>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.
>>
>> Good point. However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that
>> are unique to meat. Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't any
>> important nutrients found in meat. Nor was I claiming that meat is
>> necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to
>> the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.
>>
>> What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty
>> that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument
>> entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder". It bugs
>> me when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to
>> abandon later on anyway.
>
> It just demonstrates a fundamental insincerity. Proponents of veganism use
> these utilitarian arguments like animal suffering, health, or the
> environment until those arguments get shot down,

It's never happened yet.

> then they switch to a
> deontological perspective, asserting that humans have no_right to use
> animals for their own purposes, regardless of the benefits. Sometimes the
> shifting goes in the other direction.

It's the same argument in different words.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Dutch wrote:

> "Fred" > wrote
>>K wrote:
>
>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>
>> Why don't they show it on television?
>
> Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not entertaining
> to watch.
>
yes, because it's too horrific.

> Why don't they give people tours of
>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
>
> You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
> consumer choices.
>
It's minimal. I do what I can. Nobody's perfect.

>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>> vegetarians
>> around.
>
> Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
> more would simply starve.

True, but that's an unrelated concept.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Fred wrote:
> K wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred wrote:
>
>>>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why don't they show it on television?
>> Why don't they show up-close-and-personal operation of sewage treatment
>> plants?
>>
> Well they do.

No, they don't.


>> Why do you suggest that a decision to show, or not show, some activity
>> on television is the ultimate test of whether or not the activity is
>> moral?
>>
> That's not what I said. It is immoral, but this is not the test.

Your question implied that that is precisely the test.

What are you saying is immoral? Killing animals to eat them? You
haven't shown that, and you couldn't possibly show it.


> If you'll recall, the question was about whether killing animals without
> compassion was evidence of psychopathy.

No, there was no mention of "compassion" at all. Pretty clearly, you
simply /define/ killing animals in order to eat them as killing them
without compassion.

What about the animals that are killed to put food on your table, even
though you don't eat them? You know - the animals that are killed in
the course of producing and distributing vegetable produce? Are they
killed with compassion?



> Most people don't even want to
> witness it because it would give them nightmares.

You don't have any sound reason to believe that. It's just a bit of
boilerplate rhetoric from the so-called "ethical vegetarian" crowd.



> That's why we don't see
> it on television. If they don't have to think about where their food came
> from life is more comfortable for them. It's called "denial."

Are you in denial over the animals that are killed wantonly for your
"lifestyle"?


>
>>> It's not something that most of us want to think about whether we eat
>>> meat or not.
>> You're right. I also don't have any wish to watch anyone change the oil
>> on my car, or submerge my clothes in dry cleaning fluid. So what?
>>
> And *that* is the logic of the psychopath!

I don't think you know anything at all about what makes someone a
psychopath.

The example was given to illustrate that just because someone doesn't
want to witness something they find unpleasant to witness does not mean
the activity, if done by someone else, makes the doer a psychopath.



>>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>>> vegetarians around.
>> That's a common belief by so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and there's
>> no evidence to support it - *zero*.
>
> There might be.

There isn't. Actually, it's the opposite.


> Regardless it's true because of what we know about human
> nature, those of us who are not psychopaths know it, anyway.

It isn't true at all. And I have no reason to think you know anything
at all about who is or isn't a psychopath. You pretty clearly flatter
yourself about your so-called "ethics", and you simply define anyone who
disagrees with you as a psychopath; no science in that at all.


>> In fact, among rural people who
>> quite often /do/ see the slaughter of animals for food, and who also
>> hunt, the incidence of vegetarianism is much lower than in cities. So,
>> your claim is directly contradicted: witnessing the slaughter of
>> animals does not, in and of itself, put people off eating meat.
>
> I've seen what you refer to and this is the first time you've even come
> close to making a rational argument, congratulations, but it doesn't quite
> make it. Developing a callous disregard for the suffering of others *is*
> similar to a learned psychopathy, or a lesser degree of it.

You haven't demonstrated that there is a callous disregard shown for the
suffering of animals killed for meat.

But we keep coming back to you: do you have a callous disregard for the
suffering of the animals killed in the course of producing and
distributing the vegetables you eat?

Fred wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "K" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>>>> False.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>>>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>>>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>>>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.
>>> Good point. However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that
>>> are unique to meat. Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't any
>>> important nutrients found in meat. Nor was I claiming that meat is
>>> necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to
>>> the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.
>>>
>>> What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty
>>> that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument
>>> entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder". It bugs
>>> me when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to
>>> abandon later on anyway.
>> It just demonstrates a fundamental insincerity. Proponents of veganism use
>> these utilitarian arguments like animal suffering, health, or the
>> environment until those arguments get shot down,
>
> It's never happened yet.

Yes, it has - often, and going back a long time.



>> then they switch to a
>> deontological perspective, asserting that humans have no_right to use
>> animals for their own purposes, regardless of the benefits. Sometimes the
>> shifting goes in the other direction.
>
> It's the same argument in different words.

It's not the same argument at all.

Fred wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Fred" > wrote
>>> K wrote:
>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>>
>>> Why don't they show it on television?
>> Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not entertaining
>> to watch.
>>
> yes, because it's too horrific.

So is open heart surgery, but no one suggests that it's the work of
psychopaths.


>> Why don't they give people tours of
>>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
>>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
>> You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
>> consumer choices.
>>
> It's minimal.

It is not. You do not "minimize" - not even close.


> I do what I can.

I don't think you do anything even to start to reduce it, let alone
"minimize" it. I don't think you have any idea how many animals die in
the course of producing what you consume. You're committing a fallacy:
you think that because you don't consume animal parts, that
*automatically* equates to "minimizing" the deaths you do cause. But
that's patently false.


> Nobody's perfect.

You aren't even good at all as far as not killing animals goes.


>
>>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>>> vegetarians
>>> around.
>> Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
>> more would simply starve.
>
> True, but that's an unrelated concept.

No, it's perfectly related. Unless you produce everything you consume,
you aren't minimizing the death toll.