|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| This isn't really about comparing 라면 to steak. Its about destroying once and for all the ubiquitous lipid hypothesis. |
I get that, but what does that have to do with vegetarianism? There's plenty of other reasons that make it a healthy diet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This isn't really about comparing 라면 to steak. Its about destroying once and for all the ubiquitous lipid hypothesis. |
I get that, but what does that have to do with vegetarianism? There's plenty of other reasons that make it a healthy diet. |
Not really. I mean, vegetarianism is totally denying oneself animal fats. Ken is right that lessetarianism is superior overall.
If saturated fat is not bad for you, if some vegetable oils are worse for you than butter, if processed food is the real enemy, than cutting meat entirely doesn't help at all.
I still don't cook meat at home. Why? I don't really know how to. Its also dirty and more expensive. But a lessetarian has no need to cook meat at home, the 2-3 times a week he goes out, he can order a small bit of meat.
Its virtually unchallenged that fresh vegetables should make up the bulk of your diet. But the real enemy are fatty carbohydrates: noodles, rice, potatoes, alcohol, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Not really. I mean, vegetarianism is totally denying oneself animal fats. Ken is right that lessetarianism is superior overall. |
Animal fats aren't a necessary part of a healthy diet.
| Quote: |
| If saturated fat is not bad for you, if some vegetable oils are worse for you than butter, if processed food is the real enemy, than cutting meat entirely doesn't help at all. |
If some vegetable oils are worse than butter, then those oils should be avoided in favor of other available alternatives.
| Quote: |
| I still don't cook meat at home. Why? I don't really know how to. Its also dirty and more expensive. But a lessetarian has no need to cook meat at home, the 2-3 times a week he goes out, he can order a small bit of meat. |
A vegetarian has no need to cook meat at home either. 
| Quote: |
| Its virtually unchallenged that fresh vegetables should make up the bulk of your diet. But the real enemy are fatty carbohydrates: noodles, rice, potatoes, alcohol, etc. |
And those are just as easily avoided on a vegetarian diet as they are on any others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not really. I mean, vegetarianism is totally denying oneself animal fats. Ken is right that lessetarianism is superior overall. |
Animal fats aren't a necessary part of a healthy diet.
| Quote: |
| If saturated fat is not bad for you, if some vegetable oils are worse for you than butter, if processed food is the real enemy, than cutting meat entirely doesn't help at all. |
If some vegetable oils are worse than butter, then those oils should be avoided in favor of other available alternatives.
| Quote: |
| I still don't cook meat at home. Why? I don't really know how to. Its also dirty and more expensive. But a lessetarian has no need to cook meat at home, the 2-3 times a week he goes out, he can order a small bit of meat. |
A vegetarian has no need to cook meat at home either.
| Quote: |
| Its virtually unchallenged that fresh vegetables should make up the bulk of your diet. But the real enemy are fatty carbohydrates: noodles, rice, potatoes, alcohol, etc. |
And those are just as easily avoided on a vegetarian diet as they are on any others. |
This is an extremely tepid defense of vegetarianism. You do realize that vegetarianism takes real effort, right? What is the value of expelling meat AND fish permanently from your diet for, let's say, a full year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sqrlnutz123
Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Fox"]
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Drinking the mammary excretions from another animals is both unnatural and disgusting. |
Anything animals -- including humans -- do in great numbers is natural, and to be honest, I find milk quite delicious, not disgusting.[quote/]
The vast majority of mammals do not drink breastmilk once they have matured past infancy. |
The vast majority of mammals don't drive cars either. That doesn't make cars disgusting and unnatural, it just makes creating and driving them a human trait.
Most mammals don't drink breastmilk once they have matured past infancy because they have no source of it. If they had a source, quite a few of them would keep trying to drink it. My cat went nuts for the stuff. |
Yeah, and bears will eat human garbage, doesn't mean it's good for them.
How are cars natural? Is there a branch of the evolutionary tree I'm not aware of? Just because humans can do something doesn't mean it is natural or healthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Yeah, and bears will eat human garbage, doesn't mean it's good for them. |
Is it, however, totally natural. Bears forage in their surroundings for food. Sometimes, they can find it in human waste heaps. Nothing particularly unnatural about it.
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| How are cars natural? |
Beehives are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (bees). Beaver dams are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (beavers). Cars are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (humans).
I really don't see what's so challenging about that. Humans are just as natural as any other species, and as a result the products of human society are also natural. Including cars. Including drinking milk. Including eating dogs. Calling a car unnatural is as silly as calling a beehive unnatural.
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Just because humans can do something doesn't mean it is natural or healthy. |
I agree not all human behavior is healthy. You didn't say healthy. You say unnatural and disgusting; drinking milk is neither. It's a totally natural activity (as is proven by the fact that a large number of totally natural beings engage in it), and while disgusting is a totally subjective term, it's clear millions of people don't think it's disgusting at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Beehives are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (bees). Beaver dams are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (beavers). Cars are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (humans).
I really don't see what's so challenging about that. Humans are just as natural as any other species, and as a result the products of human society are also natural. Including cars. Including drinking milk. Including eating dogs. Calling a car unnatural is as silly as calling a beehive unnatural.
|
I'm fascinated by this line of reasoning (and to be honest, more or less, buy into it). However, (and completely off topic) do you consider anthropomorphic global warming (if it exists) to be natural? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Beehives are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (bees). Beaver dams are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (beavers). Cars are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (humans).
I really don't see what's so challenging about that. Humans are just as natural as any other species, and as a result the products of human society are also natural. Including cars. Including drinking milk. Including eating dogs. Calling a car unnatural is as silly as calling a beehive unnatural.
|
I'm fascinated by this line of reasoning (and to be honest, more or less, buy into it). However, (and completely off topic) do you consider anthropomorphic global warming (if it exists) to be natural? |
Yes, I'd say its natural. In fact, assuming our understanding of the Earth's earlier days is correct, it would hardly be the first time in the history of the world life forms had a substantial impact on the Earth's climate. Everything I've read on the subject implies our atmosphere was substantially different before photosyntheic life emerged. No doubt some types of life struggled with the resulting climate change and died off.
We may well be the largest life form to have such an impact, but we're neither the first, nor has our impact been anywhere near the most profound. This is why I think we should avoid arguing about the environment as if the status quo is worth preserving for its own sake. What matters is preserving at environment we can flourish in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| You do realize that vegetarianism takes real effort, right? |
But probably less than being carnivorous.
| Quote: |
| What is the value of expelling meat AND fish permanently from your diet for, let's say, a full year? |
I'd say about $1,000-2,000 US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is an extremely tepid defense of vegetarianism. You do realize that vegetarianism takes real effort, right? What is the value of expelling meat AND fish permanently from your diet for, let's say, a full year? |
I'm fully aware of the effort involved, as I've been a pesco-vegan for almost ten years now. While I still allow myself fish, I've found it to be exceedingly difficult to do without eggs, milk, cheese, and other dairy products. That of course has nothing to do with the point I was making.
The title of this thread is "Vegetarianism as the healthy choice? Think again," which implies that vegetarianism is either not healthy or is less healthy than other diets, and you haven't shown either to be true. Yes, if you cut out meat and replace it with heavily processed carbs, it's going to be unhealthy or at least less healthy. But if you cut out meat and replace it with a balanced diet, it will be no less healthy, and many nutritionists claim that there are a multitude of health benefits associated with such a change in diet.
That having been said, if I've drawn the wrong conclusion from the title, please correct me.
| Quote: |
Beehives are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (bees). Beaver dams are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (beavers). Cars are natural because they are built and used in great numbers by a natural creature (humans).
I really don't see what's so challenging about that. Humans are just as natural as any other species, and as a result the products of human society are also natural. Including cars. Including drinking milk. Including eating dogs. Calling a car unnatural is as silly as calling a beehive unnatural. |
Well, that's a heck of a debate in and of itself. Which definition of 'natural' should be used? I would suggest that because humans have consciously and deliberately changed our surrounding environments significantly and with impunity and have the ability to rise above our instincts (although again, this is also debatable), we have removed ourselves from the natural order.
...but again, that's just one definition of many that can be used for 'natural.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is an extremely tepid defense of vegetarianism. You do realize that vegetarianism takes real effort, right? What is the value of expelling meat AND fish permanently from your diet for, let's say, a full year? |
I'm fully aware of the effort involved, as I've been a pesco-vegan for almost ten years now. While I still allow myself fish, I've found it to be exceedingly difficult to do without eggs, milk, cheese, and other dairy products. That of course has nothing to do with the point I was making.
The title of this thread is "Vegetarianism as the healthy choice? Think again," which implies that vegetarianism is either not healthy or is less healthy than other diets, and you haven't shown either to be true.
[M]any nutritionists claim that there are a multitude of health benefits associated with such a change in diet.
|
My argument is that vegetarianism is useless from a health perspective. Its excludes something that is healthy in small doses, without excluding the things that are most unhealthy. The real argument is an attack on the lipid hypothesis, which is one of the most frequently asserted reasons vegetarianism is regarded as being more healthy. Its said that there's less cholestorol intake with vegetarian diets. But cholestorol intake hasn't been proven to correlate with cholestorol levels. We are not like rabbits, and studies have shown that only less than 2% of the population has to worry about dietary cholestorol ending up on the walls of their arteries. IOW, those many nutritionists you talk about? They're full of it. Seriously, check out the links I posted at the very beginning of this thread, they address this issue.
I notice you eat fish. I'm glad you do, because cutting out fish oil and fats is probably one of the more perilous things vegetarians can do, from the vitamin perspective. Luckily, it seems I won't have trouble convincing you of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
Well, that's a heck of a debate in and of itself. Which definition of 'natural' should be used? I would suggest that because humans have consciously and deliberately changed our surrounding environments significantly and with impunity and have the ability to rise above our instincts (although again, this is also debatable), we have removed ourselves from the natural order.
...but again, that's just one definition of many that can be used for 'natural.' |
Well, arguing about definitions usually amounts to naught; in the end, what is important is that we understand one another, regardless of the words used. Sometimes it's useful to debate what is generally meant by a given word, but I don't think that is happening here.
That said, based on your definition of unnatural, everything humans do is unnatural, because we're not part of the natural order. Given Mr. Squirrel's condemnation of drinking milk due to it being "unnatural" only has meaning if humans can also behave in a "natural" fashion, I don't think it's the one he's using. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find the argument of milk being unhealthy and immoral hard to accept.[/quote]Given Mr. Squirrel's condemnation of drinking milk due to it being "unnatural" only has meaning if humans can also behave in a "natural" fashion, I don't think it's the one he's using[quote]
My grand father drank milk everyday of his life; he cut and split his own wood untill he was 82 and lived to be 85. My grandmother drank a glass everyday, lived to be 98 and had all her faculties up untill a month before her death.
And then there is this guy:
By JUDIT KAWAGUCHI
At the age of 97 years and 4 months, Shigeaki Hinohara is one of the world's longest-serving physicians and educators. Hinohara's magic touch is legendary: Since 1941 he has been healing patients at St. Luke's International Hospital in Tokyo and teaching at St. Luke's College of Nursing. After World War II, he envisioned a world-class hospital and college springing from the ruins of Tokyo; thanks to his pioneering spirit and business savvy, the doctor turned these institutions into the nation's top medical facility and nursing school. Today he serves as chairman of the board of trustees at both organizations. Always willing to try new things, he has published around 150 books since his 75th birthday, including one "Living Long, Living Good" that has sold more than 1.2 million copies. As the founder of the New Elderly Movement, Hinohara encourages others to live a long and happy life, a quest in which no role model is better than the doctor himself.
Doctor Shigeaki Hinohara JUDIT KAWAGUCHI PHOTO
Energy comes from feeling good, not from eating well or sleeping a lot. We all remember how as children, when we were having fun, we often forgot to eat or sleep. I believe that we can keep that attitude as adults, too. It's best not to tire the body with too many rules such as lunchtime and bedtime.
All people who live long � regardless of nationality, race or gender � share one thing in common: None are overweight. For breakfast I drink coffee, a glass of milk and some orange juice with a tablespoon of olive oil in it. Olive oil is great for the arteries and keeps my skin healthy. Lunch is milk and a few cookies, or nothing when I am too busy to eat. I never get hungry because I focus on my work. Dinner is veggies, a bit of fish and rice, and, twice a week, 100 grams of lean meat.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20090129jk.html
quote]
Last edited by riverboy on Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vegetarianism doesn't deprive one of all animal fat- most vegetarians are lacto-vegetarians. Cows milk - especially pure cows milk without harmful additives - provides a wonderful variety of products that are healthy in moderation.
A vegan diet - is too austere for most people and is riskier for health. (They also put our bogus propaganda that cows milk is unnatural for human consumption based mostly on ignorant speculation.)
By ignorant, I mean they are ignoring the wisdom of ancient Vedic culture and what common-sensical people of most cultures have long accepted as natural. In Vedic culture, the cow is considered a special type of mother that will produce more milk than its calves require for the benefit of humans. When cows are actually properly cared for - instead of being abused - they reciprocate by giving more milk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Vegetarianism doesn't deprive one of all animal fat- most vegetarians are lacto-vegetarians. Cows milk - especially pure cows milk without harmful additives - provides a wonderful variety of products that are healthy in moderation.
A vegan diet - is too austere for most people and is riskier for health. (They also put our bogus propaganda that cows milk is unnatural for human consumption based mostly on ignorant speculation.)
By ignorant, I mean they are ignoring the wisdom of ancient Vedic culture and what common-sensical people of most cultures have long accepted as natural. In Vedic culture, the cow is considered a special type of mother that will produce more milk than its calves require for the benefit of humans. When cows are actually properly cared for - instead of being abused - they reciprocate by giving more milk. |
I still want to know if my lizard tail idea would work? No killing, they grow them back and all they need is a fright |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
