Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Vegetarianism as the healthy choice? Think again

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Vegetarianism as the healthy choice? Think again
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

sqrlnutz123

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Location: South Korea

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:37 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

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.

A bees build beehives using unprocessed resources using their own bodies to process them and assemble them, in order to survive.
You and I have no idea how to assemble a car we cannot do so without tools and energy from sources outside ourselves and a car is certainly not necessary for our survival.

sqrlnutz123

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Location: South Korea

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:51 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.

Sure, sure. I will concede that moderate milk drinking, provided you have no allergy or are not lactose intolerant, and the milk is straight from the teat and not pasteurized, homogenized and the cow is treated well and fed well, you will be fine. This is the way grandpa who lived to be 98 consumed it for a good part of his life.
However, for most people who consume dairy products in the United States and other developed countries, maybe one of these conditions are met, probably none and in those cases, there is ample cause to avoid it.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject:

sqrlnutz123 wrote:

All true. None of it makes cars less natural. Lots of natural things aren't necessary for survival.

There's nothing unnatural about cars. A naturally occuring species gathers natural materials and builds cars using natural capabilities. You're trying so hard to draw a distinction, but no meaningful distinction exists beyond, perhaps, the fact that cars are far more complex than bee hives. Complexity isn't unnatural.

If you think milk is disgusting, don't drink it. Trying to label it as unnatural is just silly though.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:52 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

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.

This is going to seem like a douche move but I can't not call you on this, even if it is 3 months late.

Four or five posts before the quote I asked you if AGW was natural and you said "Yes". Then you go on to say that humans aren't part of the natural order. How does that work?

Additionally, I remember us having a debate about the semantics of the word "failure". Specifically as it applies to government actions. You state here that "....what is important is that we understand one another." Sorry to call you on it. But isn't that some what hypocritical?

Shouldn't what is good enough for the goose be good enough for the gander? Or if it's good enough for the fox, it's good enough for the skulk. As it were.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:04 am Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Fox wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

I never said humans aren't part of the natural order. He said humans weren't part of the natural order, and I was pointing out an entailment of that. That's what "Based on your definition..." means.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Additionally, I remember us having a debate about the semantics of the word "failure". Specifically as it applies to government actions. You state here that "....what is important is that we understand one another." Sorry to call you on it. But isn't that some what hypocritical?

No, it's not hypocritical. When we were having a discussion about your usage of the word failure, it wasn't simply a matter of saying, "Well, you and I use the word differently, and there's room for debate about it." I was saying you were outright using the word in a fundamentally incorrect fashion. It wasn't merely a matter of semantics, it was a matter of you being wrong. What you were describing wasn't failure, and your attempt to classify it as failure was in error.

ED209

Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:07 am Post subject:

sqrlnutz123 wrote:

Are you hoping this is enough to prevent 'salmonella, Lysteria monocytogenes, yersinia enterocolitica, and e.coli bacteria' ?

http://sciencebasedparenting.com/2008/05/04/the-fallacy-of-raw-milk/

Quote:

This is the way grandpa who lived to be 98 consumed it for a good part of his life.

I'm sure he would have lived longer if hadn't an eighty-a-day smoking habit and downed a bottle of whiskey every day.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:11 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Fox wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

I never said humans aren't part of the natural order. He said humans weren't part of the natural order, and I was pointing out an entailment of that. That's what "Based on your definition..." means.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Wow. Fast response.

You got me on the first point.

As for the second point, I think you are squirming on it. You say "it's important that we understand each other." Even if I used the word incorrectly (which I don't believe I did) I still made it clear to you what my understanding of the word was in that context. Therefore we did understand each other even if my definition of the word was (supposedly) wrong.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:04 am Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

As for the second point, I think you are squirming on it. You say "it's important that we understand each other." Even if I used the word incorrectly (which I don't believe I did) I still made it clear to you what my understanding of the word was in that context. Therefore we did understand each other even if my definition of the word was (supposedly) wrong.

I still don't consider it the same. The word nature (and words that follow from it, like natural) are very complex, vague words. There's a lot of room for different interpretation and usage of them. As such, understanding one another when we use these words takes some additional effort at times.

The word failure, on the other hand, is by no means anywhere near as vague. It has a fairly precise, commonly accepted meaning. I think it's reasonable to insist that meaning be kept to for the sake of clear, reasonable conversation. That's especially true given the fact that words like failure are generally used in condemnation. Classifying something as a failure, while simultaneously working under an alternative definition of failure, is something I for one am not entirely comfortable with.

tacoman

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: Tacoma

Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:18 pm Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

I went vegetarian for eight weeks as an experiment. My muscles shrunk to a pitiful size, a loss not offset by any spiritual benefits I could perceive. We north americans should eat less meat though; not only would it be healthier, but right there it would decrease the problems associated with factory farms.

Kuros wrote:

grain-fed steak

I love this.

I have been vegetarian for over a year and have started working out and running. I have very good energy and my body is leaning out while my muscles are bulking up. I am currently in the healthiest shape of my life. There haven't been any problems for me.

Fox wrote:

Triban wrote:

All of your arguments fail to hit on the point that biting into a rare, bloody, dripping red steak is sheer heaven on earth.

Honestly, my feelings are fairly impacted by this as well. Eating meat is delicious. It would take more than just some minimal health benefits to stop me from eating it; I'd rather die sooner and enjoy life than live longer while denying myself, unless perhaps erence could be measured in centuries rather than years.

People who argue for vegetarianism based on health benefits have always been fighting a losing battle.

Many normally herbivorous animals can be trained to eat meat. You eat meat because it is part of your culture and you think it is delicious because you have grown a taste for it and there are many flavors added to your meat. I don't think meat is inherently delicious.

The only battles lost when saying vegetarians are healthier are cultural ones. There are plenty of studies that show people who eat little to no meat are far healthier than those who eat meat more regularly. The belief that eating meat is healthier is merely cultural. That said, I plan on eating meat on occasion when in Korea, but will generally continue to avoid eating it.

WendyRose wrote:

Vegetarians can have dreadful diets. They can also have very healthy diets. It depends on what you put in your mouth.

Definitely. Many of the benefits of eating little to no meat in many studies I've seen has been the difference in lifestyle and food consumption awareness. Those who have chosen to eat less or no meat are making other conscious decisions about their diet and exercise. Of course there are also direct benefits to eating less meat.

I have no use for karma or being good to my soul since I am not religious or spiritual. I am interested in being healthy and happy, keeping others healthy and happy, and keeping the earth healthy and long-lasting.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:50 pm Post subject:

tacoman wrote:

That has little bearing on my point. It doesn't matter to me why I find eating meat delicious. It doesn't matter if the only reason I find meat delicious is because an alien came down and brainwashed me into finding it delicious. The simple fact is that I and many others find it delicious, and sufficiently so that even if we grant vegetarians their best case scenario with regards to the health benefits of vegetarianism, I'm still not compelled to become vegetarian. I'd rather have the pleasure of eating meat coupled with a less healthy life than give up that pleasure and live longer. So would many others. That is why trying to talk people into becoming vegetarians over health benefits is a losing battle; the health benefits in question simply aren't substantial enough to outweigh the pleasure many of us gain by eating meat. If we could literally double or triple our lifespans you might have a case, but at best we're looking at a few more years, and that's only in a statistical sense. We could literally end up with no life-span benefit at all depending on the quirks of our individual lives and bodies.

tacoman wrote:

The only battles lost when saying vegetarians are healthier are cultural ones.

Given any attempt to get more people engaging in vegetarianism is ultimately a cultural movement, that's hardly trivial.

tacoman wrote:

There are plenty of studies that show people who eat little to no meat are far healthier than those who eat meat more regularly. The belief that eating meat is healthier is merely cultural. That said, I plan on eating meat on occasion when in Korea, but will generally continue to avoid eating it.

Why are you trying to rebutt my claim that, "Most people who eat meat aren't willing to give up the pleasure of eating meat in return for slight health benefits," with claims about the health benefits of vegetarianism? You seem to have seriously misunderstood the case I was making. Health simply isn't the only thing that matters, and the overwhelming majority -- if not all -- of the health benefits of vegetarianism can be acquired simply by moderating the amount of meat you consume instead, especially when coupled with regular exercise. Too little gain for too much sacrifice from my perspective.

tacoman

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: Tacoma

Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:16 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

tacoman wrote:

The only battles lost when saying vegetarians are healthier are cultural ones.

Given any attempt to get more people engaging in vegetarianism is ultimately a cultural movement, that's hardly trivial.

tacoman wrote:

I apologize. I did not know you would be so offended by my post. My point was that health and environmental science says that people should eat less meat. I was not trying to refute the idea that people like eating meat. You can continue finding meat delicious. I was merely stating that the battles were not about health benefits, but the cultural need to eat meat.

My personal intent is not to convince others not to eat meat, but to get them to accept that not eating meat is both normal and healthy. I accept that we are capable of eating meat and it is normal, but I also acknowledge that our culture drives us to eat an amount of meat that causes both health and environmental problems.

I will not force you to stop eating meat, though I do suggest you do not eat so much of it. ... though I suppose not everyone's willing to give up any amount pleasure simply for personal and global health.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject:

tacoman wrote:

I apologize. I did not know you would be so offended by my post.

I'm not offended, that's just how I write.

tacoman wrote:

My point was that health and environmental science says that people should eat less meat.

I don't disagree, I just don't think these arguments -- the health ones at least -- are sufficient to persuade many of us to become vegetarians in light of our love of meat.

tacoman wrote:

My personal intent is not to convince others not to eat meat, but to get them to accept that not eating meat is both normal and healthy.

I certainly don't think you're strange for being vegetarian, and I'm sure you can live healthily so long as you make a point of doing so. So, consider yourself as having succeeded on my account.

tacoman

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: Tacoma

Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

tacoman wrote:

I apologize. I did not know you would be so offended by my post.

I'm not offended, that's just how I write.

tacoman wrote:

My point was that health and environmental science says that people should eat less meat.

I don't disagree, I just don't think these arguments -- the health ones at least -- are sufficient to persuade many of us to become vegetarians in light of our love of meat.

tacoman wrote:

My personal intent is not to convince others not to eat meat, but to get them to accept that not eating meat is both normal and healthy.

I certainly don't think you're strange for being vegetarian, and I'm sure you can live healthily so long as you make a point of doing so. So, consider yourself as having succeeded on my account.

Why thank you. You are very polite.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:13 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

It doesn't matter to me why I find eating meat delicious. It doesn't matter if the only reason I find meat delicious is because an alien came down and brainwashed me into finding it delicious. The simple fact is that I and many others find it delicious, and sufficiently so that even if we grant vegetarians their best case scenario with regards to the health benefits of vegetarianism, I'm still not compelled to become vegetarian. I'd rather have the pleasure of eating meat coupled with a less healthy life than give up that pleasure and live longer. So would many others. That is why trying to talk people into becoming vegetarians over health benefits is a losing battle; the health benefits in question simply aren't substantial enough to outweigh the pleasure many of us gain by eating meat. If we could literally double or triple our lifespans you might have a case, but at best we're looking at a few more years, and that's only in a statistical sense. We could literally end up with no life-span benefit at all depending on the quirks of our individual lives and bodies.

There are many good reasons for being vegetarian in addition to the health reasons which are numerous. As a diet lower in animal fat and cholesterol and higher in fiber, it leads to lower rates of heart attack, stroke, arteriosclerosis, hypertension, and diverticular disease, to name a few. With heart disease the leading cause of mortality in the US, the overall health effect of a vegetarian diet could be substantial.

Among other reasons to practice vegetarianism are ecological, economical, spiritual, religious, and to lessen animal cruelty and world hunger, among others.

As far as meat tasting delicious, I relate this anecdote from my early days of veggieism: I became vegetarian in stages. First, i gave up red meat, then fowl, and finally fish. After several months of not having had any chicken or turkey, one day I was hungry and saw what looked like a delicious hot open turkey sandwich which I decided to buy because I remembered it being delicious. However when I took the first bite, I couldn't help thinking that it tasted like cardboard! My tastes had changed.

Perhaps the best reason for being vegetarian however is the number of new foods I began eating. Some people think of vegetarianism as simply not eating meat or eating only vegetables, but it is so much more. I actually now eat more kinds of foods, not less than before. A whole new culinary world has opened up.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:21 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Among other reasons to practice vegetarianism are ecological, economical, spiritual, religious, and to lessen animal cruelty and world hunger, among others.

Ecological and economical reasons are worth considering, as is a reduction in animal cruelty. Spiritual and religious reasons are totally non-compelling; they require you to all ready accept them in order to be persuasive to you. World hunger is a red herring; we all ready produce far more food than all the humans of the world need to live completely healthy lifestyles. People starve for reasons of distribution, not for reasons of production.

bacasper wrote:

As far as meat tasting delicious, I relate this anecdote from my early days of veggieism: I became vegetarian in stages. First, i gave up red meat, then fowl, and finally fish. After several months of not having had any chicken or turkey, one day I was hungry and saw what looked like a delicious hot open turkey sandwich which I decided to buy because I remembered it being delicious. However when I took the first bite, I couldn't help thinking that it tasted like cardboard! My tastes had changed.

Perhaps the best reason for being vegetarian however is the number of new foods I began eating. Some people think of vegetarianism as simply not eating meat or eating only vegetables, but it is so much more. I actually now eat more kinds of foods, not less than before. A whole new culinary world has opened up.

Interesting experience.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe