Animal rights protest - thoughts?

[JASMAK]

There is many reasons to not eat animals. Its not good for you, animals are treated horribly, and we dont NEED it. Simples.

I don't think it's that simple at all. Neither do I agree with any one of the statements you just made.
There are plenty of cultures that are meat and dairy based and they enjoy excellent health, just as there are plenty of vegetarians who don't look after their health or choose foods wisely and suffer because of it.
Factory farming is pretty grim for animals, but small family farms that practise free ranging and humane slaughter treat their animals very well.
And vegetarianism, improperly practised, has a high correlation with anemia. Nowadays, that can be addressed with supplements, but if you are using supplements, maybe your body isn't getting enough of what it "NEEDS" from the diet?
Vegetarianism, like any other lifestyle choice (including meat-eating), works best when the individual choosing it has a good understanding of nutrition and biology and knows to incorporate that. You get healthy/unhealthy people in either group if nutrition is ignored.
There is nothing wrong with vegetarianism, but making big sweeping statements about it being superior to other diets is not going to be easy to back up.

I only ever became anemic once I started eating meat. Fyi, I am not a vegetarian anymore. I also became fatter. Free range is fantastic, if you can afford it! Not eating meat IS healthy, and obviously I meant people should know what to eat. I ate eggs, dairy, and quinoa before it became popular. You can have healthy people who eat meat, and healthy who dont and the other way around. Just like you said, you have to understand nutrition and that goes for meat eaters too.

I dont think what I said was a sweeping statement, but rather, a general comment on how most people eat meat in Canada...too much, too fatty, and picked up at a grocery store.

 

[JASMAK]

And, some studies to back up my claim...this isnt just my opinion.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...egetarians-have-much-healthier-hearts/272793/

https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-986...e-healthier-live-longer-than-meat-eaters.html


https://brown.edu/Student_Services/...tion_&_eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php

 

[jessicaR4bbit]

There is many reasons to not eat animals. Its not good for you, animals are treated horribly, and we dont NEED it. Simples.

JASMAK: You did make a sweeping statement. See the bolded part. When you make the claim that eating meat is not good for you, you have a lot of explaining to do.

You can find studies to support literally any theory you have, or belief that you hold. Linking to a few studies that claim vegetarians have healthier hearts and outlive their meat-eating counterparts, does not conclude that eating meat is not good for you. To do that, you'd have to prove unequivocally that any meat consumption is going to adversely affect your health. And not just your health, but the health of most, if not all, humans.

I know vegetarians who live healthily and eat a rich diet to make up for whatever minerals they do not receive by not eating meat in their diets; just as I know vegetarians who are always sick, tired, and eat poorly. You can look at any population and find examples that directly contradict your viewpoint that meat is bad. You can find an array of studies that show the benefits of meat consumption as well as studies that prove vegetarians lack in certain B vitamins and have a higher frequency of anemia than omnivores.

When you make a positive claim you need to back it up. Either all meat is bad, period, or it isn't always bad. It is almost always the latter.

People forget that the kind of food we eat interacts with other foods, and our genetics (see epigenetics AKA 'gene expression'). These kinds of studies also do not take into account whether or not the meat eaters also eat dairy, or wheat, or how they source their meat, what kind of lifestyles they lead, their environment, yada yada yada. This is the beauty of a double-blind study. And thus far, no such study exists that proves any meat consumption is bad for your health. Case closed.

People can easily be vegetarian these days with easier access to many foods that would have been unavailable to most humans before mass trade, so you could argue for ethical vegetarianism on the basis that factory farming is undesirable (which it is, no doubt). But to argue that vegetarianism is the healthiest diet available is overreaching at best, naive at worst.

Also, INB4 "But I wasn't arguing that vegetarianism is the best diet". Yes, you did. You do not need to say something clearly, to form and express an argument. Everything you write and every claim you make - if it is a positive claim (as above) - is a form of argument. And linking to the studies you did is adding to your argument (that vegetarians are healthier therefore vegetarianism is the better diet). There, saved you some time.

 

[JASMAK]

There is many reasons to not eat animals. Its not good for you, animals are treated horribly, and we dont NEED it. Simples.

JASMAK: You did make a sweeping statement. See the bolded part. When you make the claim that eating meat is not good for you, you have a lot of explaining to do.

You can find studies to support literally any theory you have, or belief that you hold. Linking to a few studies that claim vegetarians have healthier hearts and outlive their meat-eating counterparts, does not conclude that eating meat is not good for you. To do that, you'd have to prove unequivocally that any meat consumption is going to adversely affect your health. And not just your health, but the health of most, if not all, humans.

I know vegetarians who live healthily and eat a rich diet to make up for whatever minerals they do not receive by not eating meat in their diets; just as I know vegetarians who are always sick, tired, and eat poorly. You can look at any population and find examples that directly contradict your viewpoint that meat is bad. You can find an array of studies that show the benefits of meat consumption as well as studies that prove vegetarians lack in certain B vitamins and have a higher frequency of anemia than omnivores.

When you make a positive claim you need to back it up. Either all meat is bad, period, or it isn't always bad. It is almost always the latter.

People forget that the kind of food we eat interacts with other foods, and our genetics (see epigenetics AKA 'gene expression'). These kinds of studies also do not take into account whether or not the meat eaters also eat dairy, or wheat, or how they source their meat, what kind of lifestyles they lead, their environment, yada yada yada. This is the beauty of a double-blind study. And thus far, no such study exists that proves any meat consumption is bad for your health. Case closed.

People can easily be vegetarian these days with easier access to many foods that would have been unavailable to most humans before mass trade, so you could argue for ethical vegetarianism on the basis that factory farming is undesirable (which it is, no doubt). But to argue that vegetarianism is the healthiest diet available is overreaching at best, naive at worst.

Also, INB4 "But I wasn't arguing that vegetarianism is the best diet". Yes, you did. You do not need to say something clearly, to form and express an argument. Everything you write and every claim you make - if it is a positive claim (as above) - is a form of argument. And linking to the studies you did is adding to your argument (that vegetarians are healthier therefore vegetarianism is the better diet). There, saved you some time.

So where is your backing up?

 

[Foogirl]

Try working at an accredited zoo for a decade and trying to explain the enormous conservation role zoos have played in keeping numerous species from extinction through everything from education to captive breeding

I hope you've room for the cows in twenty years

The day tofu tastes as good as a medium rare steak is the day I might think about one of those things. Simples

And if everything about meat is bad, what's the point of vegetarian bacon

But I don't really understand the first part of your argument, cows etc. do not or should not exist for the sole purpose of human consumption, if no-one ate them then there would just end up being fewer of them. The anti-fox hunting stuff is also not about killing beagles etc., in fact I think it was around 10,000 beagles a year would die as a result of fox hunting.

Who is going to keep cows if they are not to be used for meat? They are not pets, they are not wild animals, there is no reason for cows to be kept in the UK unless it is for produce. Or do you think a bunch of farmers somewhere will keep them in fields at the roadside just for the look of it?

And I know the anti fox hunting lobby isn't all about beagles. There were many other reasons not to ban it, my point was about concentrating on one animal to the detriment of many others. Foxes kill and maim many, many animals and birds. They have also attacked children in their beds. One's just killed two of the ravens at the tower of london....horses and hounds were destroyed because of the end of fox hunting....but these facts are ignored by those who want to protect the fox. Just one example, of where they can get it totally wrong.