What IS IT with vegetarians and meat-eaters?

In My Humble Opinion
81

Phew…lots of reading and raised hackles.

Bill H. Yikes.

I feel you did. claim A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth. You stated that the facts/stats/lies whatever you want to call them were “absolute nonsense”…I took that as a claim.

I was curious if you had proof or if you just felt the need to label Satori as “absolute nonsense” in order to
refute his claims.

Guinastasia

I see your point and in the future will look to both sides of the argument to prove their facts & statistics.

82

I’d like to offer an outside perspective on this debate.

As an autotroph, I think you are all reprehensible for consuming other living beings. The world would be a much better place if you could all start generating your own food using only the light from your computer monitors, as I do.

83

Regardless what John Robbins knows or thinks he knows about nutrition, etc., Diet for a New America has one of the ugliest covers I’ve seen in a while. Robbins (heir to Baskin-Robbins, which apparently he rejected) has another book Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Sources of True Healing, so he’s not just an expert on nutrition, agriculture, and the environment but also medicine and health care. According to one bio:

which has to mean something – we’re talking standing ovations here!

One review of Diet explains Robbins’s expertise:

The review also lists Ellen Burnstyn and Alan Alda (ahead of doctors) as “praising its virtue.”

Robbins is also the founder of EarthSave, a group whose work is based on Diet.

84

Shame on you for requiring a computer monitor – you should become a Breatharian.

85

Look, we should all relax. We are all going to be vegetarians very soon. Since, according to ** The Book **

No one will ever be able to produce beef ever again once the current cattle die.

Put a billion acres aside to produce beef,
1,000,000,000 acres @ 0 lbs/acre = 0 lbs.

There will be no meat, ergo, we will all be vegetarians.

BTW, you must’ve starved out 35 or 40 million in the US - it’s more like 280 million.

         BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!

These also in:

World is round.
Men have walked on the moon.

86

Gaspode, I’d really like to see something to back up this statistic:

87

Just a minor observation: In this thread I’ve seen vegetarians say something along the lines of “I’ve never criticised a meat-eater for what they eat; they always want to pick a fight.” By the same token, I’ve seen meat-eaters claim the vegetarians always start in on them first. Is there anyone who considers themselves firmly in one group or the other who will admit to instigating arguments to support their dietary habits? From the previous posts I think I might be able to make an edjucated guess as to the likely candidates. Anyone? No? Hmm, how interesting…

88

Keep in mind that THE BOOK was published in 1987, so the population figures are right for then.

Hmm, that’s 14 year ago, so we’ve already run out of oil.

89

Actually, that is inaccurate. Due to the lower gravity, it is more of a hopping action. If you had said “Men have hopped on the moon” or even “Men have shuffled on the moon”, I would have agreed completely.

[sub][sup]Let’s see how fine we can split that hair…[/sub][/sup] :wink:

According to this site: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-dd.html an Arleigh Burke class destroyer (which the U.S.S. Cole was a member of) has a displacement of 8,300 tons with a full load.

Water weighs (in earth gravity at sea-level) 8.8lbs per gallon.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but in order to float a the water a ship displaces must weigh more than the ship.
Therefore the U.S.S. Cole displaces approx. 1.89 million gallons of water.

Say a cow lives to 10 years before slaughter. 10 years has approximately 87,600 hours (365 days X 24 hours X 10 years). A cow would have to drink 21 gallons of water every hour to make that quota.

If he drank that much, he would not be a cow anymore since he would be pissin’ like a race horse.

90

You know, this mess illustrates the question posted in the OP perfectly. I think (I hope) we can all agree that while it is a less efficient use of agricultural resources to feed grain to animals, which are then consumed as food, it’s a moot point, because a lot of people want to eat meat. And, alarmists aside, meat consumption does not automatically lead to the destruction of the environment. It is possible right now to produce enough food for everyone, it is political situations that prevent that food from reaching everyone who needs it.

There are tons of studies, most of which I have seen have some bias or another. I’ll distill it for you. Is a balanced vegetarian diet healthier than the “average” Western diet loaded with saturated fats? Absolutely. Is a balanced vegetarian diet healthier than a balanced diet that limits saturated fats but includes some meat? The jury’s still out on this, but probably not, or not much. Eating too much meat and excluding vegetables and grains is definitely unhealthy. Eating some meat is probably ok. On the vegetarian side of things, deficiencies are rarely a problem. You don’t need that much B12. Ovo-lacto vegetarians (who eat eggs and dairy) get plenty from their diets, and vegans can take supplements (from non-animal sources) or eat fortified grains.

91

Gaspode, can we have children together? Honest, that was brilliant.

Robbins, Robbins, Robbins - Sheesh, Sartori, can’t you come up with one other source that you’ve discovered and read on your own without Robbins’ input? Gaspode’s cited several different sources, some from highly respected, peer reviewed scientific journals. And, so sorry Robbins, Alan Alda does not quite qualify as a peer reviewer for animal/human nutrition issues, to say the least. Quite frankly, I’m inclined to side with Gaspode over a one trick pony, even if some sources do include the U.S. “oh-so-lying-and-untrustworthy” Goverment. Hell, I even get my weather info from more than one source. Yikes. Think, man!

Gaspode, thank you for your reasoned refutations. I know a woman who’s a veggie due to her disagreement with “animal cruelty.” I respect that decision, even if I don’t really understand it. [sub]Now I know why her cat is so evil - biting everyone in sight. Apparently it’s too cruel to discipline the damn thing.[/sub]

Back to your regularly scheduled debate…

Snicks

92

I have to admit to kinda whooshing myself on this in an earlier post. If you read the statistic as you have then yes, the “fact” is patently absurd as we know that 1 billion * zero = zero but yet beef is still raised.

However, if you read the statistic exactly as written*, it actually states that one 1 acre of land is too small to raise beeves, (or indeed a beef). OK… gaspode’s comments about feed sheds aside for a moment – sure all the beeves may be in a small area but we still have to grow grain for them on some acreage – we may be able to accept that a single acre is too small to run even a single free-range beef cow… but you can grow 20k pounds of potatos on it.

This would be relevant only if a typical commercial farm was 1 acre or less in size. As it stands it is a misleading statistic. If (for example) 2 acres were required for a free-range beef then the correct comparison would be to say:

  • 2 acres are required for each beef cow.
  • 40,000 pounds of potatos could be grown in the same area.

…or, to work out the weight over time over acres of raising beef and state something like:

  • 20,000 pounds of potatos can be grown per acre.
  • 500 pounds of beef can be raised per acre.

The statistic as given is not totally ridiculous, but it is sleight of hand.

93

The damn 1 and 2 keys on the keyboard aren’t working and I don’t use the keypad when I’m typing. That isn’t the only place it happened in that post either. Something about 5kg feed/kg of meat instaed of 15. Use your imagination folks. These posts are definitely not brought to you by the numbers 1 and 2.

notcynical,
I didn’t claim that vegetarians start on me first. In my experience vergetarians genuinely believe the sort of tripe that Satori has presented us with and say it offhand. I then start on them because I very rarely take to ignorance well, especially when it accuses me of using all the worlds oil, clubbing baby seals etc. I guess I’m the one instigating the argument although I didn’t instigate the confrontation or raise the topic. Pretty much what happened with Staori here. (Now I know it’s going to shock you to believe I would ever start an argument, but it’s true.)

VeraGemini,
We certainly can not agree that it is a less efficient use of agricultural resources to feed grain to animals. I’ve demonstrated above why this is patently not true. It may be less efficient to feed pure grain, zero roughage diets to animals to produce calories but that is the extent of truth in that statement. It is far more efficient to feed grain to animals to produce protein. It is far more efficient to feed grain and roughage to animals to produce calories. That’s why I feel quite justified in saying vegetarianism has no logical basis. Sure restrict meat intake for helath or environmentl reasons, but by eliminating meat peolpe are causing environmental and health problems. A balanced diet is the key, not a pure animal or plant based diet.

There is no impartial evidence that a balanced vegetarian diet is healthier than the “average” Western diet. Aside from the fact that vegetarians have about the same fat intake as non-vegetarians defining a western diet is near impossible and once you add the fact that by definition vegetarians are more conscious of their helath and what they eat you find that vegetarian diets are less healthy than the diets of health conscious meatatarians. One cannot confuse the diet and the dieter which is why such studies are impossible to undertake and why their is no evidence for your comment. The few controlled studies that I have seen done have only demonstrated that vegetarianism will reduce blood pressure but this was attributed to the lower added salt intake of a vegetarian diet. Vegetarian diets have nor been shown to reduce body weight.
Your comment that “Eating some meat is probably ok.” is also hideously misleading in the sense that there is absolutely no evidence that eating even moderate amounts of meat does any harm and evidence that eating no meat will have negative health effects including retardation in growth and brain development in children and iron deficiency in women.

Snickers,
I’m flattered. We might have to hold off on the kids though, my GF might get a little upset.

Apollyon,
You’re quite right about the feed for beef cattle needing to be grown somewhere, but potatos need tillage, and fertiliser, and irrigation, and pesticide application and so on so by the same argument a single acre is also too small to grow a pound of potatoes. And their are pastures that will support one dairy cow to the acre right around the world. Dairy cattle require far more feed than beef cattle so there’s absolutley no doubt that even without grain feeding you can produce a beast/acre. And of course you can feed the potato starch from half an acre of cropland to cattle in a feedlot on the other half and still get 1000lbs of beef off that half acre and about 1000lbs/acre more protein. Satori’s figure is totally ridiculous as far as I’m concerned.

94

Gaspode: I quote you verbatim: “ The The National Corn Growers Association and Farmcentre based there figure on US Dept of Ag statistics… Even if it were lies, why should we believe a your lies over mine? At least my lies are corroborated by the US government.”

You keep insisting that John Robbins has no credibility, which I find interesting. He is very credible - his books would not otherwise achieve the international respect and success that they do. He is the founder of EarthSave International, which is an established and respected environmental organization, and he continues to write books that enjoy the same success as his previous ones to this day. A review of his latest book is posted at
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0JMQ/3_24/78839821/p1/article.jhtml?term=John+Robbins+
wherein reviewer Howard Lyman writes:

“Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines revolution as a fundamental change in the way of thinking about something. The title for John Robbins’ new book is very aptly named. This book will change not only the way you think about food - it will change the way you eat.

Twenty chapters, with over nine-hundred footnotes, track the studies and statements of top researchers from around the world as they respond to the public relation claims of the meat and dairy industry. When we see the industry claims refuted, time and again by the best minds in the diet and environmental community, we start to see why there is a revolution going on.

I cannot count the number of times I have been asked to provide the study that supports the facts I use. The Food Revolution provides a convenient method of proving issues that the majority of Americans have never realized to be true. It is not what we know that is the problem; it is what we know that isn’t so, that is the problem. The Food Revolution will shine light on those “facts” that industry hopes you won’t believe.”

So you see, I’m not the only one who would recommend or speak favorably of a book by John Robbins.

Contrary to your assertion, I am not “happy to ignore facts and logic and post opinions based on writings that have been throughly discredited within hours of their appearance”. You have not discredited anything.

“I’ve provided the citations to the articles, go and find them, I didn’t make it up and their results are reproducible and in keeping with established fact, unlike von Robinsons work.”

No one is accusing you of making anything up. All I am saying is that John Robbins hasn’t made anything up either. You are right - your sources are “in keeping with established fact”. Authors like John Robbins challenge “established fact”. That’s the point. And it’s also why so many people move mountains to descredit them. There are plenty of people who assert that Noam Chomsky is full of it, and they have what they feel is necessary to “prove it”. (Are you familiar with Chomsky’s works, or do you accept the “established” views on american foreign policy based on what CNN or Colin Powell says?)

You said it exactly. Your sources are “industry and government that supports meatatarianism, scientists in peer reviewed independant journals… government and industry, at least three independant scientific journals, the medical community, the US oil industry, several universities, the peak Australian reasearch organistaion and almost all mass media.”

Industry and government are clearly biased towards their own ends. How many scientists are independently funded? It’s no secret that when scientists discover something that doesn’t jive with whoever is paying them, that information doesn’t get out much. How independent are these journals you refer to? As Michael Parenti says, “History is written by those who can afford to write it”. I’m not sure what medical community you speak of, but if it’s the “established” western medical community, it’s certainly not unbiased, as it is deeply wed to the western pharmaceutical industry. Universities are literally institutions of established curriculum. Remember the Scopes monkey trials? No room for new ideas in schools. And the mass media isn’t just affiliated or inclined towards being friendly to corporations - it IS corporations.

I don’t know about the Australian research organization you mention, but genuinely hope that they are capable of some measure of objectivity so that you have at least 1 source that isn’t more likely to be spewing corporate-based , albeit “established “, rhetoric.

“His reasearch failed to even turn up informatin that supported him (see GQ)”

GQ? A bastion of independent thought, I’m sure. Truly independent magazines cannot be found on the racks at 7-eleven, I assure you. As for the extensiveness of John Robbins’ research, refer back to the above review of his latest book. People who set out to challenge “established “ ideas cannot afford anything less than exhaustive research. Chomsky is the same way. This is why I am comfortable to cite John Robbins alone - he has done the exhaustive research, and if you want to find the varied sources he cites, get the book.

“I’m absolutley certain…that von Robinson has lied to you and that you have attempted to impose those lies on the members of this board.”

You’ve been quite clear that you believe John Robbins (FTR, his name isn’t von Robinson) has lied. You are entitled to that belief. All I would say is that in my experience, the chance that government, industry, the press they own and the scientists and journals they fund are much more likely to (and very often do) lie to you, me and everyone else than one man who believes the earth is worth preserving.

“You offer ignorant factoids, spam and outright lies on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance, it’s met with skepticism, facts, and refutation and that amazes you? What amazes me is how easily you’ve gotten off. I’ve been assuming you were simply misled and would be open to independnt facts.”

Again, it is only your opinion that the facts I offered are “ignorant” and “outright lies”. The same could easily be said for the citations you’ve offered, given that your sources include the US oil industry, the mass media and GQ.

Skepticism and refutation are to be expected on boards such as this one. “Facts”, as our conversation clearly illustrates, are subjectively understood at best. I am very open to independent facts, which is why I seek information from sources less readily available than the ones you’ve cited.

It is the vehement animosity and hostility you emit through your writing which amazes me.

I cannot apologize enough for not including John Robbns’ bibliography in my original post. For those that are open minded enough to look through the book before dismissing the ideas therein, it’s called “Diet for a New America”. His latest is called “The Food Revolution” and will be more in line with current knowledge as it was published in the last year or so. EarthSave International’s website is located at http://www.earthsave.org and is worth a vist as well.

You’re definitely right about one thing. I’m not into “fighting”. I’m into attempting to evolve ignorance into a perhaps more educated intelligence through open discussion and the free exchange of ideas. Part of that is questioning “established knowledge”. I think much of the ignorance you yourself bemoan often comes from the acceptance of “established fact” and an unwillingness to question it.
Everything you’ve written leads me to think that you would accept the official line on issues like this one, the “war on drugs” (from your earlier comments about “pot heads”), and probably any other just because it’s easier to go with contemporary views than adopt new ones, especially when you have every TV network and major newspaper reaffirming you every second of every day.

I encourage you to read and/or hear Noam Chomsky (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/)and Michael Parenti (http://www.michaelparenti.org/) or any other truly independent analyst if you haven’t already, and to seek sources that are a bit harder to find than the mass media or governmental departments before totally dismissing the ideas of someone like John Robbins or even me.

95

Er, satori? I believe that by “GQ”, he meant the thread he started in the General Questions forum, not the magazine Gentlemen’s Quarterly.

96

My mistake. Duly noted.

97

Satori, let me first say that I am vegetarian. I do consider it better for the planet, FWIW. The meat-centric diet that has developed in North America in the last few centuries is unprecedented, unsustainable, and unhealthy.

That being said, it’s not helpful to parrot extremist views which are, by and large, absurdly distorted. In fact, it’s counterproductive. When you repeat something that is not true, or grossly exaggerated, people tend to dismiss your entire argument and write you off as a crackpot.

It doesn’t help when you quote Howard Lyman’s support of John Robbins’ book. There’s a certain nepotistic quality to Lyman’s support. I like Howard Lyman. He has a lot of good points. He also has a colourful Texan way of exaggerating to underline his point. And he owes Mr. Robbins’ one:

These folks do have an agenda. I don’t think it’s overly cynical to suggest that it has as much to do with selling books as it does changing the world. There’s a lot of good information on Lyman’s site. There’s also a certain amount of exaggeration and distortion. It’s worth noting that the biggest font on the page is reserved for the link: Make Howard Lyman’s book a bestseller!

I’m glad I stopped eating meat. It’s been almost ten years now. I feel much better. I’ll probably live longer, barring an accident. I’m almost 100% dietary-guilt free. (I eat some dairy. You can’t really make a satisfactory alfredo sauce with soy-substitutes.)

But the sooner you learn this, the better off you will be:
People find prosyltizing fundamentalists irritating. You won’t change any minds or attitudes this way. You are far more likely to make people less willing to listen to a vegetarian POV than to make any “conversions.” John Robbins is the Jack Chick of vegetarianism.

98

No we don’t all agree on that. I think farm animals are shockingly efficient. Cattle have the mouths, teeth, and stomachs to handle food that has not been through any processes, meaning they can wrap raw grass around their tongues as suck it down (and chew it later), making them very efficient consumers. During this time, they can be active milk producers and later be sold to Oscar Mayer, which probably uses all but the hair and eyes. From a weight standpoint, the pounds of meat from a cow vs the pounds of feed she ate during her lifetime would certainly tip the scales toward the massive pile of silage.

However, consider the energy spent in collecting and “preparing” cattle meals. There is the equipment fuel to cut the hay, then to chop the hay and then to load it into the silo. This is much less refined than a system for human food for several reasons.

First, food for cattle consumption can legally have “natural fertilizer” (In other words, manure) which comes from the cattle crapping themselves all winter --no cost, no energy. A possible environmental hazard? Nope, it’s stored in an above ground reservoir and extracted in the spring and fall to spread onto the fields.

Second, there is no need for quality control. So if a rat gets caught in the blower when filling the silo, a little extra protein for the lucky cow that gets that chunk, no big deal. Because of this, we can run things fast and efficient, without hiring more people for processing or dealing with FDA regulations as a (human) food plant would.

Third, there is no refining process. Cows get silage and corn that has simply been stored and appropriately “fermented” in a silo. Again, because of their cast-iron stomachs they have no use for pasteurization, cooking, or other preparations that our fragile human selves require. Okay, this may even seem like a bit of a contradiction, but many farmers use “mixers” to make every handful (or cow-mouthful) of feed the same. Cows have favorite foods and will eat only the corn and leave the rest, so you have to mix it to get them to eat it all. What’s the point? A more balanced diet (with variety) leads to healthier animals which leads to more productive farm. Yes, this “variety” thing works for humans as well.

Fourth, cows can eat alfalfa and grass and even those nasty “pickers” that grow in the field. These are foods that are basically considered non-consumable to the typical human, no matter how much refining and preparation these foods went through. Cows are like dumpsters that we throw in well-balanced garbage and get milk and meat.

Up to this point, the only things spent were the diesel fuel and wear on the machinery. Electricity is another energy, but even my brother’s farm now has a windmill that takes care of that area. Oh, and time for things to grow, and of course the farmer’s labor. Which brings me to the last point.

Take for example the Great Depression. If cattle farming was as inefficient as so many people claim, then every farmer would have switched over to plants, and had done away with the animals. Now this was likely to happen to some degree anyway because the profit in cattle farming does not give you instant gratification (which was often needed during the depression), one has to wait for animals to mature. Not the greatest scenario when you need food and money right now. The point is that farmers are always searching for the most efficient way to produce the maximum amount of food for the consumer. If the above quote were true, farmers who raise cattle would be shooting themselves in the foot. If meat was in such high demand that it was “worth it” to be that wasteful, a good steak would probably run about $500 and hotdogs would be considered a delicacy.

99

I want to start a Gaspode: Prince of Objectivity miniseries. Sort of like the Sprint PCS guy, Gaspode runs around and stops the spreading of ULs and general disinformation. Maybe he can do some Get-Smarting shoe-phone calls to Cecil now and then when a biggie is found.

100

Gaspode: You’re the man. May the Straight Dope Be With You.
Satori: Get a grip, dude…

Getting back to the Op, I’d like to add my two cents…

The way I see it, there are two types of vegetarians:

  1. The libertarian veggies who have no problem with meat eaters such as myself
  2. The militant veggies

The posters thus far all appear to be of the #1 variety. I don’t have a beef with these folks (he he…). Let me eat carcasses in peace, and I’ll let eat your tofu in peace.

My problem, obviously, is with folks from the #2 lot. Most (all?) of these people are also Animal Rights Activists (ARAs), and donate considerable energy and money in an attempt to keep me from participating my very favorite sport and past time: hunting. Every year these fucking idiots try to sabotage hunting season for us hunters here in Ohio. They paint deer orange (??), smash windows on hunters’ trucks, tear down tree stands, use powerboats to scare off fish, etc. They also spend lots of $$ on lobbyist trying to get more animals on the ESL, restricting public land, running “Poor Bambi” adds, making lakes “off limits” to fishing, etc. I have nothing but contempt for these people.

So again, if you’re a veggie who has absolutely no problem with me hunting, fishing, or trapping, then I have no problem with you. But if you think those activities should be outlawed, and you contribute $$ and distribute pack-full-of-lies propaganda to support your cause, then the gloves come off.