Vegetarians advocate awareness of abuse in the meat industry

Paul McCartney said, "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian."
I'd like to believe that McCartney is right and that the only thing keeping people from becoming vegetarian is knowledge. But I'm not quite sure.
My mom, for instance, is one of the most caring, compassionate people I know, but she still won't stop eating meat no matter how much information I give her

Marcea, I think you are right about "information" maybe not makig a difference and here is my evidence.

Although we haven't held one of these ina while, over the years here at Step by Step we have sometimes held events intended that meat eaters actually experience the process. Our focus (unilke yours) would be "responsibility", that people who eat meat should not be able to pretend that "meat comes in plastic packages" but accept that if they are going to eat meat, an animal must die.

So we would assemble a bunch of people and take them up into the woods with a medium size animal, usually a young goat. Keeping the issue "pure" (not mixing in questions like the practices of factory slaughterhouses, etc.) the animal not scared and the person with the knife very skillful. Anyway, we would stand them around in a circle while the person slaughtering cut the goats throat (done RIGHT, instand unconciousness with the animal going limp in midair just like when the vet loosens the ligature to release the sodium pentathol or whatver is used to put a pet "to sleep"). Then we'd go around and smear the blood on everybody's hands and they would continue to watch as the goat was dressed and skinned (could help if they wished, but that wasn't required). Then the carcass was taken to a kitchen where it was butchered, people watching or helping, and some immediately cooked and eaten (along with other food people brought).

Marcea, to the best of our knowledge, nobody became a vegetarian as a result of this experience. Oh, a few didn't eat meat again for a month or two. But of course remember that changing people into vegetarians -- just into people who accepted responsibility and who made conscious, not unconscious choices.

Now the outcome (in that regard) might have been different had we arranged a horribly cruel slaughtering instead. But that would have eliminated the purity of the meat eating question (which is properly NOT "are you willing to kill an animal CRUELLY so that you may eat meat?" but "are you willing to kill an animal even under optimal conditions in order to eat meat?")

while I appreciate how you are trying to get to the core of "is it right or wrong to eat animals," I would argue that your emphasis on the "purity" of the question is abstract and unrealistic

it's too hypothetical to ponder "what if, in a perfect world" as a rationale for continuing in the U.S. today to consume animals when the overwhelming vast majority of food animals do indeed come from factory farms. the reality of industrial animal farming is what drives many, if not most, vegetarians to choose their animal-free diet. many people do not have to actually even see one in person to be convinced it is not something they want to be a part of.

I actually believe that McCartney is more right than wrong in his assertion. obviously, not in every case. there will always be holdouts, and I'm not sure if the entire planet will ever choose a 100% vegetarian diet. but, I do think most people would chose not to eat meat in today's world if slaughterhouses had glass walls and they had to be confronted daily with the reality of the cruelty they were contributing to. it would be significantly different, say, if people had to pass a glass-walled slaughterhouse or factory farm on the way to work every day or in clear view of their favorite restaurants. it's much easier to continue on with eating meat if there's plausible deniability of personal responsibility.

when making her point about info not always being enough, Marsea missed that the key relating to the McCartney quote was that her mother refused to watch video of factory farms. info and literature can only take things so far, but real-live video is a whole 'nother way to experience it. video is probably the closest thing to actually being there, short of having blood on your hands. likewise, you yourself noted that a number of the participants in your ritual slaughter of a goat stopped eating meat temporarily (and that was after a supposedly humane and "pure" kill). I would argue that a large reason they returned to eating meat later is two-fold: 1) the memory faded -- they were not confronted daily with glass slaughterhouses, or even your "pure" kills, and 2) the social pressures to conform, as those who do not eat meat are commonly ostracized, are too much for some people and they would rather do something they know is cruel than even risk emotional rejection from others (if those temporary vegetarians went back to a significantly vegetarian world after seeing the goat slaughter, I doubt they would have returned to meateating themselves)

in short, I'm not convinced by anything Marsea nor you wrote that Paul McCartney is not largely correct in his assessment quoted above about glass walls and vegetarians... not literally "everyone" but significant proportions of people.

1) don't eat meat
2) respect other people's choices

I see TV commercials all the time that make fun of vegetarians. I catch flak all the time because of my diet, from family, friends, people in restaurants, treated as the food oddball.

this is a meat-dominated world, and you're the unpaid enforcer apparently (I assume you're not on McDonald's payroll, but who knows)

if anything, you, sir (and you gotta be male), are the food nazi, as you want 100% validation of your choices 100% of the time (even though you already get it 95-plus% of the time) and you cannot handle even the discussion of an alternate food viewpoint without calling names

"you mean shut up and get back in the closet?'

No, do whatever you want to do! Don't eat anything...who cares...that's the point. Leave other people alone and enjoy yourself.

and vegetarians have this one little area to discuss the issue (and a few other websites)

if you don't like it, just flip on the tube and be validated by Jack in the Box commercials

remember, you're only here if you choose to be, but I can't go anywhere without pro-meat messages being crammed down my throat

There are a million vegetarian websites...
Move over Jews, and Zionists...now Meat Eaters control the Media!!!
( I know, the ZIONISTS control the meateaters...)
LMAO!! I suppose the control the banks and all of the militaries on the planet too!..

Let me start by hoping Marcea is open minded and willing to at least accept new info as worthy of inspection. Unfortunately she's touting some oft-repeated, mistaken conceptions cherished by many. It's high time we got the facts based on real science rather than on unfounded pseudo-scientific gibberish. So here goes:

>>>"[By abstaining from meat] I also help the environment"<<<

No, she isn't. See "Myth #1 on http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html.

>>>"and my health is better."<<<

It may be, so far. But it also might take a turn for the worse -- hopefully not! -- over the long haul. See the preface and then scroll down to "Myth #2", "Myth #3", "Myth #4", "Myth #5", "Myth #6", "Myth #9" on http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html.

>>>"And if one more person asks me how I get enough protein, I'm going to vomit tofu all over them."<<<

Tofu is not a healthy foodstuff to consume, let alone routinely. Scroll down to "Myth #10" on http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html.

>>>"Almost every food contains protein and in Western culture."<<<

The problem with the protein in beans, legumes and grains is that it has pretty limited bioavailability due to all the fiber in those foods, which doesn't allow for its proper obsorbtion.

>>>"The problem is often that we get too much protein, which can cause osteoporosis and contribute to kidney failure."<<<

Wrong, big time. These outcomes won't occure in individuals with healthy kidneys. For more on this myth, scroll down to "Myth #5 on http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html.

>>>"For people who say that we are designed to eat meat, I'd like to know where our curved fangs, claws and short digestive tracts are? Look at any other carnivore and you'll see we clearly don't belong."<<<

We humans aren't carnivores but *omnivores* -- that's how we've evolved and been for at least 2.4 million years. Our guts reflect this reality. WE're designed to consume both plant and animal food staples.

>>>"It often astounds me when people ask what's wrong with drinking milk."<<<

I indeed wouldn't consume massive-farmed milk, but would delightfully drink non-pasteurized, non-homogenized, preferably raw, milk from *organically grown* grass fed cows and goats!

>>>"How about trying soybean milk? It tastes virtually the same and is cruelty free."<<<

Big mistake. It will negatively impact your health in the long run for the same reasons regular tofu consumption does. The only soy pruducts I'd consume are fermented one such as miso, tempeh, shoyu, tamari, etc, as the fermentation process neutralizes the potent anti-nutrients in soy and unlocks soy's true nutritional value. However, you'd still be incapable of ingesting and absorbing vitamin B-12 in fermented soy products.

>>>"Many people seem to have this misperception that the animals they eat grazed lazily on a farm until a farmer chopped off their heads in one quick swoop. Unfortunately (even for "organic meat" which only regulates what the animals eat) this is not the case."<<<

I don't exactly know what's flying around the US in this regard, but other countries have stricter controls. In Israel for example, only animals that freely grazed ever get labeled "organic".


In closing let me point out that while Marcea has duly pointed out the problems from breeding and consumption of non-organic meat, she isn't highlighting the dangers from consumption of non-organic plant foods nearly as much. Let's remember that as of yet most people cannot afford to purchase even non-animal (same for dairy and fish) organic foods.

There exist a few more myths about soy's greatness that have been debunked. For the comprehensive list, see http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtsoy.html

I'm surprised I didn't see "Soy thought to be foundation for life on Mars" or "Vegetarians claim superhuman strength from spinach" as myths from your much-beloved website

the author cites not a single source for any of these "myths"

the "myths" site obviously has a huge axe to grind and the bias shines through unmistakably. it leaves out many critical facts that do not support his case against vegetarianism.

as for soy milk, Marsea merely suggested "trying" it, not building an entire diet upon it, and, while her piece is informal and not some doctoral thesis on vegetarianism, she is actually pretty close to the truth on everything she writes, moreso actually than your "myths" website

Mockery just reveals you as someone incapable of dealing with the facts in a mature fasion. For all I care you may keep shutting your mind to indisputable inconvenient facts and continue marching down your blisful and ignorant path. I wasn't trying to help you in particular. Also, that website is only one of a few which I've found that contain pretty invaluable input on nutritional topics.

>>>"the author cites not a single source for any of these "myths""<<<

Indeed, references weren't mentioned on the second webpage I clipped and that's rather unfortunate. But some of the sources can nevertheless be gleaned from reading the reference list on the first (dealing with vegetarianusm myths) and others can be supported by research on the net and in reference books.

>>>"the "myths" site obviously has a huge axe to grind and the bias shines through unmistakably."<<<

Not only isn't the site one that solely tackles myths in nutrition, it also isn't sponsored or associated with the dairy or meat industries. You've hastily jumped to foolish conclusions in what seems like an arrogant, somewhat nessiesque air without having read the site comprehensively. If you insist there's bias therein, that behooves you to substantiate your allegation. Merely sounding a charge without any real backup leaves you looking foolish.

>>>"it leaves out many critical facts that do not support his case against vegetarianism."<<<

I didn't purport to say the site covers all aspects of vegetarianism. Also, it wasn't authored by a lone man, but by a team, unless you're referring to the first webpage.

>>>"as for soy milk, Marsea merely suggested "trying" it, not building an entire diet upon it"<<<

Well, it's quite likely she meant trying it for the sake of using it on a regular basis instead of commercial cow milk rather than merely for the sake of sampling. What would be the use of just "trying" soy milk for a person who feels the urge to find a safe alternative to commercially farmed milk?

>>>"and, while her piece is informal and not some doctoral thesis on vegetarianism, she is actually pretty close to the truth on everything she writes, moreso actually than your "myths" website"<<<

Pal, you're in denial. The facts I linked to can be verified by independent research over the internet and through libraries by anyone who cares to spend the time and effort, just as they've been verified by other scolars not associated with that website. Take for instance another guy, Anthony Colpo of theomnivore.com. A careful reading of his site exposes him as a paragon of a truth and reason crusader.


I hope not to get drawn into a protracted heated emotional exchange with you on these topics, though I hope I've been of service to some in presenting facts that vegetarians might benefit from.

you misunderstood my point on the sources -- I meant, there are no references to the sources for the myths themselves. frankly, some are ridiculous and seem completely made up. most are actually subjective and disputable value judgements.

"isn't sponsored or associated with the dairy or meat industries"

yes, the site points that out, the key word being "industry". after my last comment here I took a few minutes to fish around and found that the larger site (beyond the two pages I referred to earlier) support my initial hunch. while not supported by "industry" per se, the site notes that the group, more a cult of a single doctor, is supported by small farmers ("artisans," the site says), thereby those with a financial stake in it, even if it's not multinational conglomerates. the bias oozes through almost every page -- there's constant attacks on vegetarians (or vegetarian diets) and constant disdain shown for the commonly understood notion that consumption of animal products is associated with numerous ill health effects. it's almost the "church of animal fats", this site. I don't know what vegetarian ever pissed off the good doctor, or who put him up to it, but he sure is upset about vegetarianism. the site is the "scientific" kissing-cousing of those high-minded people at the center for consumer freedom (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/). I call that bias and I stand by the claim, especially after spending more time on the site you reverently adore.

you critique this post as if anything she said was untrue, and just like your "myths" site, it is based on assumptions of what the author (or other vegetarians) say or believe rather than addressing a true misconception of educated vegetarians

if you merely want to point out contrarian viewpoints, fine. you have that right, but don't assume that because some doctor fronts for a group of animal farmers (er, artisans), this good doctor, or your omnivore.com friend, is the be all and end all to anything. to use your parlance, to assume anything else is to be a fool in denial. I could just as easily point you to a dozen sites (with doctors even) that break down research on the benefits of a well-rounded vegetarian diet, and lord knows there's a 1001 myths about meat amongst meateaters

my, the arrogance to imply ultimate knowledge based on highly biased sources and then the hypocrisy of calling out supposed mockery in the same sentence you refer to me as immature, later as a fool and in denial. you're not half the critical thinker you think you are. you rely far to much on others to do your thinking for you, and fall back on derision when called on it

yes, the sites you point to do leave out a lot, and if anything, especially as you admit knowing that, you might think you'd approach the topic a little more humbly. but no, it's full steam ahead for you without even having the full picture, just trusting these supposedly paragons of truth

>>>"you misunderstood my point on the sources -- I meant, there are no references to the sources for the myths themselves. frankly, some are ridiculous and seem completely made up."<<<

Assuming you're alluding to the second webpage (myths about soy) (pity you don't clarify which webpage you're discussing exactly) -- you're trying to imply these myths were concocted by the person/s who authored them and aren't actually subscribed to by many vegetarians? I have heard or seen vegetarians argue most of these myths. Please don't try to tell me and others that they were fabricated out of thin air or something. But, I wholeheartedly concur that they're ridiculous alright. No argument here.

>>>"most [myths] are actually subjective and disputable value judgements.

Exactly. These vegetarian or pro-vegetarian claims invariably don't fall back on valid empirical evidence to support them. They're basically nutritional BS gobbledegook.

>>>"the group, more a cult of a single doctor,"<<<

I'm not sure the cult portrayal can be convincingly disproved beyond doubt, yet am not sure the foundation amounts to a cult either.

>>>"[the foundation] is supported by small farmers ("artisans," the site says), thereby those with a financial stake in it, even if it's not multinational conglomerates."<<<

But remember, they started out with very little or no support from any farmers. The main impetus then was the founder's wish to disseminate Dr. Price's nutritional gospel (not an anti-vegetarian agenda). That's the crucial difference that sets them apart from organizations created by interested parties with financial axes to grind.

>>>"the bias oozes through almost every page -- there's constant attacks on vegetarians (or vegetarian diets)"<<<

This doesn't invalidate the scientific, empirical data and findings in the two webpages, especially the first (chockfull of references backing them up)?

>>>"[there's] constant disdain shown for the commonly understood notion that consumption of animal products is associated with numerous ill health effects."<<<

You're omitting to mention that these adverse effects on health stem in the vast majority of cases from the consumption of mass produced, non-organically grown animal products, an omission the site isn't committing. You're doing the truth a disservice by lumping mass-produced non-organic in with organically grown

>>>"it's almost the "church of animal fats", this site. I don't know what vegetarian ever pissed off the good doctor, or who put him up to it, but he sure is upset about vegetarianism."<<<

As far as I could tell, Price (dead since 1948) never had a distinct anti-vegetarian agenda, but rather one of pro-wholesome foods espousing a permanent diet containing not only plant foods but also meat. fish and poultry as well as dairy.
As you probably saw, the foundation was established by Sally Fallon; Dr. Mary Enig is her deputy.

>>>"the site is the "scientific" kissing-cousing of those high-minded people at the center for consumer freedom (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/). I call that bias and I stand by the claim, especially after spending more time on the site you reverently adore."<<<

I'm not familiar with http://www.consumerfreedom.com; maybe I'll read around it today. Regardless, I don't see how the Price Foundation's site being a darling of those "high minded" people impacts the validity of the empirical data it contains concerning vegetarianism in general and soy in particular. Some people just happen to worship the Price site...what of it?

>>>"you critique this post as if anything she said was untrue,"<<<

Damn straight I made remarks. I wouldn't have commented on her article whatsoever if she hadn't repeated the erroneous notions in question.

>>>"and just like your "myths" site, it is based on assumptions of what the author (or other vegetarians) say or believe rather than addressing a true misconception of educated vegetarians"<<<

See my first paragraph above for a rebuttal.

>>>"don't assume that because some doctor fronts for a group of animal farmers (er, artisans), this good doctor, or your omnivore.com friend, is the be all and end all to anything. to use your parlance, to assume anything else is to be a fool in denial."<<<

You've developed misconceptions apparently having risen from misconstruing portions of the website's content, namely that Dr. Price, the scientifically accomplished lipid biochemist (Enig) and her scientifically accomplished (in many cases) counterparts spreading Price's and others' gospel (among other important things), as well as Anthony Colpo and other persons not affiliated with financial interests in the meat and dairy trade have been fronting for animal farmers. Your assumption is in fact quite facetious, not to mention unsubstantiated.
And rest assured, I don't consider even people like Colpo of omnivore.com infallible and omnipotent. Indeed he has read all the scientific papers on nutrition published over the last 50 years or so, and has nabbed a few PhDs on certain issues although he appears to have never completed even one semester as a student in college or university, yet just like any mortal he's not immune from error. But I don't see how these facts validate certain protestations you made in previous comments.

>>>"I could just as easily point you to a dozen sites (with doctors even) that break down research on the benefits of a well-rounded vegetarian diet, and lord knows there's a 1001 myths about meat amongst meateaters"<<<

That's why there's no escape from critical examination of the available empirical scientific data by folks like Mr. Colpo, you and I. In short, by the lay people. That would be true even if al the goddamn scientists and doctors worldwide would be doing there jobs properly rather than worrying about their next kickback from sponsors in the pharmaceutical and food industries, among others.

>>>"my, the arrogance to imply ultimate knowledge based on highly biased sources"<<<

The Price Foundation began, as I told you above, as an enterprize of one person or a tiny group, its thrust being the work of a dentist who had no stock in either meat/dairy or vegetarian agendas. How this translate to profound bias eludes me. And when you brand the likes of Anthony Colpo of http://www.theomnivore.com as highly bias, you're getting into downright ludicrous water. Gee... did you read who he is on http://theomnivore.com/my_story.html before apparently insinuating he too is biased?

>>>"and then the hypocrisy of calling out supposed mockery in the same sentence you refer to me as immature"<<<

The mockery was "supposed"? You say I referred to *you* as immature? What's become of intellectual honesty?

>>>"you're not half the critical thinker you think you are. you rely far to much on others to do your thinking for you, and fall back on derision when called on it"<<<

I don't know about your own dietary experiences, but I've gone through at least one portion of Anthony Colpo's dietary path, then stumbled quite recently on the book "Life Without Bread" and read about its pros and cons prior to finding Colpo, who puts nearly all of it together for me *based on my own dietary trials coupled with an examination of his message*. If it weren't for your indignation about some of my remarks at odds with your defense of vegetarianism, it would be quite funny that you presume to tell me I excessively rely on others to do my thinking. It would seem you're dismayed at witnessing me marshalling some other people in my efforts to support some of my arguments. If I hadn't, you'd probably bemoan the apparent (to you) death of support for my claims.

>>>"yes, the sites you point to do leave out a lot, and if anything, especially as you admit knowing that, you might think you'd approach the topic a little more humbly."<<<

The real (original) topic is Marsea's claims way above in her article. It wasn't lost on me that you're emotionally invested in the subject of vegetarianism, so what you're saying now doesn't strike me as a surprise, since you saw my remarks and considered your dearly held convictions to be under attack. One can't really blame you for that. If the situation were entirely reversed, then an avowed meat eater would have felt similarly, replete with the scolding tone going up from you now.

>>>"but no, it's full steam ahead for you without even having the full picture, just trusting these supposedly paragons of truth"<<<

What's the "full picture"? I'd discourage anyone from consuming non-organic meat and dairy products as well as most fish (save for wild salmon, mackerel and sardines, and even these I'd restrict to catch netted in the least polluted areas). Only an apparent dogmatic like yourself would consider this attitude a rigid anti-vegetarian stance or something to that effect. Thus, your "full picture" term employed here ends up hinting at your own ideological rigidity.

>>>"you misunderstood my point on the sources -- I meant, there are no references to the sources for the myths themselves. frankly, some are ridiculous and seem completely made up."<<<

Assuming you're alluding to the second webpage (myths about soy) (pity you don't clarify which webpage you're discussing exactly) -- you're trying to imply these myths were concocted by the person/s who authored them and aren't actually subscribed to by many vegetarians? I've heard or seen vegetarians argue most of these myths. Please don't try to tell me and others that they were fabricated out of thin air or something. But, I wholeheartedly concur that they're ridiculous alright. No argument here.

>>>"most [myths] are actually subjective and disputable value judgements.

Exactly. These vegetarian or pro-vegetarian claims invariably don't fall back on valid empirical evidence to support them. They're basically nutritional BS gobbledegook.

>>>"the group, more a cult of a single doctor,"<<<

I'm not sure the cult portrayal can be convincingly disproved beyond doubt, yet am not sure the foundation amounts to a cult either.

>>>"[the foundation] is supported by small farmers ("artisans," the site says), thereby those with a financial stake in it, even if it's not multinational conglomerates."<<<

But remember, they started out with very little or no support from any farmers. The main impetus then was the founder's wish to disseminate Dr. Price's nutritional gospel (not an anti-vegetarian agenda). That's the crucial difference that sets them apart from organizations created by interested parties with financial axes to grind.

>>>"the bias oozes through almost every page -- there's constant attacks on vegetarians (or vegetarian diets)"<<<

Assuming your first claim is true, how does this invalidate the scientific, empirical data and findings in the two webpages, especially the first (chockfull of references backing them up)?

>>>"[there's] constant disdain shown for the commonly understood notion that consumption of animal products is associated with numerous ill health effects."<<<

You're omitting to mention that these adverse effects on health stem in the vast majority of cases from the consumption of mass produced, non-organically grown animal products, an omission the site isn't committing. You're doing the truth a disservice by lumping mass-produced non-organic in with organically grown

>>>"it's almost the "church of animal fats", this site. I don't know what vegetarian ever pissed off the good doctor, or who put him up to it, but he sure is upset about vegetarianism."<<<

As far as I could tell, Price (dead since 1948) never had a distinct anti-vegetarian agenda, but rather one of pro-wholesome foods espousing a permanent diet containing not only plant foods but also meat, fish and poultry as well as dairy.
As you probably saw, the foundation was established by Sally Fallon; Dr. Mary Enig is her deputy.

>>>"the site is the "scientific" kissing-cousing of those high-minded people at the center for consumer freedom (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/). I call that bias and I stand by the claim, especially after spending more time on the site you reverently adore."<<<

I'm not familiar with http://www.consumerfreedom.com; maybe I'll read it today. Regardless, I don't see how the Price Foundation's site being a darling of those "high minded" people impacts the validity of the empirical data it contains concerning vegetarianism in general and soy in particular. Some people just happen to worship the Price site...what of it?

>>>"you critique this post as if anything she said was untrue,"<<<

Damn straight I made remarks. I wouldn't have commented on her article whatsoever if she hadn't repeated the erroneous notions in question.

>>>"and just like your "myths" site, it is based on assumptions of what the author (or other vegetarians) say or believe rather than addressing a true misconception of educated vegetarians"<<<

See my first paragraph above for a rebuttal.

>>>"don't assume that because some doctor fronts for a group of animal farmers (er, artisans), this good doctor, or your omnivore.com friend, is the be all and end all to anything. to use your parlance, to assume anything else is to be a fool in denial."<<<

You've developed misconceptions apparently having risen from misconstruing portions of the website's content, namely that Dr. Price, the scientifically accomplished lipid biochemist (Enig) and her scientifically accomplished (in many cases) counterparts spreading Price's and others' gospel (among other important things), as well as Anthony Colpo and other persons not affiliated with financial interests in the meat and dairy trade have been fronting for animal farmers. Your assumption is in fact quite facetious, not to mention unsubstantiated.
And rest assured, I don't consider even people like Colpo of omnivore.com infallible and omniscient. Indeed he has read all the scientific papers on nutrition published over the last 50 years or so, and has nabbed a few PhDs on certain issues although he appears to have never completed even one semester as a student in college or university, yet just like any mortal he's not immune from error. But I don't see how these facts validate certain protestations you made in previous comments.

>>>"I could just as easily point you to a dozen sites (with doctors even) that break down research on the benefits of a well-rounded vegetarian diet, and lord knows there's a 1001 myths about meat amongst meateaters"<<<

That's why there's no escape from critical examination of the available empirical scientific data by folks like Mr. Colpo, you and I. In short, by the lay people. That would be true even if all the goddamn scientists and doctors worldwide had done their jobs properly rather than worrying about their next kickback from sponsors in the pharmaceutical and food industries, among others.

>>>"my, the arrogance to imply ultimate knowledge based on highly biased sources"<<<

The Price Foundation began, as I told you above, as an enterprize of one person or a tiny group, its thrust being the work of a dentist who had no stock in either meat/dairy or vegetarian agendas. How this translates to profound bias eludes me. And when you brand the likes of Anthony Colpo of http://www.theomnivore.com as highly biased, you're getting into downright ludicrous water. Gee... did you read who he is on http://theomnivore.com/my_story.html before apparently insinuating he too is biased?

>>>"and then the hypocrisy of calling out supposed mockery in the same sentence you refer to me as immature"<<<

The mockery was "supposed"? You say I referred to *you* as immature? What's become of intellectual honesty?

>>>"you're not half the critical thinker you think you are. you rely far to much on others to do your thinking for you, and fall back on derision when called on it"<<<

I don't know about your own dietary experiences, but I've gone through at least one portion of Anthony Colpo's dietary path, then stumbled quite recently on the book "Life Without Bread" and read about its pros and cons prior to finding Colpo, who puts nearly all of it together for me *based on my own dietary trials coupled with an examination of his message*. If it weren't for your indignation about some of my remarks at odds with your defense of vegetarianism, it would be quite funny that you presume to tell me I excessively rely on others to do my thinking. It would seem you're dismayed at witnessing me marshalling some other people in my efforts to support some of my arguments. If I hadn't, you'd probably bemoan the apparent (to you) dearth of support for my claims.

>>>"yes, the sites you point to do leave out a lot, and if anything, especially as you admit knowing that, you might think you'd approach the topic a little more humbly."<<<

The real (original) topic is Marsea's claims way above in her article. It wasn't lost on me that you're emotionally invested in the subject of vegetarianism, so what you're saying now doesn't strike me as a surprise, since you saw my remarks and considered your dearly held convictions to be under attack. One can't really blame you for that. If the situation were entirely reversed, then an avowed meat eater would have felt similarly, replete with the scolding tone going up from you now.

>>>"but no, it's full steam ahead for you without even having the full picture, just trusting these supposedly paragons of truth"<<<

What's the "full picture"? I'd discourage anyone from consuming non-organic meat and dairy products as well as most fish (save for wild salmon, mackerel and sardines, and even these I'd restrict to catch netted in the least polluted areas). Only an apparent dogmatic like yourself would consider this attitude a rigid anti-vegetarian stance or something to that effect. Thus, your "full picture" term employed here ends up hinting at your own ideological rigidity.

______________________________________________________________________________________


Editors, please hide the typo-riddled post above.

I don't consider you promoting organics anti-vegetarian. I would add that if you are really discouraging people from eating factory farmed meat and dairy, in that you are an ally of vegetarians (who seek to decrease animal suffering)

But I do consider this anti-vegetarian: http://www.google.com/search?q=vegetarian+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.westonaprice.org

that's 9 pages of *links* to derogatory or negative references to vegetarians

and if you yourself quote that site to call a vegetarian writer a liar or stupid, some of which is based on your own assumptions, much on theirs, then you are acting anti-vegetarian.

it's all too obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills that the Price folks are not neutral observers of scientific data. "without even having the full picture" refers to their picking and choosing what data to represent, poo-pooing hard science that does not fit their pre-conceived notions on the glories of butter and so forth. maybe it's because they are so tied to Price's research that's over 50 years old. maybe because they fear being eclipsed by vegetarians in the anti-industrial-farming niche. I dunno. but obviously they have an axe to grind. they are not just trying to present the best diet science to date without judgement, they are striving to prove a point (why a dentist would be so driven, or whatever you say their origins are, is irrelevent. you don't have to show exact motive to see clear-cut bias, and they are funded by animal farmers)

I admit to spending no more than 2 minutes on the omnivore site and cannot judge its fairness yet (so my bias accusations were never really directed there), but I would like to warn that if you really don't consider a source "infallible and omniscient" then it's probably best not to brag that they are "a *paragon* of truth and reason"

lastly, have a great holiday weekend, whatever your religious orientation, and I'll leave you with these URLs to make of them what you will: http://www.jesusveg.com/index2.html, http://www.christianveg.com/, and http://www.stephen-knapp.com/vegetarianism_Supported_in_the_bible.htm

"I'd discourage anyone from consuming non-organic meat and dairy products as well as most fish"

Considering how hard it is to find organic meat, its cost and the limited scale of its production, promoting organic meat to the general public is about the same as promoting vegetarianism... Its production is increasing but the current US level of meat consumption is high enough it would be impossible to get any significant percentage of the population over to an organic meat diet. Densely packed factory farms ned antibiotics and the like to keep their production as high as it is, converting over to a healthier method of production would require most of the population at least becoming vegetarian except on special ocassions (which is how most of the world lives currently).

>>>"I don't consider you promoting organics anti-vegetarian. I would add that if you are really discouraging people from eating factory farmed meat and dairy, in that you are an ally of vegetarians (who seek to decrease animal suffering)"<<<

Oh... I forgot tuna fish when in the list of fish I approve of consuming. And yes, I definitely consider animal suffering one of the undesirable effects of factory farmed meat and dairy.

>>>"But I do consider this anti-vegetarian: http://www.google.com/search?q=vegetarian+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.westonaprice.org

that's 9 pages of *links* to derogatory or negative references to vegetarians"<<<

So you punched in a couple of key words and came up with all those hits. The vast majority (at least) of anti-vegetarian allusions -- not anti-vegetarians, but anti the diet -- in those webpages is justified. But more important is the question of whether you expect only positive stuff to be written about vegetarian diets. Is it OK to you and your counterparts to see vegetarians put out anti-meat eating material based on facts or otherwise, while you consider non-vegetarians forbidden from doing the same about veganism and vegetarianism? Heard of free speech?

>>>"and if you yourself quote that site to call a vegetarian writer a liar or stupid, some of which is based on your own assumptions, much on theirs, then you are acting anti-vegetarian. "<<<

Now I'll elaborate on the title I gave this post. Assuming I quote the site and do brand a certain vegetarian writer a liar or stupid, when some of which is based on my own assumptions and much on theirs, you'll believe I'm acting anti-vegetarian, even though I might be merely anti-that-writer-him/herself. That's faulty logical deduction on your part. No wonder you accused me of hating both vegetarians and Palestinians -- this charge rose out of the same worthless thought process you're employing here.
More importantly though, your reasoning is worthless for more substantial reasons: I wouldn't pursue the attachment of labels such as 'stupid' or 'liar'. Rather, I'd try to rationally and methodically debunk said writer's arguments that I find fault with. Even more important, I'd do my darndest to disprove the claims based not on assumptions but on empirical evidence and facts.
Anyhow, is acting or speaking anti-vegetarian verboten? Is the person doing so an enemy of the people? Where is it written that only a non-vegetarian lifestyle may be denigrated in any form?

>>>"it's all too obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills that the Price folks are not neutral observers of scientific data. "without even having the full picture" refers to their picking and choosing what data to represent, poo-pooing hard science that does not fit their pre-conceived notions on the glories of butter and so forth. maybe it's because they are so tied to Price's research that's over 50 years old."<<<

I haven't noticed them belittling in any form hard-nosed scientific evidence that doesn't mesh with their glowing praise of various animal foods.
As to the point of the research being decades old, the reality is that he was decades ahead of his time and present scientific research has much catching up to do with his findings interms of acknowledgement and bulding upon his research and studies as a foundation for new discoveries to be put to use.

>>>"maybe because they fear being eclipsed by vegetarians in the anti-industrial-farming niche. I dunno. but obviously they have an axe to grind."<<<

Whatever their axe possibly is, it's not a strictly anti-vegetarian one. You might have noticed how they're trying to foster dialogue with and reach out to vegetarians, haven't you?

>>>"I admit to spending no more than 2 minutes on the omnivore site and cannot judge its fairness yet (so my bias accusations were never really directed there), but I would like to warn that if you really don't consider a source "infallible and omniscient" then it's probably best not to brag that they are "a *paragon* of truth and reason" "<<<

The thing is, Mr. Colpo's behavior, inasmuch as readers can find out for themselves on his site, shows nothing but excellence at crusading for nutritional truth and reason. I stand by this observation of mine.

>>>"lastly, have a great holiday weekend, whatever your religious orientation,"<<<

Thanks. Same to you.

>>>"and I'll leave you with these URLs to make of them what you will: http://www.jesusveg.com/index2.html, http://www.christianveg.com/, and http://www.stephen-knapp.com/vegetarianism_Supported_in_the_bible.htm"<<<

The last URL's name reminds me of a religious Orthodox Jew, a vegetarian activist and book author who went so far as to exclaim that plant food offerings and sacrifices will be instituted instead of animal ones once the Third Temple is built. He's relying on the musings of a rather famous rabbi for this purpose.

I've perfectly noticed how you've changed the subject away from Marsea's misconceptions and other notions to a discussion about the interests of the Price Foundation and omnivore.com site.

Another important site is one that may be unmistakably anti-vegetarian called http://www.beyondveg.com. It features some writers who lived by vegan and/or raw foods or frutarian regimens for pretty extended periods with very little or no cheating.

CT: I'd discourage anyone from consuming non-organic meat and dairy products as well as most fish.

>>>"Considering how hard it is to find organic meat, its cost and the limited scale of its production, promoting organic meat to the general public is about the same as promoting vegetarianism..."<<<

Don't worry. I don't spend notable amounts of time promoting organic meat consumption, least of all to the public at large.

>>>"Its production is increasing but the current US level of meat consumption is high enough it would be impossible to get any significant percentage of the population over to an organic meat diet. Densely packed factory farms ned antibiotics and the like to keep their production as high as it is, converting over to a healthier method of production would require most of the population at least becoming vegetarian except on special ocassions (which is how most of the world lives currently)."<<<

Seems to me the only way out of this vicious cycle of non-organic food cultivation and public consumption is a significant increase in public demand for organic foodstuffs coupled with ever increasing pressure on farmers to make a transit toward organic-conducive food pruduction methods, along with an increased willingness to purchase organic. This in turn might be the beginning of a decrease in organic food costs on a retail level.