Vegetarian Discussion: Benefits You Can Get From A Vegetarian Lifestyle

Benefits You Can Get From A Vegetarian Lifestyle
Posts: 20

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

R*@yahoo.com
2006-10-12 08:02:32 EST
A vegetarian diet is one of the healthiest ways to eat. Studies have
demonstrated that vegetarians are much less likely to become obese than
those who are not on a vegetarian diet. <br>
According to the Surgeon General, about 300,000 Americans die each year
of obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, hypertension, kidney
disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, and adult-onset diabetes.<br>
A vegetarian diet fights against cancer, including gender-related
cancers such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, and prostate cancer.
Studies have shown that the death rate from cancer is much lower for
those on a vegetarian diet than it is for those in the general
population. <br>
Also vegetarians have a stronger immune system, possibly because of the
higher number of vitamins that can be found in vegetables, grains, and
legumes. Plus, fiber-rich vegetarian diets may reduce the risk of
cancers of the digestive organs.<br>
A vegetarian diet helps fight against heart disease. Eating foods high
in fiber and complex carbohydrates can reduce the risk of heart
disease. Animal proteins raise cholesterol levels while plant-based
proteins reduce them. <br>
A vegetarian diet helps you avoid some illnesses caused by e coli,
salmonella and listeria - which are the most virulent forms of
food-borne illnesses. Most of these food-borne illnesses are related to
contaminated meat. <br>
Approx. 750,000 Americans go to hospitals each year because of them and
that doesn't count the unreported cases. It is believed that about
5,000 people die yearly because of these illnesses. <br>
Weight control: On a balanced vegetarian diet one can very easily lose
weight and stay fit. Grains, legumes, many types of vegetables, and soy
foods contain little or no fat. Plus, they provide a feeling of
fullness which keeps the body fueled and satisfied for hours.<br>
Economy: As far as money is concerned, it's much cheaper to buy
vegetarian food than quality meats and fish. Those who give up on meat
discover a new world of diverse foods which is not only fun and
appetizing but also a healthful way to eat, and ensures a balance of
essential nutrients.<br>
Ecology: Eating "low on the food chain" is not only healthy - due to
the reduction of pesticide and animal antibiotic residue you will be
ingesting - but it is also good for the planet as livestock depletes
enormous land and water resources. Consider this: Each year raising
livestock contributes to the loss of millions of tons of topsoil, which
is irreplaceable. One needs 390 gallons of water to produce a pound of
beef while a pound of wheat needs 25 gallons of water Also, livestock
produce massive amounts of excrement, which has been shown to pollute
soil, water, and the air.<br>
Compassion: One of the cruelest practices imaginable is animal
agribusiness since millions of creatures are subjected to confinement,
overcrowding and disfigurement only to face an equally cruel demise in
the slaughterhouse. A primarily plant-based diet is a more humane way
to enjoy the fruits of the earth.<br>
Good company: Distinguished figures such as Pythagorus, Leonardo da
Vinci, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Gandhi, Charles Darwin,
George Bernard Shaw have not only practiced the vegetarian way of life
but also promoted it.<br>
http://vegetarianawtt.blogspot.com/#


Dutch
2006-10-12 16:36:34 EST

<*h@yahoo.com> wrote
>A vegetarian diet is one of the healthiest ways to eat. Studies have
> demonstrated that vegetarians are much less likely to become obese than
> those who are not on a vegetarian diet. <br>

Because they usually eat less, due chiefly to their food being boring.

> According to the Surgeon General, about 300,000 Americans die each year
> of obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, hypertension, kidney
> disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, and adult-onset diabetes. <br>

Just eat less.

> A vegetarian diet fights against cancer, including gender-related
> cancers such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, and prostate cancer.
> Studies have shown that the death rate from cancer is much lower for
> those on a vegetarian diet than it is for those in the general
> population. <br>

Show that the studies are adequately corrected for confounding elements like
other lifestyle differences. These kinds of studies can show that
vegetarians as a group have lower rates of certain cancers than the broad
group non-vegetarians, but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with
healthy, balanced diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy
unbalanced diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real*
wise choices?

> Also vegetarians have a stronger immune system, possibly because of the
> higher number of vitamins that can be found in vegetables, grains, and
> legumes. Plus, fiber-rich vegetarian diets may reduce the risk of
> cancers of the digestive organs.<br>

Eating adequate fiber is a different thing than eating no meat.

> A vegetarian diet helps fight against heart disease. Eating foods high
> in fiber and complex carbohydrates can reduce the risk of heart
> disease. Animal proteins raise cholesterol levels while plant-based
> proteins reduce them. <br>

Plant-based fats can be just as unhealthy as animal-based.

> A vegetarian diet helps you avoid some illnesses caused by e coli,
> salmonella and listeria - which are the most virulent forms of
> food-borne illnesses. Most of these food-borne illnesses are related to
> contaminated meat. <br>
> Approx. 750,000 Americans go to hospitals each year because of them and
> that doesn't count the unreported cases. It is believed that about
> 5,000 people die yearly because of these illnesses. <br>

Food safety is an issue that effects all food groups. Recent problems with
spinach and lettuce are one example.

> Weight control: On a balanced vegetarian diet one can very easily lose
> weight and stay fit. Grains, legumes, many types of vegetables, and soy
> foods contain little or no fat. Plus, they provide a feeling of
> fullness which keeps the body fueled and satisfied for hours.<br>

This is patently false, vegetarian foods do not engender a feeling of
satisfaction like animal-based foods like meat, cheese, and eggs.

> Economy: As far as money is concerned, it's much cheaper to buy
> vegetarian food than quality meats and fish.

That is a misleading statement, meat can be included in the diet with little
or no additional cost.

> Those who give up on meat
> discover a new world of diverse foods which is not only fun and
> appetizing but also a healthful way to eat, and ensures a balance of
> essential nutrients.<br>

That is also false. It is more difficult to obtain all the nutrients
necessary for health on a vegetarian diet, not easier.

> Ecology: Eating "low on the food chain" is not only healthy - due to
> the reduction of pesticide and animal antibiotic residue you will be
> ingesting - but it is also good for the planet as livestock depletes
> enormous land and water resources. Consider this: Each year raising
> livestock contributes to the loss of millions of tons of topsoil, which
> is irreplaceable.

Free-ranging of animals can address this issue. The growing of wheat strips
the soil of nurients, and ploughing is the major cause of topsoil loss.

> One needs 390 gallons of water to produce a pound of
> beef while a pound of wheat needs 25 gallons of water

A pound of wheat is not the nutritional equivalent of a pound of beef. Also,
water that goes through livestock ends up back in the environment, it isn't
lost.

>Also, livestock
> produce massive amounts of excrement, which has been shown to pollute
> soil, water, and the air.<br>

Most plant farmers use it for fertilizer.

> Compassion: One of the cruelest practices imaginable is animal
> agribusiness

The plant agribusiness is a deadly one also, don't forget the countless
victims of ploughing, spraying, harvesting, storage and transportation of
food.

> since millions of creatures are subjected to confinement,
> overcrowding and disfigurement only to face an equally cruel demise in
> the slaughterhouse.

Death by poisoning in a crop field is at least as cruel as death by a shot
to the head.

> A primarily plant-based diet is a more humane way
> to enjoy the fruits of the earth.<br>

Vegetarian means literally a plant diet, not "a primarily plant-based diet".
If the arguments above are all accurate then one must abstain completely
from animal products.

> Good company: Distinguished figures such as Pythagorus, Leonardo da
> Vinci, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Gandhi, Charles Darwin,
> George Bernard Shaw have not only practiced the vegetarian way of life
> but also promoted it.<br>
> http://vegetarianawtt.blogspot.com/#

The list of distinguished figures who ate a non-vegetarian diet is far
longer. People should act moderately. One of the pitfalls of vegetarianism
is the tendency to become a self-righteous windbag, this is no small
problem.





Wroter
2006-10-14 04:45:29 EST
Ditch:

> <rlwcjmgrciqh@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>A vegetarian diet is one of the healthiest ways to eat. Studies have
>>demonstrated that vegetarians are much less likely to become obese than
>>those who are not on a vegetarian diet. <br>
>
>
> Because they usually eat less, due chiefly to their food being boring.

After you're full enough, you just keep eating anyway? LOL!

Wroter
2006-10-14 05:05:23 EST
Ditch:

>>A vegetarian diet fights against cancer, including gender-related
>>cancers such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, and prostate cancer.
>>Studies have shown that the death rate from cancer is much lower for
>>those on a vegetarian diet than it is for those in the general
>>population. <br>
>
>
> Show that the studies are adequately corrected for confounding elements like
> other lifestyle differences.

The recently discussed 7th-Day-Adventist, or whoever, study did just
that! (That was the study where you, and especially Chiclet, tried so
/desperately/ to hide the findings. Remember?)

> These kinds of studies can show that
> vegetarians as a group have lower rates of certain cancers than the broad
> group non-vegetarians,

Sounds just like an apples-to-apples comparison. What's the problem?

> but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with
> healthy, balanced diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy
> unbalanced diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real*
> wise choices?

But what about you trying to stack up an apples-to-oranges comparison?
Who would care about such a deliberately flawed study?

Dutch
2006-10-14 15:48:16 EST

"Wroter" <writ@mail.com> wrote
> Ditch:
>
>>>A vegetarian diet fights against cancer, including gender-related
>>>cancers such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, and prostate cancer.
>>>Studies have shown that the death rate from cancer is much lower for
>>>those on a vegetarian diet than it is for those in the general
>>>population. <br>
>>
>>
>> Show that the studies are adequately corrected for confounding elements
>> like other lifestyle differences.
>
> The recently discussed 7th-Day-Adventist, or whoever, study did just that!
> (That was the study where you, and especially Chiclet, tried so
> /desperately/ to hide the findings. Remember?)

One study does not overturn the whole body of a science, in this case
nutritional science.

>> These kinds of studies can show that vegetarians as a group have lower
>> rates of certain cancers than the broad group non-vegetarians,
>
> Sounds just like an apples-to-apples comparison. What's the problem?

The problem is when you read such results incorrectly, such as concluding
that a particular vegetarian diet is superior to a particular non-vegetarian
diet, or concluding that all vegetarian diets are superior to all
non-vegetarian diets. Those kinds of errors in thinking are very common
among over-zealous vegetarians who prefer a simplistic almost religious view
of reality.

>> but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with healthy, balanced
>> diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy unbalanced
>> diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real* wise
>> choices?
>
> But what about you trying to stack up an apples-to-oranges comparison? Who
> would care about such a deliberately flawed study?

What is wrong with comparing apples and oranges? If I want to understand
which is healthier. What if I eat "apples" that is a moderate standard diet,
with very little red meat and lots of vegetables, and then I go to college
and start eating "oranges", no meat, but also very few fresh vegetables. Why
is it inadmissable to ask which diet is better? How about the many shades in
between, such as diet that is chiefly vegetarian with only a little salmon?
This fear of comparing diets openly is one of the most telling indictments
of vegetarian attitudes.




Wroter
2006-10-14 19:24:43 EST
Ditch:

> "Wroter" <writ@mail.com> wrote
>
>>Ditch:
>>
>>
>>>>A vegetarian diet fights against cancer, including gender-related
>>>>cancers such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, and prostate cancer.
>>>>Studies have shown that the death rate from cancer is much lower for
>>>>those on a vegetarian diet than it is for those in the general
>>>>population. <br>
>>>
>>>
>>>Show that the studies are adequately corrected for confounding elements
>>>like other lifestyle differences.
>>
>>The recently discussed 7th-Day-Adventist, or whoever, study did just that!
>>(That was the study where you, and especially Chiclet, tried so
>>/desperately/ to hide the findings. Remember?)
>
>
> One study does not overturn the whole body of a science, in this case
> nutritional science.

Nutritional science, or dogma? Something was revealed by your attempt to
conceal the 7thDA findings. Why did you do that?

>>>These kinds of studies can show that vegetarians as a group have lower
>>>rates of certain cancers than the broad group non-vegetarians,
>>
>>Sounds just like an apples-to-apples comparison. What's the problem?
>
>
> The problem is when you read such results incorrectly, such as concluding
> that a particular vegetarian diet is superior to a particular non-vegetarian
> diet,

You and Chiclet were the ones incorrectly skewing the 7thDA results. You
quit early, poor Chiclet had to finally give up in shame.

> or concluding that all vegetarian diets are superior to all
> non-vegetarian diets. Those kinds of errors in thinking are very common
> among over-zealous vegetarians who prefer a simplistic almost religious view
> of reality.

Who concluded that all vegetarian diets are superior to all
non-vegetarian diets? I'd like to see an example of this very common error.

>>>but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with healthy, balanced
>>>diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy unbalanced
>>>diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real* wise
>>>choices?
>>
>>But what about you trying to stack up an apples-to-oranges comparison? Who
>>would care about such a deliberately flawed study?
>
>
> What is wrong with comparing apples and oranges? If I want to understand
> which is healthier. What if I eat "apples" that is a moderate standard diet,
> with very little red meat and lots of vegetables, and then I go to college
> and start eating "oranges", no meat, but also very few fresh vegetables. Why
> is it inadmissable to ask which diet is better? How about the many shades in
> between, such as diet that is chiefly vegetarian with only a little salmon?
> This fear of comparing diets openly is one of the most telling indictments
> of vegetarian attitudes.

Your sentence above is all about YOU! You aren't comparing diets, you're
comparing the healthiest people from one group with the unhealthiest
people of another group! Why not instead compare the healthiest with the
healthiest? Or else compare unhealthiest with unhealthiest? You're
dishonest. Something was revealed by your attempt to conceal the 7thDA
findings. Why did you think you could get away with that?

Dutch
2006-10-14 22:47:09 EST

"Wroter" <writ@mail.com> wrote in message news:egrrh1$dse$1@emma.aioe.org...
> Ditch:
>
>> "Wroter" <writ@mail.com> wrote
>>
>>>Ditch:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>A vegetarian diet fights against cancer, including gender-related
>>>>>cancers such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, and prostate cancer.
>>>>>Studies have shown that the death rate from cancer is much lower for
>>>>>those on a vegetarian diet than it is for those in the general
>>>>>population. <br>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Show that the studies are adequately corrected for confounding elements
>>>>like other lifestyle differences.
>>>
>>>The recently discussed 7th-Day-Adventist, or whoever, study did just
>>>that! (That was the study where you, and especially Chiclet, tried so
>>>/desperately/ to hide the findings. Remember?)
>>
>>
>> One study does not overturn the whole body of a science, in this case
>> nutritional science.
>
> Nutritional science, or dogma?

Science based on thousands of studies and libraries full of data. Only a
deluded fool would refer to the entire body of nutritional research as dogma
in favor of reliance on one isolated study. If you have an overwhelmingly
powerful belief in the notion of "animal rights", I don't know if you do,
you might consider that as the reason why your viewpoint is skewed in this
manner.

> Something was revealed by your attempt to conceal the 7thDA findings. Why
> did you do that?

I don't know what you're talking about. That study contains stipulations
which say to me that the results are not as conclusive as you seem to think,
however I agree that they are strongly indicative of the kind of findings
you are apparently looking for, which is undoubtedly why you are so focused
on this one set of data.

>>>>These kinds of studies can show that vegetarians as a group have lower
>>>>rates of certain cancers than the broad group non-vegetarians,
>>>
>>>Sounds just like an apples-to-apples comparison. What's the problem?
>>
>>
>> The problem is when you read such results incorrectly, such as concluding
>> that a particular vegetarian diet is superior to a particular
>> non-vegetarian diet,
>
> You and Chiclet were the ones incorrectly skewing the 7thDA results. You
> quit early, poor Chiclet had to finally give up in shame.

Again, your obsession with this particular study is typical vegetarian
extremist behaviour. You are dooming yourself to regurgitating a narrow set
of data that reinforces some unrelated pre-existing belief instead of
considering all existing data equally and objectively. This self-editing
kind of behaviour is in my opinion pathological, and THE primary reason that
I remain interested in this group. For future reference, this_study is
strongly suggestive of the kind of conclusions you are claiming. OK?

>> or concluding that all vegetarian diets are superior to all
>> non-vegetarian diets. Those kinds of errors in thinking are very common
>> among over-zealous vegetarians who prefer a simplistic almost religious
>> view of reality.
>
> Who concluded that all vegetarian diets are superior to all non-vegetarian
> diets? I'd like to see an example of this very common error.

I would not know exactly how to Google for that particular argument, but
stick around, it won't take long for someone to provide a fresh example.
I'll be sure to give you heads up as soon as I see it, if you stop changing
your alias long enough.

>>>>but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with healthy, balanced
>>>>diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy unbalanced
>>>>diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real* wise
>>>>choices?
>>>
>>>But what about you trying to stack up an apples-to-oranges comparison?
>>>Who would care about such a deliberately flawed study?
>>
>>
>> What is wrong with comparing apples and oranges? If I want to understand
>> which is healthier. What if I eat "apples" that is a moderate standard
>> diet, with very little red meat and lots of vegetables, and then I go to
>> college and start eating "oranges", no meat, but also very few fresh
>> vegetables. Why is it inadmissable to ask which diet is better? How about
>> the many shades in between, such as diet that is chiefly vegetarian with
>> only a little salmon? This fear of comparing diets openly is one of the
>> most telling indictments of vegetarian attitudes.
>
> Your sentence above is all about YOU! You aren't comparing diets, you're
> comparing the healthiest people from one group with the unhealthiest
> people of another group!

I'm not comparing people at all, I am comparing foods, grouped together,
forming diets.

> Why not instead compare the healthiest with the healthiest?

Why "instead", why not both, or all?

> Or else compare unhealthiest with unhealthiest?

Why not all comparisons? Why not compare every conceivable combination of
foods? What are you afraid of?

> You're dishonest.

Really.. I'm suggesting that we remove all bias and arbitrary limitations
when comparing foods, you are suggesting that we essentially establish two
*camps* and pick the best diet from each, the worst diet from each, etc.. as
if vegetarian and non-vegetarian alternatives are somehow members of
opposing teams or some such childish rubbish. A diet is simply all the foods
a person chooses from all those available, in the proportions which they
choose them.

> Something was revealed by your attempt to conceal the 7thDA findings. Why
> did you think you could get away with that?

Quit trying to change the subject into some argument you had with someone a
month ago which you think you won, as tempting as that may be, deal with the
question at hand. Why do you think you can get away with refusing to compare
all foods and all combinations of food (diets) based on their individual
merits? Why do you think that it's not obvious that such evasions are a sign
that you are trying to cook the books?



Wroter
2006-10-15 04:12:39 EST
Ditch:
> "Wroter" <writ@mail.com> wrote in message news:egrrh1$dse$1@emma.aioe.org...
>>Ditch:
>>>"Wroter" <writ@mail.com> wrote
>>>>Ditch:
>>>>
>>>>>>A vegetarian diet fights against cancer, including gender-related
>>>>>>cancers such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, and prostate cancer.
>>>>>>Studies have shown that the death rate from cancer is much lower for
>>>>>>those on a vegetarian diet than it is for those in the general
>>>>>>population. <br>
>>>>>
>>>>>Show that the studies are adequately corrected for confounding elements
>>>>>like other lifestyle differences.
>>>>
>>>>The recently discussed 7th-Day-Adventist, or whoever, study did just
>>>>that! (That was the study where you, and especially Chiclet, tried so
>>>>/desperately/ to hide the findings. Remember?)
>>>
>>>One study does not overturn the whole body of a science, in this case
>>>nutritional science.
>>
>>Nutritional science, or dogma?
>
> Science based on thousands of studies and libraries full of data. Only a
> deluded fool would refer to the entire body of nutritional research as dogma
> in favor of reliance on one isolated study. If you have an overwhelmingly
> powerful belief in the notion of "animal rights", I don't know if you do,
> you might consider that as the reason why your viewpoint is skewed in this
> manner.

Uh-huh. The *skewed* viewpoint will be exposed real quick. I promise.

>>Something was revealed by your attempt to conceal the 7thDA findings. Why
>>did you do that?
>
> I don't know what you're talking about. That study contains stipulations

Stipulations! How ironically funny that you mention stipulations.

> which say to me that the results are not as conclusive as you seem to think,
> however I agree that they are strongly indicative of the kind of findings
> you are apparently looking for, which is undoubtedly why you are so focused
> on this one set of data.
>
>>>>>These kinds of studies can show that vegetarians as a group have lower
>>>>>rates of certain cancers than the broad group non-vegetarians,
>>>>
>>>>Sounds just like an apples-to-apples comparison. What's the problem?
>>>
>>>The problem is when you read such results incorrectly, such as concluding
>>>that a particular vegetarian diet is superior to a particular
>>>non-vegetarian diet,
>>
>>You and Chiclet were the ones incorrectly skewing the 7thDA results. You
>>quit early, poor Chiclet had to finally give up in shame.
>
> Again, your obsession with this particular study is typical vegetarian
> extremist behaviour. You are dooming yourself to regurgitating a narrow set
> of data that reinforces some unrelated pre-existing belief instead of
> considering all existing data equally and objectively. This self-editing
> kind of behaviour is in my opinion pathological,

Self-editing! It's hilarious, you're really setting yourself up.

> and THE primary reason that
> I remain interested in this group. For future reference, this_study is
> strongly suggestive of the kind of conclusions you are claiming. OK?
>
>>>or concluding that all vegetarian diets are superior to all
>>>non-vegetarian diets. Those kinds of errors in thinking are very common
>>>among over-zealous vegetarians who prefer a simplistic almost religious
>>>view of reality.
>>
>>Who concluded that all vegetarian diets are superior to all non-vegetarian
>>diets? I'd like to see an example of this very common error.
>
> I would not know exactly how to Google for that particular argument, but
> stick around, it won't take long for someone to provide a fresh example.

I've been around for years. Waaay before you ever showed up.

> I'll be sure to give you heads up as soon as I see it, if you stop changing
> your alias long enough.
>
>>>>>but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with healthy, balanced
>>>>>diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy unbalanced
>>>>>diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real* wise
>>>>>choices?
>>>>
>>>>But what about you trying to stack up an apples-to-oranges comparison?
>>>>Who would care about such a deliberately flawed study?
>>>
>>>What is wrong with comparing apples and oranges? If I want to understand
>>>which is healthier. What if I eat "apples" that is a moderate standard
>>>diet, with very little red meat and lots of vegetables, and then I go to
>>>college and start eating "oranges", no meat, but also very few fresh
>>>vegetables. Why is it inadmissable to ask which diet is better? How about
>>>the many shades in between, such as diet that is chiefly vegetarian with
>>>only a little salmon? This fear of comparing diets openly is one of the
>>>most telling indictments of vegetarian attitudes.
>>
>>Your sentence above is all about YOU! You aren't comparing diets, you're
>>comparing the healthiest people from one group with the unhealthiest
>>people of another group!
>
> I'm not comparing people at all, I am comparing foods, grouped together,
> forming diets.
>
>>Why not instead compare the healthiest with the healthiest?
>
> Why "instead", why not both, or all?
>
>>Or else compare unhealthiest with unhealthiest?
>
> Why not all comparisons? Why not compare every conceivable combination of
> foods? What are you afraid of?

I obviously *asked* for more comparisons! Do you think your tactic of
distracting readers by breaking up my request and interspersing your
non-responsive comments is clever?

>>You're dishonest.
>
> Really.. I'm suggesting that we remove all bias

Really! I *promised* you, it's coming up...

> and arbitrary limitations
> when comparing foods, you are suggesting that we essentially establish two
> *camps* and pick the best diet from each, the worst diet from each, etc.. as
> if vegetarian and non-vegetarian alternatives are somehow members of
> opposing teams or some such childish rubbish. A diet is simply all the foods
> a person chooses from all those available, in the proportions which they
> choose them.

You blew it, Ditch. Look at where you began:

"but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with healthy, balanced
diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy unbalanced
diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real* wise
choices?"

See any problem? You already pre-stipulated, before your allegedly
unbiased study even begins, that the non-vegetarian diet is healthy and
balanced, while the vegetarian diet is unhealthy and unbalanced. Gosh,
Mr. Honesty! What the hell kind of "remove all bias and arbitrary
limitations" was that???

>>Something was revealed by your attempt to conceal the 7thDA findings. Why
>>did you think you could get away with that?
>
> Quit trying to change the subject into some argument you had with someone a
> month ago which you think you won, as tempting as that may be, deal with the
> question at hand. Why do you think you can get away with refusing to compare
> all foods and all combinations of food (diets) based on their individual
> merits? Why do you think that it's not obvious that such evasions are a sign
> that you are trying to cook the books?

Did I mention how ironically *funny* your arguments are? If you're just
going to make up crap as you go, you better learn to think farther ahead.

Dutch
2006-10-15 05:27:37 EST

"Wroter" <writ@mail.com> wrote
> Ditch:

[..]
>>>>>>>A vegetarian diet fights against cancer, including gender-related
>>>>>>>cancers such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, and prostate cancer.
>>>>>>>Studies have shown that the death rate from cancer is much lower for
>>>>>>>those on a vegetarian diet than it is for those in the general
>>>>>>>population. <br>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Show that the studies are adequately corrected for confounding
>>>>>>elements like other lifestyle differences.
>>>>>
>>>>>The recently discussed 7th-Day-Adventist, or whoever, study did just
>>>>>that! (That was the study where you, and especially Chiclet, tried so
>>>>>/desperately/ to hide the findings. Remember?)
>>>>
>>>>One study does not overturn the whole body of a science, in this case
>>>>nutritional science.
>>>
>>>Nutritional science, or dogma?
>>
>> Science based on thousands of studies and libraries full of data. Only a
>> deluded fool would refer to the entire body of nutritional research as
>> dogma in favor of reliance on one isolated study. If you have an
>> overwhelmingly powerful belief in the notion of "animal rights", I don't
>> know if you do, you might consider that as the reason why your viewpoint
>> is skewed in this manner.
>
> Uh-huh. The *skewed* viewpoint will be exposed real quick. I promise.

Your promise goes unfulfilled.

>>>Something was revealed by your attempt to conceal the 7thDA findings. Why
>>>did you do that?
>>
>> I don't know what you're talking about. That study contains stipulations
>
> Stipulations! How ironically funny that you mention stipulations.

It does. From memory it makes a general disclaimer that the findings should
not be interperted, generally, as you are doing.
>
>> which say to me that the results are not as conclusive as you seem to
>> think, however I agree that they are strongly indicative of the kind of
>> findings you are apparently looking for, which is undoubtedly why you are
>> so focused on this one set of data.
>>
>>>>>>These kinds of studies can show that vegetarians as a group have lower
>>>>>>rates of certain cancers than the broad group non-vegetarians,
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds just like an apples-to-apples comparison. What's the problem?
>>>>
>>>>The problem is when you read such results incorrectly, such as
>>>>concluding that a particular vegetarian diet is superior to a particular
>>>>non-vegetarian diet,
>>>
>>>You and Chiclet were the ones incorrectly skewing the 7thDA results. You
>>>quit early, poor Chiclet had to finally give up in shame.
>>
>> Again, your obsession with this particular study is typical vegetarian
>> extremist behaviour. You are dooming yourself to regurgitating a narrow
>> set of data that reinforces some unrelated pre-existing belief instead of
>> considering all existing data equally and objectively. This self-editing
>> kind of behaviour is in my opinion pathological,
>
> Self-editing! It's hilarious, you're really setting yourself up.

Yes, you are setting me up, for a big letdown. You had me thinking you had
something.

>> and THE primary reason that I remain interested in this group. For future
>> reference, this_study is strongly suggestive of the kind of conclusions
>> you are claiming. OK?
>>
>>>>or concluding that all vegetarian diets are superior to all
>>>>non-vegetarian diets. Those kinds of errors in thinking are very common
>>>>among over-zealous vegetarians who prefer a simplistic almost religious
>>>>view of reality.
>>>
>>>Who concluded that all vegetarian diets are superior to all
>>>non-vegetarian diets? I'd like to see an example of this very common
>>>error.
>>
>> I would not know exactly how to Google for that particular argument, but
>> stick around, it won't take long for someone to provide a fresh example.
>
> I've been around for years. Waaay before you ever showed up.

The you know that my statement was accurate. In fact pearl uses this very
study to make that very conclusion.

>> I'll be sure to give you heads up as soon as I see it, if you stop
>> changing your alias long enough.
>>
>>>>>>but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with healthy, balanced
>>>>>>diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy unbalanced
>>>>>>diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real* wise
>>>>>>choices?
>>>>>
>>>>>But what about you trying to stack up an apples-to-oranges comparison?
>>>>>Who would care about such a deliberately flawed study?
>>>>
>>>>What is wrong with comparing apples and oranges? If I want to understand
>>>>which is healthier. What if I eat "apples" that is a moderate standard
>>>>diet, with very little red meat and lots of vegetables, and then I go to
>>>>college and start eating "oranges", no meat, but also very few fresh
>>>>vegetables. Why is it inadmissable to ask which diet is better? How
>>>>about the many shades in between, such as diet that is chiefly
>>>>vegetarian with only a little salmon? This fear of comparing diets
>>>>openly is one of the most telling indictments of vegetarian attitudes.
>>>
>>>Your sentence above is all about YOU! You aren't comparing diets, you're
>>>comparing the healthiest people from one group with the unhealthiest
>>>people of another group!
>>
>> I'm not comparing people at all, I am comparing foods, grouped together,
>> forming diets.
>>
>>>Why not instead compare the healthiest with the healthiest?
>>
>> Why "instead", why not both, or all?
>>
>>>Or else compare unhealthiest with unhealthiest?
>>
>> Why not all comparisons? Why not compare every conceivable combination of
>> foods? What are you afraid of?
>
> I obviously *asked* for more comparisons!

No you didn't, you demanded that comparisons be laid out in a particular
arbitrary way, excluding any comparisons between poor vegetarian diets and
good non-vegetarian ones. Are you afraid to discuss the fact that there are
poor vegetarian diets? Like the one that is causing our friend Kathie
LaPinta to become anemic?

> Do you think your tactic of distracting readers by breaking up my request
> and interspersing your non-responsive comments is clever?

This "tactic" is called inline or conversational style and it is the proper
way to reply to a newsgroup message. My replies were pointed and responsive,
and they did not need to be clever, just honest. What's more this laughable
response of yours is so pitiful I hestitate to call it an evasion, you have
for all intents and purposes folded your tent and made for the hills, where
you sit huddled with your tail tucked between your legs hoping I don't
respond.

There, I responded to the multiple phony accusations you loaded in your
sentence all together, like that better?

>>>You're dishonest.
>>
>> Really.. I'm suggesting that we remove all bias
>
> Really! I *promised* you, it's coming up...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz talk about anti-climax...
>
>> and arbitrary limitations when comparing foods, you are suggesting that
>> we essentially establish two *camps* and pick the best diet from each,
>> the worst diet from each, etc.. as if vegetarian and non-vegetarian
>> alternatives are somehow members of opposing teams or some such childish
>> rubbish. A diet is simply all the foods a person chooses from all those
>> available, in the proportions which they choose them.
>
> You blew it, Ditch. Look at where you began:

You aren't even reading what I am saying you moron.

> "but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with healthy, balanced
> diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy unbalanced
> diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real* wise
> choices?"
>
> See any problem?

Yes, you are having a severe case of being cornered and panicking.

> You already pre-stipulated, before your allegedly unbiased study even
> begins, that the non-vegetarian diet is healthy and balanced,

Yes, so? Are you saying that no such diet exists? Contrary to all knowledge
on this planet?

> while the vegetarian diet is unhealthy and unbalanced.

Yes, so? Are you saying that no such diet exists?

Why are you afraid to compare a diet of meat and vegetables against a diet
of donuts and beer? I'm not afraid to compare ANY diets against one another,
including the best vegetarian diet vs the worst non-vegetarian one.

>Gosh, Mr. Honesty! What the hell kind of "remove all bias and arbitrary
>limitations" was that???

It's exactly what it is, ALL diets should be compared against ALL other
diets INCLUDING bad vegetarian diets vs good non-vegetarian diets, bad
non-vegetarian diets vs good vegetarian diets, bad non-vegetarian diets vs
good non-vegetarian diets, etc, using ALL relevant criteria and considering
every conceivable combination of foods.

>>>Something was revealed by your attempt to conceal the 7thDA findings. Why
>>>did you think you could get away with that?
>>
>> Quit trying to change the subject into some argument you had with someone
>> a month ago which you think you won, as tempting as that may be, deal
>> with the question at hand. Why do you think you can get away with
>> refusing to compare all foods and all combinations of food (diets) based
>> on their individual merits? Why do you think that it's not obvious that
>> such evasions are a sign that you are trying to cook the books?
>
> Did I mention how ironically *funny* your arguments are?

That's not ironic-funny, it's cognitive dissonance.

If you're just
> going to make up crap as you go, you better learn to think farther ahead.

That was a very limp effort, for someone who claims to have been around for
a long time, maybe you're out of practice. How about making a genuine try at
answering the question now? Shall we just propose some combinations of foods
(diets) and compare them? Or are you sticking to your ridiculous demand that
our comparisons fit onto this "us v them" chart you cooked up?




Snaggler
2006-10-15 06:31:45 EST
Ditch:

>>I obviously *asked* for more comparisons!
>
> No you didn't, you demanded that comparisons be laid out in a particular
> arbitrary way,

Better look again, your comprehension skills don't quite get you there
on a single pass. You set up the contrived unhealthy vs. healthy diet
scenario. I suggested fair apples-with-apples type comparisons, and gave
two examples of how that would be done.

>>Do you think your tactic of distracting readers by breaking up my
request
>>and interspersing your non-responsive comments is clever?
>
> This "tactic" is called inline or conversational style and it is the proper
> way to reply to a newsgroup message.

Proper when used properly, but you intersperse comments for the purpose
of breaking up questions into disconnected, incomplete parts, then act
like you're the one that's been trying to present the whole picture.
What a fraud.

>>"but what about the sub-group non-vegetarians with healthy, balanced
>>diets? What about the sub-group vegetarians with unhealthy unbalanced
>>diets? How do those two groups compare and what are the *real* wise
>>choices?"
>...
>>You already pre-stipulated, before your allegedly unbiased study even
>>begins, that the non-vegetarian diet is healthy and balanced,
>
>
> Yes, so? Are you saying that no such diet exists?

They may be recognized to exist, *after* studying diets! You can't pick
two diets that are already determined to be healthy and unhealthy, and
then pretend to compare them to discover which is healthy. You're a fraud.

>>while the vegetarian diet is unhealthy and unbalanced.
>
>
> Yes, so? Are you saying that no such diet exists?

You're a fraud.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron