Vegetarian Discussion: Vegetarianism

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Vegieo
2007-04-24 08:01:35 EST
I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your opinion
was?


Dutch
2007-04-24 15:52:42 EST
"vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote

>I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
> course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
> hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
> eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
> alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
> is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
> recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your opinion
> was?
>


The question as presented is too vague, too simplistic to have any meaning.
Which vegetarian, which meat eater? What is the composition of the diets,
exactly? What foods? From which sources? How much of each? Are dairy
products included? What are the other lifestyle factors?

To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you can imagine,
now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet is no longer vegetarian, but
by any objective measure it is better, richer in high quality protein and
fatty acids.



Wally
2007-04-24 17:50:54 EST

"vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1177416095.825619.33190@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
> course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
> hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
> eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
> alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
> is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
> recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your opinion
> was?
>
I'll have to think about that one while I'm eating my bacon sarnie.



Pearl
2007-04-24 20:23:12 EST
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:eetXh.123020$6m4.91231@pd7urf1no...
> "vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote
>
> >I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
> > course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
> > hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
> > eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
> > alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
> > is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
> > recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your opinion
> > was?
> >
>
>
> The question as presented is too vague, too simplistic to have any meaning.
> Which vegetarian, which meat eater? What is the composition of the diets,
> exactly? What foods? From which sources? How much of each? Are dairy
> products included? What are the other lifestyle factors?
>
> To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you can imagine,
> now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet is no longer vegetarian, but
> by any objective measure it is better, richer in high quality protein and
> fatty acids.

'There is a relationship between animal protein and heart disease.
For example, plasma apolipoprotein B is positively associated
with animal-protein intake and inversely associated (lowered)
with vegetable-protein intake (e.g., legumes and greens).
Apolipoprotein B levels correlate strongly with coronary heart
disease.1 Unknown to many is that animal proteins have a
significant effect on raising cholesterol levels as well, while plant
protein lowers it.2

Scientific studies provide evidence that many animal protein's effect
on blood cholesterol may be significant. This is one of the reasons
those switching to a low fat-diet do no experience the cholesterol
lowering they expect unless they also remove the low-fat animal
products as well. Surprising to most people is that yes, even low-fat
dairy and skinless white-meat chicken raise cholesterol. I see this
regularly in my practice. Many individuals do not see the dramatic
drop in cholesterol levels unless they go all the way by cutting all
animal proteins from their diet.
..
Red meat is not the only problem. The consumption of chicken and
fish is also linked to colon cancer. A large recent study examined the
eating habits of 32,000 adults for six years and then watched the
incidence of cancer for these subjects over the next six years. Those
who avoided red meat but ate white meat regularly had a more than
300 percent increase in colon cancer incidence.3 The same study
showed that eating beans, peas, or lentils, at least twice a week was
associated with a 50 percent lower risk than never eating these foods.

Chicken has about the same amount of cholesterol as beef, and the
production of those potent cancer-causing compounds called
heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are even more concentrated in grilled
chicken than in beef.4 Another recent study from New Zealand
that investigated heterocyclic amines in meat, fish, and chicken
found the greatest contributor of HCAs to cancer risk was chicken.5
Likewise, studies indicated that chicken is almost as dangerous as
red meat for the heart. Regarding cholesterol, there is no advantage
to eating lean white instead of lean red meat.6
...'
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cancer-the-meatdisease-connection.html

'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China.
Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.

A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. '

'Fish is not a health food

Introducing Essential Fatty Acids
Not all fats are damaging to health
Balancing dietary Essential Fatty Acids

Essential Fatty Acids and heart disease
What's behind the fish recommendations?
Fish EFAs vs. Plant EFAs: what does the research tell us?
DART - Using dietary fish to prevent secondary heart disease
GISSI - Using fish oil supplements to prevent secondary heart disease
LYON - Using plant-derived LNA to prevent secondary heart disease
Plant-derived LNA effectiveness of LYON trial confirmed
No benefit from fish for low-risk heart disease populations
Plant-based diets - great for the heart all round

Essential Fatty Acids and brain health

Contaminated fish are a danger to health
The environmental picture
Dioxins and PCBs in dietary fish and marine fish oils
Mercury in dietary fish
Mercury and heart disease
Mercury and infertility
Wild versus farmed - health and nutritional concerns

Public perceptions and the misguided promotion of fish
Fancy fish? - UK public unimpressed and confused
Promoting fish - A licence to carry on eating an unhealthy diet

Plant sources - towards a more popular source of healthy fats
Plant EFAs lead the way
Antioxidants in plants protect EFAs
Plant EFA's defined
Omega-3 EFAs
Omega-6 EFAs
Recommendations

In conclusion

References

http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/campaigns/fish/fishreporttext.htm




Pearl
2007-04-24 20:49:03 EST
"vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote in message news:1177416095.825619.33190@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
> course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
> hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
> eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
> alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
> is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
> recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your opinion
> was?

You'll not find a more all-round important and far-reaching issue.
People tend to object for 'selfish' reasons, and from ignorance.
The topic is hot, and getting hotter. Research and persevere.
I think that this quote more or less sums it up...

"Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife by the millions to protect
his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the
billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because
eating all those animals leads to degenerative - and fatal - health
conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man
tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these
diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by
hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten
domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the
absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year
sends out cards praying for "Peace on Earth." -- C. David Coates





Dutch
2007-04-25 00:33:10 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:f0m6ps$51i$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:eetXh.123020$6m4.91231@pd7urf1no...
>> "vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote
>>
>> >I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
>> > course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
>> > hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
>> > eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
>> > alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
>> > is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
>> > recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your opinion
>> > was?
>> >
>>
>>
>> The question as presented is too vague, too simplistic to have any
>> meaning.
>> Which vegetarian, which meat eater? What is the composition of the diets,
>> exactly? What foods? From which sources? How much of each? Are dairy
>> products included? What are the other lifestyle factors?
>>
>> To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you can
>> imagine,
>> now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet is no longer vegetarian,
>> but
>> by any objective measure it is better, richer in high quality protein and
>> fatty acids.

<snip>
> http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/campaigns/fish/fishreporttext.htm

Now what remains is to decide for yourself whether to believe vegetarian
activists or the other 99% of the scientific community, and your own common
sense. If you are sufficiently emotionally invested in vegetarianism the
answer will be obvious, believe that vegetarian campaigners have sole
proprietorship on the truth.


Pearl
2007-04-25 07:32:18 EST
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:aSAXh.124536$6m4.64878@pd7urf1no...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:f0m6ps$51i$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:eetXh.123020$6m4.91231@pd7urf1no...
> >> "vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote
> >>
> >> >I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
> >> > course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
> >> > hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
> >> > eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
> >> > alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
> >> > is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
> >> > recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your opinion
> >> > was?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The question as presented is too vague, too simplistic to have any
> >> meaning.
> >> Which vegetarian, which meat eater? What is the composition of the diets,
> >> exactly? What foods? From which sources? How much of each? Are dairy
> >> products included? What are the other lifestyle factors?
> >>
> >> To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you can
> >> imagine,
> >> now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet is no longer vegetarian,
> >> but
> >> by any objective measure it is better, richer in high quality protein and
> >> fatty acids.
>
> <snip>
> > http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/campaigns/fish/fishreporttext.htm
>
> Now what remains is to decide for yourself whether to believe vegetarian
> activists or the other 99% of the scientific community, and your own common
> sense. If you are sufficiently emotionally invested in vegetarianism the
> answer will be obvious, believe that vegetarian campaigners have sole
> proprietorship on the truth.

Everyone can see who is presenting scientific evidence, and who is
evading the scientific evidence and resorting to ad hominem attacks
and a bagload of other assorted fallacious 'arguments' instead, ditch.







Dutch
2007-04-25 15:56:15 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:f0ne00$lcd$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:aSAXh.124536$6m4.64878@pd7urf1no...
>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:f0m6ps$51i$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> > news:eetXh.123020$6m4.91231@pd7urf1no...
>> >> "vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote
>> >>
>> >> >I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
>> >> > course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
>> >> > hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
>> >> > eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
>> >> > alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
>> >> > is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
>> >> > recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your
>> >> > opinion
>> >> > was?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The question as presented is too vague, too simplistic to have any
>> >> meaning.
>> >> Which vegetarian, which meat eater? What is the composition of the
>> >> diets,
>> >> exactly? What foods? From which sources? How much of each? Are dairy
>> >> products included? What are the other lifestyle factors?
>> >>
>> >> To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you can
>> >> imagine,
>> >> now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet is no longer
>> >> vegetarian,
>> >> but
>> >> by any objective measure it is better, richer in high quality protein
>> >> and
>> >> fatty acids.
>>
>> <snip>
>> > http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/campaigns/fish/fishreporttext.htm
>>
>> Now what remains is to decide for yourself whether to believe vegetarian
>> activists or the other 99% of the scientific community, and your own
>> common
>> sense. If you are sufficiently emotionally invested in vegetarianism the
>> answer will be obvious, believe that vegetarian campaigners have sole
>> proprietorship on the truth.
>
> Everyone can see who is presenting scientific evidence, and who is
> evading the scientific evidence and resorting to ad hominem attacks
> and a bagload of other assorted fallacious 'arguments' instead, ditch.

There is no ad hominem attack in my message, your puerile name-calling
tactics are noted however. Everyone with the slightest degree of objectivity
can see that you copy and paste a shitload of slanted vegetarian propaganda
and pseudo-science into every message. I could play that game. I could
easily assemble ten times as many scientific opinions as you have that
present the nutritional advantages of wild salmon. I don't see the point, I
give the open-minded reader more credit for intelligence than that, and
there's no hope for the closed-minded one.


Pearl
2007-04-26 05:29:45 EST
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:znOXh.126901$6m4.42820@pd7urf1no...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:f0ne00$lcd$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:aSAXh.124536$6m4.64878@pd7urf1no...
> >> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >> news:f0m6ps$51i$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:eetXh.123020$6m4.91231@pd7urf1no...
> >> >> "vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> >I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part time
> >> >> > course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
> >> >> > hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
> >> >> > eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have found
> >> >> > alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian lifesyle
> >> >> > is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have still
> >> >> > recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your
> >> >> > opinion
> >> >> > was?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The question as presented is too vague, too simplistic to have any
> >> >> meaning.
> >> >> Which vegetarian, which meat eater? What is the composition of the
> >> >> diets,
> >> >> exactly? What foods? From which sources? How much of each? Are dairy
> >> >> products included? What are the other lifestyle factors?
> >> >>
> >> >> To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you can
> >> >> imagine,
> >> >> now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet is no longer
> >> >> vegetarian,
> >> >> but
> >> >> by any objective measure it is better, richer in high quality protein
> >> >> and
> >> >> fatty acids.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> > http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/campaigns/fish/fishreporttext.htm
> >>
> >> Now what remains is to decide for yourself whether to believe vegetarian
> >> activists or the other 99% of the scientific community, and your own
> >> common
> >> sense. If you are sufficiently emotionally invested in vegetarianism the
> >> answer will be obvious, believe that vegetarian campaigners have sole
> >> proprietorship on the truth.
> >
> > Everyone can see who is presenting scientific evidence, and who is
> > evading the scientific evidence and resorting to ad hominem attacks
> > and a bagload of other assorted fallacious 'arguments' instead, ditch.
>
> There is no ad hominem attack in my message,

"vegetarian activists" .. "vegetarian campaigners". Your MO.

'1. Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem):
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms.
..
1. ad hominem abusive: instead of attacking an assertion, attacking
the person who made the assertion.
2. ad hominem circumstantial: instead of attacking an assertion, the
author/speaker points to the interrelationship between the assertion
and the person's circumstances.
..'
http://www.mdpme.com/FALLACY5.HTM

> your puerile name-calling tactics are noted however.

It is a statement of fact, ditch. Long-trodden abyss of deceit.

> Everyone with the slightest degree of objectivity
> can see that you copy and paste a shitload of slanted vegetarian propaganda
> and pseudo-science into every message.

Everyone with the slightest degree of objectivity can see that I
presented verifiable and referenced research, and that you're
backed into a corner and spraying a $hitload of slanted anti-
vegetarian propaganda, desperately attacking the messenger.

'Avoiding acceptance of responsibility - denial, counterattack
and feigning victimhood

The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside;
he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that
the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional
development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants
to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and
unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the
benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to
accept responsibility for their behaviour.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
..
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
..'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial

> I could play that game. I could
> easily assemble ten times as many scientific opinions as you have that
> present the nutritional advantages of wild salmon. I don't see the point, I
> give the open-minded reader more credit for intelligence than that, and
> there's no hope for the closed-minded one.

You can start by properly addressing what I posted; but you can't.





Dutch
2007-04-26 16:21:46 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:f0pr65$kd2$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:znOXh.126901$6m4.42820@pd7urf1no...
>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:f0ne00$lcd$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> > news:aSAXh.124536$6m4.64878@pd7urf1no...
>> >> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> >> news:f0m6ps$51i$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> >> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:eetXh.123020$6m4.91231@pd7urf1no...
>> >> >> "vegieo" <wil01005747@student.menai.ac.uk> wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I am a mature student doing an access to Higher Education part
>> >> >> >time
>> >> >> > course and I am currently working on an integrated project, my
>> >> >> > hypothesis is ' Is a vegetarian's lifestyle healthier than a meat
>> >> >> > eater's?' I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and have
>> >> >> > found
>> >> >> > alot of information supporting the fact that the vegetarian
>> >> >> > lifesyle
>> >> >> > is a healthier one to follow. Despite this fact however I have
>> >> >> > still
>> >> >> > recieved alot of negative feedback and was wondering what your
>> >> >> > opinion
>> >> >> > was?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The question as presented is too vague, too simplistic to have any
>> >> >> meaning.
>> >> >> Which vegetarian, which meat eater? What is the composition of the
>> >> >> diets,
>> >> >> exactly? What foods? From which sources? How much of each? Are
>> >> >> dairy
>> >> >> products included? What are the other lifestyle factors?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you can
>> >> >> imagine,
>> >> >> now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet is no longer
>> >> >> vegetarian,
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> by any objective measure it is better, richer in high quality
>> >> >> protein
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> fatty acids.
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/campaigns/fish/fishreporttext.htm
>> >>
>> >> Now what remains is to decide for yourself whether to believe
>> >> vegetarian
>> >> activists or the other 99% of the scientific community, and your own
>> >> common
>> >> sense. If you are sufficiently emotionally invested in vegetarianism
>> >> the
>> >> answer will be obvious, believe that vegetarian campaigners have sole
>> >> proprietorship on the truth.
>> >
>> > Everyone can see who is presenting scientific evidence, and who is
>> > evading the scientific evidence and resorting to ad hominem attacks
>> > and a bagload of other assorted fallacious 'arguments' instead, ditch.
>>
>> There is no ad hominem attack in my message,
>
> "vegetarian activists" .. "vegetarian campaigners". Your MO.

Being a little thin-skinned aren't you? Are you saying that "activist" is an
insult? "campaigner"?

Read the bio of the second contributor to the article at the top of page one
of the article.

"Charlie Powell, M.Med.Sci in Human Nutrition,
Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation Health Campaigner"


> '1. Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem):

Exactly, stop attacking me. Your silly attacks aren't helping your case.

> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
> argument itself. This takes many forms.
> ..
> 1. ad hominem abusive: instead of attacking an assertion, attacking
> the person who made the assertion.
> 2. ad hominem circumstantial: instead of attacking an assertion, the
> author/speaker points to the interrelationship between the assertion
> and the person's circumstances.
> ..'
> http://www.mdpme.com/FALLACY5.HTM
>
>> your puerile name-calling tactics are noted however.
>
> It is a statement of fact, ditch. Long-trodden abyss of deceit.

Sophomoric name-calling is "a statement of fact"? Thank you for defining
your threshold of what qualifies as facts.

>> Everyone with the slightest degree of objectivity
>> can see that you copy and paste a shitload of slanted vegetarian
>> propaganda
>> and pseudo-science into every message.
>
> Everyone with the slightest degree of objectivity can see that I
> presented verifiable and referenced research, and that you're
> backed into a corner and spraying a $hitload of slanted anti-
> vegetarian propaganda, desperately attacking the messenger.

> 'Avoiding acceptance of responsibility - denial, counterattack
> and feigning victimhood
>
> The serial bully

Oh pul-eeze, cry me a river pearl. What ad hominem drivel. Calling them
"campaigners" is bullying them, when they call themselves campaigners, how
bizarre.


>> I could play that game. I could
>> easily assemble ten times as many scientific opinions as you have that
>> present the nutritional advantages of wild salmon. I don't see the point,
>> I
>> give the open-minded reader more credit for intelligence than that, and
>> there's no hope for the closed-minded one.
>
> You can start by properly addressing what I posted; but you can't.

As I said already, anyone with a brain can Google thousands of references to
scientific opinions that will support the view that wild salmon contributes
to good health. I prefer to respect their intelligence and allow them to do
it for themselves.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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