Animal Welfare

[Shaki]

By that I meant I don't get a dicky belly or other immediate adverse effects from drinking either soy or cow's milk.

I wouldn't be too concerned by the propaganda from either side from a health perspective until you hear of reports of people dying, getting cancer etc. as a result of what the dairy or soy evangelists will tell you about the use of the other.

Estrogen, blood, pus, phytoestrogens and phytates are yum anyway.

[Bigsby]

I can categorically say that this is correct. Though if there was another interesting thread I can also say that this wouldn't be the case.

You might feel more at home here:

Argue With Everyone Political Forums

[ca_gere]

You might feel more at home here:

Argue With Everyone Political Forums

Or he could start his own site... www.aberdeen-moooosic.com?

[Le Stu]

Well yeah, the truth is both vegans and carnists (I believe someone coined this phrase quite recently!) both survive to oldish ages generally (statsiticaly vegans a bit longer I think). The vegan propagandha is useful to counter-act the carnist propogandha (which is often more inherent in society), but neither side is a substitute for good science. At the end of the day it comes down to ethics, and in my years of readings/discussions and research, I have yet to come up with an argument which levels the one for animal rights.

See, again, what statistic and who collated and published the info? No, I'm just using that as an example, not making internet demands on yourself as you're doing a better job than I ever would of tackling multiple replies in this thread. I'm sure I've read of statistics showing elderly vegan women suffer osteoporosis more than omnivorous women, again contradicted by the China Study which found less evidence in elderly people of such. Then again they are Asian, not Caucasian and also may do a lot of Tai-Chi which helps the joints and bones...

'Scuse me a moment, I need to get some neurofen...

The second point I suppose is that it shouldn't be just about ethics, diet is more important to me anyway.

[Rob_86]

See, again, what statistic and who collated and published the info? No, I'm just using that as an example, not making internet demands on yourself as you're doing a better job than I ever would of tackling multiple replies in this thread. I'm sure I've read of statistics showing elderly vegan women suffer osteoporosis more than omnivorous women, again contradicted by the China Study which found less evidence in elderly people of such. Then again they are Asian, not Caucasian and also may do a lot of Tai-Chi which helps the joints and bones...

'Scuse me a moment, I need to get some neurofen...

The second point I suppose is that it shouldn't be just about ethics, diet is more important to me anyway.

Haha tell me about it! Yeah diet is important, but the point is that we can probably survive on either and so the ethics is the key. You're not likely to be party to anymore diseases as a vegan than you were as a meat eater as there is no nutrient that doesn't appear on one but does on the other, simple as that.

The Osteporosis thing I have no idea as to the intracacies, but the China Study put it pretty well for me. Either way, if you're getting a vegan diet with enough calcium(of which there are many sources higher than dairy) then there shouldn't be an issue should there?

If you are worried about your health, and actually considering veganism, then Swedish Glace is better for you than Ben and Jerrys, that's the only real nutritional difference we need on the matter

[Le Stu]

Haha tell me about it! Yeah diet is important, but the point is that we can probably survive on either and so the ethics is the key. You're not likely to be party to anymore diseases as a vegan than you were as a meat eater as there is no nutrient that doesn't appear on one but does on the other, simple as that.

The Osteporosis thing I have no idea as to the intracacies, but the China Study put it pretty well for me. Either way, if you're getting a vegan diet with enough calcium(of which there are many sources higher than dairy) then there shouldn't be an issue should there?

If you are worried about your health, and actually considering veganism, then Swedish Glace is better for you than Ben and Jerrys, that's the only real nutritional difference we need on the matter

Haha, that reminds of a friend of mine who went vegan for about a month and got really obnoxiously judgemental, though she's a born-again Christian turned hippy so that's the underlying reason, and she was really pissing me off with it until...

I turned to her and told her she would never eat icecream again. She folded like a house of cards

I suppose if I want to figure it out, I'll just have to educate myself and suffer the headaches. What a chore having to think for yourself is!

[Rob_86]

Haha, that reminds of a friend of mine who went vegan for about a month and got really obnoxiously judgemental, though she's a born-again Christian turned hippy so that's the underlying reason, and she was really pissing me off with it until...

I turned to her and told her she would never eat icecream again. She folded like a house of cards

I suppose if I want to figure it out, I'll just have to educate myself and suffer the headaches. What a chore having to think for yourself is!

Haha oh how times have changed - my boss has to be THE authority on ice cream, and she chose Swedish Glace just for the taste (it wasn't some strange ice cream competition btw, was just while she was shopping). It is odd that something not made of 'cream' can taste 'creamier' than something that is...I'm sure that's some sort of conceptual paradox...

But yeah, research it is.

[Alkaline]

Haha oh how times have changed - my boss has to be THE authority on ice cream, and she chose Swedish Glace just for the taste (it wasn't some strange ice cream competition btw, was just while she was shopping). It is odd that something not made of 'cream' can taste 'creamier' than something that is...I'm sure that's some sort of conceptual paradox...

But yeah, research it is.

That Swedish Glace stuff is the proverbial tits!

[Shaki]

That Swedish Glace stuff is the proverbial tits!

It's the udders

[TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH]

I just thought I would interject and say that this thread has been an interesting and entertaining read so far.

[nullmouse]

'Scuse me a moment, I need to get some neurofen...

Yup, it's a complete headache trying to make sense of all the studies out there and what, overall, they mean. Usually some helpful person does what's called a meta-analysis, where they raid the published scientific literature using well-defined inclusion criteria and then combine multiple studies together, adjust as best they can for confounding factors and then see what overall the evidence suggests. To do this requires a knowledge of statistics that I'm not terribly au fait with, but these meta-analysis are usually the most conclusive because individual studies in isolation rarely give ubiquitously conclusive evidence. It's the type of study organisations like the WHO rely on to form their opinions and recommendations.

Obviously, some individual studies are better than others, and when it comes to population-based studies there are a few questions I always ask when reading about them in newspapers or journals. I can't claim this is comprehensive, so I'm sure others can suggest things worth considering.

The best design of study is a randomised double-blind study, which means patients are divided amongst groups randomly (although distribution of age and sex should be equal) and the patients and scientists are unaware if they are getting given a placebo treatment or real treatment. With dietary studies this is quite hard, so they are often done by tracking highly selected groups of people with food diaries, retrospectively relying on recall or (in the case of the China study), by assuming dietary conditions based on geographical variation. So, with studies published in journals I'd look at:

(a) What's the study design - Is it controlled and blinded, or open to a selection bias?

(b) Is the control group suitable - Do they vary considerably in age, sex, location or some other factor that could skew the results? Have they selected a 'normal' control population or compared extremes?

© How is the data is collected - Does it rely on recall or self-reporting?

(d) Is the sample size appropriate - Are they claiming significant results applicable to the entire world based on just a dozen people?

(e) Are the authors open about confounding factors - Do they recognise the limitations (that every study has) themselves?

(f) Are the results actually statistically significant - Is wooly language used to suggest that their results are significant when they may not be?

(g) How large is the effect they're actually reporting - A 100% percent increase in risk of disease [x] may not mean a great deal if your risk of disease [x] was only 1 in 1,000,000 to start with. Do they use natural numbers (e.g. increased risk from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100) or rely on obfuscation with percentages?

With anything that's reported in the media, you're often a few steps away from seeing the original research - A good bit of science reporting should include enough information to cover most of the points above, but I'd add one or two extra points on to science reported in the media:

(h) Is the data actually published in a peer-reviewed journal - Or is it fed directly to the media?

(i) Has the work actually been done - Or is a press-release announcing a study which hasn't even started yet? (Some 'studies' have their results announced before they even commence - see the school fish oil debarkle for an example of this).

I can't recommend Bad Science, Ben Goldacre's web-blog, enough for some great discussion on the representation of science by the media. His latest entry is diet related, so people may get a kick out of reading it: Health Warning: Exercise Makes You Fat Bad Science

[nullmouse]

Actually, I should have put on another couple of points:

Conflict of interests - Is it funded by the Militant Vegan Society or the Die-Hard Meat Consortium?

Where's it published - I mentioned peer-review journals, but is it a journal of repute? Science and Nature are the top dawgs, but dietary research may be in specialised research journals such as the American Journal of Nutrition. Be wary of something published in The Journal of Improbable Science.

[Stichman]

Touche! Your right our wants to do 'what's right' probably originated from religion, but I think they stretch deeper than that. Either way I haven't ever met anyone who disagrees with the idea that doing 'what's right' is a good idea. However when it comes to taking the other ideas that Christianity gave us, the vast majority seem foundation-less. Especially this idea of humans as heaven granted rulers of the planet, especially as science suggests we were once animals without our current characteristics, so making us moral animals rather than heavenly suppported rulers. That's all I was getting at really.

And the 'eye for an eye' theory doesn't make sense in relation to animals anyway. 'They would kill me, so I can kill them'. That's fine if we disregard determinism and use it as a way to kill serial killers, but animals don't think morally - they can't be held to moral obligations as they don't have the capacity for morality. Either way the theory for animal rights seems to come out on top.

This is an odd debate to be involved in for me - I keep hearing all the same arguments that I used to use, it's a little eerie.

So why are you so happy to take some ideas from religion without much argument, but totally reject others as ancient, irrelevant ramblings? If you accept 'morality' as a desireable trait, why do you so readily reject the idea that humans are inherently superior to animals? Surely morality is just as 'foundation-less' as any other idea originating from religion?

Presumably,this 'deeper' area you refer to is just your natural conviction that it's nice to be nice. It's natural to want to protect your own species. Just as it's our natural compulsion to eat meat, which probably originates from our desire for self-preservation.

Nobody is arguing against morality, so why are you arguing against our equally 'natural' consumption of meat? Oh, and I'm sure you'd agree that just because the majority of people think something is 'right', that doesn't make it so...

[KimyReizeger]

So why are you so happy to take some ideas from religion without much argument, but totally reject others as ancient, irrelevant ramblings?

Because some may be valuable whilst others aren't?

If you accept 'morality' as a desireable trait, why do you so readily reject the idea that humans are inherently superior to animals?

This is one of the most confused sentences I've ever some across. I understand that: those who think morality is a good thing, also think humans are superior to animals and should therefore eat them?

Surely morality is just as 'foundation-less' as any other idea originating from religion?

Morality doesn't originate in religion. Religion is just a medium which details loosely various ideals and desires we have relating to moral behaviour. We didn't necessarily require religion specifically to give us these.

why are you arguing against our equally 'natural' consumption of meat?

Whenwill people stop comparing us with stone age man and saying, 'oh, it's natural to eat meat!'. This is a terrible argument which has been thoroughly 'downed' throughout this discussion. Can you genuinely not see this? In no realm of life would you justify yourself by saying, 'oh but lions do it'. So why now?

[ca_gere]

. This is a terrible argument which has been thoroughly 'downed' throughout this discussion.

Totally hasn't. Been challenged but not downed.

[KimyReizeger]

Well, what do people really mean when they say something is 'natural'?

1. That our ancestors did it.

2. That it's normal, usual, commonplace.

You don't eat shit and then justify it by saying 'it's natural' do you? You don't burn heretics then justify it by saying 'it's natural' do you?

Basically, to say something is 'natural' as a justification for its inherent good properties doesn't cut it because there are plenty of undesireable things existing in nature.

[Stichman]

Because some may be valuable whilst others aren't?

How do we differentiate between ideas that are 'valuable' and those that aren't? 'Valuable' because they fit in with his personal preconceptions and ideas? 'Valuable' because society tells him morality is valuable?

This is one of the most confused sentences I've ever some across. I understand that: those who think morality is a good thing, also think humans are superior to animals and should therefore eat them?

Exaggeration Of The Year Award! I think you're confused. I am plainly asking why he picks and chooses over what he praises and what he condemns from religion, when his knowledge of it is so sketchy that he resorts to laying the blame for the nasty eating of meat squarely at the door of nasty Christianity?

Morality doesn't originate in religion. Religion is just a medium which details loosely various ideals and desires we have relating to moral behaviour. We didn't necessarily require religion specifically to give us these.

A) I asked him if his morality stemmed from religion and he said it probably did.

B) Why do we have desires relating to moral behaviour? If not from religion, where did they come from? They have to stem from somewhere. Presumably we'd think it moral to be moral because somewhere along the line we are protecting ourselves from the immorality of others. So why apply this to animals who have no comprehension of morality?

When will people stop comparing us with stone age man and saying, 'oh, it's natural to eat meat!'. This is a terrible argument which has been thoroughly 'downed' throughout this discussion. Can you genuinely not see this? In no realm of life would you justify yourself by saying, 'oh but lions do it'. So why now?

I don't mean natural as in 'it happens in nature'. Obviously. That's why I put it between this ' and this '. I mean that as mere animals, surely we have as much right to eat other animals as any other animal does? Why should we feel compelled not to kill and eat them simply because we have the ability to overthink the process? It's because we consider it a moral question. So the big questions we have to address are; what is morality, where does it comes from, why should we value it and why should we apply it to animals?

[ca_gere]

Well, what do people really mean when they say something is 'natural'?

1. That our ancestors did it.

2. That it's normal, usual, commonplace.

You don't eat shit and then justify it by saying 'it's natural' do you? You don't burn heretics then justify it by saying 'it's natural' do you?

Basically, to say something is 'natural' as a justification for its inherent good properties doesn't cut it because there are plenty of undesireable things existing in nature.

Probably a bit of both of those definitions I reckon. That is not to say it's unnatural to not eat meat.

Don't get ur point about shit and heretics though, sorry. Our ancestors didn't eat shit and it's certainly not commonplace. Also, some cultures past and perhaps even present (in remote places with strong religious beliefs) may (have) argue(d) killing heretics is 'natural'. In the same way a Hindu might argue eating meat is wholly 'unnatural'.

Lastly, I don't think anyone has pushed the idea that eating meat is inherently good. A few have pointed out nutritional properties etc but this thread has been more a defense against the argument that eating meat is inherently bad.

I know how this normally works, I read your bit, you read mine and we take immediate issue with what one another is saying without trying to understand each other's points. but, I honestly don't get what you mean here.

[KimyReizeger]

How do we differentiate between ideas that are 'valuable' and those that aren't?

I guess through trial, error and discussions like these.

Exaggeration Of The Year Award! I think you're confused. I am plainly asking why he picks and chooses over what he praises and what he condemns from religion, when his knowledge of it is so sketchy that he resorts to laying the blame for the nasty eating of meat squarely at the door of nasty Christianity?

I don't so much is levelled towards christianity throughout this thread. That's not my impression and its interesting you're the only one to pick it up. I'm not bothered as the reasons to why we eat meat. I don't think they impact much on the current debate because, as we've seen, what our forebears did is not necessarily a model of what we should hope to become.

Why do we have desires relating to moral behaviour? If not from religion, where did they come from? They have to stem from somewhere.

Secular philisophical thought has existed longer than religion. I can't tell you why we have such desires. That's asking a bit much really!

Presumably we'd think it moral to be moral because somewhere along the line we are protecting ourselves from the immorality of others. So why apply this to animals who have no comprehension of morality?

Do you agree that an inability to understand complex philosophical issues should not impact on a being's right to be free of unnecessary pain and suffering?

I don't mean natural as in 'it happens in nature'. Obviously. That's why I put it between this ' and this '. I mean that as mere animals, surely we have as much right to eat other animals as any other animal does? Why should we feel compelled not to kill and eat them simply because we have the ability to overthink the process? It's because we consider it a moral question.

I think the bit I've highlighted here really sums up most of the pro-carnivore argument on here. Human progression in all spheres is really the result of such 'overthinking'. Have you considered that you're taking very a conventional, conservative standpoint? Does that mean anything to you or explain at all your reaction to this debate, do you think?

[KimyReizeger]

I know how this normally works, I read your bit, you read mine and we take immediate issue with what one another is saying without trying to understand each other's points. but, I honestly don't get what you mean here.

Yes, that's fair enough. I sometimes lose clarity along the way and I'm a rookie at this philosophical stuff anyway.

Probably a bit of both of those definitions I reckon. That is not to say it's unnatural to not eat meat.

Both definitions are flawed as justifications for present actions.

Don't get ur point about shit and heretics though, sorry. Our ancestors didn't eat shit and it's certainly not commonplace. Also, some cultures past and perhaps even present (in remote places with strong religious beliefs) may (have) argue(d) killing heretics is 'natural'. In the same way a Hindu might argue eating meat is wholly 'unnatural'.

You've sort of answered your own enquiry. A Hindu making the 'unnatural' argument against meat-eating would be wrong because that is to suggest that everything 'unnatural' (computers, CAT scans and radar for instance) is inherently bad, which it isn't. A meat-eater making the argument for meat-eating on the 'natural' basis would be wrong because that is to suggest that everything natural is inherently good, which it isn't (death, disease, parasites etc). I know there's a nice ring to arguing on the basis of 'naturality'; people are always pitting the thrusting, polluted, digital new world against the natural idyll we have come from. However, the actions of animals and ancient ancestors should really not be determining us too much. This point is really important to this debate and would suggest taking five minutes to understand it properly. I'm sorry if I haven't explained it so well:

You mention that some cultures have argued that killing heretics is natural, presumably on the basis that their ancestors did it. This is perhaps true. We did it here. However, they'd all be wrong, and simply be continuing the immorality of their fathers.

So finally, do you think I'd be able to justify eating my new partner's children? Lions do, therefore it's natural.

Lastly, I don't think anyone has pushed the idea that eating meat is inherently good. A few have pointed out nutritional properties etc but this thread has been more a defense against the argument that eating meat is inherently bad.

I'd agree. It's also been a poor defence, where the main attacks have not been answered at all. I am personally a meat-eater so think I have a reasonable of objectivity in these matters.

[Stichman]

I guess through trial, error and discussions like these.

I don't so much is levelled towards christianity throughout this thread. That's not my impression and its interesting you're the only one to pick it up. I'm not bothered as the reasons to why we eat meat. I don't think they impact much on the current debate because, as we've seen, what our forebears did is not necessarily a model of what we should hope to become.

Haha, 'interesting'? I didn't say at any point there was all that much aimed at Christianity, other than from the guy who I was replying to at the time. It just annoys me when people throw in cheap, gleeful sideswipes at religion at any opportunity.

You're not bothered as the reasons to why we eat meat? Really? I guess I'm not bothered about the reasons we shouldn't eat meat! Previous behaviour isn't necessarily a good model, but in this case I think it is.

Do you agree that an inability to understand complex philosophical issues should not impact on a being's right to be free of unnecessary pain and suffering?

Ah, you see, I don't think an animal should suffer unnecessary pain. I'd be less bothered about a cow in pain than a human in pain, but I certainly seek to avoid causing pain to a cow. I think we all agree on that. The difference is I just don't have a problem with it being killed and eaten.

Have you considered that you're taking very a conventional, conservative standpoint? Does that mean anything to you or explain at all your reaction to this debate, do you think?

Haha. I don't have a problem with some of my views being conservative. Neither do I think it explains my reaction to this debate. I think it describes it, albeit rather generally. Have you ever considered you're taking a very liberal and unconventional standpoint? I bet you have.

[KimyReizeger]

Haha, 'interesting'? I didn't say at any point there was all that much aimed at Christianity, other than from the guy who I was replying to at the time. It just annoys me when people throw in cheap, gleeful sideswipes at religion at any opportunity.

Ok, then we can drop that part of the debate.

You're not bothered as the reasons to why we eat meat? Really? I guess I'm not bothered about the reasons we shouldn't eat meat! Previous behaviour isn't necessarily a good model, but in this case I think it is.

Sorry, bad typing on my part. I meant I'm not bothered as to the circumstances (or reasons) by which we came to be a meat-eating society. Of course I'm interested in the reasons why we do it, that's why I'm participating. Because, if I genuinely wasn't concerned about the other side's argument, I wouldn't be taking part...

Ah, you see, I don't think an animal should suffer unnecessary pain. . . I certainly seek to avoid causing pain to a cow. I think we all agree on that. The difference is I just don't have a problem with it being killed and eaten.

Being food on a plate is an example of unnecessary pain because meat-eating isn't a necessity in our society. If you don't think a cow should suffer unnecessary pain why are you eating them? What you mean is that you're not sufficiently bothered by the pain inflicted on a cow to stop eating meat.

Haha. I don't have a problem with some of my views being conservative. Neither do I think it explains my reaction to this debate. I think it describes it, albeit rather generally. Have you ever considered you're taking a very liberal and unconventional standpoint? I bet you have. I bet you love it

Nothing I'm writing really reflects my own beliefs or personal practices. I had a steak tonight for example. I've just stated, albeitly with little eloquence, some of the arguments against eating-meat, for which I genuinely think there has been no satisfactory answer.

[KimyReizeger]

Furthermore Stichman, in relation to a cow being unable to comprehend moral issues, brought up when you said:

Presumably we'd think it moral to be moral because somewhere along the line we are protecting ourselves from the immorality of others. So why apply this to animals who have no comprehension of morality?

Why not apply the same logic to mentally-impaired people who have the same intellect and inability to understand philosophy as cows? Eat them too? The debate hangs on ability to suffer, and has nothing to do with intellect, because no-one would justify eating disabled people on the grounds that they haven't read understood Peter Singer's work on animal liberty and can't even explain how black holes work.

[nullmouse]

Nothing I'm writing really reflects my own beliefs or personal practices. I had a steak tonight for example. I've just stated, albeitly with little eloquence, some of the arguments against eating-meat, for which I genuinely think there has been no satisfactory answer.

Why not apply the same logic to mentally-impaired people who have the same intellect and inability to understand philosophy as cows? Eat them too? The debate hangs on ability to suffer, and has nothing to do with intellect, because no-one would justify eating disabled people on the grounds that they haven't read understood Peter Singer's work on animal liberty and can't even explain how black holes work.

I actually think you're mostly repeating arguments that have been discussed in some detail already and, whilst I appreciate the thread has been very long, the whole speciesism thing (of which the eating disabled people played a larger part) was teased apart in some detail.

[KimyReizeger]

I actually think you're mostly repeating arguments that have been discussed in some detail .

Yes, and still waiting for a good answer. And genuinely hoping to hear one so I can go on eating steaks without pesky conscience kicking in! I'd disagree speciesism was deconstructed in the way you've suggested.