The topic of Nutrition just as heated as Religion - Page 7

[Gale Force]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

What would milking one lactating rabbit get you? 1 oz of rabbit milk?

We've talked about how we would survive in apocalyptic circumstances. The running joke is that we have so many mice who always appear to be pregnant, we just need to domesticate them and milk them, one tiny drop at a time.

[lisalou]

That's funny b/c I know a vegan who told dh if any vegan tells you they're vegan b/c it's healthier, they're lying. You become vegan for the politics and ethics. Mainly b/c you have to take supplements in order to remain healthy so veganism won't cover all of your needs.

Not looking to enflame. I just wanted to point out that maybe it's not necessarily about being healthy and that's adds a religious like aspect to it as well. There are also ethics and personal beliefs involved as well as personal taste. Beets could be the healthiest thing in the world for me, but you'd be hard pressed to get me to eat them. Just like beef could be the healthiets way in the world for a veg to get iron doesn't mean they'll eat it.

[edamommy]

Originally Posted by lisalou

That seems to be a false choice. Is it the rabbit that's for the omni dinner? If not, of course everyone would pick beans and rice no need to make an animal suffer needlessly. Seems more like a PETA tactic meant to evoke emotion rather than actually thinking about things from an ethical or philosophical viewpoint.

If yes, I'd prefer a quicker method of killing but frankly I make the choice to smash the rabbit to smithereens every night. I'd prefer it was a rabbit rather than a bunny as there's more meat on a fully grown rabbit. Although my freezer is full of free range organic meats grown just up the road that were killed a little more humanely. As my husband says cute animals are tasty.

I do think there are lots of people who eat meat who don't think about where it comes from. I have a pet peeve about people who only eat boneless skinless chicken breasts. Where is your connection to the animal you're eating, where are you even acknowledging you're eating an animal by only eating that? But that's another rant. It does seem on this board that there are a lot of mommas and papas who do know exactly where their meat has come from, maybe even met it and who would chose the rabbit every time.

: someone also mentioned that she thought maybe some people enjoyed the "drama" in general. The above post is why I find it hard to NOT be dramatic when this topic comes up. It makes no sense to me. It honestly makes my insides HURT my heart ACHE and my brain PAIN to read it and know that many people think that way. I don't. It's not part of my charactor or physical / psychological make-up. having to listen/deal w/ this sort of mindset really is confusing to me in my very core and sometimes (usually!!) I come off sounding mean or irrational or "dramatic"... I can't help it. And, I think I'm not alone in this ...?

[whateverdidiwants]

Originally Posted by lisalou

That's funny b/c I know a vegan who told dh if any vegan tells you they're vegan b/c it's healthier, they're lying. You become vegan for the politics and ethics. Mainly b/c you have to take supplements in order to remain healthy so veganism won't cover all of your needs.

The only supplement a vegan needs is B12.

I'm pretty sure what the vegan you knew was trying to say was, being a vegan is about ethics first and foremost, yes. Those who avoid animal products for health reasons, not ethics, are not vegan but strict-vegetarians. See the difference?

That said, I'm a vegan because of ethics, but I also think it's much healthier.

[lisalou]

Originally Posted by whateverdidiwants

The only supplement a vegan needs is B12.

I'm pretty sure what the vegan you knew was trying to say was, being a vegan is about ethics first and foremost, yes. Those who avoid animal products for health reasons, not ethics, are not vegan but strict-vegetarians. See the difference?

That said, I'm a vegan because of ethics, but I also think it's much healthier.

I didn't know that. So if you don't eat butter for health reasons (along with other animal products) you're a strict veg but if you don't eat butter (along with other animal products) for ethics you're a vegan?

Learn something everyday. Thanks!

[whateverdidiwants]

Yep, exactly.

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by ”Gale Force”

You're on you daily walk past a school. It is on fire and there are ten children trapped inside. You see no other adults and there is no other assistance in sight. You know from the news story last that there are also ten pregnant rats in the school as part of an science experiment the children are conducting. Each rat is in a cage and is carrying quintuplets. You know from your fire rescue training that you have time to save ten units -- children and rats are each a unit. You can save any combination of ten units. None of the twenty units can help the other units. Anyone or anything to be saved will be saved by you. You can hope for assistance for the remaining ten units, but it is not guaranteed. Which units do you save first? Rats? Children? Some combination of the two?

I have always been frustrated (and, frankly, baffled) by how often scenarios like this come up when discussing the ethical treatment of animals.

I just don’t find arguing about these hypotheticals useful—perhaps because to be “animal rights” (or, as I prefer it, “animal protection”) isn’t about abstractions, theories, and “what-ifs.” It’s about the decisions I can make in my everyday life that help reduce suffering. (In fact, this is what most “animal rights” people I know are concerned with.)

I am not often faced with burning buildings full of children and rats that only I can save. However, I am faced with making decisions every day about what I eat, what I wear, and what industries and practices I support with my purchases.

I can choose not to eat animal products, or to eat fewer animal products, or only certain kinds of animal products that I believe cause less suffering (ie, eating mussels rather than veal). I can choose not to buy products made with leather or fur or wool, or to only buy those products second-hand. I can choose not to take my child to zoos or to circuses that use animals. I can take responsibility for mitigating or preventing conflicts with wild animals in my community.

For me, the wonderful thing about animal activism is that each and every day I can make a real difference. Anybody can! And it’s usually not that difficult.

So to me, “animal rights” is a living, breathing practical ethic—not an abstract debate.

But, for those who enjoy dissecting [sic] the “child or rat” hypothetical, I’ll share some other responses to a similar question (from the staggeringly comprehensive Animal Rights FAQ at animal-rights.com):

#20 A house is on fire and a dog and a baby are inside. Which do you
save first?
-----------------------

The one I choose to save first tells us nothing about the ethical
decisions we face. I might decide to save my child before I saved yours,
but this certainly does not mean that I should be able to experiment on
your child, or exploit your child in some other way. We are not in an
emergency situation like a fire anyway. In everyday life, we can choose to
act in ways that protect the rights of both dogs and babies.
LK

Like anyone else in this situation, I would probably save the one to
which I am emotionally more attached. Most likely it would be the child.
Someone might prefer to save his own beloved dog before saving the baby
of a stranger. However, as LK states above, this tells us nothing about
any ethical principles.
DVH

[Gale Force]

kaydee,

My analogy only exists on this thread because GiggleBird wanted to point out to us that the logical extension of our eating practices is canabolism. She was trying to understand our viewpoint. She expressed her viewpoint about "sameness" which led to my analogy. The logical conclusion of what I understood to be her view was that she would choose ten pregnant rats over ten children. And based on her response, it turns out that none of us are willing to go to the logical extreme of someone else's characterization of our value system. Say that ten times fast.

Amanda

[OceanMomma]

I think the rabbit anology is not a good one as rabbit is not very nice tasting & is generally seen ( in the cities ) as a pet. Kind of akin to being offered the choice of cat or rice & beans. btw I have met someone who knocks off his culls with a sledgehammer.

As to an OP asking me about the diffs I see in my vege vs my tf kids. My vege dd is 21 now so I have had time to see long term. My tf kids are only nearly 6 & 3. My 6yr old dd was vegan for the first almost 3 years. There is a diff even between her bone structure & my 3 yr olds who has always done stuff like drunk CLO neat & asked for more! The main diffs are facial bone structure, health ( vege dd was nowhere near as healthy as tf dds), & mental energy - would that be the best word? My big dd suffers from depression & has for years which is something alot of the ex-veg*ns in the TF forums talk about.

[newcastlemama]

Originally Posted by captain optimism

I am not sure that either vegans or pro-meatists (pro-omnivores???) have succeeded in proving (at least, to me) that they have a superior nutritional program. I don't buy a lot of the evidence I get from the WAPF people. Their research is old, I'm very suspicious of Price's main premises, and it weirds me out that nearly every other nutritional advocate is opposed to their conclusions. I just find it suspicious.

I don't see why one group's set of research premises is supposed to be so much stronger than another's. I look at accounts of longitudinal studies, like the Framingham Heart Study, the Harvard Nurses Study, or the China Study. Researchers all seem to take away different conclusions about dietary recommendations from these. Is it really that nuts have a protective effect (for example) or that the people who ate nuts also ate a diet that was overall high in fiber and low in fat? Or high in fat but low in fried food? Or high in everything but a lot of exercise?

The AAP/ACOG (and most people in USA) thinks homebirth and co-spleeping are unsafe does that mean they are?Traditonal peoples sleep with, extended BF, homebirth. I do think their is merit in looking at what people all over the world have always done for clues on the most natrual way to live and then combine that with with advantages of modern living

I was a strict veg for health reasons, until my health started going downhill quickly. This led me to research A LOT about omni-diets and animal products. I had avoided red meat since the age of 12 so my old ideas about meat had to die hard.

The issue with studies is that all studies inherintly biased because the researchers have their own set of preconcieved ideas about what they are going to find. Also, just that they are choosing to study something and not something else, is an unavoidable bias. So they go to gather the data and it the results do not match their hypothesis. There are ways to maninpulate research (mostly by removing something like certain subjects or variables) and suddenly the curve is heading in the direction you want! Research is also funded by $$$. So if you want to keep getting cash you must come to concluions that the people who fund you want.

This is why I think it is important for people to keep looking deeper into the studies themselves with an open mind. I remember researching variables for marital satisfaction and was disappointed that marital happiness decreased with the birth of each child. I did not want those results for a few reasons, but noone cares about my research papers and I think it is wrong to manipulate variables anyway. I can almost guarnatee that when a study done by low-fat advocates finds that butter eaters can still live to a 100 there is a lot of disapointment and frustration. Especially if it was funded by Snackwells low-fat cookies!

Also, the majority of people in USA are not eating the type of animal products that WAPF reccomends. We were never meant to eat hormone laden gigantic chicken breasts. I am not suprised that researchers can find a correlation between that and breast cancer.
I also came to a realization on a spiritual level that if God provided meat/milk/eggs as food how can it be bad for you? I also don't understand that if you had to supplement a veg diet, then how could it be ideal for human beings?

I have seen PETA videos and pamplets and they are horrifying. I try to avoid factory meat for several reasons--health, environment, maltreatment (of the farm workers and animals)..

Sorry so long winded,
Jen

[newcastlemama]

Originally Posted by OceanMomma

My big dd suffers from depression & has for years which is something alot of the ex-veg*ns in the TF forums talk about.

:

[HerthElde]

Originally Posted by pixiexto

This is a pretty bold statement to make from someone who is speaking on behalf of Health Canada, isn't it?

Umm, no? That's pretty much exactly what I'd expect from a run of the mill nutritionist. I just happen to disagree.

[Gale Force]

So what else should we discuss while xenabyte is out with her baby?

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by Gale Force

kaydee,

My analogy only exists on this thread because GiggleBird wanted to point out to us that the logical extension of our eating practices is canabolism. She was trying to understand our viewpoint. She expressed her viewpoint about "sameness" which led to my analogy. The logical conclusion of what I understood to be her view was that she would choose ten pregnant rats over ten children. And based on her response, it turns out that none of us are willing to go to the logical extreme of someone else's characterization of our value system. Say that ten times fast.

Amanda

But this analogy (or some variation of it) almost ALWAYS comes up when the topic of animal rights/veg*nism are discussed. It arose here, as well, so I responded to it in what I thought was a measured and thoughtful way (at least that was my intent). I didn’t attack you personally or make an aggressive post or make some sort of distorted claim about omni philosophy, so I don’t know why you felt the need to write “Say that ten times fast.” That seemed unnecessarily ugly to me. 

[newcastlemama]

Originally Posted by Gale Force

So what else should we discuss while xenabyte is out with her baby?

[Gale Force]

Originally Posted by kaydee

so I don’t know why you felt the need to write “Say that ten times fast.” That seemed unnecessarily ugly to me. 

I'm sorry. "Say that ten times fast" was me laughing at myself for what I hope to be the most convoluted sentence I've ever written. Look at that sentence. And then try to say it at all, much less ten times fast.

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by Gale Force

I'm sorry. "Say that ten times fast" was me laughing at myself for what I hope to be the most convoluted sentence I've ever written. Look at that sentence. And then try to say it at all, much less ten times fast.

D'oh! I took offense where none was intended or given! Sorry!

[Gale Force]

And to add insult to injury, my mom would like to report that I've written much worse sentences than that. : She read the first draft of the book and said "cut every sentence in two or three."

[pampered_mom]

Am I the only one whose response is to the whole rabit "ethics" question - "Go ahead and do whatever you want to do with the rabbit you crazy person. I'm going in the house to call the cops and have dinner?" :

[christacular]

i think it's entirely understandable for people to become defensive and upset when being told the food they eat is hurting them, their children, animals, or the earth in general. people also have an emotional connection to their food - we associate the foods we eat with so many other "charged" things in our lives. it's no wonder we get upset to think that perhaps this thing that is ultimately within our control to change is hurting us.

what bothers me more about these conversations is that i, personally, have been in these debates so frequently over the last ten years, i rarely feel that i have an emotional stake in them any longer. i've done my research, i've seen the relatively long-term results of my choices, and also believe i'm in a good position to answer questions about it; yet no matter how matter-of-factly i try to talk about the issues involved in veganism with someone who is choosing to consume meat, i'm told i'm "judging" them or being rude. it's frustrating to try and stick to facts and phrase things like, "i believe..." "i feel..." and still be told i'm one of those snarky, angry vegans who won't be happy until everyone around her is converted and repentant for their meat-eating ways. that's not how i feel at all, and i certainly never want to come across that way.