The Veggie Debate

<p>
[quote]
As for the morality argument, it depends on what culture you ask. If morality is based around religion, then many religions are completely anthropocentric in nature and find that killing animals is normal and a healthy way of life. Others, such as many native american tribes are content with killing animals but only if we use every part of the animal. Others wont kill certain animals(ie. pigs) not because they respect them but because they are seen as dirty animals that carry disease. The flaw in your logic is just because your moral thinking sees the animal as being your equal, doesnt mean most of society agrees with you. Again if this movement was to work you would need to change peoples empirical morality which is too big of a battle to win.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The morality that I was discussing was for your statement on "beating and giving them disgusting food." Native american tribes may be content in killing an animal for usage etc, but I doubt that they would agree with beating them and giving them disgusting food, although that is again, an assumption. I fail to see how caging animals and forcing them to provide us food is is anyway a healthy way of life. Hunting for consumption however would be different. If we are considering hunting as a way to kill an animal for food, then I would agree that it is incorrect to believe that the society as a whole would agree with me. I guess discussing hunting Vs. "caging/beating" is diverging from the vegan topic in the first place, however.</p>

<p>The equality aspect for animals is not to go so far as to "wine and dine," with them necessarily. Perhaps terming it "equality" might have been excessive, but I don't see anything wrong with giving animals a certain amount of respect in that they allow omnivores such as ourselves and carnivores to survive. If we could provide the excuse for our mistreatment with the fact that they are going to die in the first place, how does that then apply itself to mentally disabled human beings, or even perfect healthy ones for that matter? If a human is in a condition where they are unable to think for themselves at all, and they are mistreated, they will retaliate the pain or discomfort. But because we don't know if they are or are not expecting that, does that then give us valid reasons to continue such a treatment? I'm not advocating 100% animal equality, but we shouldn't rob them of respect just because we assume that they don't expect any.</p>

<p>Sourapplezz brings up a good point. If we're going to rob someone of their interests just because they can't tell us they're feeling pain, we're going to leave out a lot more than animals. There are plenty of humans out there without the facilities to tell us that they're suffering. But no one would deny that they feel pain. And sure, we can't say for certain that animals do, but I also can't say for certain that you feel pain either, Ryan. I could reasonably assume that you do based on how you react to pain-inducing situations. The same is true for animals. </p>

<p>Well, folks, I'm off to work. Keep it civil while I'm gone:)</p>

<p>Im indian too and I was vege when I came here </p>

<p>now im spoiled MUAHHHAHA YOU CAN SEE MY NIPPLE HAIR (sikee) </p>

<p>yea I ate everything here in US, chicken, tuna, beef, YES BEEF SO SHUT THE FFFFRONT DOOR</p>

<p>lykos, we do not need meat???
Well this is what I want you to do:
1) Eat your vegetarian foods as normal
2) Throw away your vitamins
What I will do:
1) Eat my yummy meat
2) Watch you develop health problems due to lack of omega acids and vitamin B-12</p>

<p>We do not need meat? That is a bunch of BS and you know it</p>

<p>As for the morality: It does not alter the natural fate of the animals whatsoever! If the cows, pigs, chickens were running around in the wild they would be killed by wolves and other predatory animals. Simple as that and as I said before the way that these predators kill their prey is frankly a lot worse than how humans kill them
And now I will quote the great maddox:
"What <strong><em>es me off so much about this phrase is the sheer narrow-mindedness of these stuck up vegetarian *</em></strong><strong><em>s. You think you're saving the world by eating a tofu-burger and sticking to a diet of grains and berries? Well here's something that not many vegetarians know (or care to acknowledge): every year millions of animals are killed by wheat and soy bean combines during harvesting season (source). Oh yeah, go on and on for hours about how all of us meat eaters are going to hell for having a steak, but conveniently ignore the fact that each year millions of mice, rabbits, snakes, skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers and rats are ruthlessly murdered as a direct result of YOUR dieting habits. What's that? I'm sorry, I don't hear any more elitist banter from you pompous *</em></strong><em>. Could it be because your *</em>* has been RUINED? </p>

<p>That's right: the gloves have come off. The vegetarian response to this embarrassing fact is "well, at least we're not killing intentionally." So let me get this straight; not only are animals ruthlessly being murdered as a direct result of your diet, but you're not even using the meat of the animals YOU kill? At least we're eating the animals we kill (and although we also contribute to the slaughter of animals during grain harvesting, keep in mind that we're not the ones with a moral qualm about it), not just leaving them to rot in a field somewhere. That makes you just as morally repugnant than any meat-eater any day. Not only that, but you're killing free-roaming animals, not animals that were raised for feed. Their bodies get mangled in the combine's machinery, bones crushed, and you have the audacity to point fingers at the meat industry for humanely punching a spike through a cow's neck? If you think that tofu burgers come at no cost to animals or the environment, guess again. </p>

<p>To even suggest that your meal is some how "guiltless" is absurd. The defense "at least we're not killing intentionally" is ******** anyway. How is it not intentional if you KNOW that millions of animals die every year in combines during harvest? You expect me to believe that you somehow unintentionally pay money to buy products that support farmers that use combines to harvest their fields? Even if it was somehow unintentional, so what? That suddenly makes you innocent? I guess we should let drunk drivers off the hook too since they don't kill intentionally either, right? There's no way out of this one. The only option left for you dip****s is to buy some land, plant and pick your own crops. Impractical? Yeah, well, so is your stupid diet. </p>

<p>Even if combines aren't used to harvest your food, you think that buying fruits and vegetables (organic or otherwise) is any better? How do you think they get rid of bugs that eat crops in large fields? You think they just put up signs and ask parasites to politely go somewhere else? Actually, I wouldn't put that suggestion past you hippies. One of the methods they use to get rid of pests is to introduce a high level of predators for each particular prey, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on the natural balance of predator/prey populations--causing who knows what kind of damage to the environment. Oops, did I just expose you moral-elitists for being frauds? Damndest thing. </p>

<p>A number of people have pointed out that the amount of grain grown to feed animals for slaughter every year is greater than the amount of grain grown for humans. So I guess the amount of grain grown for human consumption suddenly becomes negligible and we can conveniently ignore the fact that animals are still ruthlessly murdered either way because of your diet, right? Not to mention that the majority of grain grown for livestock is tough as rocks, coarse, and so low-grade that it's only fit for animal consumption in the first place. Spare me the "you could feed 500 people with the grain used to feed one cow" line of ****; it's not the same grain. Then there are the people who jump on the bandwagon with "you could plant billions of potatoes on the land used for cows"--good point, except for the fact that not every plot of land is equally fertile; you think farmers always have a choice on what they do with their land? Also, many vegetarians don't know (or care to acknowledge) that in many parts of the United States they have "control hunts" in which hunting permits are passed out whenever there is a pest problem (the pest here is deer, elk and antelope) that threatens wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops; this happens several times per year. Then some of you throw out claims that "we are trying to limit the suffering." How about you limit MY suffering and shut the hell up about your stupid diet for a change; nobody cares. Even if the number of animals that die in combine deaths every year isn't in the millions, even if it's just one, are you suggesting that the life of one baby rabbit isn't worth saving? Are you placing a value on life? Enjoy your tofu, murderers."</p>

<p>or you could of just said</p>

<p>VEGETARIANS ARE KILLING THE RAINFOREST</p>

<p>Yea i'm a vegetarian. I just wanted to make a quick comment. At least the animals killed during grain harvesting are not exterminated intentionally. Comparing the deliberate growth and slaughter of animals in mass production to plant gathering is quite ignorant, in my opinion.</p>

<p>OK, animals are killed, yes. But being a vegetarian doesn't waste it - there are always people who do buy it. The thing about being a vegetarian is that it decreases the demand for meat, thus decreasing the amount of meat supplied - honestly, it's simple fact of economics and business. Thus, that argument is void.</p>

<p>Also, I think you, hopkinslax, are being quite rude. I have not personally attacked you. I have not said YOU ARE WRONG, I AM RIGHT. I have not said you are an idiot, nor am I forcing you to become a vegetarian. This thread was for debating, thus I am bringing up points to add to a pro-vegetarian argument, but I have not once said that eating meat is wrong. It's simply not for me. </p>

<p>Also, animals feel no pain? Honestly, has anyone looked into the eyes of an animal in a slaughterhouse? This story is different, but essentially the same. My family has a tendency of rescuing abused/neglected dogs - they tend to find us. The dog I currently have was abused, neglected, and left to die in a house that his owner abandoned. When he first found me (the new owners of the house moved in and found him locked in a closet and let him loose), he would not look at anyone, was scared to make any noise whatsoever, etc. Whenever you petted him, he acted like it was the last bit of love he'd ever get. Now, four years later, he's healthy and knows he has people that will take care of him and his eyes have completely changed. I know people who save horses for slaughterhouses - skinny, malnurished, darkened eyes - but if it's not too late, a little bit of love and food goes a long way - they too perk up and don't have the constant scared look in their eye. </p>

<p>Really, I don't think we've given animals enough credit. They do feel and think - they might not be able to build bridges and run countries, but they have such a high emotional level. So...honestly, the whole "they feel no pain" argument and such - I don't agree with. Some animals, I agree, will look relieved to be killed because their life is so terrible, but those that are saved...it's amazing the change. That's all I'm saying, I guess.</p>

<p>Why I am being rude? Is it because I don't agree with your ways?</p>

<p>
[quote]
lykos, we do not need meat???
Well this is what I want you to do:
1) Eat your vegetarian foods as normal
2) Throw away your vitamins
What I will do:
1) Eat my yummy meat
2) Watch you develop health problems due to lack of omega acids and vitamin B-12

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why the "Throw away your vitamins?" Vegetarians stay away from meat, not dietry supplements. </p>

<p>
[quote]
We do not need meat? That is a bunch of BS and you know it

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again I repeat, we do not require meat to survive. Omega acids can come from other sources, (avocadoes for example) and there are vitamins you can take. The only odd thing here is your statement because you haven't even proved how meat is really a requirement for human survival, with the argument being that there are other sources of the same nutrients out there. Stop calling things BS when you haven't even countered them properly.</p>

<p>You persistently state that animals will be 100% eaten no matter what by their predators. So are you stating that there is no way on earth that some of them will survive and die of old age? Where are you getting this? And even more, you keep saying humans kill the animals a lot less cruely then their predators. Can you really confirm this? Those slaughter houses are not very kind in the way they kill them. Although their death might be instant (we can never know for sure how other slaughter houses do their killing), the way they are treated up to that point, from caging them off from freedom to feeding engineered feed are all worse. The period they "suffer" from "cruelty" is extended, in other words.</p>

<p>If you're so intent on focusing on the fact that vegetale harvesting kills animals, then I have to ask you a question. Do you even know the numbers yourself? How many are killed by INTENTIONAL killing, as in producers raised the animals KNOWING that they are going to be killed. "They're going to die anyways, why does it matter?" --is the attitude that many others have pointed out in the argument. I wonder: if these people are so set on knowing that the animals will die eventually, how will they TREAT these caged animals up to the slaughtering moment? </p>

<p>That, in comparison to those animals who are UNINTENTIONALLY killed, because harvestors do not start their tractors thinking, "Hmm, forget about the vegetables, I think I'll go run over some rabbits." </p>

<p>It's logical that the number of animals who are forced a lifestyle being grown for food, possibly mistreated, and killed, outnumber those who are accidentally caught in the way of a harvest machine. THAT'S where the term "unintentional killing," comes from, NOT from the fact that we are aware some animals may get in the way by accident. </p>

<p>Why you were being rude:</p>

<p>You, with absolutely no reason or being provoked, began attacking vegetarians along with that obscene source. No one here called you a "damn meat-eater," or used swear words to condemn your actions. </p>

<p>Really. You're embarrasing yourself.</p>

<p>You're being rude by refusing to open your mind to other ideas and telling vegetarians that we are killing, we are the enemy, and you can't wait for us to die.</p>

<p>My source is only as biased as your PETA chart so don't scowl at me for that.</p>

<p>The don't take the vitamin thing is to prove that you need meat in your everday life. It is because of vitamins and vitamins alone that vegetarians are able to survive. Without them vegetarians would be cripples.
As for the protein thing, you are wrong...
"all legumes, are deficient in cysteine and methionine, vital sulphur-containing amino acids" So your protein source is missing two amino acids.</p>

<p>And here is a website created by a doctor debunking all the vegetarian myths...
<a href="http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And by the way, it is MILLIONS of animals that are being killed by combines. Do you want to know why he brought that up? Its because those animals are being wasted! While meat eaters eat the animals we kill, vegetarians first don't recognize that they kill animals and secondly waste them!</p>

<p>And if you claim that I am being rude, I believe you are being rude for saying what I am doing is morally wrong even though it is not. (Lynkos, you are being pretty hypocritical because you are refusing to look at non-biased evidence... All the stuff for vegetarianism is done by animal rights organizations whereas the argument against vegetarianism is done by professional doctors. Additionally you said I am not opening up my mind; well neither are you!!! You are only saying that you are right.) And no, I did not ever say I can't wait for you to die. A friend of mine is a vegetarian. We just don't bring up the topic because we both know that each of us are passionate about our sides.</p>

<p>And no, I am not embarrasing myself</p>

<p>Another long source:
<a href="http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html#link27%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html#link27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>the veggie debate.. pretty good</p>

<p>Ok, so you agree that vitamins can replace the B-12 you get from meat. So you've just contradicted yourself on your statement of "Humans NEED meat." What point do you make by saying that without vitamins, vegetarians are cripples? Certainly not that we NEED meat, because vitamins are OUT THERE. You've still made no point.</p>

<p>Even your source states:</p>

<p>"Vegans who do not supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anaemia"</p>

<p>Read: vegans WHO DO NOT. As in, there IS another alternative to vitamin B-12, therefore meat is not NEEDED.</p>

<p>As for the omega acids:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.vegsoc.org/info/omega3.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.vegsoc.org/info/omega3.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Even your source states that flax seed oil is a good source of omega-3, as I quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Although very small amounts of omega 3 linolenic acid are found in whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables, it is principally found in animal foods (especially fish and eggs), as well as flax seed oil.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If MILLIONS of animals are being killed through harvesting vegetables, how many are killed by the producers of animals for feed, hmm? And yes, those animals are being wasted because they are not eaten. But that does not meat they are not beneficial to the earth as a WHOLE. The reason we eat meat in the first place is for energy. Decomposition processes return the carcass to the soil, feed bacteria, and replenish carbons to the soil. Really, they are not being completely wasted in a sense. Who are you to decide that the human consumption is more important than the consumption of those carbon sources of plants, the producers of the food chain? What about feeding decomposers? I might be being a bit exaggerative on the "which is more important to feed, humans or bacteria/plants" argument, but they are not being * wasted *. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There's no way out of this one. The only option left for you dips is to buy some land, plant and pick your own crops. Impractical? Yeah, well, so is your stupid diet.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Someone would have to pretty dense to consider that not rude. Calling your action morally incorrect can be argued with better etiquette. Swear words were completely uncessary, and therefore RUDE.</p>

<p>I did not say that, it was just from a website, so therefore you consider Maddox rude (which by the way, a lot of people do).
Do you not understand this??? Humans do NEED MEAT!!! I am arguing that if it weren't for vitamins, vegetarians would be a bunch of cripples. It is because of them and solely because of them that vegetarians are able to keep their diet.
And if you read the article on the bottom, you would find that being a vegetarian is extremely unhealthy...</p>

<p>Wow. I think I'm repeating myself over and over.</p>

<p>Humans would need meat IF and ONLY IF vitamins were not available. So how does your point stand for the present, modern, contemporary time that is NOW?</p>

<p>Yes, the writer is rude. But you're also rude for posting that for others to read. You could have just as easily pulled the point he's making and posted with that.</p>

<p>I understand the whole thing with "being vegetarian is unhealthy." But are there not other scientists / doctors who would disagree? It just makes sense. If there were actual studies of how being a vegetarian can * guarantee * such diseases, I don't see who would become a vegatarian. But eating meat has its own share of negatives:</p>

<p>The two main concerns relating to high red meat intakes are:</p>

<h1>High saturated-fat intake, leading to increased levels of blood cholesterol, and an increased risk of coronary heart disease and strokes</h1>

<h1>A possible increased cancer risk, especially colon cancer.</h1>

<p>These risks may be a direct effect of the meat itself, but may possibly be due to the filling effect of the meat, and so the relatively poor intake of fruit, vegetables, pulses and grains in big meat eaters. There is only so much room on your plate and in your stomach, and a meat-rich meal doesn't leave much scope for plant-based foods. It has been suggested that meat should be 'used as a condiment', to add flavour and interest to a plant-food diet.</p>

<p>Other detrimental effects of a diet with a high meat content include:</p>

<h1>Low fibre intake</h1>

<h1>Higher salt intake, particularly with products such as bacon, sausages, burgers and processed meats. Cold meats such as ham and salamis have a high salt content.</h1>

<p>Also, no one with a valid argument so far has stated anything about a 100% veggie diet being better than an omnivorous one. But since you brought it up, I have to say that it would be pretty dumb to base our choices on having "risks" of such and such. We take risks everyday; no one sits inside crouched up because they could get up, slip, fall, and die. There's always a risk of that happenening. Everytime you eat meat, you RISK of consuming bacteria such as taenia saginata/solium and having reproducing tapeworms crowding your intestines. You RISK getting sick from bad meat. But still, that's not stopping anyone from consuming it.</p>

<p>The whole unhealthy stuff can apply to fast foods just as well. HAMburgers, Fried CHICKEN, etc. TONS of health related concerns, yet thousands upon millions consume it DAILY. What about them?</p>

<p>I'm back.</p>

<p>hopkinslax, I don't want to argue with you anymore. It's just moving in circles now, and frankly getting nowhere. You know, I don't mind debating veganism, but I've never understood why MY dietary choice makes other people so angry. I'm doing something that doesn't harm you at all, and in fact doesn't affect you at all either. You can accuse me of caring about the welfare of humans less just because i care about the welfare of animals, but that's simply not true. I'm just trying to live my life in the way I feel is least destructive. I fail to see what the problem is with that.</p>

<p>From an actual doctor, not PETA (The claims he is refering to is your cancer thing...
"Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for thousands of years. Further, there are several native peoples around the world (the Innu, Masai, Swiss, Greeks, etc.) whose traditional diets are very rich in animal products, but do not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (18). This shows that other factors besides animal foods are at work in these diseases. </p>

<p>Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of heart disease, cancer and bone loss, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing (19). For example, the studies that supposedly proved that meat consumption among the Innuit caused high rates of osteoporosis, failed to note other dietary factors that contributed to bone loss (and to the other chronic diseases listed in myth #5). Things such as refined sugar consumption, alcoholism and a junk food consumption equalled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein powders (20). </p>

<p>Certainly, when protein is consumed in such an unnatural fashion, separated from the fat-soluble nutrients required for its absorption and assimilation, it will lead to problems. Because of this, the current use of fat-free protein powders as "food supplements", and low-fat or non-fat dairy products should be avoided. Trimming off visible fat from meats and removing duck and chicken skin before eating should also be discouraged. </p>

<p>Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the risk for heart disease (21), their authors actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian), H. A. Kahn concluded, "Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example, that men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby shortening their lives" (21). A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (21). Despite these startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite and urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets. </p>

<p>Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Statistician Dr. Russel Smith concluded, "In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives." When all of the data are taken into account, the actual differences of heart disease between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in these studies was less than 1%: hardly a significant amount (22). </p>

<p>It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is associated with a lower risk for heart disease and cancer (but see the last paragraph in this section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat meat, they also do not smoke, drink alcohol, or drink coffee or tea, all of which may be factors in promoting cancer and heart disease (23).
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies. Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, declared a diet devoid of animal products as "not of God." As with the Adventists, Mormons avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average (24). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (25). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat consumption by itself does not correlate with cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney disease, or obesity (26). Obviously, other factors are at work. </p>

<p>It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of California Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian) showed that, while they did have lower rates of some cancers (e.g., breast), they had significantly higher rates of several others (brain, skin, uterine, cervical and ovarian)! (27)"
"Despite claims that primitive societies are/were largely vegetarian, diets of native peoples the world over are rich in saturated fats and animal foods (28) and, as noted above, heart disease and cancer are primarily modern diseases. Saturated fat consumption, therefore, cannot logically cause these diseases. As with the poorly done studies of the Inuit, modern-day researchers fail to take into account other dietary factors of people who have heart disease and cancer. As a result, the harmful effects of eating refined sugar, nutrient-poor "foods," trans-fats (found in margarine and hydrogenated oils) and vegetable oils get mixed up with animal fat consumption. It is commonly believed that saturated fats and cholesterol "clog arteries", but such ideas have been shown to be false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, George Mann, John Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig and others (29). On the contrary, studies have shown that arterial plaque is primarily composed of UNsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones, and not the saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut (30). </p>

<p>Trans-fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative factors in atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and other assorted diseases (31). </p>

<p>A recent study of thousands of Swedish women showed no correlation between saturated fat consumption and increased risk for breast cancer. However, the study did show a strong link between vegetable oil intake and higher breast cancer rates (32). </p>

<p>The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat intake cause heart disease and ill health. Involving about 6,000 people, the study compared two groups over several years at five-year intervals. One group consumed little cholesterol and saturated fat, while the other consumed high amounts. Surprisingly, Dr William Castelli, the study's director, is quoted in the Archives of Internal Medicine (July 1992) as saying: </p>

<p>In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active. </p>

<p>It is true that the study did show that those who weighed more and had higher serum cholesterol levels were more at risk for heart disease, but weight gain and cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with dietary fat and cholesterol intake. In other words, there was no correlation at all (33). </p>

<p>In a similar vein, the US Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, sponsored by the National Heart and Lung Institute, compared mortality rates and eating habits of 12,000+ men. Those who ate less saturated fat and cholesterol showed a slightly reduced rate of coronary heart disease (CHD), but had an overall mortality rate much higher than the other men in the study (34). </p>

<p>The few studies that indicate a correlation between saturated fat reduction and a lower CHD rate also clearly document a sizeable increase in deaths from cancer, suicide, violence and brain haemorrhage (34). Like the bone density experiments, such things are not told to the public. </p>

<p>Low-fat/cholesterol diets, therefore, are decidedly not healthier for people. Studies have proven over and over that such diets are associated with depression, cancer, psychological problems, fatigue, violence and suicide (35). </p>

<p>Children on low-fat diets suffer from growth problems, failure to thrive, and learning disabilities (36). Despite this, sources from Dr. Benjamin Spock to the American Heart Association recommend low-fat diets for children! One can only lament the fate of those unfortunate youngsters who will be raised by unknowing parents taken in by such misinformation. </p>

<p>There are many health benefits to saturated fats, depending on the fat in question. Coconut oil, for example, is rich in lauric acid, a potent antifungal and antimicrobial substance. Coconut also contains appreciable amounts of caprylic acid, also an effective antifungal (37). Butter from free-range cows is rich in trace minerals, especially selenium, as well as all of the fat-soluble vitamins and beneficial fatty acids that protect against cancer and fungal infections (38). </p>

<p>In general, however, saturated fats provide a good energy source for the vital organs, protect arteries against damage by the atherogenic lipoprotein (a), are rich in fat-soluble vitamins, help raise HDL levels in the blood, and make possible the utilisation of essential fatty acids. They are excellent for cooking, as they are chemically stable and do not break down under heat, unlike polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them from one's diet, then, is ill-advised (39). "</p>

<p>And again I am not rude. I think it is moreso that you are rude for insisting that I am being immoral by eating meat whereas I am not. It is a part of human existance. We were made to eat meat and that is it (And you cannot refute that point, sorry).</p>

<p>And the reason why I am doing this is because of all the lies tossed out by animal rights groups about animal consumption. They are using propoganda to swing the youth (and as seen here it has worked).
I have been getting so worked up because your side just keeps on saying my side is wrong. I am the type of person that gets passionate on my side of the debate. If you can go around saying that it is immoral to eat meat then why isn't it right for me to go around saying that vegetarianism is stupid? Both sides are degrading the other side so why does it matter?</p>

<p>I'm not a PETA fan either, so I guess we can agree on that point, at least. I view them as the good-intentioned-but-kind-of-off group that makes people think veggies everywhere are a little crazy. The truth is, plenty of us are logical, level headed, and intelligent people. But even assuming a lot of kids are being swayed by vegetarian propaganda, you have to admit there are worse fads kids could be a part of. At the very least, being vegetarian promotes a little awareness of our place in the world, which is never a bad thing for young people.</p>

<h2>Yeah, I agree with vegengirl--this argument is really getting nowhere. But since you point out your passion in debating, allow me make a rebuttal.</h2>

<p>Once again, you've succeeded at ignoring every question I've asked in my last post. Please read everything I write, if possible.</p>

<p>The whole health issue you post up there is really very useless, even for yourside. If you are suggesting that being vegetaran is stupid (because others have said meat eating is immoral) because of such health factors, then, I ask once again, what about the people who love fast food? Are they then stupid also? It is an omnivorous diet, isn't it? But if its stupid to continue a vegetarian life style because they risk illnesses, it's just as stupid to stop being a vegetarian just because of the risks. You shouldn't alter your lifestyle because there are risks involved. Perhaps if you finished my post, you would have seen my point. </p>

<p>Also, I was not calling meat consumption as a whole immoral. If you read my posts above, my immorality argument focuses on the "beating/mistreatment" of animals. This is a FACT, it HAPPENS. But there are other ways we acquire meat, such as hunting for example. I never resorted such ways as immoral. There are other ways to acquire meat for human consumptions, in contrast to caging them and feeding them nasty feed with artificial chemicals, etc to induce higher productivity. The way that some producers resort to is immoral, because there are perfectly fine ways to cultivate meat. (Free-ranging, etc.)</p>

<p>But you resort to calling vegetarianism as a whole stupid. You're mocking the lifestyle, not the process of harvesting or anything. THAT's the difference.</p>

<p>And I have no reason to refute the fact that humans are made to eat meat. That's not the argument here. But it's NOT a part of human exsitance. You continue to miss this point. MEAT IS NOT A PART OF HUMAN EXISTANCE, or vegetarians wouldn't EXIST.</p>