| | "If you're trying to convince us, then you need to demonstrate that you understand ............. before presuming to criticize it."
Does this quote sound familiar to any of you? Please insert the word vegetarian.
As a vegan of 15 years and a vegetarian of 17 years, I believe I can agree that Objectivism has little if any compatibility with the animal liberation ethic. However, this thread began with misconception, and it has garnered reactionary misconception. I'm here moreso to address the latter.
William Dwyer wrote:
"As for ethical vegetarianism, there's a good book that refutes most of the claims of the animal rights activities like PeTA. It's called Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights by Kathleen Marquardt, with Herbert M. Levine and Mark La Rochelle. "
PETA is not the philosophical cornerstone of animal rights/liberation/welfare. PETA's goal is public awareness, and their means are maligned by many vegetarians and vegans. Many see them as counterproductive. The book you refer to is not particularly impressive. If one wants to refute animal liberation, it seems they would deal with the foundational literature, be it the utilitarian considerations of Peter Singer, or the deontological considerations of Tom Regan. "Animal Scam" prefers red herrings and fallacious arguments.
William Dwyer wrote:
"I think there are some health benefits to eating animal protein, like fish. The DHA found in fish, and certain amino acids, like carnosine, carnitine and taurine, found only in animal protein have been shown to be important nutritionally. Meat also contains creatine, which is important for muscular strength and for brain function, as well as B12. Vegetarians tend to be deficient in these nutrients, especially B12, which is also vital for brain function."
1. Please note the research that exclaims this tendency towards deficiency.
2. Please note the research that demonstrates nutritional value and exclusive creation of each of these items.
William Dwyer wrote:
"Animals slaughter other animals for food, because they need to for their own survival. Human beings can survive without eating animal products, but they survive better if they eat some animal protein, unless they're very careful about taking supplements, and who knows if there aren't other important nutrients found only in meat that have yet to be isolated. We become strict vegetarians at our peril."
1. I take no supplements. I am in a state of optimum health, with no deficiencies to my knowledge. Many world-class athletes are vegan. I find your statements dubious.
2. Who knows if there aren't "other" important nutrients found only in meat...how speculative is that statement? What does it substantiate?
A recent study demonstrates that the vegan diet reverses diabetes symptoms, and is significantly more effective that the ADA diet. The stipulations of such research are as follows.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060727/us_nm/diet_dc
"Of course, the problem today is not that we're strict vegetarians; it's that we're eating far too much meat, and it's much fattier meat than our ancestors consumed from hunting in the wild. The human body is adapted for small amounts of lean mean and fish, on which it does very well; it is not adapted for anything close to the standard American diet."
Now this I can at least generally agree with you on. I'd much prefer living in world where the diversity of vegan/vegetarian/omnivorous diets was conducted outside of the INEFFICIENCY and health-detrimental practices of factory farming. Many family farmers/ranchers/hunters are fighting a parallel battle as the animal liberationists.
Lastly, William, I chose you to "pick on" because you were one of the most thoughtful responses....even if I disagree with many points. This thread was generally doomed at its outset. I hope that I either provide some clarification, or at least some enlightening discussion, coming from a perspective highly underrepresented here.
|
|
