The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

<dh@.> wrote in message news:np8363pebv92t5mjnpc4v1d9biaqm0frsj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:04:00 GMT, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>[..]
>>
>>>>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>>>>
>>>>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant
>>>>used
>>>>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it
>>>>is
>>>>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>>>>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.
>>>
>>> Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.
>>
>>Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to
>>say
>>unless he says otherwise.
>
> No we don't, especially since it doesn't even apply to the Goobal
> situation.

Yes, you do.

> . . .
>>what makes us all Goos.
>
> What makes a VERY FEW of you goos, is your lipstick all over the
> Goober's
> ass. People who don't kiss up to Goo are NOT gooboys like you. DUH! It's
> another one of those things that even you--as challenged as you
> are--should
> be able to comprehend.

The Goos are a group of people who see through your pathetic little charade
and regularly take the time to remind you of that fact. You comprehend
nothing that we don't.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:dt83639on6c65nh8e6hb85iige8mdp4b29@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>>>> much consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>>>lives".
>>>
>>> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
>>> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
>>> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
>>
>>Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
>>lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.
>
> So you selfishly continue to insist, without being able to explain
> why.

Why do you keep calling it selfish when you are unable to explain why it's
selfish?

>Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
> the animals gain?

Give me one reason to to consider what the animals gain. Describe one
benefit that would accrue to one animal if I began doing that right now.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
> On 31 May 2007 13:04:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notgenx32.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" <n....TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax.com...
>>>> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>> They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>>>> the livestock exist.
>>>> If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
>>>> then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
>>>> to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
>>>> do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
>>>> "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>>> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
>>> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.
>> Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
>> their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>>
>> Fuckwit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
>> to exist, for moral reasons
>
> That's a fantasy of yours,

No, it is absolutely your position, Fuckwit. That's
what allllllllll this blabber about considering "their
lives", as opposed to the *welfare* of their lives, is
about.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" <n....DeleteThis@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza <notgen....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
>
> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
> >> > > >> > nutritious
> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on
> >> > > it?
>
> >> > Poor you.
>
> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>
> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>
> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.
>

Possibly.

> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>
> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>
> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>
> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
> our particular medical circumstances.

True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
reasonable.

> You are neither qualified nor aware of
> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
> ideology.

No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
different.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 3, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" <n... DeleteThis @home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> >> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
> >> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
> >> disbelieve him.
>
> > If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
> > diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
> > to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
> > resolved while still remaining vegan, because that is the view that is
> > supported by the scientific evidence.
>
> No, that is how a devotee of veganism prefers to interpert the scientific
> evidence. The evidence actually says that the best evidence shows that a
> vegetarian diet is *generally speaking*, capable of providing the necessary
> nutritional requirements for human health, with some additional
> supplementation (B-12). However a legitimate nutritionist would never assert
> that in any given indivdual case a strict vegan diet will always be adequate
> for every person in every state of health.
>

Never suggested they would. My comment still stands.

> > He says a dietitian told him
> > otherwise, all right, well, I have to acknowledge that at least one
> > dietitian with knowledge of his case had that opinion. There was
> > nothing unreasonable about my initial response, given what is known
> > about nutrition.
>
> What YOU know about nutrition Rupert, not what *IS* known. There was nothing
> unreasonable (rude perhaps) given what YOU know about nutrition. Serious
> nutritionists know that there is a LOT that we still do not understand about
> nutrition.

It was reasonable for me to conjecture, what still might very well be
true for all I know, that your health problems could have been
resolved without abandoning veganism. The current state of knowledge
about nutrition supports the view that this will be true in most
cases. It may or may not have been true in your case. There was
nothing unreasonable or rude about what I originally said.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 3, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" <n... DeleteThis @home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180841496.877364.14480@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" <n... DeleteThis @home.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
> >> Canoza <notgen... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
> >> >> > > >> > nutritious
> >> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> >> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive
> >> >> > > on
> >> >> > > it?
>
> >> >> > Poor you.
>
> >> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>
> >> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
> >> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>
> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> >> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.
>
> > Possibly.
>
> Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people are
> perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
> eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then immediately
> rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you are
> heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.
>

I made the conjecture that you could have resolved your health
problems without abandoning veganism. I acknowledged that I did not
know for sure. This was a reasonable conjecture based on what my state
of knowledge about your situation at the time, and what I know about
the scientific consensus. Now that I know that at least one dietitian
had a different view things are different. There is no ideology
involved.

Whatever. This is boring, anyway. Yes, I acknowledge the possibility
that it might have been very difficult to resolve your health problems
without abandoning veganism, as I always did, and I am now less
skeptical about that possibility than before now that I know that at
least one dietitian held that view. All right?

This all started with Ball saying that the fact that I claimed you
were lying (which I didn't) shows that I am influenced by ideological
considerations, which is very amusing and ironic given how often Ball
expresses convictions that people are knowingly lying which are
obviously totally irrational.

You say I'm influenced by ideology. Well, I don't think so, but I'll
strive to watch out for any such tendency in myself and try to
overcome it.

> >> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>
> >> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>
> >> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
> >> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
> >> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>
> >> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
> >> our particular medical circumstances.
>
> > True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
> > never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
> > reasonable.
>
> Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the possibility
> that vegans diets are not always adequate.
>

No, not at all.

>
>
> >> You are neither qualified nor aware of
> >> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
> >> ideology.
>
> > No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
> > made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
> > what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
> > it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
> > strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
> > scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
> > interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
> > am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
> > that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
> > different.
>
> I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me and my
> family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
> lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have dictated.
> These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary our
> diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
> experiences.
>
> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/veg-prob/veg-prob-scen1c.shtml
> When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet, open-mindedness is
> more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
> nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
> underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a transition to
> a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being able to
> transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or worldview
> underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can often be
> very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to comprise a
> literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
> all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may only be
> beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
> understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even when
> one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in some
> sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the beliefs of
> a lifetime, or half a lifetime.

Health problems from eating too much meat are much more common than
health problems from avoidance of animal products. Yes, of course
people become emotionally invested in their diet for one reason or
another, and in the event of diet-related health problems they have to
work out what their priorities are and how they are going to resolve
their problem. Just as if someone finds they think they have reason to
cut down on meat for ethical or health reasons, they have to work out
how to balance this against whatever attachment they have to eating
meat.

This website is presenting a one-sided view of the issue in that it
ignores the fact that for most people vegan diets are nutritionally
adequate and in fact have significant health benefits. It's trying to
say "Thinking of going vegetarian or vegan? Well, be careful, you
might run into health problems" when the reality is that it is much
more likely than not to improve your health in the long run. Every
health professional with whom I have ever spoken about my diet has
said that being vegan is really healthy.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 3, 3:32 pm, "Dutch" <n....TakeThisOut@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180845821.686062.147880@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" <n....TakeThisOut@home.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1180841496.877364.14480@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" <n....TakeThisOut@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
> >> >> Canoza <notgen....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
> >> >> >> > > >> > nutritious
> >> >> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> >> >> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not
> >> >> >> > > thrive
> >> >> >> > > on
> >> >> >> > > it?
>
> >> >> >> > Poor you.
>
> >> >> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>
> >> >> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>
> >> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> >> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> >> >> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of
> >> >> them.
>
> >> > Possibly.
>
> >> Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people are
> >> perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
> >> eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then
> >> immediately
> >> rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you
> >> are
> >> heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.
>
> > I made the conjecture that you could have resolved your health
> > problems without abandoning veganism. I acknowledged that I did not
> > know for sure. This was a reasonable conjecture based on what my state
> > of knowledge about your situation at the time, and what I know about
> > the scientific consensus. Now that I know that at least one dietitian
> > had a different view things are different. There is no ideology
> > involved.
>
> > Whatever. This is boring, anyway. Yes, I acknowledge the possibility
> > that it might have been very difficult to resolve your health problems
> > without abandoning veganism, as I always did, and I am now less
> > skeptical about that possibility than before now that I know that at
> > least one dietitian held that view. All right?
>
> > This all started with Ball saying that the fact that I claimed you
> > were lying (which I didn't) shows that I am influenced by ideological
> > considerations, which is very amusing and ironic given how often Ball
> > expresses convictions that people are knowingly lying which are
> > obviously totally irrational.
>
> > You say I'm influenced by ideology. Well, I don't think so, but I'll
> > strive to watch out for any such tendency in myself and try to
> > overcome it.
>
> Of course it is, if anything I have ever said to you is true, that is it.
>

You're saying of course I'm influenced by ideology, are you? Well, if
it's so undeniable, do you care to argue the view? What exactly is an
ideological belief? In what sense is my belief system different to
yours?

>
>
> >> >> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>
> >> >> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>
> >> >> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
> >> >> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
> >> >> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>
> >> >> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family
> >> >> in
> >> >> our particular medical circumstances.
>
> >> > True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
> >> > never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
> >> > reasonable.
>
> >> Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the
> >> possibility
> >> that vegans diets are not always adequate.
>
> > No, not at all.
>
> >> >> You are neither qualified nor aware of
> >> >> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated
> >> >> by
> >> >> ideology.
>
> >> > No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
> >> > made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
> >> > what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
> >> > it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
> >> > strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
> >> > scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
> >> > interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
> >> > am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
> >> > that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
> >> > different.
>
> >> I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me and
> >> my
> >> family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
> >> lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have
> >> dictated.
> >> These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary our
> >> diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
> >> experiences.
>
> >>http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/veg-prob/veg-prob-scen1c.shtml
> >> When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet, open-mindedness
> >> is
> >> more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
> >> nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
> >> underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a transition
> >> to
> >> a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being able
> >> to
> >> transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or worldview
> >> underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can often
> >> be
> >> very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to comprise
> >> a
> >> literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
> >> all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may only
> >> be
> >> beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
> >> understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even
> >> when
> >> one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in
> >> some
> >> sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the beliefs
> >> of
> >> a lifetime, or half a lifetime.
>
> > Health problems from eating too much meat are much more common than
> > health problems from avoidance of animal products.
>
> Granted, no question, but these profound psychological barriers are no less
> real.
>
> Yes, of course
>

Well, when you say that people becoming emotionally invested in their
identity as vegan, I agree with you, of course, but I think you're
overestimating the extent to which this is likely to cause problems,
and I also think that people who are attached to the typical meat-
eating lifestyle may also have quite a strong attachment to that which
may influence their decisions in ways whose rationality might be
questioned.

> > people become emotionally invested in their diet for one reason or
> > another, and in the event of diet-related health problems they have to
> > work out what their priorities are and how they are going to resolve
> > their problem. Just as if someone finds they think they have reason to
> > cut down on meat for ethical or health reasons, they have to work out
> > how to balance this against whatever attachment they have to eating
> > meat.
>
> Yes, absolutely.
>
> > This website is presenting a one-sided view of the issue in that it
> > ignores the fact that for most people vegan diets are nutritionally
> > adequate and in fact have significant health benefits. It's trying to
> > say "Thinking of going vegetarian or vegan? Well, be careful, you
> > might run into health problems" when the reality is that it is much
> > more likely than not to improve your health in the long run. Every
> > health professional with whom I have ever spoken about my diet has
> > said that being vegan is really healthy.
>
> I think that is true in most cases. The key here being pointed out is to
> avoid allowing oneself to be so emotionally invested in a diet that one is
> blocked from going back by psychological barriers.

Well, one should strive for a situation in which one can make rational
decisions about one's diet based on the facts and one's own personal
priorities. I don't think vegans are more likely to have a problem in
this department than anyone else.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:

[..]

>> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
>> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
>> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
>> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
>> disbelieve him.
>>
>
> If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
> diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
> to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
> resolved while still remaining vegan, because that is the view that is
> supported by the scientific evidence.

No, that is how a devotee of veganism prefers to interpert the scientific
evidence. The evidence actually says that the best evidence shows that a
vegetarian diet is *generally speaking*, capable of providing the necessary
nutritional requirements for human health, with some additional
supplementation (B-12). However a legitimate nutritionist would never assert
that in any given indivdual case a strict vegan diet will always be adequate
for every person in every state of health.

> He says a dietitian told him
> otherwise, all right, well, I have to acknowledge that at least one
> dietitian with knowledge of his case had that opinion. There was
> nothing unreasonable about my initial response, given what is known
> about nutrition.

What YOU know about nutrition Rupert, not what *IS* known. There was nothing
unreasonable (rude perhaps) given what YOU know about nutrition. Serious
nutritionists know that there is a LOT that we still do not understand about
nutrition.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180841496.877364.14480@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" <n....RemoveThis@home.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
>> Canoza <notgen....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
>> >> > > >> > nutritious
>> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>
>> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive
>> >> > > on
>> >> > > it?
>>
>> >> > Poor you.
>>
>> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>>
>> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
>> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>>
>> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
>> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
>> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.
>>
>
> Possibly.

Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people are
perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then immediately
rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you are
heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.

>> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>>
>> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
>> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
>> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>>
>> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
>> our particular medical circumstances.
>
> True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
> never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
> reasonable.

Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the possibility
that vegans diets are not always adequate.

>
>> You are neither qualified nor aware of
>> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
>> ideology.
>
> No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
> made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
> what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
> it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
> strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
> scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
> interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
> am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
> that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
> different.

I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me and my
family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have dictated.
These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary our
diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
experiences.

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/veg-prob/veg-prob-scen1c.shtml
When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet, open-mindedness is
more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a transition to
a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being able to
transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or worldview
underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can often be
very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to comprise a
literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may only be
beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even when
one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in some
sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the beliefs of
a lifetime, or half a lifetime.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180845821.686062.147880@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" <n....DeleteThis@home.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180841496.877364.14480@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" <n....DeleteThis@home.com> wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
>> >> Canoza <notgen....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
>> >> >> > > >> > nutritious
>> >> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>
>> >> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not
>> >> >> > > thrive
>> >> >> > > on
>> >> >> > > it?
>>
>> >> >> > Poor you.
>>
>> >> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>>
>> >> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>>
>> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable
>> >> > of
>> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
>> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> >> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of
>> >> them.
>>
>> > Possibly.
>>
>> Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people are
>> perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
>> eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then
>> immediately
>> rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you
>> are
>> heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.
>>
>
> I made the conjecture that you could have resolved your health
> problems without abandoning veganism. I acknowledged that I did not
> know for sure. This was a reasonable conjecture based on what my state
> of knowledge about your situation at the time, and what I know about
> the scientific consensus. Now that I know that at least one dietitian
> had a different view things are different. There is no ideology
> involved.
>
> Whatever. This is boring, anyway. Yes, I acknowledge the possibility
> that it might have been very difficult to resolve your health problems
> without abandoning veganism, as I always did, and I am now less
> skeptical about that possibility than before now that I know that at
> least one dietitian held that view. All right?
>
> This all started with Ball saying that the fact that I claimed you
> were lying (which I didn't) shows that I am influenced by ideological
> considerations, which is very amusing and ironic given how often Ball
> expresses convictions that people are knowingly lying which are
> obviously totally irrational.
>
> You say I'm influenced by ideology. Well, I don't think so, but I'll
> strive to watch out for any such tendency in myself and try to
> overcome it.

Of course it is, if anything I have ever said to you is true, that is it.


>> >> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>>
>> >> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>> >> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
>> >> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
>> >> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>>
>> >> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family
>> >> in
>> >> our particular medical circumstances.
>>
>> > True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
>> > never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
>> > reasonable.
>>
>> Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the
>> possibility
>> that vegans diets are not always adequate.
>>
>
> No, not at all.
>
>>
>>
>> >> You are neither qualified nor aware of
>> >> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated
>> >> by
>> >> ideology.
>>
>> > No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
>> > made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
>> > what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
>> > it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
>> > strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
>> > scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
>> > interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
>> > am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
>> > that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
>> > different.
>>
>> I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me and
>> my
>> family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
>> lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have
>> dictated.
>> These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary our
>> diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
>> experiences.
>>
>> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/veg-prob/veg-prob-scen1c.shtml
>> When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet, open-mindedness
>> is
>> more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
>> nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
>> underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a transition
>> to
>> a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being able
>> to
>> transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or worldview
>> underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can often
>> be
>> very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to comprise
>> a
>> literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
>> all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may only
>> be
>> beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
>> understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even
>> when
>> one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in
>> some
>> sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the beliefs
>> of
>> a lifetime, or half a lifetime.
>
> Health problems from eating too much meat are much more common than
> health problems from avoidance of animal products.

Granted, no question, but these profound psychological barriers are no less
real.

Yes, of course
> people become emotionally invested in their diet for one reason or
> another, and in the event of diet-related health problems they have to
> work out what their priorities are and how they are going to resolve
> their problem. Just as if someone finds they think they have reason to
> cut down on meat for ethical or health reasons, they have to work out
> how to balance this against whatever attachment they have to eating
> meat.

Yes, absolutely.

> This website is presenting a one-sided view of the issue in that it
> ignores the fact that for most people vegan diets are nutritionally
> adequate and in fact have significant health benefits. It's trying to
> say "Thinking of going vegetarian or vegan? Well, be careful, you
> might run into health problems" when the reality is that it is much
> more likely than not to improve your health in the long run. Every
> health professional with whom I have ever spoken about my diet has
> said that being vegan is really healthy.

I think that is true in most cases. The key here being pointed out is to
avoid allowing oneself to be so emotionally invested in a diet that one is
blocked from going back by psychological barriers.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:25:16 GMT, "Dutch" <not RemoveThis @home.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message news:np8363pebv92t5mjnpc4v1d9biaqm0frsj@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:04:00 GMT, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>>>>>
>>>>>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant
>>>>>used
>>>>>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it
>>>>>is
>>>>>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>>>>>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.
>>>>
>>>> Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.
>>>
>>>Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to
>>>say
>>>unless he says otherwise.
>>
>> No we don't, especially since it doesn't even apply to the Goobal
>> situation.
>
>Yes, you do.

We can't.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, proud gooboy "Dutch" mistakenly "explained":

>dh@. pointed out:
>
>> What makes a VERY FEW of you goos, is your lipstick all over the
>> Goober's ass. People who don't kiss up to Goo are NOT gooboys like
>> you. DUH! It's another one of those things that even you--as challenged
>> as you are--should be able to comprehend.
>
>The Goos are a group of people who see through your pathetic little charade
>and regularly take the time to remind you of that fact.

No, as always you are clueless. What is REQUIRED to be a goo is to
admire the Goober and want to be his boy. That's you and Derek, and
ONLY you and Derek, unless someone else wants to claim to be a goo
like you two. THEY decide, just as you have decided. You do NOT
decide for someone else whether or not they want to be a goo! You
poor bewildered fool. Try to get this straight: Just because someone
disagrees with me does NOT mean that they automatically love and
admire the Goober as you do.

>You comprehend nothing that we don't.

I can appreciate life, while you two goos can not. That doesn't
mean another person who *can* appreciate life can not also be a goo,
but so far there have only been you two goos and of course neither of
you can. Then there are all the other people who can not appreciate
life, but they also do NOT love and admire the Goober as you goos do.
In fact there appear to be a number of people who disagree with me
about life, but agree with me that the Goober should be held in contempt
as the lowlife garbage he is, NOT admired and held in high regard as is
*required* in order for someone to be a goo.

If there is anyone reading this who wants to be listed as a gooboy (or girl)
along with Dutch and Derek, please mention it now.

If there is anyone reading who definitely does NOT want to be associated
with the goo crew, it would be great to hear from you too. Personally I
consider the Goober to be the most dishonest person I've ever encountered,
and for that reason alone--as well as for significant other ones--could never
stoop to the level of being a goo.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate