It Ain't Easy Eating Green

A VEGAN ODYSSEY

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Preston Educates some (stupid) Vegans

If you are a vegan in want of vegan discussion, I suggest you avoid the Vegan Freak Forums. (Why am I linking you to them after telling you to avoid them?)

I myself am a vegan who is quite set in his ways, but after several hours of discussion (read: defending myself on all fronts from their army of thick-headed morons) I now understand that I, Preston LaForge, am actually more of a vegan moderate. (I know! I was shocked, too!)

Here's the summary of the topic I was responding to: this woman ("Kelley") invited a bunch of her meat-eating friends over for a vegan dinner. One wanted to bring a piece of chicken, claiming that she suffered from headaches or something when she didn't eat meat. I'd probably be ticked off if someone wanted to bring a piece of chicken to a vegan dinner I was arranging (actually, I definitely would), but seeing as how she had the chance to potentially convert these people to her more sensible diet, I suggested that she overlook the chicken instead of "uninviting" her, as literally everyone in the four of discussion said before I submitted anything to say.

Later on, the argument divides in two ways: the first deals with a comment I made about an attractive female poster. "My, you're an attractive young lady," were my exact words, I believe. Turns out I was "objectifying" her. Who knew?

I also engaged in a debate with them over whether humans were originally meant to eat meat or not. I claimed that we were (duh!). I may be stubborn about some vegan issues, but come on -- I'm not thick-headed enough to suggest that the incisors we have are for, I dunno, opening packages of tofu or something! Astonishingly, these people seem to actually believe what they're saying and say that the idea early humans had to eat meat is just a "theory" -- an "opinion."

Well, in the following excerpts you can read all!

Preston = Red
Others = Blue

Preston Post #1:

I don't see how this is a big deal, frankly.

You've invited a bunch of your meat-eating friends to your dinner party, where you, the vegan, are the minority. Each is likely wary of your diet, but consented to the idea, anyway -- likely in the interest of friendship, which already transcends your different lifestyles.

One of them, however, wants to bring a piece of chicken, citing health concerns as her reason. You stated that she is allergic to everything under the sun, so calling this a bluff might not be such a good idea. Who are you to know how her body reacts to different foods? According to the email, she's not asking you to pluck, gut and cook the chicken; she just wants to bring a piece and eat it with the rest of the meal you're preparing.

First ask yourself what the goal of your dinner is. If you're trying to show your friends that veganism can be healthy and enjoyable, how do you think they're going to react when they find out you "uninvited" someone because they wanted to bring a morcel of chicken? If you ask me, that would be pretty shallow of you, since, a) you know she's going to eat the chicken, anyway (if she were to abide by your "eat it before you come" suggestion, that is); and b) these people have already accepted your olive branch, and realistically, how is her bringing a piece of chicken going to take away from anything? Will you be asking them to leave wool sweaters and leather belts on the lawn, too?

Admittedly, I'm usually quite vocal about my vegan diet, and can be somewhat less-than-diplomatic about it from time to time. But in my opinion, you're going to be an ambassador for veganism during your dinner, and punishing one of them just might be a sure-fire way to leave a bad taste in the mouths of the others.

Post #2: Response to Paisley:My, you are an attractive young lady. (Directed at a girl who had a cute avatar.)

Post #3: (Replying to those who said the blue quotations)

Veganfreak said: This is not really an appropriate response in this forum, Preston. (My "You are an attractive young lady" post) Paisley may or may not be flattered -- I have no idea. Regardless, she has every right to be here as something more than an object of your attraction.

Well, you'll be happy to know that she sent me a private message in appreciation of my comment. But you're right -- that sort of talk doesn't really jive with this forum; though something tells me you probably wouldn't have felt the need to mention "objectification" had it been a female commenting on a male's picture.

Veganfreak said: I wouldn't let someone get away with racism or sexism in my house, so I'm not so sure why speciesism is okay.

Vegans like you and I have the moral high ground when it comes to our stance on the horrid treatment of animals, but human beings, whether you admit to it or not, evolved and are designed to have meat in their diets. Those sharp, pointy teeth in the front of the mouth (incisors) are the body's natural steak knives.

Racism and sexism, incidentally, are not innate, so it doesn't exactly make for a good comparison to the consumption of meat, which will undoubtedly continue to be more acceptable in most societies. But as someone else mentioned: your house, your rules.

Kelley Said: The purpose of the dinner - aside from socializing - is to show my "omni" friends how great vegan meals can be. She would undermine that by bringing the chicken.

Oh, I totally understand your moral reasons for not wanting the meat in your home (and as you mentioned, the dinner was conceived as a vegan feast from the get-go). I just don't understand your belief that one omni guest's possession of chicken could keep the other omnis from seeing "how great vegan meals can be." From the sounds of it, your chicken-loving friend only wants to bring a single piece for herself.

I believe that if your friend (assuming her invitation is honored) were to bring the chicken along, she would not ruin the other guest's vegan meals, but rather your vision of how the dinner would unfold. You said that you "wouldn't get your panties in a bunch" if the meal hadn't been deemed a strictly vegan event --- I can understand that. I would be annoyed if a friend of mine wanted to bring meat to a vegan meal I was preparing. However, if I thought things might get a little ugly, say with email debates or having to uninvite the invited, I would probably swallow my pride for the good of the group.

But hey, just ignore me if you want to, Kelley. I'm just tossing a few opinions your way.

Some guy name Redman's post to me:

I'd like to think that you really read the original post and all the follow ups before making your first post in my thread, and you probably did. Maybe you just enjoy being in the minority or needed to make sure Kelley looked at both sides of it. But we are all here to offer our opinions, and thats all they will be here, is only opinions, so continuing to post in a thread in a disagreeable manner (whether you realize it or not) with a thread jacking comment like :

"Vegans like you and I have the moral high ground when it comes to our stance on the horrid treatment of animals, but human beings, whether you admit to it or not, evolved and are designed to have meat in their diets. Those sharp, pointy teeth in the front of the mouth (incisors) are the body's natural steak knives."

This is a completely separate debate, and it is as you say, whether you admit it or not, an opinion of yours. Many here do not agree with this statement, and ultimately it has nothing to do with this thread.Not to rag too hard Preston, just PLEASE, make sure before you post again, that it is not out of some urgency to "prove yourself" or "win the argument". Youve really expressed your opinion quite well, anything else may be seen as inappropriate.

My Replies:

Redman said: I'd like to think that you really read the original post and all the follow ups before making your first post in my thread, and you probably did.

You're right, I did.

Maybe you just enjoy being in the minority or needed to make sure Kelley looked at both sides of it...

The latter.

But we are all here to offer our opinions, and thats all they will be here, is only opinions, so continuing to post in a thread in a disagreeable manner...with a thread jacking comment...

Woah, not so fast, there, Redman!

You just stated that we are all here to offer our opinions, so as long as I'm doing that, your "taking me aside" to explain how it's done here is the only "thread-jacking comment."

I would like to think that you read all the replies in this topic, and if you had, you would have seen Veganfreak's reply to my original post, where he compared sexism and racism to speciesism (meat-eating). In my direct reply to that comment, I stated that because sexism and racism are learned behaviors and meat-eating is not (the vast majority of us learned to not eat meat), it was not the "best comparison."

So whether you or anyone else disagrees with my air-tight argument is inconsequential. (Every human's skull, the world over, is equipped with teeth that evolved for the purpose of eating not only meat, but grains and vegetables. It's biology and it's fact. I'm sorry, but it is. We vegans realize, of course, that people no longer have to consume animals, but arguing that we never had to is both ignorant and futile.)

Let me now show you a few of the buzz words and phrases that stuck out for me in your post: "Maybe you just enjoy being in the minority... disagreeable manner... thread jacking comment... many here do not agree... make sure before you post again... be seen as inappropriate..."

After reading literally every other "Uninvite her! Hissss!" response in this thread, I took it upon myself to suggest another option. Kelley, the original author of the topic, has been politely discussing that suggestion with me, but here you are, going off topic yourself, basically ordering me to fall into line with everyone else after expressing an opinion (which you said we're all here to do, remember?) that you considered dissenting.

Check yourself, pal. You've made me recollect a comment of Henry Ford's: "[On his vehicles] You can have any color you want, as long as it's black."

- Preston

Cocokate said: Specieism is not simply "meat-eating behaviour".

Did you listen to the Melanie Joy interview? It is indeed an ideology, one that sanctions discrimination among species of animals, and in that regard, I don't see how it is so different (in form) from racism/sexism. Kelley's friend does display speciesist tendencies, as I'm sure she doesn't eat horse or dog flesh, etc.

Can you point me to an unbiased source to prove your point about teeth? I'm an anthropology student, and I've come across evidence for points of view. I've also come across professors who start from the unabashed carnist position and look for evidence to defend their lifestyles (these folks are usually leftists and animal welfarists too) and, admittedly far fewer, vegetarians who do the same from the vegetarian point of view.

Also, I don't think that anyone suggested Kelley be rude about "disinviting" her friend. I'm sure she has the social tact to preserve the peace and her friendship with this woman while being true to her principles. In fact, I'd say she has the responsibility to do just that. As vegans, I thought we were supposed to start from the premise that the bodies of animals are not ours to exploit--to eat, to wear, etc. By allowing her friend to bring the piece of chicken, she cannot in good faith demonstrate that premise to the others.

PS. I also agree that this woman needs help and could really benefit from some solid nutrition information, if she is open to receiving it.

Actually, no, I haven't heard that interview of Melanie Joy's, but I would very much enjoy a link to it, if one is available.

I doubt I could point to an "unbiased" source to prove my point about the teeth, and I'm afraid you would have even more difficulty doing the same for your position. Each side is automatically going to view the other as biased, no matter how neutral the source attempts to be.

That said, I ask you, anthropology student, to look at the following two pictures:

Image hosting by Photobucket

Image hosting by Photobucket

The first is the skull of a lion, Africa's top carnivore; the second is that of chimpanzee, man's closest primate relative (I don't think we have too many Creationists here, do we?) Note the obvious similarities. We know what the lion's teeth are designed for, as we have all seen them take down their pray on the Discovery channel; and I'm sure you've seen chimpanzee documentaries too, right? Well, if you have, you'll know that for all the fruit, leaves and hard nuts they much on (that's why the rear of the jaw is so pronounced), they also consume large quantities of meat, including the stolen kills from other predators and small monkeys they themselves have hunted down. These carnivorous traits explain why the incisors of these two animals are so alike.

Now I ask you, all bias aside, to run your tongue across the sharp points of your incisors. I know you and the rest of us here don't use them for tearing at meat now, but they are in our jaws because of evolutionary necessity. Before our hunter-gatherer ancestors (who were in fact prey to large animals themselves and then quite low on the food chain) harnessed the ability to farm produce, their only chance for survival was to eat meat -- this is why they had the incisors and why they are still in your mouth.

This doesn't mean that you, myself, or anyone else today has to eat meat these days, but I'm genuinely baffled as to why anyone would try and argue against its past value. The evidence is incredibly overwhelming.

- Preston

Vegan Vulcan said: Are you serious? Do you honestly think that someone who flat out told (not asked) the host of a dinner she would be bringing chicken would be at all be polite or circumspect when bringing an alternative to a vegan meal?

No, I don't think it's "polite or circumspect." In fact, if you look back at my post, I said that I would be quite annoyed if someone were to try and do the same at a vegan dinner I was preparing.

I think it's pretty evident that this person would most definately not keep quiet about her. . . unique. . . nutritional beliefs. It seems, from her own language, that she would most likely make a point of informing other diners of her "need" for chicken.

"Evident"? "Definitely"? Hmm, I don't think so. Possible? Likely? Those are the words I'd use, since you are divining conclusions here, by assuming you know how the woman is going to behave. Also, considering that the other guests are omnivores themselves, do you really think any clucking on the woman's part over her love for chicken is going to make a difference for the other guests? They already eat meat, after all, and certainly have their own pre-ordained opinions about poultry. Again, as tactless and rude it is of this lady to say that she is going to be bringing a piece of chicken, I highly doubt its presence at Kelley's house would affect the other guets, but it would most certainly make Kelley's nerves all the more "rocky."

How will she act at the dinner itself? It seems that she would like nothing more than to take the focus off of veganism and put it onto herself and her carnivorous beliefs.

You can only assume, I'm afraid. I think allowing the woman to do as she originally planned is the only way to get your answer.

I'm really surprised about your response to all of this. In fact, on your blog, you mentioned that you "don't believe in showing restraint when it comes to [your] firm beliefs." From your statements, it seems that you're holding Kelley to a different standard than yourself. She has chosen to take direct action, which I respect. Sure, she could let it go and then just bitch about it afterwards, but she's standing up! I respect that immensely.

You're right; normally I'm quite firm about this sort of thing. Maybe I'd react differently if this were my situation -- you never know. But considering that she has a bevy of potential converts at hand, I wonder what kind of effect ostracizing one of them will have on the rest? Maybe it will have none? Maybe Kelley doesn't care either way? But judging by her posts about being more lax under different circumstances, maybe she's being too harsh? Again, it doesn't matter to me either way, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

I would have found it offensive if you had wolf-whistled at a man or a woman on these forums, and if VeganFreak hadn't called you out on it, I would have. I was incredibly offended by your objectification of her.

I find it startling that my tame compliment offended you so "incredibly." It may not have had a place in this particular discussion, but if something like "My, you are an attractive young lady" offends you that much, I'm sorry to say that you have some pent up (and likely unhealthy) attitudes towards men. I notice you dodged (or misinterpreted) my suggestion that if it had been a woman who had found a man's picture attractive, she probably wouldn't have had people "calling her on it."

(Vegan Vulcan, after realizing the full wrath of my debating skills, exited the debate at this point, saying, "Whatever, Preston! I'm so over your posts about this!" What a loser. Oops - she visits this blog from time to to time. Oh well, she knows I totally owned her -- and everyone else -- in that thread. )

Cocokate said: Vegan Vulcan has an "unhealthy attitude toward men" because she is offended by the objectification of women? In that case, I do too. Thanks for letting me know. (this is my last hijack of this thread, I swear.)

If complimenting on the attractiveness of an image that is very much on display is so "objectifying," I shudder to think of all the other offensive scenarios you and vegan vulcan could dream up. Is a man who politely asks a woman on a date with romantic intentions in mind "objectifying" her? He obviously regards her attractive in some way -- he's just not overtly saying it, which wouldn't be offensive or objectionable at all, in my opinion. At the same time, would a woman who asked a man out be objectifying him? Of course not.

And you're right -- I don't know if Veganfreak is guilty of a double-standard on this one; but seeing as how so many other people I've met are and judging by the response I'm getting from the rest of you, I'd say I'd bet money that I'm right about my different scenario. But again, we'll never have an answer to that.

Daphne1d said: I beg your pardon, but do you know Vegan Vulcan? That was an extremely rude thing to say, not to mention patronizing.I found your initial remark to Paisley dismissive and patronizing as well, I don't care if she didn't mind. And I assure you I don't have issues with men. I have to wonder about YOUR issues with women, however.I find your advice to Kelley rather contradictory and baffling. As for your evidence about our teeth being 'steak knives' how's about you walk out into a field and take down a cow with those bad boys, and then we'll talk about whether or not humans were designed to eat meat.Ok, now I'm being rude, but I am just blown away by your comments in the post, and I too think you're just here to start pointless arguments. If I want that, I can do that with my co-workers and get paid for my troubles

This is a picture of a cow's skull. (By the way, I'm shocked you would advocate the murder of one of them.)

Image hosting by Photobucket

Note the teeth: very flat - designed solely for chewing grass other plant life. They are natural herbivores (ignore the meat that is unnaturally fed to them and causes mad cow disease, of course). If you were asking whether a human could bite a cow to death, of course that's quite impossible...actually, it could probably happen if several people swarmed the cow like a pack of hyenas or something.

But anyway, your argument is weak (as were the others I'm not responding to). Humans have never hunted animals using their teeth as weapons, like lions. Sorry. They were, however, intended to be omnivores, much like our friend the chimpanzee on the previous page. That's it, this time. I swear. Shame on you for bringing me back into this! Ha.



50 Comments:

At 4:54 AM, Blogger Meatlover Skillet said...

Such an interesting post.... for me to poop on!!!

 
At 8:33 AM, Blogger Mandy said...

Actually, the presence of canines doesn't really indicate that we are "designed" to eat meat. Gorillas have very large canines and eat a predominantly vegetarian diet. Other factors, such as sexual selection may allow for the evolution of larger canines.

Humans share many morphological features with those of herbivores: we have a fleshy tongue for pushing food around and chewing it, much like that of a cow's rather than a cat's. Our back teeth are flat for grinding plant material, as opposed to the carnassials in dogs. Our jaws also move from side to side for this same purpose, whereas the jaws of dogs and cats cannot.

Incidentally, we *are* actually suited for an omnivorous diet. Historically speaking, when availability of plant foods was low, we would supplement our diet with meat. Denying that fact is rather silly. Of course, we do have many reasons to *not* eat meat now. For one, we don't *need* it, even though we can digest it (yet so can cows, and looks what it does for them). It is well documented that the high consumption of the saturated fats in meat leads to heart disease, and that's just the least of the problems. If that isn't enough, we have ethical reasons for not eating meat: animals were not meant to be farmed! Agriculture is polluting our planet, using our resources, and unsustainable.

But I'm sure you know all that.

For an interesting article on the subject of omnivory:

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

 
At 8:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You didn't "own" anyone. You acted like a prick and got rightfully banned.

Funny how vegans seem to dislike you as much as the omnis.

 
At 12:07 PM, Blogger Preston said...

Yes, that is funny, isn't it?

I wonder why they don't like me?

I was completely civil during the debate. Oh, I know why! They didn't like being OWNED by my superior argumentative abilities. The stupid bitches!

 
At 12:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, no wonder your girlfriend broke up with you. Maybe she got tired of you jumping up and down yelling, "OWNED!!!!!" at people.

 
At 1:04 PM, Blogger Preston said...

Identify yourself, coward.

 
At 1:05 PM, Blogger Meatlover Skillet said...

I always wondered why she broke up with you too, since she's a VEGAN FREAK like you. The more I read your crap the more I get it. Entertaining nonetheless.

 
At 1:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never!

 
At 2:09 PM, Blogger The Dally Llama said...

I know the identity of the anonymous poster. P.S., it's not me.

 
At 4:16 PM, Anonymous VeJo said...

What a loser!

 
At 4:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude your such a fucking kook. And the fact that you like Phish makes you even more lame. You didn't owned anyone, you made yourself look like a fool.
Fuck off and die
kisses
from a hater.........

 
At 5:01 PM, Blogger Preston said...

You fags from the vegan board are so pathetic.

I out-argued every fucking one of you and got banned as a result. You fucking retards can't handle the truth! You hear me!? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

And here's one serving of meat you should actually look into: sucking my COCK!

Bitches.

- Preston

 
At 5:11 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5:22 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

Great to see you back, Mandy!

"Actually, the presence of canines doesn't really indicate that we are "designed" to eat meat."

Yes, it does. Inarguable. If we had fins, would you say they aren't for swimming? Don't be absurd. Next, you'll be telling me your breasts aren't for feeding babies, but are actually used for dialing telephones. "Boop, beep! Hello, Pizza Hut? It sure is cold in my house!"

"Gorillas have very large canines and eat a predominantly vegetarian diet. Other factors, such as sexual selection may allow for the evolution of larger canines."

Quick newsflash - humans aren't gorillas. But then again, I haven't met your mother. But, before you get all excited, pointing out how Preston identified a chimp skull as having canines, I don't think I have to tell you that all of our cavemen ancestors had prominent meat-eating teeth in their skulls.

Also, crediting our teeth to mere sexual selection is weak at best. Absurd, is more like it. It's absurd, Mandy. You're trying to argue our ancestors selected based on teeth size, really? Even if that was true - that's based on what?

"Humans share many morphological features with those of herbivores: we have a fleshy tongue for pushing food around and chewing it, much like that of a cow's rather than a cat's. Our back teeth are flat for grinding plant material, as opposed to the carnassials in dogs. Our jaws also move from side to side for this same purpose, whereas the jaws of dogs and cats cannot."

It's interesting how you contradict yourself. Didn't you notice how you point out how our having huge canine teeth doesn't prove we are designed to eat meat, but then you go out to identify similarities in our biology with cows? Are you always this inconsistent? Raise your hands, meat-lovers, all of you who said that we are made to eat meat exclusively! Hands? You in the back? Wha - oh, the bathroom. Second door on the left.

By the way, good job on avoiding the fact that cows have four stomachs. Just like us, huh? Oh wait, yeah - we only have one. Hmm. And they chew, ruminate, regurgitated cud all day long in order to digest it. Well, you'll always have Trident, Mandy.

Anyway, sure, humans are omnivorous, I'll agree to that. (yes, you pointed it out, but shutting down the canine-teeth argument while at the same time inventing the Cow Corollary is specious, worthless, hopeless!) That means we are made for meat as well.

"For one, we don't *need* it, even though we can digest it."

Yes, we do. I won't get into the artificial supplementation you people go through to maintain your grasp on life. Ridiculous.

"It is well documented that the high consumption of the saturated fats in meat leads to heart disease."

Wrong. Again, you have failed to account for lifestyle factors. Prove with inarguable science that a person who is a healthy, non-smoking, non-obese, physically-fit, non drinking person who eats meat has a higher risk of heart attack compared to a vegan. They don't.

"If that isn't enough, we have ethical reasons for not eating meat: animals were not meant to be farmed!"

There it is again, you insisting your idea of morality, your set of moral codes is the right one. It isn't. If animals weren't "meant" to be farmed, show me WHERE in the wild you'll find Jersey cows. Show. Me. How about chickens? Pigs? Show me ANY domesticated farm animal, and identify its wild counterpart.

You can't, because they don't exist. These animals were engineered for human consumption. They were, in fact, "meant" to be farmed. That, incidently, is why they taste so fucking good. Especially with Montreal Steak Spice.

"Agriculture is polluting our planet, using our resources, and unsustainable."

Prove it. Do you know how many acres of land are used to grow vegetables, Mandy? Haven't you considered the displacement of wildlife that has to happen in order to grow your food? All the animals who had to die or lose their habitat because you insist that this is better for them.

P.S., soybeans are toxic until they are treated for human consumption, like in tofu. Oh yah, that's how we were meant to live.

You suck.

-Ace

 
At 5:23 PM, Blogger Meatlover Skillet said...

I think they'd rather suck a cow's tit. At least then they wouldn't starve.

 
At 5:29 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5:32 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

Now you're being absurd, meatlover. Everybody knows sperm contains a lot of proteins and enzymes. It's good for you!

That's what I say, anyway. Whatever it takes to get a dumb broad to suckle on the instrument I use to write my name in the snow with. Boo-yah! Work that (circumsized) knob! Get it down!

-A

 
At 10:24 AM, Anonymous Jo-Ellen said...

Shifty Vegans! of all the BALONEY I have read on this site the fact that anyone would believe F'n Prest'n ever even had a girlfriend TO be dumped by is the worst.

Oh! And finally an answer to the age old question "why do Vegans seem to have so many body piercings?"
So they have somewhere to hang the keys to their bike lock, as they frolic naked in the woods with their furry forest friends.

OH and where do you Veegs stand on using the "fertilizer" of farmed animals to grow your precious plants? Is that okay or will do you only support the consumption of those plants nourished in the shit of wild animals??? where is the line??

anyway C-crest out.

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Cat_Kicker said...

Argus/Ace - whatever. Your counter-points to Mandy's weak arguments were perfect - almost powerful enough to coax a vegans testicles to descend!

Not Preston's though . . . he's too far gone.

 
At 6:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homophobia wow how lame. Dude I thought since you like that gay dude band Phish you wouldn't use hate speech against gays. Also rad how you delete anything that makes you look like the kook you are.
I think your a fraud and not really vegan, you just want to make real vegans look bad.
And did you know the more homophobic you are the more likely that you are gay.

 
At 8:00 AM, Blogger rantingsteve said...

You weren't banned for arguing with us. You were banned for showing disrespect with this blog entry.
Sexism and heterosexism aren't welcome at the Vegan Freaks forums. We also don't appreciate being called morons. People aren't morons simply because they disagree with you. Get your head out of your ass.
I realize I'm wasting my time addressing this to someone as (using your own words) "set in his ways" as you. I just wanted to set the record straight for anyone else who has the misfortune of wasting their time reading this garbage you call a blog.
Notice I'm not posting this anonymously. I don't care what someone like you thinks of me or of the forums.

 
At 8:17 AM, Blogger The Dally Llama said...

I'm only reading because everybody loves a good train wreck.

 
At 10:02 AM, Blogger Preston said...

"You weren't banned for arguing with us. You were banned for showing disrespect with this blog entry."

The people who chose to "argue" with me made their stupidity obvious to everyone. Where I provided logical evidence to prove my points, they (and possibly you?)simply parroted back the absurd propagandist theories they had heard about our digestive system from so-called "experts." You and your pals have been brainwashed. You can find someone to support any opinion, and that's what your fellow "freak" members have done.

As for my "disrespect," it was done on my site, not the forum, and was directed only at the morons who were stupid enough to be challenging my infallible points. You people are quick to laugh off the claims of being despotic, but think about it: I was banned for doing on a completely different site what many of your other members were doing to me in that very thread -- showing disrespect. I highly doubt their memberships were revoked, though.

I made no sexist or "heterosexist" comments on the forum, either, and you are wrong to ban me, since I abided by all of your listed rules. What goes on away from your site is none of your business. You are just as bad as the nazis, dictators and totalitarians you claim to despise.

You are an idiot. I checked out your blog. It is awful.

 
At 2:49 PM, Blogger Gary said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Gary said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 3:09 PM, Blogger Gary said...

Our canines can't rip through flesh like real fangs. Our stomach pH, GI tract length, and other physiological factors more closely resemble an herbivore (including those with one stomach) than a carnivore. When we see a bird, we don't salivate. There's no proof that early humans needed meat, although I suspect the debate will go on forever. It's easy but intellectually dishonest to selectively extrapolate from a million years ago to support a present-day bias.

A more plausible explanation is that we have just enough machinery to enable us to eat meat; in other words we can eat it (in limited amounts), but we don't have to. Being able to survive without eat may have given us an evolutionary advantage.

Furthermore there's no need to reach back a million years to determine whether we need to eat meat. The presence of so many healthy vegans disproves that assertion. Concurrently, our plant-based options have never been more plentiful, so one need not sacrifice taste and variety with a vegan diet.

We have a grasping reflex (though we no longer swing from trees), we have nipples on males. Nature is full of physiological traits that are relics or have no obvious function. It's a stretch to look at our tiny canines and presume from that, that we need meat.

Argus said that farm animals are meant to be eaten, and that they have no counterpart in the wild. Let's explore that.

The "brolier" chickens that we kill at seven weeks old do have a counterpart - African Jungle Fowl. These birds fly, roost, dig in the ground with their beaks, dust-bathe, and sleep in tall branches. The mother hens dote on their young, and the roosters protect the flock.

The birds we cram into sheds, up to 80,000 at a time, retain all these instincts and desires, but they are denied from doing any of them. They grow up with no mother, their beaks are severed, they have no opportunity to dust-bathe, their diet is bland and monotonous. Through intensive breeding, we induce hyper growth rates that cause chronic joint pain and tremendous stress on the animals' internal organs; modern chickens start dying of heart attacks when only a few weeks old. (All these physical ailments, and more, are acknowledged by industry.)

The fact that we distend and distort these animals' bodies, and prevent then from engaging in any of their natural social and physical behaviors, is perversely cruel on a grand scale. Several billion birds each year in the U.S. are forced to live this miserable existence. They're also brutally killed. After grabbing the birds by their feet (and sometimes breaking their bones in the process), we hang them up by shackles, paralyze them with a low-voltage "stun bath", knife them to death, and scald them. Sometimes the animals show clear signs of consciousness throughout the entire procfess. It would be approriate to call this torture.

(Poultry is not covered by the Humane Slaughter Act; thus there is no legal requirement that they be rendered insensible to pain when slaughtered.)

It is only through a megalomaniacal selfishness that we can say that these billions of top-heavy birds immprisoned in crowded, ofen windowless buildings reeking of ammonia were "meant" for any of this, including their torturous and premature slaughter. Merely stating our purposes for their slavery and suffering does not justify it or make it mmeaningful. The animals, the ones with the most a stake in all of this, have their own "meanings" for their existence. They yearn to use their legs and beaks to look for food, they desire to feel the warmth of the sun on their backs and the coolness of the earth on their undersides as they dust-bathe (even severely handicapped birds clearly enjoy this activity). They crave space (at chicken sanctuaries, as soon as the barn door is open each morning, the birds go out and explore). Chicks want the commforting and protective wing of the their mother. Seeing animals thrive and show kindness to them feels right and good. Perhaps we we were *meant* to be compassionate stewards.

Argus argues that to be opposed to the cruelties we impose on chickens (and other farm animals) is "my morals," as if breeding animals with the intention of making them suffer were not wrong in and of itself. If we want to slip into moral relativism, the bigot and the slaveowner can claim that their morals are "right for them" and no better or worse than mine or yours. If we want to use common, age-old principles of ethics, such as the Golden Rule, showing mercy, and the principle of Least Harm, then our brutal misreatment and slaughter of chickens - done out of prefrence, not necessity - is an atrocity; a black mark on humanity. But one we can correct. Anyone can go vegan. The second you do, you spare animals from suffering, you become more kind toward fellow creatures who benefit from your kindness.

Preston - and I say this in a friendly way, you can probably elaborate in other posts (if you haven't done so already) on the myriad of horrors in factory farms (including transport), and the ethical reasons against treating sentient beings as property.

Against this backdrop, I believe it to be a reasonable request from a vegan that people do not bring animal-derived products, especially ones produced with massive suffering, into their home. I could see where an exception could be made if someone had to stay for an extended time and truly did need meat and/or dairy to survive. This would be a rarity. To ask that someone not bring over a chicken corpse for one meal is not an unreasonable request. One wouldn't bring pork to a Muslim household.

It sounded to me like the guest may have been overbearing, and too bold and/or rude in imposing her will upon the person having the party. If she truly thought she needed to eat chicken, she could easily eat beforehand. Vegans do this all the time when they are invited to a barbecue at which they know there will be nothing for them to eat. They do this to keep the peace, enjoy the party and friendship, without being a burden or creating awkwardness.

From what I know about the situation (and I could be missing crucial facts), I wouldn't counsel "disinviting" the guest, but merely maintaining the house rule of no meat.

Is complimenting a forum member on her good looks wong? Just my opinon - it's not the worst sin, but wrong place, wrong time. Regardless of whether some people will be offended, I could see the creepiness factor. A little more tact combined with a litle more waiting would probably have avoided the controversy, and IMHO is not a bad policy. Many women would not be comfortable with this particular type of advance. And yes, there are some differences, at least in this society, in how it affects men and women.

I didn't participate in the contentious debate but I know the dynamic. I've been in a few online squabbles myself. As you know, online communication often emboldens people; they are more brash than they would be in real life. Add to that the loss of nuance, inflection, and body language, and flareups can erupt in an instant. Someone misinterprets a word, or presumes the wrong motivation, someone feels slighted - before you know it, the thread turns into personal character attacks and it spirals downward.

There is a solution that works pretty well, I would say 90 percent of the time: an apology. Someone has to be the first one to do it. You think to yourself, "Do I want to drag out this Hatfield and McCoy battle forever? At some point am I, or are we, just being stubborn and defensive, not wanting to cede an inch of ground?" Most online flame arguments aren't worth it. It may seem in the heat of battle that it's utterly important to counter every criticism, maintain the upper hand, ultimately prevail. You never win.

I suspect that if you told the forum moderator, "Hey, I apologize for getting a little nasty in there. Happens to the best of us. Tempers, egos, etc. I can see where the issues we discussed are nuanced and I acknowledge the merits of the various sides. Sorry to have caused the inconvenience. Best of luck with your forum and your advocacy," and if you basically meant what you said, you would probably get a polite and humble reply back, maybe something along the lines of "No big deal, it happens, all of us could be a little nicer," and you would bury the hatchet in no time at all, and pursue bigger and better things. Your decision, of course.

Gary

 
At 4:13 PM, Blogger Gary said...

Just wanted to respond to a few more of Argus' points.

-- The reference to gorillas was relevant, in that is showed that the presence of canines need not translate to a need for meat.

-- Argus asks is we vegans realize how much land is required to grow vegetables. Conservative figures from non-animal rights organizations and the governent shows that significantly less land is required to support a vegan diet than an omnivorous one. The Worldwatch Institute, among other groups, estimates that 50-70 percent of the grains grown in ths U.S. are used to feed livestock. Other groups, such as the Sierra Club, suggest a plant-based diet for the environmental benefits alone. It's simple physics; most of the grain fed to animals is used to keep the animal alive. It's an inefficient system. When the grains go directly to humans, not only less land but less water and perochemicals (fertilizer) are required. Not only does a vegan diet reduce resource usage, but it gets rid of the formidable pollution problems caused by concentrated animal feeding operations, the source of most of our meat and dairy. Plus, you avoid the horrific cruelties of those places.

-- The only supplement that's probably necessary for vegans is b-12. In the past, we probably got sufficient b-12 from the soil and water. With modern sanitation and water purification systems, that's all washed away. Note that many physicians, including health experts at the Mayo Clinic (and maybe most physicians, period) recommend some supplementation in general. For that matter, toothpaste, drugs, and houses are "supplementation" in a broad sense. Finally, even if were impossible to take in enough b-12 when following a vegan diet under any circumstances, we're back to the ethical argument: now that we can be perfectly healthy without having to cause so many animals to suffer and die prematurely, that's the kinder alternative, and the path we should choose.

 
At 5:06 PM, Blogger Mandy said...

Great points, Gary. The last estimate I saw is that it takes 23 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef. Not very efficient.

Coincidentally, one person switching to a vegan diet actually cuts back on greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5 tonnes. Preston, you'll be glad to know that that is an even bigger savings than switching to a fuel efficient car :)

 
At 5:40 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

You people just don't give up. You remind me of Islamic fundamentalists - your close-minded dogma is the best reason why your chosen way of life must be analyzed based on a rational, factual basis, and then subsequently debunked along with the Flat Earth theory.

"Our stomach pH, GI tract length, and other physiological factors more closely resemble an herbivore (including those with one stomach) than a carnivore".

Wrong. I quote a line from the study Mandy helpfully linked in an above comment, as posted by the Vegatarian Resource Group: "Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet."

You can't get any more clear than that. But, amazingly, I have to keep beating on the dead horse. We are designed. To. Eat. Meat. Period.

"When we see a bird, we don't salivate."

Nobody salivates at the sight of cabbages, either. We salivate when we smell french fries cooking, though. Why is that? Because salivation is a conditioned response. Maybe you've heard of the famous Pavlov's dog experiment. If you disagree with the assertion that salivation is conditioned, then you have to support the idea that dogs are supposed to eat little brass bells. Are they, Gary? Hunh?? Nah, didn't think so. Good job, Ex-Lax.

"There's no proof that early humans needed meat, although I suspect the debate will go on forever. It's easy but intellectually dishonest to selectively extrapolate from a million years ago to support a present-day bias."

Wrong, and wrong. The best and most logical way to explain modern phenomena is to examine what happened before. Scientific examination of preserved feces of hominid ancestors has revealed they subsisted on an omnivorous diet. The outrageous extent that modern vegans go to avoid eating meat is also an excellent reason to posit that our cavemen ancestors probably didn't make the same dietary gyrations through the animal-protein minefield. No, screw positing. They didn't do that. Our ancestors liked meat so much, they exterminated the world's wooly-mammoth population to get their grubbly little hands on mammoth steak.

"Furthermore there's no need to reach back a million years to determine whether we need to eat meat. The presence of so many healthy vegans disproves that assertion. Concurrently, our plant-based options have never been more plentiful, so one need not sacrifice taste and variety with a vegan diet...It's a stretch to look at our tiny canines and presume from that, that we need meat."

Wrong again, Gary. Oh - nice try to put down the crack pipe for a moment in your second comment and casually admit we DO actually need this vitamin, but I'll elaborate on your humiliating admission. From Wikipedia: "Vitamin B12, a bacterial product, cannot be reliably found in plant foods. B12 is exclusively synthesised by bacteria (which is why it is present in animal products).

This vitamin is essential for human life, Gary. And you need it from meat, or some other artificial supplement, making the need for it another ironclad point inassailable by any vegan biological debate. Vegan mothers who do not obtain adequate vitamin B12 in their diet while breastfeeding can cause severe and permanent neurological damage to their infants. That's from this study: "Kuhne T, Bubl R, Baumgartner R (1991). "Maternal vegan diet causing a serious infantile neurological disorder due to vitamin B12 deficiency". Eur J Pediatr 150 (3): 205-8. PMID 2044594.

You mentioned that B12 is the only element a vegan cannot get naturally in their diet. Besides being untrue, isn't this one enough? You'd die if you didn't get it, and your kids will get brain damage. And, good luck obtaining this nutrient in toothpaste and tap water, like you suggested. Absurd. Maybe you've already developed neurological dysfunction if you actually believe this.

Now, in regard to the above points, I don't care about your ethics, or modern availability of vegetables. I attack your heretical notion that humans don't "need" meat. Humans have, and do require the nutrients found in it for our diets. We needed it in the past, and need it now, and that is fact.

"Anyone can go vegan. The second you do, you spare animals from suffering, you become more kind toward fellow creatures who benefit from your kindness."

Here's something to chew on - I won't cut and paste your hysterical, slanted, agenda-based and misleading outline for how chickens are produced for market. Instead, I'll post an incomplete list of species destroyed or endangered by cultivation of produce for vegetarian diets in the United States: opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, grey partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, grey-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians. In addition, every time a crop is planted, fertilized, or treated with pesticide, animals die. Also, if all of the croplandin the U.S. were used to produce crops for a vegan diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually.

There is blood all over your hands, Gary.

Regarding the "Vegetarian Dinner Fiasco", I didn't see the exchange, thus cannot comment. But, misguided though he is, if Preston was banned from that site for something he said on his own, those people 1.) have no right banning him from their site, and 2.) owe HIM an apology, not the other way around.

-Ace

 
At 12:10 AM, Blogger Preston said...

WOOT!

 
At 9:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey censorship is something that George Bush likes. What are you a republican?

 
At 9:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See as I said before Presson nails aka Preston the spoiled honkey brat aka the phish loving cracker boy is not vegan.
And the B12 debate is so old and tired, anyone dumb enough to think we are meant to eat meat should go jump off a building.
And Praise be to Allah............
Jihad for Bush, 4 more years 4 more years.
Preston sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
At 10:21 PM, Blogger Preston said...

Talk sense, woman!

Just because I have enough common sense to know that humans were designed to be omnivores means I'm not a vegan, huh?

You stupid bastard.

 
At 3:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ace:
"Also, if all of the croplandin the U.S. were used to produce crops for a vegan diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually."

Source, please. :)

No doubt animals are killed in combines when people harvest crops. Most vegans know this and accept this - we don't say that our lifestyles never result in the death of another creature. That's impossible.

But the fact is, cows and other animals aren't grazing freely. We harvest crops for them to eat the same way we harvest crops for us to eat. (23 kilos of feed for every kilo of animal weight, as has already been posted and sourced.) Because of this vegan diets still result in the deaths of less field animals than diets that include animal products.

"I attack your heretical notion that humans don't "need" meat. Humans have, and do require the nutrients found in it for our diets. We needed it in the past, and need it now, and that is fact."

Honey, if that were true than all vegans and vegetarians would be dead. Many cultures have survived on vegetarian diets for thousands of years: parts of Asia, India, etc. The founder of the Vegan Society died at the age of 95 - 20 years above average. He was vegan for most of his life, vegetarian since he was a teenager. There are millions of vegetarians in the western world, and we aren't dropping like flies from B-12 deficiency. The fact that we live and are healthy (and in many cases, healthier than our meat eating friends) proves that we don't NEED meat in our diets. I won't argue with you that we aren't omnivores. No doubt we are. But we can now survive on completely herbivorous diets and reap superior health. To me, that's all that matters.

You say that B-12 isn't the only nutrient that can't be found unsupplemented in a vegan diet. Other things that meat is a good source of are iron and zinc, and of course protein, but these are all also found in beans and grains. Would you be so kind to tell me what else we could be missing from not eating meat? Thanks!

~Renai

 
At 10:26 AM, Blogger Meatlover Skillet said...

"There are millions of vegetarians in the western world, and we aren't dropping like flies from B-12 deficiency."

It's true that most deficiencies have little short-term effects. However, I must say this is a pretty weak argument at best. You can't deny that a well balanced diet is important for the human body, including getting a reliable source of B-12. The proof has already been presented to you (i.e. "Maternal vegan diet causing a serious infantile neurological disorder due to vitamin B12 deficiency"). I'm sorry, but vegan diets just doesn't seem to cut it, for the sake of our health and our unborn children.

Getting essential vitamin B-12 is an arduous task for vegans, made more difficult by the fact that some vegans avoid yeast or bacterial products altogether. Vegans believe that nutrients should be delivered to the body in their natural packaging. Reliance upon artificial nutrient sources (vitamin pills, fortified foods, etc.) is an unhealthy practice in itself, let alone the fact that it goes against vegan beliefs.

Therefore, the minute you need to pop a pill to supplement what your body is lacking from this ridiculous lifestyle, YOU, my little tree thumper are a hypocrite.

In addition, this puts the brakes on the "we aren't designed to eat meat" theory too, wouldn’t you say?

 
At 11:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

skillet said: "Vegans believe that nutrients should be delivered to the body in their natural packaging. Reliance upon artificial nutrient sources (vitamin pills, fortified foods, etc.) is an unhealthy practice in itself, let alone the fact that it goes against vegan beliefs."

I think it's pretty rich that a self-proclaimed carnivore like yourself would proclaim to know what "vegan beliefs" are. Most omnis I know need supplements more than vegans do, because they don't get enough vitamins and minerals from their meat-heavy diets. So I take a b-12 supplement-- that doesn't mean squat. Most herbivores (cows, etc) get their b-12 from soil and improper hand sanitation. Since I'm not a cow, therefore dirt doesn't appear in my food; and I wash my hands after taking a crap, a supplement is a good idea. But you need far less b-12 than is provided in meat.

After all, meat only contains b-12 because it is INFECTED with bacteria. B-12 comes from bacteria that infect meat. I'd rather get my b-12 from a supplement or my soymilk than some stanky piece of infected meat.

Then again, I'm not bought and sold by claims from the powerful lobbyists for the meat and dairy industries-- I think for myself. That's a claim none of you omnis can make!

 
At 12:26 PM, Blogger Meatlover Skillet said...

"Most omnis I know need supplements more than vegans do, because they don't get enough vitamins and minerals from their meat-heavy diets."

Exactly right… almost. I’m not promoting a “meat-heavy” diet here, and I’m not saying that ALL meat-eaters make smart choices. Eating meat alone would deprive the body of other essential nutrients, hence a well-balanced diet. However, depriving your body of meat trumps the need for supplements. Interesting stereotype you have there, that most meat-eaters eat unhealthy. Too bad it has shit for legs to stand on.

As far as me proclaiming to know what "vegan beliefs" are, I base my statements on what other vegans tell me, "from the horse's mouth" so to speak.

Does the concept of eating bacteria scare you? If it does then you might want to keep your hands in a set of rubber gloves and live in a bubble, because it's impossible to avoid consuming it, no matter how clean you may think your hands are kept. Believe it or not, the consumption of bacteria is GOOD for the body, as it helps boost your body's ability to fight off infection. Been sick lately?

 
At 3:52 PM, Blogger Mandy said...

"After all, meat only contains b-12 because it is INFECTED with bacteria. B-12 comes from bacteria that infect meat. I'd rather get my b-12 from a supplement or my soymilk than some stanky piece of infected meat."

Actually, cows get their B12 from bacteria in one of their stomachs (the pH is low enough for the bacteria to survive). The cows absorb the B12, and that's how it gets into their flesh.

Doesn't change the fact that meat is infected with bacteria though.

That bacteria, E. coli, that is such a big fuss? That's fecal contamination. Steak, anyone?

 
At 4:33 PM, Blogger Meatlover Skillet said...

Top "Home Injury-Related Fatalities" in the U.S.:

Falls: 5,961 deaths
Fires/Burns: 4,833 deaths
Poisonings: 3,402 deaths
Drownings: 1,092 deaths
Suffocations: 823 deaths


E. coli infections: 61 deaths

The moral of the story? Shit happens. If you don't cook your meat properly then you're a moron and deserve to die anyway.

Sources (hope links work): http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm
http://phoenix.about.com/od/phoenixfactsandfiction/a/accidentaldeath.htm

P.S. "Other known sources of E. Coli infection are consumption of sprouts, lettuce, unpasteurized juice..." (see source #1)

 
At 4:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every human being has E.Coli along with billions of other bacteria in their guts. They're necessary for survival.

 
At 1:28 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1:33 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

Awesome - I love it. The more the vegans say, the worse they look:

"I think it's pretty rich that a self-proclaimed carnivore like yourself would proclaim to know what "vegan beliefs" are."

Show me where meatlover skillet said he is a carnivore - who eats meat, and ONLY meat. You managed to blow your credibility with your first remark - a gold star for the brave "Anonymous". Why try and hide your cowardice behind the anonymous tag? I know you are a woman, at least. Only women make grandiose generalizations in their arguments. "You always, you never, you complete, sexy bastard, you..."

"Most omnis I know need supplements more than vegans do, because they don't get enough vitamins and minerals from their meat-heavy diets."

You embarrass yourself with this moronic gibbering. Who are "most omnis"? Do they represent a represntative statistical sample for what everyone does? Hmm? I suppose, oh, if you saw a group of people in your women's studies class, and they were all wearing Phish t-shirts, you'd assume every student is a Phish fan. And, how exactly do you know they "need" supplements? Explain to me in concrete terms how they lack in the nutrients supplied in over-the-counter diet supplements.

"So I take a b-12 supplement-- that doesn't mean squat."

Yes it does, retard. It means you are artificially supporting your diet with something a normal person (not an "omni". We who eat meat are "normal", you are "abnormal") gets from meat, as supported by study above. Your "argument" is worthless.

"Most herbivores (cows, etc) get their b-12 from soil and improper hand sanitation. Since I'm not a cow, therefore dirt doesn't appear in my food; and I wash my hands after taking a crap, a supplement is a good idea."

So, why shouldn't you eat meat again? You admitted above you need b12, and are not a cow, nor a herbivore. Thanks for trying to argue my side of the debate, but I don't need your help. Again, as previously explained, the human race, of which you are debatably a part of, gets their B12 from meat.

"After all, meat only contains b-12 because it is INFECTED with bacteria."

Now you're getting totally out to lunch. As meatlover rightly pointed out, bacteria is everywhere, and particularly all over your unwashed vegetables. You would die if it weren't for the living bacteria in your intestines that digest your brussels sprouts.

"B-12 comes from bacteria that infect meat."

Nice choice of words. "Infect." Are you infected too then? I know you are, in fact.

"I'd rather get my b-12 from a supplement or my soymilk than some stanky piece of infected meat."

Soymilk - gee, I thought that vegans care about ethics and the environment? From Wikipedia:

"Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and the WWF, have reported that soybean cultivation and the threat to increase soybean cultivation in Brazil is destroying huge areas of Amazon rainforest and encouraging deforestation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy

Also, as documented on the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website, widely recognized as the best objective evaluator of foodstuffs in the WORLD states a number of alarmind details about your favourite vegetarian diet crutch:

"The problem, researchers say, is that isoflavones of the sort contained in all soy products, are phytoestrogens, a weak form of estrogen that could have a drug-like effect in the body. This may be pronounced in postmenopausal women, and some studies suggest that high isoflavone levels might increase the risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer."

Also, I hope you aren't poisoning your baby with this product. If you are stupid enough to be feeding this to your baby, you should be put in jail for child abuse: "The FDA also reports that, "NCTR's Sheehan says research is needed in this area because an earlier study, published in 1997 in the medical journal The Lancet, showed that infants consuming soy formula had five to 10 times higher levels of isoflavones in their blood serum than women receiving soy supplements who show menstrual cycle disturbances. He says these levels may cause toxicological effects. "Infants receive higher doses of soy and isoflavones than anybody because it is their only food and they are consuming it all the time." "

There's more, much more. Too much to cut and paste. Basically, if you are a man drinking soymilk, prepare for feminizing characteristics to show themselves in your body. Men and women both can develop thyroid and reproductive problems due to its consumption, and babies should never drink it. Not unless you want to destroy the development of their reproductive systems. Thanks, mom!

Give me that stinky old steak any day of the week.

"Then again, I'm not bought and sold by claims from the powerful lobbyists for the meat and dairy industries-- I think for myself. That's a claim none of you omnis can make!"

Oh yes, Anonymous - clearly, I am unable to form logical conclusions based on independent evaluation of the facts at hand, as presented by independent regulatory bodies. You had me dead-bang. I'm just a stooge for the powerful meat lobby. How humiliating for me to realize that.

For the purposes of this post, I'll assume you are too stupid to recognize sarcasm when you see it. There is no doubt that YOU are the one unable to think for herself. YOU are being played like a fiddle by agenda-bearing animal rights groups. And probably farmers, too, who need to sell crops.

You are a fool.

Oh, and - nice to see you back, Mandy!

-Ace

 
At 2:01 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

More about soy, to further illustrate how stupid a person is to use this substance as a cornerstone in their diet foundation:

"In January, 2006 an American Heart Association review (in the journal Circulation) of a decade long study of soy protein benefits casts doubt on the FDA allowed "Heart Healthy" claim for soy protein. The panel also found that soy isoflavones do not reduce post menopause "hot flashes" in women nor do isoflavones help prevent cancers of the breast, uterus or prostate. The committee members reviewed 22 studies and found that large amounts of dietary soy protein only reduced LDL, or "bad" cholesterol, about 3 percent and had no effect on HDL, or "good" cholesterol, or on blood pressure.

They did a separate analysis of isoflavones. The review of 19 studies suggested that soy isoflavones also had no effect on lowering LDL cholesterol or other lipid risk factors:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2006/01/23/review_casts_doubt_on_soy_health_benefits/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

From another study:

"The largest concern scientists have about soy are its effects on sexual development of infants consuming soy-based formula. The data is startling, yet most concerns have fallen on deaf ears.

One study showed that when manufacturer-suggested amounts of soy formula are fed to infants, the infants ingest a daily dose of approximately 3 mg of total isoflavones (i.e. genistein and daidzein) per kg of body weight, which is maintained at a fairly constant level between 0 and 4 months of age.(3) Supplementing the diet of 4-month old infants with a single daily serving of soy-based cereal can increase their isoflavone intake by over 25%, depending on the brand chosen.

This rate of isoflavone intake is much greater than that shown to alter reproductive hormones in adult humans. The available evidence suggests that infants can digest and absorb dietary phytoestrogens in active forms and neonates are generally more susceptible than adults to perturbations of the sex-steroid milieu.

Another study assessed the effect of administering neonatal animals genistein in the amount of 4 mg per kg per day from days 2-18 of life.(1) Administration of genistein significantly retarded most measures of pubertal spermatogenesis. Plasma FSH levels in the treatment groups changed in parallel to the spermatogenic changes (reduced when pubertal spermatogenesis retarded, increased when pubertal spermatoenesis advanced).

By day 25, the changes in FSH levels largely persisted. In adulthood, the animals that were fed a soy-free diet in infancy and on, had significantly larger testes than controls fed a soy-containing diet. Of the animals that had neonatal treatment with genistein, a minority did not mate or were infertile.

In concluding this article, the authors stated "the presence or absence of soy or genistein in the diet has significant short-term (pubertal spermatogenesis) and long-term (body weight, testis size, FSH levels, and possibly mating) effects on males."

And this:

"Scientists Protest Soy Approval in Unusual Letter
Scientists' Letter

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration National Center For Toxicological Research Jefferson, Ark. 72079-9502 Daniel M. Sheehan, Ph.D. Director, Estrogen Base Program Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology and Daniel R. Doerge, Ph.D. Division of Biochemical Toxicology February 18, 1999 Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration Rockville, MD 20852

To whom it may concern,

We are writing in reference to Docket # 98P-0683; "Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soy Protein and Coronary Heart Disease." We oppose this health claim because there is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy, including genistein and equol, a metabolize of daidzen, demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid. This is true for a number of species, including humans.

Additionally, the adverse effects in humans occur in several tissues and, apparently, by several distinct mechanisms. Genistein is clearly estrogenic; it possesses the chemical structural features necessary for estrogenic activity (; Sheehan and Medlock, 1995; Tong, et al, 1997; Miksicek, 1998) and induces estrogenic responses in developing and adult animals and in adult humans.

In rodents, equol is estrogenic and acts as an estrogenic endocrine disruptor during development (Medlock, et al, 1995a,b). Faber and Hughes (1993) showed alterations in LH regulation following this developmental treatment with genistein. Thus, during pregnancy in humans, isoflavones per se could be a risk factor for abnormal brain and reproductive tract development.

Furthermore, pregnant Rhesus monkeys fed genistein had serum estradiol levels 50- 100 percent higher than the controls in three different areas of the maternal circulation (Harrison, et al, 1998). Given that the Rhesus monkey is the best experimental model for humans, and that a women's own estrogens are a very significant risk factor for breast cancer, it is unreasonable to approve the health claim until complete safety studies of soy protein are conducted.

Of equally grave concern is the finding that the fetuses of genistein fed monkeys had a 70 percent higher serum estradiol level than did the controls (Harrison, et al, 1998). Development is recognized as the most sensitive life stage for estrogen toxicity because of the indisputable evidence of a very wide variety of frank malformations and serious functional deficits in experimental animals and humans.

In the human population, DES exposure stands as a prime example of adverse estrogenic effects during development. About 50 percent of the female offspring and a smaller fraction of male offspring displayed one or more malformations in the reproductive tract, as well as a lower prevalence (about 1 in a thousand) of malignancies.

In adults, genistein could be a risk factor for a number of estrogen-associated diseases. Even without the evidence of elevated serum estradiol levels in Rhesus fetuses, potency and dose differences between DES and the soy isoflavones do not provide any assurance that the soy protein isoflavones per se will be without adverse effects.

First, calculations, based on the literature, show that doses of soy protein isoflavones used in clinical trials which demonstrated estrogenic effects were as potent as low but active doses of DES in Rhesus monkeys (Sheehan, unpublished data). Second, we have recently shown that estradiol shows no threshold in an extremely large dose-response experiment (Sheehan, et al, 1999), and we subsequently have found 31 dose-response curves for hormone-mimicking chemicals that also fail to show a threshold (Sheehan, 1998a).

Our conclusions are that no dose is without risk; the extent of risk is simply a function of dose. These two features support and extend the conclusion that it is inappropriate to allow health claims for soy protein isolate. Additionally, isoflavones are inhibitors of the thyroid peroxidase which makes T3 and T4. Inhibition can be expected to generate thyroid abnormalities, including goiter and autoimmune thyroiditis. There exists a significant body of animal data that demonstrates goitrogenic and even carcinogenic effects of soy products (cf., Kimura et al., 1976). Moreover, there are significant reports of goitrogenic effects from soy consumption in human infants (cf., Van Wyk et al., 1959; Hydovitz, 1960; Shepard et al., 1960; Pinchers et al., 1965; Chorazy et al., 1995) and adults (McCarrison, 1933; Ishizuki, et al., 1991).

Recently, we have identified genistein and daidzein as the goitrogenic isoflavonoid components of soy and defined the mechanisms for inhibition of thyroid peroxidase (TPO)- catalyzed thyroid hormone synthesis in vitro (Divi et al., 1997; Divi et al., 1996). The observed suicide inactivation of TPO by isoflavones, through covalent binding to TPO, raises the possibility of neoantigen formation and because anti-TPO is the principal autoantibody present in auto immune thyroid disease. This hypothetical mechanism is consistent with the reports of Fort et al. (1986, 1990) of a doubling of risk for autoimmune thyroiditis in children who had received soy formulas as infants compared to infants receiving other forms of milk.

The serum levels of isoflavones in infants receiving soy formula that are about five times higher than in women receiving soy supplements who show menstrual cycle disturbances, including an increased estradiol level in the follicular phase (Setchell, et al, 1997). Assuming a dose-dependent risk, it is unreasonable to assert that the infant findings are irrelevant to adults who may consume smaller amounts of isoflavones.

Additionally, while there is an unambiguous biological effect on menstrual cycle length (Cassidy, et al, 1994), it is unclear whether the soy effects are beneficial or adverse. Furthermore, we need to be concerned about transplacental passage of isoflavones as the DES case has shown us that estrogens can pass the placenta. No such studies have been conducted with genistein in humans or primates. As all estrogens which have been studied carefully in human populations are two-edged swords in humans (Sheehan and Medlock, 1995; Sheehan, 1997), with both beneficial and adverse effects resulting from the administration of the same estrogen, it is likely that the same characteristic is shared by the isoflavones. The animal data is also consistent with adverse effects in humans.

Finally, initial data fi-om a robust (7,000 men) long-term (30+ years) prospective epidemiological study in Hawaii showed that Alzheimer's disease prevalence in Hawaiian men was similar to European-ancestry Americans and to Japanese (White, et al, 1996a). In contrast, vascular dementia prevalence is similar in Hawaii and Japan and both are higher than in European-ancestry Americans.

This suggests that common ancestry or environmental factors in Japan and Hawaii are responsible for the higher prevalence of vascular dementia in these locations. Subsequently, this same group showed a significant dose-dependent risk (up to 2.4 fold) for development of vascular dementia and brain atrophy from consumption of tofu, a soy product rich in isoflavones (White, et al, 1996b).

This finding is consistent with the environmental causation suggested from the earlier analysis, and provides evidence that soy (tofu) phytoestrogens causes vascular dementia. Given that estrogens are important for maintenance of brain function in women; that the male brain contains aromatase, the enzyme that converts testosterone to estradiol; and that isoflavones inhibit this enzymatic activity (Irvine, 1998), there is a mechanistic basis for the human findings. Given the great difficulty in discerning the relationship between exposures and long latency adverse effects in the human population (Sheehan, 1998b), and the potential mechanistic explanation for the epidemiological findings, this is an important study.

It is one of the more robust, well-designed prospective epidemiological studies generally available. We rarely have such power in human studies, as well as a potential mechanism, and thus the results should be interpreted in this context. Does the Asian experience provide us with reassurance that the isoflavones are safe? A review of several examples lead to the conclusion, — "Given the parallels with herbal medicines with respect to attitudes, monitoring deficiencies, and the general difficulty of detecting toxicities with long Iatencies, I am unconvinced that the long history of apparent safe use of soy products can provide confidence that they are indeed without risk." (Sheehan, 1998b).

It should also be noted that the claim on p. 62978 that soy protein foods are GRAS is in conflict with the recent return by CFSAN to Archer Daniels Midland of a petition for GRAS status for soy protein because of deficiencies in reporting adverse effects in the petition. Thus GRAS status has not been granted. Linda Kahl can provide you with details. It would seem appropriate for FDA to speak with a single voice regarding soy protein isolate. Taken together, the findings presented here are self-consistent and demonstrate that genistein and other isoflavones can have adverse effects in a variety of species, including humans. Animal studies are the front line in evaluating toxicity, as they predict, with good accuracy, adverse effects in humans.

For the isoflavones, we additionally have evidence of two types of adverse effects in humans, despite the very few studies that have addressed this subject. While isoflavones may have beneficial effects at some ages or circumstances, this cannot be assumed to be true at all ages. Isoflavones are like other estrogens in that they are two-edged swords, conferring both benefits and risk (Sheehan and Medlock, 1995; Sheehan, 1997).

The health labeling of soy protein isolate for foods needs to considered just as would the addition of any estrogen or goitrogen to foods, which are bad ideas. Estrogenic and goitrogenic drugs are regulated by FDA, and are taken under a physician's care. Patients are informed of risks, and are monitored by their physicians for evidence of toxicity. There are no similar safeguards in place for foods, so the public will be put at potential risk from soy isoflavones in soy protein isolate without adequate warning and information.

Finally, NCTR is currently conducting a long-term multigeneration study of genistein administered in feed to rats. The analysis of the dose range-finding studies are nearly complete now. As preliminary data, which is still confidential, may be relevant to your decision, I suggest you contact Dr. Barry Delclos at the address on the letterhead, or email him.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Sheehan
Daniel R. Doerge


References

1. Atanassova N (2000). Comparative Effects of Neonatal Exposure of Male Rats to Potent and Weak (Environmental) Estrogens on Spermatogenesis at Puberty and the Relationship to Adult Testis Size and Fertility: Evidence for Stimulatory Effects of Low Estrogen Levels. Endocrinology Vol. 141, No. 10 3898-3907

2. Chorazy PA (1995). Persistent hypothyroidism in an infant receiving a soy formula: case report and review of the literature. Pediatrics Jul: 96 (1 Pt 1): 148-50

3. Irvine CHG (1998). Phytoestrogens in soy-based infant foods: concentrations, daily intake, and possible biological effects. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med1998 Mar; 217 (3): 247-53)

4. Lohrke B (2001). Activation of skeletal muscle protein breakdown following consumption of soybean protein in pigs. Br J Nutr 2001 Apr; 85 (4): 447-57

5. Nagata C (2000). Inverse association of soy product intake with serum androgen and estrogen concentrations in Japanese men. Nutr Cancer; 36 (1): 14-8

6. Newbold RR (2001). Uterine Adenocarcinoma in Mice Treated Neonatally with Genistein. Cancer Research 61, 4325-4328

7. Pollard M (2000). Prevention of spontaneous prostate-related cancer in Lobund-Wistar rats by soy protein isolate/isoflavone diet. Prostate 2000 Oct 1; 45 (2): 101-5

8. Strauss L (1998). Genistein exerts estrogen-like effects in male mouse reproductive tract. Mol Cell Endocrinol Sep 25; 144 (1-2): 83-93

9. Weber KS (2001). Dietary soy-phytoestrogens decrease testosterone levels and prostate weight without altering LH, prostate 5alpha-reductase or testicular steroidogenic acute regulatory peptide levels in adult male Sprague-Dawley rats. J Endocrinol Sep; 170 (3): 591-9"

I believe your misguided interest in eating soy is thanks to the powerful soybean lobby - America produces by far the greatest amount of soybeans in the world. 8.28 billion metric tons annually.

Drink away, Anonymous. None of you with your silly, slated statements can argue with the iron laws of science. It is my ally, and like for all heretics burned at the stake in centuries past, your enemy.

-Ace

 
At 3:27 PM, Blogger xsparklerx said...

I don't want to get caught up in this people being designed for whatever arguement since like, it's stupid, basically. Design, evolved, whatever, we've all got choices and I think judging people simply on what they eat is stupid. Whether you're Preston yelling at a someone eating a steak, or a random online guy searching out vegan blogs to comment about how yummy meat is... I mean, really, what good will come from either of those?

Nope, don't want to get caught up in that. I just wanted to say that for all the quotes and statistics and studies... I don't have canines. I swear, after reading this I ran to the mirror and nope, they just aren't there... I mean, I'm not missing teeth, just my canines are totally flat. I'd like to see anyone try to tear into some raw flesh with these little things. Am I normal? Evolved? Weird? Whatever...

So yeah, I just think that's kinda neat, and hope everyone else runs to the bathroom to check their teeth too. Come'on, it's fun, and everyone's getting too hot and bothered (and not in the good way) and serious here. Gosh.

 
At 5:58 PM, Blogger Preston said...

I have canines, but I'm thinking about filing them down - just like I did to Marx's teeth when he was alive.

(I hope no one takes that seriously. Just kidding, people!)

:)

 
At 11:25 AM, Blogger Gary said...

Healthy people have eaten soy for centuries. Most studies of soy in humans show beneficial effects, and only the possibility of negaive effects in high dosages. You would get the same results if you studies broccoli consumption. Studies on captive lab rats are invalid. remember how leptin slimmed down fat rats but was mostly a bust in humans? If we based our diet on rats, we could eat human feces, chocolate would be a regulated substance, and we could eat high cholesterol, high-fat foods with virtally no risk of artherosclerosis. Often, rats and mice don't show the same response, and the environemnt in a lab is so artificial and contrived, the lab rats often don't accurately model their cousiis in the wild.

Bottom line: eat a variety of health foods from plant sources, and you will almost assuredly be as healthy or healthier as if you eat a meat-based diet. There is abundant empirical, human-based evidence to support this.

Excuses to eat meat and dairy, are just that: excuses. You can cherry-pick studies just like you can cherry-pick bible phraes to support slavery.

Since we can obviously get by fine without animal products in our diet (my wife and I would be dead now instead of healthy if it were otherwise), our choice of dit comes down to ethics. It may be convenient to fool oursleves into believing that we must eat meat, bu that simply is not the case. The proof is all around you. At some point each of us who isn't living in a cave has to confront the ethics of our dietary choices. I recommend for moral and environemntal reasons, as well as peace of mind, that one choose the most humane route possible.

 
At 11:51 AM, Blogger Gary said...

Argus --

My description of chicken production is accurate and thoroughly documented (eyewitness accounts, videos, industry publications, etc.) as I have described it. Actually, it's far worse. I didn't get into chickens' foot bones being broken as they're hurriedly picked up by chicken catchers; chickens falling out of transport trucks or riding the entire length of the trip with a limb stuck in a cage door; chickens falling over from the weight of their genetically-engineered upper bodies and dying of thirst within inches of water because they cannot get up, and so forth. Factory farms are basically non-stop horror movies.

More animals are killed to support an omnivorous diet than a vegan diet. This is virtually uncontested except for a few hard-cores. It's simple physics. We are able to grow and harvest fewer plants when they're fed directly to humans than when they're fed to animals and the animals are fed to humans.

There are additional environmental problems with animal agriculture. Demand for meat is a leading cause of deforestation. Chicken farms along the Chesapeake bay are responsbile for huge quantities of waste that unbalance the bay's ecology. The ammonia gas in factory farm sheds is harmful to humans. And so on. Non-AR groups have published this info in spades; it's not hard to find.

There is also a fundamental ethical difference between intentionally killing an animal and unavoidably killing an animal. It is the difference between accidentally running over a dog and swerving to hit the dog intentionally. We have little control over the former but almost total control over the latter. If we wish, within reason, to reduce our environmental footprint, and to reduce the number of animals harmed by our day-to-day living, we can start by adopting a vegan diet, and thereby quit contributing to intentional harm. Then we can make other changes, including supporting sustainable agriculture, supporting farmers markets, growing a garden, and making other lifestyle modifications.

Finally, it is not just the killing that we need to look at, but the suffering that precedes the killing. Animals in factory farms are subjected to extremely crowded and impoverished conditions. They are prevented from engaging in almost all natural behaviors. They are almost all orphaned. Female breeder turkeys are essentially raped. Battery-cage hens become stuck in their tiny cage bars and are forced to stand on top of corpses. Animals are mutilated in various ways without painkillers. And so forth. All heavily documented and standard industry practice.

You can protest all you want. I suspect it's fueled by denial and fear of self-incrimination. Almost all of us who eventually adopted a vegan diet went through it. Looking back we can see that we put off facing the inevitable: eating animal products in this day and age and place involves participating in severe and avoidable cruelty. It is far easier to divest one's self of that cruelty than to come up with ultimately uncovincing rationales for persisting in that cruelty.

 
At 8:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Preston

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger Wardo said...

Gary,

I didn't read your windy comments. They were too boring.

But the fact is, my points supporting meat in a well-balanced diet have nothing to do with denial or fear of anything.

Your moral soapboxing is wasted in the face of my inarguable science, as supported by study everywhere I turn when I look for it, as if the bioligical imperative of being hungry for meat wasn't enough for me.

I am uninterested in your thoughts concerning what is cruel and what isn't. I like eating animals, most people on the planet do, and scientific study refutes the notion that we aren't supposed to eat meat. I've proven it conclusively, whereas all you've done is make crass comments about how allegedly superior your moral code is to mine. When in fact, it isn't.

You are wrong, I am right. Learn it.

-Ace

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger dynastygal said...

The images of 'canines' on both the primate and lion bare no resemblance to the human 'canine' which is tiny and oft times blunt. So you wasted your time with the images.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home