Why vegans are simply better people

[Belz...]

Choice is very important. Our karma drives out choice but we are free at any time to liberate ourselves from birth-death, choice is a critical part of the Buddha's teaching. Ultimately, our destiny is our own and we are in complete control if we can train ourselves not to be deluded by the negative emotions that will result in choosing a poor life.

Could we leave made-up spiritual, age-old nonsense out of the discussion about made-up spiritual, new-age nonsense, please ?

 

[varwoche]

Obviously you didn't read the studies. Only two were about vegans

Incorrect.

and they did not compare overall health, only two specific diseases.

Only two diseases. LOL to the nth!

They were also diets prescribe by nutritionists and not what people are likely to eat without professional knowledge.

What in Odin's name does this have to do with the price of whole wheat bread? Your attempts to wave this information away impress me as desperate.

 

[citizenzen]

And here's a study, just in the news today, for the carnivorous [source] ...

Eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage may increase a person's risk of developing pancreatic cancer, according to a new survey.

A study by the British Journal of Cancer pooled together 11 other studies involving 6,643 people with pancreatic cancer. The data suggests an elevated risk of the disease when consuming processed meats.

For every 50 grams a person adds of processed meat to their diet, the risk of pancreatic cancer increased by 19 per cent, according to the study.​

MMM! Pancreatic cancer. [drool] nomnomnom

 

[Stout]

Could we leave made-up spiritual, age-old nonsense out of the discussion about made-up spiritual, new-age nonsense, please ?

It's all legit.

Had the OP simply stated 'I'm uncomfortable killing things and using their remains when there are viable alternatives available" instead of engaging in extreme douchbaggery, I doubt we've had much of a thread.

If there's a spiritual reason someone eschews animal products, I see no reason to quash it. It's politics, not science.

 

[varwoche]

MMM! Pancreatic cancer. [drool] nomnomnom

Only one disease? Not apt to impress qayak.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Sound delicious, i'd be sure to deglaze the pan with some white wine then finish the broth with a dash of cream and some parsley and serve with some lovely crusty bread

It was cooked in a tomato white wine sauce actually (Cioppino). We used a decent tasting chablis and it turned out really good. All fresh seafood which to me makes a huge difference.

Not served with bread though as we don't eat grains.

 

[applecorped]

And here's a study, just in the news today, for the carnivorous [source] ...

Eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage may increase a person's risk of developing pancreatic cancer, according to a new survey.

A study by the British Journal of Cancer pooled together 11 other studies involving 6,643 people with pancreatic cancer. The data suggests an elevated risk of the disease when consuming processed meats.

For every 50 grams a person adds of processed meat to their diet, the risk of pancreatic cancer increased by 19 per cent, according to the study.​

MMM! Pancreatic cancer. [drool] nomnomnom

mmmmmmmmmmmm......

 

[Estellea]

And here's a study, just in the news today, for the carnivorous [source] ...

Eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage may increase a person's risk of developing pancreatic cancer, according to a new survey.

A study by the British Journal of Cancer pooled together 11 other studies involving 6,643 people with pancreatic cancer. The data suggests an elevated risk of the disease when consuming processed meats.

For every 50 grams a person adds of processed meat to their diet, the risk of pancreatic cancer increased by 19 per cent, according to the study.​

MMM! Pancreatic cancer. [drool] nomnomnom

You may want to read the actual study as the news report didn't exactly get it right. And another example of horrendous reporting on a scientific study. I'd be happy to discuss the results and methodologies with you when you read it.

Este

 

[bit_pattern]

Could we leave made-up spiritual, age-old nonsense out of the discussion about made-up spiritual, new-age nonsense, please ?

No one is asking you to read my posts. Certainly no one is asking you to reply, especially if you don't have anything constructive to add

 

[citizenzen]

I'd be happy to discuss the results and methodologies...

We're right here.

Feel free to begin at any time.

 

[Estellea]

@ citizenzen:
Methods:

All studies adjusted for age and smoking, and most studies also adjusted for energy intake (n=7). Fewer studies controlled for body mass index (n=2) and/or history of diabetes (n=5).

Do you find these measurements a bit lacking? How could this introduce confounding?

We identified 13 prospective studies (Mills et al, 1988; Hirayama, 1989; Zheng et al, 1993; Coughlin et al, 2000; Isaksson et al, 2002; Stolzenberg-Solomon et al, 2002, 2007; Michaud et al, 2003; Nöthlings et al, 2005; Lin et al, 2006; Larsson et al, 2006a; Heinen et al, 2009; Inoue-Choi et al, 2011) that were potentially eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Two studies were excluded, because the exposure was total meat, including white meat (poultry and fish; Mills et al, 1988),

Emphasis mine. This would indicate to me that the studies used with the inclusion criteria restricted to red/processed meat consumption introduces some bias, i.e. total diet should be considered, not to mention other lifestyle choices to calculate a more accurate correlation with pancreatic cancer.

Now if you look at the actual study, they do discuss this but the news report doesn't. I don't have a real problem with the interpretation of the results of the study by the authors; I think they are being responsible and conservative, but do have a problem with how the results are being used as typical tabloid hype.

Este

 

[Complexity]

No one is asking you to read my posts. Certainly no one is asking you to reply, especially if you don't have anything constructive to add

I beg to differ.

Alright, I'm not really begging, merely differing.

You post on a public forum, you are inviting everyone to read your posts, and you are inviting everyone to respond as we see fit.

What is constructive is quite subjective.

For example, when someone says something stupid, I feel bound, through integrity, compassion, and contrariness, to point out their stupidity to them and to anyone else who is reading. I doubt that the person I am correcting feels that my comments are constructive, but they have already shown through their silly words that their opinions should not be given undue weight.

Anyone talking about 'karma' seriously is screaming out for correction, not to mention derision and mockery.

Babble about karma if you must, but do not think you are immune from criticism.

 

[bit_pattern]

Babble about karma if you must, but do not think you are immune from criticism.

I don't. The poster wasn't criticising me, they were asking me not to discuss something that underpins the ethics of my decision not to eat meat. You can criticise all you want but don't ask me not to talk about something relavant to my choice, if that's what you want then don't read my posts. I'm pretty sure the forum has an ignore feature

 

[citizenzen]

@ citizenzen:
Methods: Do you find these measurements a bit lacking? How could this introduce confounding?

I have no idea Estella. I'm a graphic designer, and not too bright.

You'll have to rephrase that using shorter words.

 

[Belz...]

It's all legit.

Had the OP simply stated 'I'm uncomfortable killing things and using their remains when there are viable alternatives available" instead of engaging in extreme douchbaggery, I doubt we've had much of a thread.

If there's a spiritual reason someone eschews animal products, I see no reason to quash it. It's politics, not science.

I think we should use skepticism in all sections, don't you ?

 

[Belz...]

No one is asking you to read my posts. Certainly no one is asking you to reply, especially if you don't have anything constructive to add

So if you are off-topic, I don't get to call you on it because it makes my post off-topic ? Are you saying I should report your posts rather than talk to you about it ? How friendly !

 

[bit_pattern]

So if you are off-topic, I don't get to call you on it because it makes my post off-topic ? Are you saying I should report your posts rather than talk to you about it ? How friendly !

I'd prefer the mods make that decision, thanks all the same, I don't need advice from you on what I can and cannot talk about. So report away!

 

[Belz...]

I don't. The poster wasn't criticising me, they were asking me not to discuss something that underpins the ethics of my decision not to eat meat.

That's not true. I asked you to leave nonsense out of the discussion and, certainly, out of the decision. In essence, I was calling karma the nonsense that it is.

 

[Belz...]

I'd prefer the mods make that decision, thanks all the same, I don't need advice from you on what I can and cannot talk about. So report away!

Then I must respectfully disagree:

1) I don't report posts of that kind.

2) I prefer discussing my issues with the people I have issues with first, not go cry to daddy. If you can't bear to be told your nonsense is nonsense, it's not my problem.

 

[bit_pattern]

Then I must respectfully disagree:

1) I don't report posts of that kind.

2) I prefer discussing my issues with the people I have issues with first, not go cry to daddy. If you can't bear to be told your nonsense is nonsense, it's not my problem.

I don't care if you think its nonsense, you can call it nonsense, you can deconstruct the nonsense and prove how irrational it is, or you can ignore me and talk about what you want to talk about. But what you were saying in that post, and in the subsequent post when you raised the option of reporting my posts to the mods, is that you don't think I should be allowed to bring nonsense into the debate. That's not scepticism, my friend.

I think we should use skepticism in all sections, don't you ?

Scepticism doesn't involve trying trying to silence topics you don't agree with.