Saved by Grace.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2011, 01:34 AM
RE: Saved by Grace.
Paul, saw your post, and I'm going to respond to it. A lot went down in the other thread that I have to address as well. I'm in no shape to respond because my brain has been turned into a boiling pile a gloop from sitting through Breaking Dawn tonight.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
03-12-2011, 07:50 AM
RE: Saved by Grace.
(02-12-2011 05:54 PM)paulesungnomo Wrote:  humans are the only carnivores who have to alter the chemical stucture of all meat (by cooking it) just to be able to eat it without a high risk of serious illness.

This is not true. While there is the benefit of killing pathogens by cooking, raw meat is otherwise healthy for humans, just like it is for all the other carniverous and omniverous animals.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 12:41 PM
 
RE: Saved by Grace.
(03-12-2011 07:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-12-2011 05:54 PM)paulesungnomo Wrote:  humans are the only carnivores who have to alter the chemical stucture of all meat (by cooking it) just to be able to eat it without a high risk of serious illness.

This is not true. While there is the benefit of killing pathogens by cooking, raw meat is otherwise healthy for humans, just like it is for all the other carniverous and omniverous animals.

hehehe that's exactly what i said.... you rust re-phrased what i said and removed pathogens (which is the reason i gave for it being unhealthy) from the statement. i never claimed that it was not 'otherwise' healthy. i said that there is high risk of illness (from pathogens!) when meat is eaten raw. things like refrigeration, preservatives, and cooking are the only thing that makes it safe. in a natural setting, especially in tropical areas, it is very dangerous to eat raw meat even a few hours after the death of the animal.... once you apply all the things that people do to eat meat, it becomes less of an immediate health hazard, but it's still proven that a diet free of it is much more healthy.

this is not speculation. it's science, and at this point, other than a few detractors generally on the meat industries payroll, there is a large consensus on this. a study oxford university did and some others are linked to below.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06...diet.shtml

http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/525S.short

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl...ealth.html
Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 12:58 PM
RE: Saved by Grace.
The chemical structure of meat is not what needs to be altered at all. That alteration is a by-product of cooking to kill pathogens. You are correct, that we need to kill these pathogens (generally speaking, though I actually consume a fair amount of raw meat, but that's another thread) because our systems can't handle them. That is conditioning though, not human nessecity. A human that eats raw meat throughout their life is only slightly more likely to become ill from uncooked meat than a person who eats cooked meat. Problem is, cooked meat tastes better, is more tender, and just all around more palatable by our now spoiled bodies.

As for the EXTREMELY biased studies linked....well.....yeah. Again, another thread.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 01:08 PM
 
RE: Saved by Grace.
Quote:As for the EXTREMELY biased studies linked....well.....yeah. Again, another thread.

how are they biased? oxford university did a study of a very large segment of the UK's population. they found that people with a meat free diet were at lower risk for all sorts of major heart issues, colon and intestinal cancers and weight related issues among many others. where is the flaw in the their reasoning? they followed up years later with all the same people to check on long term effects. how is that biased?

The University of Chicago one focuses on the effect the meat industry has on the environment. are you going to deny that industrial farms are bad for the environment?

the other one breaks down major illnesses and says if meat eaters or vegetarians are most at risk for each one. how are they biased when they plainly state that vegetarians are more at risk for things like depression and infertility? wouldn't they have left the conflicting data out? what they did is the opposite of biased.

i was not pontificating on the moral superiority of not eating meat, i was asking KingsChosen for his christian perspective on why his god does care about animals and does not make any rules about their fair and humane treatment. i am not trying to argue morals of eating meat. for me it's a personal thing and although i do think it's wrong to kill sentient beings when you don't have to, but that's my personal view. the health benefits however, are pretty undeniable.
Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 01:11 PM
RE: Saved by Grace.
(03-12-2011 12:58 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  The chemical structure of meat is not what needs to be altered at all. That alteration is a by-product of cooking to kill pathogens. You are correct, that we need to kill these pathogens (generally speaking, though I actually consume a fair amount of raw meat, but that's another thread) because our systems can't handle them. That is conditioning though, not human nessecity. A human that eats raw meat throughout their life is only slightly more likely to become ill from uncooked meat than a person who eats cooked meat. Problem is, cooked meat tastes better, is more tender, and just all around more palatable by our now spoiled bodies.

As for the EXTREMELY biased studies linked....well.....yeah. Again, another thread.

Well said. If you look at human physiology, it is obvious we are omnivores, we evolved eating a varied diet. Meat is not anymore unhealthy than broccoli.

Too many cheeseburgers will almost certainly make you unhealthy, but no cheeseburgers isn't a health guarantee.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 01:34 PM
RE: Saved by Grace.
Paul,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing about morality at all. Just wanted to point some things out about the health of eating cooked vs raw meat.

As for the bias to the articles you linked, I'll admit, the first one was the only one I read thoroughly, the others just got a skim. But the argument about raising meat being an environmentaly damaging paractice is biased (in the article) because it ONLY refers to factory raised meat. When meat (including beef) is raised PROPERLY, it has a negative carbon footprint, and the methane refered to simply does not occur when cattle and other grazing animals are raised without grain as a part of their diet. They improve land by creating haelthy soil structure, which can then be used to grow FOOD (not grains, which is only natural for birds, and a select few other animals to eat) without any fertilizer whatsoever.

Animal fat is linked to cholesterol. But we've been lied to for a very long time about the effects cholesterol has on our bodies by a government that encourages grain crops grown with chemicals. Just look at the egg scandal. The government told us that eating more than six eggs a week was bad for us because of the cholesterol involved. It made headlines all over the world, and people cut their egg consumption because the were told they'd all die of heart disease if they didn't. Literally WEEKS later, the research was found to be faulty. EXTREMELY faulty. As in dead wrong. But that didn't make headlines, and so to this day, people think eggs are too high in cholesterol to be eaten often. I'm not going to add a bunch of links. My research has been going on for years, and finding links would be time consuming and I just don't have it. Start by watching the movie "Fat Head". It's a good starting point to get the brain going, though not complete at all.

I'm not in the least bit against a veggie diet. It's a choice that can be healthy. Not one I agree with, but that doesn't make it wrong. And I am cool with it especially when the alternative is eating factory raised meat. I hear the excuse, "but not everyone has access to pasture raised, environmentally friendly meat like you do." Baloney. If you choose to eat meat, then you can also choose to do the legwork required to find meat that is healthy, environmentally friendly, and treated with care, kindness, and compassion.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 01:39 PM
RE: Saved by Grace.
(03-12-2011 01:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you look at human physiology, it is obvious we are omnivores, we evolved eating a varied diet. Meat is not anymore unhealthy than broccoli.

Too many cheeseburgers will almost certainly make you unhealthy, but no cheeseburgers isn't a health guarantee.

Exactly. And further to that, a meat only diet is definitely not healthy, but you'll survive on it a hell of a lot longer than a broccoli only diet. If fact, the truth is, as far as survival goes, you are far better off with meat than with vegetables. Meat has a far wider range of nutrients, that have been processed for you, and are readily available. Get lost in the woods and you'll die quickly if you devote too much time to gathering vegetable matter. But if you devote that time to catching game, you'll come out of it healthy and energetic.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 01:40 PM
 
RE: Saved by Grace.
Quote: ...and treated with care, kindness, and compassion.

agreed on pretty much everything but this last little tidbit. (you should read the other studies, they are not biased at all. and of course when things are raised properly there is no damage, but what % of total meat is raised that way? a very small one.

as far as the quote goes.... it don't see how the killing of an animal before it's natural time to die in order to eat it can ever be called kindness and compassion. but i do agree it gives them a tad bit more dignity that being raised at a factory farm.
Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 01:54 PM
RE: Saved by Grace.
(03-12-2011 01:40 PM)paulesungnomo Wrote:  
Quote: ...and treated with care, kindness, and compassion.

agreed on pretty much everything but this last little tidbit. (you should read the other studies, they are not biased at all. and of course when things are raised properly there is no damage, but what % of total meat is raised that way? a very small one.

as far as the quote goes.... it don't see how the killing of an animal before it's natural time to die in order to eat it can ever be called kindness and compassion. but i do agree it gives them a tad bit more dignity that being raised at a factory farm.

Actually a much larger % of meat is raised properly than you may think. Not to mention, demanding it creates more availability. Mine is all raised that way, and we limit what we raise because the government won't let us sell it!! (Have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to get "inspected")

The "natural" time for an animal to die is almost always when a predator catches it (usually at a very young age) Being eaten by another animal that will start to consume you before you are even dead is no where near pleasant. My animals are all slaughtered seperate from other animals, and never even know it's coming. So you are right when you say it's not "natural". It is FAR more kind and compassionate than nature.

I know that this is all a little tough to envision, but it's not only the way I'd like things to be, it's a way of life for me. I would have you come to my farm in a heartbeat to show you. And that is sincere. I welcome people here as often as I can so they can see first hand that the life of an animal raised for meat at my farm lives a better life than it would even if left to "die of natural causes." I liken that argument to religion in fact. It's a viewpoint taken by the majority, but not through education, but from what you've been shown. Check that - from what you've been selectively shown. I don't fault anyone for that, but I do speak out against it, and encourage people to learn about a better way.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: