: Thank you MDG!: For the first time you argued without trying to insult me (bad words, etc.
You're no slouch in the insults department yourself, Lars, but as two reasonably mature adults, I'm sure we can resume this dialogue without further insults.
: I have never said that it is impossible to find articles or scientific research supporting your views, as well as I have given references supporting mine.
Nor did I say it was impossible for you to find your own supporting articles; all I said was that the scientific consensus, i.e., the majority opinion, based upon sound science, statistics, and other evidence, is that the vegetarian diet is healthier than one that includes meat.
: What I have said is that there is NO EVIDENCE that meat (itself) is dangerous for you.
Two points: first, I do not believe that if a person eats a piece of meat, they'll keel over and die; nor will they automatically get cancer. My second point, which I firmly believe, and on which the scientific and empirical verdict has been rendered, is that abstaining from meat will LESSEN your chances of getting cancer, heart disease, and many other illnesses, and that vegetables contain anti-oxidants, but meat contains free radicals, and anti-oxidants are useful precisely because they combat the aging effects of free radicals.
: And the fact that both you and I, easily (I guess it was as easy for you to find your references as it was for me to find mine) can find references that support our views shows clearly that their is lack of evidence. This is how science work.
No, it shows there is conflicting evidence, however, the evidence supporting my views is greater than that supporting yours.
: I will go on eating meat as long as I think it's good for me, and that will be until the science community agrees about that meat is dangerous. Today they don't, and I think that I have shown that.
But they have shown that. Whether you choose to ignore it or not is your choice.
: I understand your views and respect them, but I'm sorry for you that you can't understand and respect mine.
You have to understand this, Lars. I don't object to a person doing something which only harms themselves. If, for example, a person wants to drink a pint of vodka every day, they are only harming themselves, so I won't tell them they can't do it (though I would feel compelled to warn them of the dangers of doing it). Meat is different, however, because it by definition harms the animals, and its production also harms the environment. Please see my post up above entitled "Meat, hell on animals, hell on the environment" for my evidence of those assertions.
If one day scientists can grow meat in vats, so that no animals need suffer and die, and the environment is not harmed, then I will gladly shut up and go away. Believe me, Lars, I'd rather be doing something else besides campaigning against meat, but knowing what I know about the treatment of animals in the meat industry, and the harm it brings to the environment, I have no choice but to protest.
:It must be hard living in a world their you have to walk around and hate alot of people (the meat eaters).
You misunderstand. It is hard living in a world knowing that animals are suffering terribly when there is no reason for it, because a healthy vegetarian alternative is out there. It is hard living in a world where people are being tortured in jail because of their political beliefs. It is hard living in this world period, Lars. Ignorance is bliss, but knowledge carries an awful burden. That's not the same as hate, though anger and hate are natural responses to the continuing horrors around us, particularly when others deny their existence or worse, ignore them.
