Vegetarians more likely to have mental issues...

[Ebowed]

Too true, but I'm not going to be one of those annoying vegetarians (or worse, vegans) who is going to insist that something along those lines be provided when I go to someone else's house just because I happened to decide to go that route.

Uh wow.  It's really not that hard to not eat animals.  Even at your friends' bible study.  I mean, you can plan ahead.  Your friend is too precious to make a side without corpse in it, then eat something before you leave the house.  That's if you want to, of course.

I don't really get your logic at all.  You think it's more "annoying" to look after yourself than to sit there uncomfortably eating food you don't even want?

If friends at social events are making you feel uncomfortable or trying to force you to eat food you don't want, are you really the problem there?

[Ebowed]

Again with these projections.  Self-centered?  Do you know what the meat is served with at Christmas?  Vegetables.  I've never heard of a Christmas dinner without them.

[Ebowed]

Protein

How many people do you know with protein deficiency, out of curiosity?

[Ebowed]

Protein

How many people do you know with protein deficiency, out of curiosity?

I think many people who benefit from eating more protein and animal fat, instead simple carbohydrates and sweets.  

I asked you if you know anybody with protein deficiency.  It goes without saying that you can only get animal fat from eating animals, but your original implication was that vegetarians would have a hard time meeting their protein requirements.  Do you stand by that, or are you changing the qualifier to include animal fats?

[Ebowed]

"Secular ethical issues" just aren't really on my radar to be honest.   I just don't view animal lives as even close to as important as human lives.  If given a choice, sure, I'd probably by organic beef, I guess, but ethical considerations just aren't really a consideration when eating, as is the case with the vast majority of Americans, thankfully.

"Thankfully"?  Dude, wtf?  Even if you don't view animals lives as "even close to as important as human lives," you're actively happy that other people don't care about the unnecessary suffering caused by the way we do mass-production farming?

It makes me genuinely angry that you took time to brag about how religiously righteous you are, and yet you're apparently gratified that others are as actively disinterested in animal suffering as you are.  There is absolutely nothing in your religious beliefs, or the belief that human lives are superior to animal lives, that requires you to think like this.  You just have decided not to care about entities that, however inferior to us, are no less capable of experiencing fear or feeling unbearable pain.  You apparently think that your apathy toward suffering is not only acceptable, but you're even glad it's widespread.

"Thankfully"?  Seriously, what the hell.

To be fair, he is on record saying that AIDS is a suitable punishment for promiscuity and intravenous drug use, so talking about morality with him is pretty much futile.

[Ebowed]

Just because people are consuming (higher quantities of) low-fat foods, does not indicate that there would be a drop in heart disease and related ailments, particularly if the McGovern report didn't account for the fact that manufacturers would simply replace the fat with sugar, which in turn would exacerbate obesity levels, therefore leaving the population with the same great risks of heart disease, as well as a higher risk of diabetes.

For all the complaining about 'low-fat' dairy, keep in mind that the excess fat is used for cheese production, so it's not exactly like the dairy industry hasn't also gained something out of the anti-fat hysteria.

Blaming vegetarians for deficiencies in B12, iron, etc. when those deficiencies are far more common than the restrictive diets is questionable.  It's not a secret that livestock are fed B12 vitamins so that the risk of deficiency among meat-eaters is lessened.  B12 is produced by bacteria, which is why it is easier to obtain from animal products - but there is nothing about it that precludes it from a vegan diet.

[Ebowed]

100% false and a blatant mischaracterization of what I had said (just like your craven behavior on AAD toward me, Ebowed) - my remark simply pointed out that unfortunately, reckless behavior has the potential for disastrous consequences, as AIDS showed us during the 1980's with drug users and promiscuous people-I wasn't saying this was the right punishment, simply that it did occur.

Here are your statements:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could say I've taken the liberty of simplifying your statements, but mischaracterizing them?  The only one doing that here is you, and attempting to disguise your animosities as some type of justice and/or moral order is fine if that's what you want to do, but you can drop the pretense of utter bewilderment.

[Ebowed]

Free range, grass feeding, etc. is much uses far fewer natural resources than grain feeding animals on factory farms, and it produces meat with much higher nutritional value.

How do you figure?  The more space you require for animal agriculture, the less space you have for competing natural habitats.  The leading cause of tropical deforestation is making way for feedlots and the growing of grains to be fed to livestock.  If we moved away entirely from industrial beef production to free-range, grass-fed production without reducing the demand, there would be no space.  This idea that you can simply remove all of the remaining forests (natural carbon sinks) and replace them with endless methane-emitting grazing cows is one of the greatest fantasies ever told.

Grass-fed beef, for instance, is one of the most nutrient-rich foods you can eat.

It's actually a colossal waste of resources for the amount of nutrition produced.  If you're interested, you should check into how much water is required to produce beef and dairy.

[Ebowed]

If you feed animals on their natural diet instead of feeding them grains, you free up more of those grains to feed to people.  Of course, research is showing that grains probably aren't all that good for you, but if we're trying to feed starving people in the developing world, it's better than nothing.

The reason, other than space constraints, that farmers feed grains to livestock is because it is easier to fatten them up on an unnatural diet.  The collective demand for beef goes a long way towards explaining why farmers would find it preferable to feed cows in this manner.  I don't know where you got the idea that grains are unhealthy but that's demonstrably absurd.

Let's break this down:
1. The reason we grow so many grains is specifically to feed livestock.  If we stopped growing grains to feed livestock, we would have enough grains to feed the human population ten times over.  (Is it starting to click yet how growing meat for nutrition is a colossal waste of resources?)  We obviously wouldn't keep growing that many grains if we didn't have livestock to feed them.  Yes, we would feed the world many times over, but we also wouldn't need to keep wasting land and resources on growing so many grains in the first place.
2. There literally isn't enough land to grow all beef (let alone dairy, my God) in a "free range, grass fed" situation.  If all of the beef eaten in the US alone were grown this way, it would require all of the land in the world, and then we still wouldn't meet supply.  And the majority of the world's population, surprise, doesn't even live in the US!
3. Nobody is asking you to shell out for organic, free range produce that you claim is more nutritious (a dubious assumption that we don't have time to get into) but yet cannot afford.  If you just ate a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes and grains you would get the same nutrients at a reduced cost.
4. Finally, can we address your underlying implication that you should get to eat grass fed beef while the world's poor should only eat grains?  Guess what - it's already the case.  For all this nonsense about veganism being a first world option, the privilege actually lies in being able to choose what you eat.  I don't begrudge people for eating what they know when their options are limited or nonexistent.  What bothers me here is this nasty thing going here where you get to eat the world's beef and destroy the Amazon because you apparently can't see the difference between your personal taste preferences and self-defense, while the world's poor are stuck with grains that you don't even think are nutritious!  That says a lot about you.

[Ebowed]

When Edward IV marched his army north to Towton, they basically had grain bread, peas, and beans to eat. Meat on that march would have been a delicacy, but there would have been a bit to go around. Protein would have had to come from somewhere, and he suggests that eggs would have been available.

The protein came from the beans and peas you mentioned two sentences prior...