This is an endless argument...but I gotta tell ya' Paleoanth, if I didn't have balls that would be my anthem too....

I am in total agreement that this is a Low Carb forum, and as such everyone will do things quite differently to make this WOE work for them. Some may choose to eat meat, some may choose not to, some may choose to weigh daily, some may choose not to.

The real point here is that everyone is entitled to their opinion and as such it should be respected. It's not that different opinions should not be voiced on this forum, it's that when these voices get to this forum, it should be done with plenty of information to back the staked position and with the utmost respect for others that may do things differently.

My 2 cents......

I could care less about peta or any other radical bunch of loones , all I was doing was initiating debate.I eat broccoli and other tasty plants as well as my share of meat .lighten up untwist your knickers and share a chuckle . last time I looked this was still legal in the u.s.a. , one of the few places left where we can still voice our opinion and express ourself.
in short its a joke get over it. yours truely jeff

Was this a debate or a joke? Or maybe a joking debate? Or a debating joke?

I actually enjoy a good debate or a good joke. I must not get your sense of humor, though.

I enjoy a good joke as well. Probably why I wasn't laughing at this one.

This can become a sensitive topic.

PETA and PCRM are not members of this forum, we just get the occasional member join us for a quicky

However, their PR pervades our surroundings, with their many publicity stunts, like their post-mortem attacks on Dr. Atkins, and their continuing claims of "research" showing low-carbing causes cancer and other nasty things.

So, it not reasonable to expect that such PR will not be discussed here, because PCRM and PETA are not here. It's a public issue directly related to low-carbing, and the discussion belongs on a low-carbing forum.

So the next issue would be the debate on the ethics or morality of vegetarianism/veganism regardless of PETA/PCRM issues. We have opinions on both sides of the issues. We do have members following a vegetarian lifestyle and claim it is the moral choice, and/or that eating meat is unethical and/or immoral. Other members may disagree. And we do have members who claim vegetarianism is unhealthy, and deprives the individual of essential nutrients. Other members may disagree.

Such debate is healthy, and welcome, and the readers may form their own opinions and conclusions, or join the debate.

What is not healthy, and not welcome here, is personal attacks. Those can be dealt with by using the report button.

Wa'il

Again, what you posted is not what this particular thread is about. I have also made no claim about the health benefits or the morality of vegetarianism. Yet I get, not exactly attacks, but basically told that my personal choice is somehow an affront to nonvegetarians.

Did I say you made such claims? I think you misread what I said.

I'm trying to explains why such debate is healthy. And the alternative, avoiding or removing any discussion on this topic, is not.

Wa'il

Nope, I didn't misread what you wrote at all. I understand that you never said that I made those claims. My point is that this particular thread does not address those people who spout moral superiority for vegetarianism. This thread is not starting a debate on whether or not vegetarianism is a healthy choice in general or healthier than ominiverous diets. This thread is against ALL vegetarians. It isn't even a good healthy debate, because the science presented is bad and so are the religious reasons.

So I fail to understand what you are suggesting. Not every argument made on our forum is correct, and some are outright erroneous. So then what do you suggest we do with such threads?

My point was adressing what etoiles observed, which is correct. And I'm pointing the other side, which does occur occasionally.

Wa'il

Oh, I am not suggesting anything that you do anything! I apologize if that is the way it came across. I am all for free speech whether I agree with it or not.

I guess what I am trying to accomplish is to request that people who want to post against vegetarians make it clear that they are posting against those who claim moral superiority, claim dubious health benefits or the crap the PCRM and PETA spout. If their only goal is to try and marginalize the ones who are quietly going about their low carb vegetarianism-I wish they would think a minute before hitting the post button.

I don't really see how the original posting was an attack on Vegetarians. It sounded like the person was trying to defend his choice from someone who disagreed with it. Not that he was attacking vegetarianism at all.

The original poster wasn't attacking vegetarians as human beings, he was critiquing vegetarianism as a lifestyle and trying to open up a discussion about it. I don't see what's wrong with that. Without debate between two people, exchange of information cannot take place, and one cannot learn or grow. Where would we be if everyone just agreed with each other all the time? Debate is a valid format for expression of ideas, and often proves productive.

If you disagree with the original posters sentiments, that's perfectly fine. I happen to disagree with using religion as a basis to support something that's best established by repeatable science myself, and therefore I am less interested in the choice to eat meat from a moral perspective. However, you seem to be implying that the original poster was some how trying to attack vegetarians by expressing his criticisms of the moral choice not to eat meat. I don't see it that way. If someone expresses their criticisms of a low carbohydrate diet, I don't take it as a personal attack. I certainly may disagree with them, I may even regard them as ignorant, but criticizing atkins is not criticizing me.

Now, on the other hand, if someone were saying negative things about people who go on low carbohydrate diets (i.e. they are all fat idiots who want to eat a bowl of bacon instead of control themselves!!!), that would be a personal insult, just as would it be a personal insult if someone said something bad about people who choose to be vegetarian.

wow I havent seen so much disturbance in the force since I declared I was a liberal democrat and let it slip that I was president of a socialist labor union

Here's my question...

I understand that discussion of these topics as they pertain to low-carbing belongs in these areas, but wouldn't whether or not God meant for us to eat meat or veggies really belong in one of the off-topic areas?