Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
7
6
7
1
5
5
7
10
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should We Eat Meat?
Vegetarianism and IQ
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently launched "IQ Test the Nation," and the breakdown of results was interesting. There was a statistically significant difference between the average IQ of meat eaters and vegetarians of more than 1 IQ point, with meat eaters scoring higher. Even more interesting is that the subset of Vegetarians who are also Vegans scored 6 points lower on average than meat eaters. So the difference between all meat eaters and all non-meat eaters was about 1.75 IQ points. http://www.cbc.ca/testthenation/episodes/iq/results/groups.html
People who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't. So vegetarians can be healthier, but I would argue brain performance is an indicator of health, and this study suggests that meateaters are healthier. Besides, most people would be much healthier if they focused on removing starches from their diets rather than meat.
- LiberalMulroney
July 24, 2008 9:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what was the margin of error?
what was the margin of error in the study? I'm guess it is greater than 1.75 points which would make the result meaningless.
- reckoner
August 15, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nice try
If you want to argue that this study is meaningless, then you'll have to do better than "I guess [the margin of error] is greater than 1.75 points." No information was listed about what the margin of error is. But with 10,000 vegetarians and 90,000 meat eaters participating, that's a pretty significant sample size. Certainly the Vegan, even though only 1,600 people responded, is well withing the margin of error.
Please read my comment again. When you choose to exclude things from your diet, you may not be getting all of the nutrients that your body requires to function at 100%. That isn't n argument; it's common sense. This study is obviously a pop culture study, but that doesn't make it meaningless.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 9:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the burden of proof is on you
the burden of proof is on you to show that this study is meaningful. If you don't know the margin of error then you can't honestly make the claim you are making.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fair enough, I'll repeat what I wrote below.
With over 100,000 respondents to the survey, and over 10,000 vegetarians, this is a statistically significant number. Don't forget that in IQ, one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. Consider that the average IQ was perhaps too high on this test, reset the average to 100, and this jumps to 4% of the population.
With 1,674 respondents for vegans, over, the differences are statistically significant. Consider that in IQ, the mean is 100 and one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 103.69 and 109.85 is 14.7% of the population. That's huge. With a survey size of 1,600 people, the margin of error is less than 3%. Between mere vegetarians and meat-eaters, the gap is much smaller, which makes sense, since vegans are more likely to be nutritionally deficient because they are excluding more foods from their diet. The difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. But the margin of error is also much greater, since the sample size is 6.6 times larger for vegetarians and vegans.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 10:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
smoke and mirrors
You still haven't given the margin of error for the results. I'll assume that means you don't know it.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Margin of error
No one seems to know much statistics here. The confidence MUST be set in advance, and determines the margin of error. To speak of one without the other is meaningless. That is, if you wish to discriminate among populations (vegans and meat lovers) with 90% confidence level, you might have a margin of error of 1, or 2, or 1.75 points. However, you can't go back to say a 1.75% gives a 90% confidence level - that's intellectually dishonest and statistically bankrupt.
As Disraeli said, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
- AlibiFarmer
September 5, 2008 12:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
EQ measures overall health while IQ does not
A persons EQ is a much better predictor of health, an individual can have a high IQ and a high level of apathy at the same time. Concerning IQ I feel you ought to know: 1.75 is a very trivial number and in this case quite meaningless. If you know about statistics- like taking upper division college courses on the subject and passing with good scores, then you would know these scores mean nothing in this context.
FOOD
Total Respondents Lowest IQ Highest IQ Average IQ Estimated IQ (Avg.)
Meat eater 98876 29.0 156.0 109.85492 109.18708
Vegeterian 11048 29.0 156.0 108.73959 107.68057
Vegan 1674 29.0 153.0 103.69176 103.9092
Look at the number of total respondents. This study doesn't say much of anything.
- M3house
August 15, 2008 12:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Congratulations
Congratulations on your academic success in upper division college courses! I completed a Bachelor of Commerce at University and got A's in all of my statistics courses. YAY for me too!
This is the second person to cite statistical significance to discredit this survey, and yet nobody has actually applied statistical theory to prove your point. If you want to discredit the argument, then apply the statistics that you aptly studied in upper division college and prove it, rather than just stating your credentials and dismissing it without proof.
With over 100,000 respondents to the survey, and over 10,000 vegetarians, this is a statistically significant number. Don't forget that in IQ, one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. Consider that the average IQ was perhaps too high on this test, reset the average to 100, and this jumps to 4% of the population.
Your point about EQ vs IQ is pointless. So what if one is a better indicator? IQ information while not necessarily preferable, is valid nonetheless. And if the lower IQ scores are simply due to apathy, then isn't that just another argument in favor of meat-eating?
Again, I am not saying that vegetarians are dumber people. Read my post again.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Looks like you deserved the A's
Well said Mulroney, well said.
- MrZ750 September 2, 2008 6:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the burden of proof is on you
again, you are the one making the assertion so the burden of proof is on you. Can you please show me which peer reviewed journal this "study" was published in.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Glad you got your A
My profs would have failed you. Without knowing the confidence level designated at the start of the study, you can't know if the results are statistically significant. And the credibility of a 65% confidence level is far different from a 99% level.
I could easily make the case that vegetarians come from a different social strata - one that measures as more intelligent. A cliche in statistics - correlation is not causation. Good studies control for such things - bad ones just throw out numbers.
I have no dog in this fight. I just think if the difference is that small, you are better off using other arguments. If you look closely enough, you can always find statistical differences in any population.
- AlibiFarmer
September 5, 2008 2:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
is mulroney an aries or libra?
you're absolutely right, and to make it more meaningless, this wasn't any type of serious study. It was looking at astrological signs! Apparently Libras are the smartest and Aries are the dumbest, oh and black haired people are the dumbest ;)
- reckoner
September 6, 2008 10:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unfounded.
Your statement is a carbon copy of the urban myth of vegetarianism. Everything you said is simply wrong. You use one...one study without mentioning the methods to confirm a point that has been disproven over and over again. How many people were in this study anyway? What other tests did they do, just that one?
- ajkochanowicz August 25, 2008 3:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Even less-founded
I use one... one study, but you use none, and you clearly didn't even look at my study. There were over 100,000 people in the study; if you actually visited the site you'd see that. My statement isn't a carbon copy of an urban myth. I have never heard the myth before, and my evidence would suggest that perhaps it is not a myth. Perhaps you are the one who is mistaken. If you want to lambaste my argument, you should more than casually skim through it.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Source?
Does this information -- "People who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't" -- also come from this study? What is "often" to you?
Though I have no "written" documentation, I can say that both my family doctor and my nutritionist have stated several times that, in general, non-vegetarians get TOO MUCH protein and not enough of the vitamins available from plant-based sources. I agree that cutting out an excess of meals with starches can have positive side effects, but I think it also risks sending the wrong message that an Atkin's-type diet is good for your health. Whether you are vegan or a carnivore, I think we should all be smart enough to know that zero carbs and excessive meat is bad for the body.
- MelissaRae August 25, 2008 10:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apply common sense
I am neither a doctor nor a nutritionist. The fact that "people who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't" is common knowledge and common sense. And you're right that most people in North America probably get too much protein. It's not just about protein though, it's also about iron. And vegetarians, particularly vegans, don't get enough protein or iron in their diets.
You are totally misrepresenting my argument. I am not advocating Atkins diet. I am not arguing that people should eat fewer fruits and vegetables and more meat, but I am arguing that we should eat at all.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So what?
Even if it is true (which I don't accept your appeal to "common sense" here) that vegans don't get "enough iron", the answer is to educate vegans on increasing their vegan iron intake, not to eat meat to get iron (or protein).
OTOH, arguing from a health standpoint that people should eliminate or drastically reduce their animal fat intake (a HUGE cause of early death in the US) does imply eliminating meat, dairy and eggs.
As a vegan, I eat healthier than 99.9999% of Americans and get plenty of protein and iron (and B12 and everything else). The answer is education, not eating the flesh and bodily fluids of nonhuman beings who have just as much right to their lives as you do.
- dan August 31, 2008 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Congrats on being 1 in a million!
I am very happy for you that you eat healthier (or at least think you do) than 99.9999% of Americans; that makes you one in a million, Dan. I wouldn't expect someone who would make such an outrageous claim to accept an appeal to common sense. I'm not trying to convert you. I am just defending what I, most humans, and many animals do which YOU think is unethical.
I agree that the average American probably does consume too much animal fat. But the debate is whether or not we should eat meat? I would agree that we should not eat as much as we do, perhaps. But I don't believe in cutting it out entirely. Because apparently most vegans aren't getting the nutrients that they need, even if you do. Also, did it occur to you that some diets might be better for different lifestyles, body types, and even blood types?
I agree that people should have more education about nutrition, but I don't like the idea of self-righteous vegans with ulterior motives indoctrinating people to eat like they do. Killing animals for food is natural. Humans do it, as do countless other animals. Suggesting that humans shouldn't eat other animals is as ridiculous as suggesting that Bears, sharks, and spiders shouldn't either. Maybe we should enforce vegetarian policies on other creatures as well. Maybe we could feed spiders and bears your vitamin supplements and lots of veggies!
All I said in my initial argument is that the IQ survey suggested (within the margin of error) is that vegans showed lower IQ's. It could be that many of these vegans' bodies and brains aren't functioning at 100% because they aren't getting the nutrients they need. Or it could be that less-intelligent people are more inclined to adopt vegan diets. Take your pick, unless you have an alternative explanation for the difference. (Other than denial)
- LiberalMulroney
August 31, 2008 4:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exhausting
1)Non-human animals do it, so shouldn't we? No. I bet the reason is posted here. Search. 2) Lots of humans do it, shouldn't I? No. Again, read this forum before diving into an argument. 3) Most vegans aren't getting the nutrients they need? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this scientific journal you refer to as "Common Knowledge". Perhaps you can verify this source for me? I'm unfamiliar with the study.
As for your CBC study, no respected statistician would ever take two sample sets of such disparagingly different sizes and draw comparative conclusions from them. It's not simply a statistical margin of error involved here. There are many other variables that, until revealed or explained, render that report ineffective in the way you hope to use it. I would be very surprised to see the authors of that report draw the conclusion you're making from it.
You're flailing with your statements. Find me a report that says that certain blood-types must consume meat. Find me data. Show me proof. That business is not about being self-richeous. I would argue that someone that would support torture and murder so as to have an increased intelligence quotient is FAR more self-richeous. That's the stuff of super villains.
- mike
September 1, 2008 1:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh Dear
1) and 2) You "bet" the answer is posted here or it is? Apparently you haven't read this forum either, so you're a hypocrite. 3) Your sarcasm is much appreciated. I never said that most vegans aren't getting the nutrients they need. You should try reading my posts more carefully, then you might actually know how to spell self-righteous. It's common knowledge where I live in Victoria, BC; one of the most left-leaning cities in the entire country, and I have discussed this with many vegans and vegetarians. Frankly, I don't care what you eat. Just don't criticize me for eating meat.
The reason that the sample sets were different between vegans and non-vegans is because of the proportion of the total population. The statement that no respected statistician would ever take two sample sets of such different sizes is untrue; you just made it up. And that wasn't the purpose of the IQ test either.
http://www.dadamo.com / But for the record, you haven't cited a single study, and you demand that I provide them. I argue that killing animals is natural, and you deride me for not seeking out the other side of the argument myself which you suspect may be on the page, but you're not sure, and you don't feel like giving it to me. Lastly, you scorn me for my support of torture and murder, which is an absolutely fanatical accusation. If you find disputing my arguments and sources without backing up any of your own "exhausting," then perhaps you aren't getting the nutrients that you need.
- LiberalMulroney
September 1, 2008 3:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ulterior motives who?
You love to use accusatory words that actually argue nothing: "I don't LIKE the idea of SELF-RIGHTEOUS VEGANS with ULTERIOR MOTIVES INDOCTRINATING." Wow. Well, I don't like the idea of meat-eaters forcing their status quo upon me by arguing that I am wrong because I'm in the minority. Anyway, as I already showed in another post, you DO have ulterior motives. You are trying to argue in favor of meat-eating purely on the basis of a health study, when in actuality you have plenty of motives that are forcing you to go beyond the health study. You don't say it directly because you probably don't even realize it - and I don't entirely blame you because PETA was asking for it. But your motive is to maintain the status quo. Your motive is that you don't want to change. And feeling pressured to change is what you call "indoctrination." I'm sorry, buddy, but I have been indoctrinated for my entire life until this year to think that not only was meat ethical, not only that I *should* eat it, but that I *needed* to eat it. And now PETA is trying to tell you the same thing: that you *need* to avoid it for your health.
This is why I dislike PETA. They are maintaining the status quo by recycling mindless arguments, by trying to indoctrinate people to do the right thing in the same exact way that we have been indoctrinated to do the wrong thing. What we need is to be liberated from these dishonest arguments, just as the animals need to be liberated from exploitation. However, don't get me or anyone else confused with indoctrination just because you chose to engage in an argument with your own ulterior motives.
- Ciuma
November 30, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Calm down
I'm not trying to force you to eat meat. You can do whatever you like. What makes me angry is when people argue that eating animals is unethical because they are suggesting that I am unethical. You obviously haven't read the entire thread because you are just repeating points that have already been made and addressed.
- LiberalMulroney
December 1, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Dan
Animals may have the right to life, but the rule of nature is survival of the fittest. There was once a time when we were hunted, but because of our brains, not physique, we came out on top. We can now make up for our physical shortcomings. I love animals, but I eat them(certain ones). Now we are on top of the food chain, too bad for them. They weren't sitting around a table holding a council wondering if they should or shouldn't kill humans. The main reason meat is causing early death is because of improper cooking, growth, and what the government does or doesn't do to the meat.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More prejudice
Nature and other species are amoral. One cannot justify any moral claim by an appeal to nature or power, or by appeal to what another species would do for survival. To base one’s ‘morality’ on nature or other species’ survival needs is to deny morality altogether.
Another way of thinking about it is that if I base my moral claims on nature, power, or other species’ need to survive, then I ought to intentionally kill humans also, whenever it is convenient for me to do so.
- dan January 28, 2009 10:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vegetarians easily get sufficient protein
this is a myth you are trying to pass of as common sense (i.e. meaning you have no basis for the opinion). Please read the book called The China Study. It is written by a researcher with decades of experience researching this subject and publishing it in peer reviewed scientific journals.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
I don't know or care about what any vegans eat, as I'm a lover of meat. But meat is not the only way to get protein. Many non-animal products have protein like beans and peanuts. However, meat is the most effective way of getting protein. Besides, I like the way meat tastes better than peanuts or beans or whatever vegans eat.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Biology
I'm no biology major but from what I've learned in science class, I would conclude we need meat. I mean, we have canine teeth and meat is the best way to get protein. We should eat produce too. End of story.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegan here. My IQ is well above average.
That same "statistically significant difference" of 1 IQ point is also found between:
a) people in their 20s and people in their 30s
b) people with black hair and people with blond hair
c) lefties and right-handed people
All of which suggests reckoner's point that 1 or 2 IQ points on this survey is within the margin of error. Moreover, they only sampled 1,674 vegans whereas they sampled 98,876 meat-eaters.
Meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans all tested well within the normal, average IQ. Clearly, given the survey results as well as the well-reasoned discussion here made by vegetarians and vegans, veg*nism is no hazard to cognitive abilities.
- ElaineVigneault
August 29, 2008 7:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It actually makes sense
a) 20-29 yr vs 30-39 yr: Why wouldn't older people test higher on the IQ test? They would have a greater vocabulary, more education and more-developed brains etc.
b) Black hair vs blond hair: Could it be that people with black hair are more likely to speak English as a second language than blondes in Canada, thereby negatively affecting their scores on this English IQ test? You'd have to understand Canadain demographics, but this makes perfect sense.
c) lefties vs. righties: I don't believe that left handed people are less bright, but I think that they ultimately think differently, and are perhaps more intuitive. Albert Einstein, Lenardo da Vinci, and four of the last six presidents were left handed (Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton) and both Obama and McCain are left handed, and one of them will be the next President. (The probability of 5 of 7 randomly chosen people being left-handed is 0.06%)
There you go. Perfectly reasonable explanations for other variations in IQ from this test. Now my argument about meat eaters and vegetarians still stands.
See my above posts regarding statistical significance. The gap between vegans and meat eaters is HUGE and 1,600 is a respectable sample size for such a significant difference.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 11:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you serious?
1. Just because you can come up with explanations doesn't make any of them true.
2. The "gap" between meat-eaters and vegans is NOT "huge." It's 6 points. Coincidentally, it's the same difference between people who drink wine and people who abstain from alcohol.
3. You ignored the issue of margin of error.
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 1:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes I am
1. When you listed these three examples of IQ variation, I was assuming that you were attempting to prove that the test was bogus. I was merely offering logical, reasonable explanations. Are you saying that these differences SHOULDN'T exist? You decided to dismiss the whole thing because of these differences, which is an unreasonable approach.
2. The gap between beer drinkers and wine drinkers was found to be 2.07 points (estimated at 0.09). The difference between Vegans and meat eaters was found to be 6.16 points (estimated at 5.28). That is not the same difference; that's 3 x the difference, and estimated to be higher. Oh, and I reiterate that the difference between vegans and meat-eaters IS huge.
3. No I did not ignore the issue of margin of error, you just didn't bother to read the above posts and refuse accept that it is statistically significant. With 1,674 respondents for vegans, over 10,000 for vegetarians, and over 90,000 meat-eaters, the differences are statistically significant. Consider that in IQ, the mean is 100 and one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 103.69 and 109.85 is 14.7% of the population. That's huge. With a survey size of 1,600 people, the margin of error is less than 3%. Between mere vegetarians and meat-eaters, the gap is much smaller, which makes sense, since vegans are more likely to be nutritionally deficient because they are excluding more foods from their diet. The difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. But the margin of error is also much greater, since the sample size is 6.6 times larger for vegetarians and vegans.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 8:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Errors in your reasoning
1. You misunderstand my point. If you can dream up explanations for the 20-somethings, the blonds, and the lefties, surely you can find a more reasonable explanation for the veg*ns than the one you proposed earlier. It's more reasonable to assume the difference isn't significant or that some other non-nutritional factor played a role.
2. I said non-drinkers, not beer drinkers.
3. The margin for error for the vegans is greater, not for the meat-eaters, because a smaller sample size is less representative of the whole.
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 12:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This doesn't make any sense
1. "It's more reasonable to assume the difference isn't significant or that some other non-nutritional factor played a role." - Then what? You've offered nothing. I offered reasonable explanations. You are just complaining because you don't like my conclusion. Iron deficiency would do it for vegans, or lack of protein. There are lots of dietary explanations. You haven't even offered a theory that could explain the magnitude of the difference.
2. Oops my bad. This is likely driven by the fact that people 20 and under can't drink, and these people scored much lower. Still, it makes sense.
3. I know. What's your point? The sample size is 1,674. But given the magnitude of the difference, it is still within the margin of error.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 2:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
IQ test indicating health?
With all due respect, I suggest you to search for health and nutrition studies if you want to claim that this or that diet is "healthier" or not nutritionally apt for humans.
The ADA's position on vegetarian diets (vegan included) might be of interest for you.
You say that brain performance is an indicator of health. I think this is not necessary so. But even if it is, I think that relying on an IQ test to measure "brain performance" it's rather narrow.
Intelligence, as a whole is a very difficult thing to measure at all. The characteristics that form a part of what we usually regard as "intelligence" (without even considering contemporary extensions like "emotional intelligence", "social intelligence", etc.) are so vast --imagination, comprehension, evocation, memory, etc.-- that a any test will always fall short.
For all of this, and as I usually argue, I believe we can never say that there is such thing as "equality" of intelligences. Therefore, we humans commit the logical mistake of arguing that the opposite of "equal" it`s "higher" or "lower", when the opposite of "equal" is "different".
So the question, "which intelligence is superior to the other?" is question that lacks of sense, to which we can only answer with the absurd assumption that "intelligence" can be measured quantitatively.
But all of this is irrelevant. I might be genetically "dumber" than you. Maybe that's why I chose to be a Vegan. Or maybe I'm less intelligent because I'm not getting enough saturated fat or cholesterol. Who knows?
But the question should be, is there a moral justification for us to be using, exploiting and/or killing other animals? A supposed lower IQ result isn't a matter of "necessity".
What if tomorrow we discover that raping women, or eating baby's flesh makes you score higher in IQ tests. Are we going to start raping women or eating baby's flesh?
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 4:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interesting points
You make some interesting points. I don't think that IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence, but that doesn't mean that it's irrelevant either.
Is there a moral justification for us to be using, exploiting and/or killing other animals? - Yes. It's natural behavior. Animals kill other animals for food. I think that people can decide for themselves whether this is ethical. How can we as a society can't ask humans not to eat flesh of other animals when animals do it? I maintain my ethical position, and don't really care what yours is unless it interferes with mine.
Are we going to start raping women or eating baby's flesh [if we discover that raping women, or eating baby's flesh makes you score higher in IQ tests]? - No. And give me a break. This is not natural behavior.
- LiberalMulroney
September 1, 2008 5:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Natural behavior - Moral justification?
First of all, I think that relying on the "natural behavior" thing, it's rather odd.
I believe that what's "natural" it's what takes place in "nature". Since all we know happens in "nature", I tend to think that everything is "natural". Therefore, I don't see how what's "natural" can be of any help to decide what's morally justifiable or not.
I fail to see what is "not natural" about rape, for instance. People do it due to a "natural" inclination to do it. Everything on it seems natural to me.
The problem is not that. The problem is that raping involves violating or ignoring someone else's interests. That's the same issue with enslaving, exploiting and killing other animals. Not whether it is "natural" or not.
Your "ethical position" interferes with someone else's liberties and interests (other animals in this case), and that's why it is NOT a matter of "personal choice".
How can we as a society ask humans not to rape females, when other animals do it? How can we as a society ask humans not to kill other humans, when other animals kill individuals of their own species?
Primarily, because getting our morals from the behavior of others, especially when they are from other species, it's simply absurd. Human morality comes from critical thinking, not from other animals' behavior.
I don't know whether other animals have morals. I certainly know I do.
I don't know whether other animals (especially carnivores) can survive without killing or otherwise exploiting other animals. I certainly know I can.
This is enough to make our own decisions, and form our ethics, regardless of the actions of other animals. That's why we can say that rape or homicide is immoral.
Yes, other animals kill other animals to eat. Yes, other animals rape females. Yes, other animals kill female's offsprings in order to reproduce with them. Yes, other animals fight and even kill each other for territory or for get the females (again).
Those are "natural" behaviors. Does it mean that humans, therefore, are morally justified to do the same with others?
Of course not. Claiming that it's just not reasonable.
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 6:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We need to eat something
Interesting, and very eloquently put. Again, I think your logic is a bit of a stretch. You are jumping between sociology and nature here with touchy and sensitive subjects. If animals rape one another or kill each other's young, it is either an anomaly or necessary for survival. For humans, rape is an anomaly (albeit all too common). But in human society we have rules to protect people's rights, and such actions are thus forbidden.
In your argument you refer to animals as "someone." Someone is a person, a human who as yo put it can think critically, and an animal is not. Frankly we need to eat other living things for food, whether they be plants or animals. The difference are pain receptors. But do they not both have the same right to live? If we could kill an animal and minimize the pain, is that any less ethical than killing a plant?
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 1:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anomalies
The frequency or prevalence of a behavior should not dictate right from wrong. This prevalence, however, often makes it difficult for people to see the immorality. Owning slaves was once commonplace. I would say that today, someone who feels that a different race is inferior enough to justify their enslavement is an anomaly. This, alone, doesn't make slave ownership wrong.
As for necessity, it is not a valid argument for the consumption of animal products by humans.
Rights can only exist in regards to their protection of interests. It is in defining these that we can focus the debate where it should remain: "do animals have rights?" and "are we justified in violating them?"
As for the rights of plants, there are fairly strong arguments about what it takes to have rights that seems more logical than only including humans. It is apparent to me that animals have rights. Whether or not plants do, has no bearing on my respecting of animal rights to the very best of my abilities.
- mike
September 2, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another Dogma od Cultural Prejudice
Mulroney:
You say that nonhuman beings cannot be persons, supposedly because they “can’t think critically.” Why is the ability to “think critically” is required for personhood? Please remember mentally disabled humans who cannot “think critically” when you respond. I realize that Kant and many others have arbitrarily put the dogma forth that an ability for abstract reasoning is “required” for personhood and inclusion in the moral community, and I realize that this dogma has been accepted as a strong cultural prejudice for a long time, but like most dogmas, it has never been justified, only blindly accepted.
- dan September 2, 2008 8:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Read my post more carefully
I was referring to someone else's statement about critical thinking.
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 8:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eat something...not somebody!
Someone is a person, indeed. I suggest you to get Gary Francione's book "Animals as persons". It seems to fit perfectly with our current discussion.
Although most of us think of a "person" as synonym with "human", we should first consider what does it take to be a person.
Do you think that an individual, sentient being, with particular interests, wants, preferences, likes and dislikes would fit in your view of a person?
I think it does.
Do other animals fit with this view? Absolutely!
As Mike already argued, rights are a way to protect interests. So, if a being has basic interests, he should have rights to protect them, regardless of species, sex, gender, sexual inclination, intellectual capacity, etc. A right-bearer, therefore, it's someone with legal "personhood". A person. That's the animal rights position. All sentient animals are persons, and should be protected as such.
Critical thinking it's a characteristic that isn't relevant for most conflict of interests. As Mike also said, severely retarded humans, just as babies and old senile humans, cannot think critically or in abstract terms. Nevertheless, they have other interests, by the very fact that they are, indeed, sentient. That's why we protect their interests, even if they can't think critically.
And to say that NO other animals can think in abstract terms it's just a over-simplified generalization. Most of our "common knowledge" about other animals amounts to nothing but a gross ignorance. No facts. No logic.
I suggest you to read some things on "Ethology" (the study of other animals' behavior). I can assure you'll be more than surprised about their capacities (reason, self-consciousness, abstract thinking, among others).
Plants, on the other hand, have no characteristic we can relate to "sentience", thus it's unreasonable to think they can have "interests" or "awareness". Whether they are alive it's irrelevant. After all, bacteria, tumours, spermatozoids and so on, are indeed alive. But that doesn't mean they are individual "beings" with interests that should be protected.
In all honesty, I don't think you consider it's the same to cut a broccoli in two, and doing the same with a dog.
And, even if this isn't enough for you, it's worth reminding you that it takes between 8 to 16 kgs. of grains to produce 1 kg. of flesh, so switching to a Vegan diet does, in fact, kill far less plants AND animals than any other diet.
Finally, killing an animal (human or not) whether painlessly or not, it's still harming that animal, since he/she has interests in continuing to live and living positive experiences. The same can be said with enslaving and exploiting them. That's why eating "meat" is not "less wrong" than eating other animal products.
That's it for now. Ehh, mmm... Go Vegan! ;)
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 2, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Getting tiresome
Wow, that was a long chain of rationalization. I haven't read this book of yours, but it seems to have really influenced you. But your arguments rely on a whole bunch or arbitrary declarations, such as what a person is and is not.
Frankly I disagree. I disagree with you about what a person is. I don't think that we can arbitrarily decide that perceived sentience or awareness are what make the difference between ethical and non-ethical killing.
I am going to have to leave it at that. I am seriously outnumbered here by people who are quite passionate.
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 8:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Comparing meat eating to veganism is like comparing apples to oranges
Animals eat plants. So consuming animal life (eating meat) isn’t the opposite of consuming plant life (eating a vegan diet), it’s consuming plant life indirectly. That is, eating meat is consuming plant life filtered through animal life. People who consume animals are consuming, on average, four times the resources of people who consume only plants.
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/4-questions-to-vegans /
- ElaineVigneault
September 2, 2008 12:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor reasoning
I'm sorry, but this is scientific elitism. You are just coming up with arbitrary explanations for these statistics, and your solution is clearly biased in favor of maintaining the status quo: meat-eating. As for me, I'm not going to lie: I favor an animal-free diet. For ethical reasons. As you said, it's not that people on an animal-free diet can't be healthier. What you neglected to mention is that it can also be very easy to be healthier. The problem is being vegan in a non-vegan world. If we lived in a vegan world, I'd say good luck trying to live on a meat-based diet. Meat-eaters would be in my position as a vegan. But unlike meat-eaters, vegans actually have an ethical reason for choosing their diet, which gives us the collective power to challenge the status quo.
So whatever your statistics, your interpretation ignores the fact that we live in a meat-eating world. It ignores the fact the most vegans do not go vegan for health reasons, but rather for ethical reasons, and that most meat-eaters challenged by veganism stay meat-eaters (partly) because they don't know how to find or do not have the privilege of a healthy animal-free diet. Now, I'm sure there are legitimate health reasons to go vegan, but they would never have made me go vegan. As vegans, we need to get our arguments straight and (unlike PETA) present a veganism that is sustainable... a vegan diet that is healthy AND ethical. One thing meat-eaters will never be able to say honestly is that the ethics of their diet stands up to that of an exploitation-free vegan diet.
- Ciuma
November 30, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor reasoning indeed
You really didn't address the point I made at all. You simply labeled it and indicated that you don't like it. My interpretation does not ignore the fact that most people do not go vegan for health reasons. You just made that assumption. Your supposed reasoning is just a rant in which you express frustrations about living in a meat-eating world. Frankly, this discussion ended a long time ago and you missed it.
- LiberalMulroney
December 1, 2008 8:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Irrevelant to the Arguments Made
This is irrevelant to the arguments presented.
Further more your link is completely biased and unaccurate. Less then 2000 vegans were surveyed. According to the chart, those outside Canada have the lowest IQ.
Did you take a look at Dr. Franciones Creditentials? He has two masters, in philosophy and in law. I think it takes a smart person to do that.
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here we go again
You really should try reading the whole thing before jumping in to a discussion that ended 6 months ago. It's pretty obvious that the lower IQs for those outside of Canada is easily explainable by the fact that the IQ test was in English, and would therefore be biased against those whose first language is not. People outside Canada who participated in this test would likely have disproportionately more non-native English speakers than the rest. This poll is more pop-culture than science, but still we were discussing possible explanations for the vegan numbers.
I have already explained that 2,000 is a significant enough sample size for such a large difference in IQs to be statistically significant. And I love the irony that half your post incorrectly suggests that 2,000 is not a significant enough sample size, and the other half of your post uses a counterexample of a sample size of one person who is presumably of above average intelligence.
I have no doubt that there are people who are vegans and are also fiercely intelligent. There are also others who really bring down the average.
- LiberalMulroney
March 14, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My repsonse
LOL, Your right that my post was contradictary...
However...
my point with the people outside of canada is that the survey could be biased or inaccurate. It also does not state what age the people participating in the survey are, and i was just trying to say that you can`t take the survey as hardcore truth.
And BTW i just took an IQ test, and i think its very biased. Depending on the test it will skew your results. For example i scored horribly low in the mathy parts and quite high in the english, and i get high 90s in english and low 70s in math....
But to return to my previous point... You don`t have to have a high IQ to be compassionate and to understand the arguments presented. Its irrelevant.
Anywho i`ve spent to much time here, enjoy the rest of your live
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 6:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agh
I didn`t get to finish my post..
i was going to say enjoy the rest or your life, i`have more important things to do, but that would come out as rude.... Anyway, I guess we`ll agree to disagree i`ll go save the animals and you`ll sit at home on your computer.
Lol that came out as rude to =P
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 6:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.