Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
i wonder if she is completely teetotal, avoids breathing when near a main road and lives in a germ-free bubble to avoid being 'stupid' and contracting diseases.
and all people whose surname starts with a letter from the second half of the internet.
~end of thread~
for all vegan monks & nuns
I kinda agree with her - if we're going to start restricting treatment to smokers and drinkers. I'm opposed to restricting treatment, but if an insurance-based health system comes in (which, if this government is in power for more than a term, they may well attempt), you're gonig to start seeing higher premiums for people who indulge in risky activity, and I don't see why meat-eaters should be excluded from that.
I eat a fuck-load of cheese, which presumably is bad for my heart or something. Everything's bad for you!
wouldn't they also be obliged to either tax the suppliers more or restrict what they do in some other way? it seems to make sense.
but like tobacco and alcohol, they might add a duty to meat.
Eating specific types of meat is alleged to slightly increase the risk of getting a cancer that kills around 8,000 people a year in the UK.
Lots of activities increase your risk of needing NHS treatment for something and she's picked a ludicrous target.
The bacon vs. pancreatic cancer stuff isn't scientific fact - it's the findings of one piece of research. I'm not discrediting it, but she needs a bit more than that if she's going to have it as a logical follow on from smoking causes lung cancer etc.
than those associated with pancreatic cancer (eg heart disease, bowel cancer etc etc.).
The questions that would need to be asked are:
- whether the health risks of eating meat outweigh the benefits (in a similar way, for example, the risk of injuries doesn’t outweigh the benefits of playing football),
- whether the person could have reasonably been aware of the risks (probably not the case at the moment in the same way that everyone knows about the risks of smoking)
- whether the person deliberately, and perhaps against medical advice, continued to eat meat.
We don’t have it in this country yet, but in the States - where there is an insurance-based system - smokers, drinkers and obese people have been judged a higher health risk than those who aren’t, and they pay a higher premium (or are uninsurable) as a result. I would expect the health insurance companies to make the running in this: if they can prove that the risks of eating meat outweigh the benefits, they will start to raise their premiums accordingly.
...it didn't really present any robust evidence for singling out meat (and processed meat) for scrutiny. Apart from that study linking bacon to pancreatic cancer. But we have these studies all the time about how certain foods are linked to certain HORRIBLE THINGS. To use it as evidence to support a strong opinion seems like lunacy.
Now, I understand where her logic's going. She's saying stuff about where do you draw the line with punishing people for what they put in their bodies. But, hey, you know what? I know several OVERWEIGHT vegetarians. They eat loads of chips and houmous etc. THEY'LL DIE! You can eat the finest, healthiest meat known to man for the rest of your life but if you don't eat any vegetables with it... YOU'LL DIE! Why single out meat.
I understand where this lady's logic is going, but the article is piffle. I'm really not sure what this ."so much frightening information". she talks about at the end of the article is regarding meat.
(I didn't have time to write as much above).
Not in so far as that isn't true but that, in isolation, it crettes more panic than it deserves as the odds of getting the cancer are incredibly low and we're talking something like (plucking a figure out of the air as I can't actually remember what it is) having a 1.2 in 20, 000 chance of dying from it rather than a 1 in 20, 000 chance.
...doctors don't really do much in the way of treatment of because if you get it - you're pretty much fucked. It's hardly going to save MILLIONS on the NHS ridding pancreatic cancer by a 5th, if that's where her argument's going...
The fewer meat eaters there are the more tasty meat there is for the rest of us.
but i would be joyless and bored as shit most of the time. i would rather live til i am 60 and actually enjoy the things around me, regardless of whether they are high or low quality. more fucking cunts.
no wonder newspapers are all struggling
*dives on grenade to save DiS from itself*
Is they treat everyone. If you start making exclusions for alcoholics, smokers, meat eaters, obese people, then it is a slippery slope to everyone being charged. After all, how many accidents or illness could it be claimed is the patient's fault? Any sporting accident for a start. Forget treatment for STDs.
(because of a lack of supply of organs). Lungs and livers are often given to those who do not smoke or drink over those that do.
It would be interesting to see if pancreatic transplants undergo similar decisions for meat eaters/vegetarians.
AND sound like a complete and utter fucking biscuit tin whilst doing so. Think she's trolling, mang.
is provided by boots shapers around the world meal deals (500 calories of TASTE).
Anaemic, brittle boned, undernourished, cheese riddled veggies
Good quality sausages are just minced pork, with some tasty shit thrown in, in sausage skin. Bacon is just a side of pork that's been cured or smoked. Where does the cancer creep in?
Voting for Av massively increased the chances of bacon containing cancer
...there is the kernel of a serious issue in there - the increasing meatification (is that a word? It is now) of the western diet coupled with a desire for cheaper food leading to potential health implications. Some folk probably should have a serious think about the type and amount of meat in their diet. Restricting NHS treatment? Nah, fuck off.
Ms. Ellen's piece isn't.
as you say people often look for the cheapest option which can bring about health issues but that isn't just a meaty issue. Frozen ready meals for instance.
Should people who've had NHS treatment be denied NHS treatments? After all, they knew the risks
Should people who've been run over on roads, where cars are known to drive, get NHS treatments? After all, they knew the risks
Was your initial treatment against medical advice? Could you reasonably have been expected to know all the risks?
I mean I know you love to take the vegetarian high ground, but I'm crediting you with the intelligence to know that wasn't a seriously constructed rebuttal
I apologise - I rose to the trolling.
but i'm worried i'd end up working for the guardian and spending all my time wearing a scarf and wiping my nose.
they just don't seem like very fun or vigorous people, do they?
...it's a much more fun group with added Omega3
i like apples.
"These carrots have been murdered", etc.
...I could probably give you a right pasting. I've slept with many beautiful women. I can barely fart for having fun. I do read the Guardian though.
and is letting herself be exposed to laptop radiation and giving herself cancer.
Is she willing to extend this to everything else that has been linked to cancer? Because last I checked that was pretty much everything.
She should though. lol
That logic experiment fails on so many accounts - surely, my broken jaw and broken elbow mishaps were caused by me playing football? So maybe people who play football shouldn't be treated?
I am against blocking healthcare to people though.
Playing sport can be demonstrated to improve your health overall, despite the injuries.
One would have to do a similar value-assessment on meat eating to establish whether it falls into the same category.
but only if getting treated because you danced too vigorously at a psy-trance night and overdosed on 'mushies' is banned too.
They could have chosen a less risky profession. Or gone on benefits. It's all their fault.
so that risk is, as far as is reasonable, minimised or mitigated against.
This isn't about preventing treatment for anyone that has done something that involves risk, but about assessing whether they knew of the risks, whether the risks outweighed the benefits, and whether they ignored medical/professional advice in persisting with the risks.
She's created a strawman argument here, but the amount of people in this this thread who've created even worse ones is ridiculous.
one that the vast majority of people in this thread don't seem willing to engage in.
I'm just getting annoyed with all the HURRDURRHURR posts from people who usually know better, but would rather play the Clarkson when it touches on a subject they don't want to discuss.
There is some seriously bad science, skewed reasoning and shoddy maths going on in that.
but rarely on the Guardian's economic comment pieces.
This column is from by a lifestyle features writer.
It's not like they're totally objective and non-partisan.
us, as DiSers, from calling bullshit. Barbara Ellen writing on the cancer risks of eating meat doesn't.
My God, the coalition are such fucking morons! They obviously haven't got a brain cell between them coming up with policy ideas like X and Y. Haven't they read the latest comment piece in the Guardian on the subject and the left-wing think tank website pieces it links to?! If they had, they'd obviously drop this nonsense once and for all.
That post was supposed to start with: "I just wish there was a bit less of the following attitude on DiS:"
of the politics threads.
But there is a distinct difference I reckon: I can see the flaws in this piece very easily, and why not? it is a trolling lifestyle piece. Whereas If i read something written by say, for example, a nobel-prize winning economist, I'm more likely to just go along with it rather than dust off my calculator.
how many people were exploited in the production of the columnist's macbook, ipod, iphone, clothes, furniture and home appliances? how much environmental damage was wrought? how many animals died as a result of this damage?
what a silly bitch.
(if she eats eggs/drinks milk/wears leather) is co-opting into the entire meat production system where animals are exploited, mistreated and killed for their meat. These ‘vegetarian’ items don’t exist in a vacuum
vegans.. now they’re allowed to be smug
preachy vegans are right though
After all, they knew the risks of having treatment in a hospital without intensive care.
(eg cosmetic surgery) in places where the threshold of qualification/professional accreditation is lower too.
I can't get past it.
Bond has finally met his match.
The Velvet Underground & Nico is never known by its actual name and everyone just calls it 'The Banana Album'.
I've never heard anyone call it The Banana Album.
that are crowbarred onto the internet always throw me.
They might be logical within the setting of a layout printed on paper, but there's no logic in glueing them together into one internet posting. Apart from the fact that separating the opinions into individual posts would highlight just how shit said opinions invariably are.
of restricting NHS treatment for smokers and/or alcoholics?
in terms of receiving organ transplants.
I reserve the right to be a junky veggie.
They'd say they were veggies and get all the proper good treatment when in actual fact they'd just be screwing the system. Pricks.