Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Sinister sausage - will you still eat processed meat? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Will you still eat processed/red meat?
    I'll still eat it
    310
    29.47%
    I'll cut down the amount of meat I eat
    265
    25.19%
    I'm going vegetarian/vegan
    121
    11.50%
    Don't care. Everything gives you cancer these days
    356
    33.84%

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Well that's down to the consumer isn't it. But making a generalization against taking on board such data is stupid. You had stated first that we shouldn't avoid things on the basis that they 'might' give us cancer.

    Hence I invited you to claim a house. You seemed to find this notion somehow more ridiculous than the point you had previously communicate.

    Then you started talking about what we need for some reason. But that has no bearing on what we want. And therefore, the risks are optional. The contrast between those things is therefore, flawed.
    You're still overlooking the point I was making. If you actually pay attention to the purpose of my comparisons, you'll see how it all ties in, but you refuse to do so. My point has been made, I have nothing else to add.

    P.S. If you're going to pull me up on grammar on another thread, you might want to spell "generalisation" correctly.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    You're still overlooking the point I was making. If you actually pay attention to the purpose of my comparisons, you'll see how it all ties in, but you refuse to do so. My point has been made, I have nothing else to add.

    P.S. If you're going to pull me up on grammar on another thread, you might want to spell "generalisation" correctly.
    I pulled your grammar up to highlight the idiocy of you doing it to another member of TSR for something that was likely an accident.

    And your comparison is wrong.

    It would be more accurate to say there are two swimming pools. The child likes to go in both.
    One is full of water that represents what the child needs. The other is what the child wants.
    And a 'cup' should be replaced with something more proportionate to the risk involved.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I pulled your grammar up to highlight the idiocy of you doing it to another member of TSR for something that was likely an accident.

    And your comparison is wrong.

    It would be more accurate to say there are two swimming pools. The child likes to go in both.
    One is full of water that represents what the child needs. The other is what the child wants.
    And a 'cup' should be replaced with something more proportionate to the risk involved.
    It should be more proportionate to the added 0.9% likelihood of getting bowel cancer?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I pulled your grammar up to highlight the idiocy of you doing it to another member of TSR for something that was likely an accident.

    And your comparison is wrong.

    It would be more accurate to say there are two swimming pools. The child likes to go in both.
    One is full of water that represents what the child needs. The other is what the child wants.
    And a 'cup' should be replaced with something more proportionate to the risk involved.
    As I just replied in that thread, you once again failed to read properly and spot where I was coming from, and this time it wasn't my post you misread. Point proven.

    With that comparison, you've demonstrated that you have indeed totally missed the point I was making. I've re-read my posts, I've made the same point several times and see nothing wrong with how I've written it. I'm lead to believe that I'm not at fault, given your track record for failing to take in what's been written combined with the fact that I've made the same point over and over and you can't seem to grasp it.

    I'm wasting my time here, clearly. Enjoy your evening
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which bit is inaccurate, that the sorts of views militants express are authoritarian; or that while not being authoritarian they are all smug pretending they have the moral high ground; or how about that it won't be amplified when they can start shouting about how the vegan lifestyle doesn't have the cancer risks, even though it probably does via other foods?
    They do have the moral high ground.

    But anyway, my point was that despite you complaining about the militant-vegan boogey man, it wasn't a vegan or a vegetarian who was acting smug in this thread.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    It should be more proportionate to the added 0.9% likelihood of getting bowel cancer?
    There we have it, someone that grasped the point I was trying to make without difficulty.

    I mentioned nothing of whether we need or want sausages, I was merely making the point that the things we need are killing us, yet the things we want produce an increase in risk so insignificant, that giving them up would be like taking a cup of water out of a pool and saying you've decreased the likelihood that your child will drown in it. Yet, she drew from that, somehow, that I implied we need sausages to survive? Good Lord... I don't see why she can't understand such a simple analogy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    They do have the moral high ground.

    But anyway, my point was that despite you complaining about the militant-vegan boogey man, it wasn't a vegan or a vegetarian who was acting smug in this thread.
    Do they have the moral high ground, because it strikes me that they are not upholding any position that is universally seen as more moral or good than those that are not vegetarians or vegans, and the militant nature of the militants most certainly would counteract any minimal moral high ground they have; if they had any for their eating habits it would be like standing on a box, not a hill.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There's no point in living forever and not enjoying the things you can in life. I love eating cured meats and fish. I love bacon.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Where is the "I never ate processed meat anyway" option.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    My communication is fine, it's your ability to interpret information that's the issue, you're always doing it around these forums from what I see as well as adding irrelevant information of your own.

    You've taken two points made separately and put them together to draw your own conclusion, all the while missing the point I was making, again. Please re-read my previous post, as my point has already been made. I'll re-iterate, though - with all the things we consume that we NEED already increasing the risk of cancer, I see it futile to cut out the things we do NOT NEED, but ENJOY just because they might also increase the risk of cancer. I mentioned the things we need first to make the point that the very things that we need are already killing us, so why fuss over other the potential but not at all definite health implications of consuming things that we don't need but make our lives more enjoyable?
    The fact that the things you need may cause cancer shouldn't affect your decision of whether or not to cut out the things that you don't need but enjoy.
    The risk due to the things you need just gets incorporated into your base risk and you decide whether or not to increase that risk further. Both arguments are equally valid in each case, so it does not matter whether the things you need increase your risk.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Don't care. I've known it's 'bad' for me for years but I'll take the risk so that I enjoy my food. I say 'bad' because food isn't just about how likely it is to give you cancer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Woop woop team couldn't-give-less-of-a-****. Maybe I'll smoke a ten pack after my next hot dog just to make sure
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The responses to this report are entirely predictable, and in line with research into human cognitive biases. If something comes along and challenges people's cherished beliefs (or indeed food products), they start coming up with appallingly bad arguments.

    "It'll be something new in 5 years/months/weeks" - if new evidence comes along suggesting that something we had not previously considered to cause cancer actually does, then yes, it will be. That's how science works. The notion that something new is said to cause cancer every few months or years is doubtful, especially considering that the peer-reviewed scientific literature has indicated for some time that processed meat and, to a lesser extent, unprocessed red meat, increases one's risk of cancer (and overall mortality and cardiovascular disease, as well as Type 2 diabetes).

    "This is social engineering by fascists" - no, it's not. Nobody's saying that you should completely cut out red and processed meat. If you want to, it is simply recommended to just look at how much you're eating and replace it, on occasion, with healthier options such as whole grains, legumes and nuts.

    "We're all going to die eventually" - this is almost certainly true. But, by this logic, we should just close down all the hospitals and stop saving lives because "we're all going to die eventually". That was the point of this report - to increase public awareness to help save lives, particularly as surveys suggest that 40% of men eat more than 90g of red and processed meat a day.

    "Everything in moderation" - everything? Mercury, cyanide and tobacco in moderation? The term "moderation" could also be very self-serving: someone who eats 100g of red and processed meat a day will probably have a very different idea of what moderation is than somebody eats red and processed meat once a week or so.

    "These health experts want to suck all the joy out of life" - if the only sources of joy people have are tobacco, alcohol and red and processed meat, then some people's lives are more glum than I had previously thought.
    I was initially guilty of the first one (though you didn't correct me.)

    +1 for such a good quality post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Meh, doesnt change my stance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    I've been cutting down on red & processed meat for a while, as my family has an extensive history of bowel cancer

    Like everything, moderation is key - lots of fibre and veggies and the occasional steak :dumbells:



    It's from the WHO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34615621

    Not just another crazy Daily Mail scare
    Except maybe breathing.


    Jammy Duel, scientists carrying out science and then publishing their findings is not authoritarianism.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I only eat meat when other people feed it me anyway usually, or when out.
    Living as a vegetarian just doesn't feel very easy to do, considering the society we live in.
    R.e. the question - not really changed behavior, as have known in practically forever that eating red meat is bad for health outcomes generally.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I love bacon.

    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    It should be more proportionate to the added 0.9% likelihood of getting bowel cancer?
    Apparently so, because going from about a five percent risk to a six percent risk is a massive change... Still quite unlikely to get the cancers.

    Can't say I'm remotely concerned by the report, nor will it change my diet even a bit since the risk increase isn't really worth fretting about, and besides the changes this would recommend basically boil down to eat a balanced diet with more white than red meat and for the love of God, stop treating mcnuggets as a good source of chicken, and i already do those.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Except maybe breathing.


    Jammy Duel, scientists carrying out science and then publishing their findings is not authoritarianism.
    People demanding that somebody cannot do something to their own body because of said findings, however, is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    oh my GOD. People have been eating red meat for nearly all of human existence. I admit that I haven't read the whole story yet, but does anyone else thing that it might have to do with something that has been added to those foods rather than the meat itself? And just out of curiousity, is this cancer more prevalent in countries or regions where red meat is favored over other kinds of meat and vegetables?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.