As promised, here are the links I mentioned in class. First, a possible moral argument for providing meat to children: http://www.healthylivingnyc.com/article/117
Second, a link exploring the pros and cons of meat in terms of health: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html
Finally, an article on the evolution of our diet: http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm (I'm not sure how relevant this might be, but it is an interesting read, to be sure, once you've spent a bit of time translating the scientific terms.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEd, Allen’s argument is bias and commits many fallacies; a brief examination and logical analysis reveal this. Considering the vagueness of the study-it is difficult to see how it is taken seriously at all. Below are examples of only a few of the many logical errors present in the article.
ReplyDeleteSome important questions need to be answered before results are determined conclusive.
Precisely what kinds of meat, milk, and oil, were used in Allen’s study?
The article states: “Both the milk and oil supplement contained the same amount of energy (calories) as the meat.”
The same amount of caloric energy is NOT equivalent to the same kind and amounts of minerals, lipids, vitamins, fat and fatty acids, amino acids, and protein.
Allen says: “There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans.” (How many fallacies can you note in just this one sentence?)
(One wonders if Allen works for the beef and dairy industry!)
Considering Allen’s view of a vegan diet; she fails to include an integral group number five. This (mysteriously non-existent) group is given a vegan equivalent to two spoonfuls of meat in addition to the normal diet. We have to wonder why Allen did not include such a group.