"the vegetarian myth"

Johnstuff · **Posted:** Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:36 am

hardcore iv wrote:

a greater chance of coming back sooner as a human.

Might be quite off topic but I like a lot of Buddhist ideas but know very little about it really. I have come across this "human supremacist" view in Buddhism before. That humans are higher up the chain than non-humans. Are there any kinds of buddhism that have the view that no animal (including humans of course) is really superiour to another?

beforewisdom · **Joined:** Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am **Posts:** 591

Some anarchist vegan/AR group purchased the domain VegetarianMyth.com and put up an entire web site contradicting the factual mistakes Keith made in her book:

http://www.vegetarianmyth.com/

thestoatyone · **Posted:** Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:18 pm

They've done that well. Surprisingly balanced considering...

vegimator · **Joined:** Wed May 26, 2010 8:47 pm **Posts:** 70

thestoatyone wrote:

They've done that well. Surprisingly balanced considering...

Thanks. I'm one of the people behind that site. As you can see, we're a bit short on content so far. If anyone else here wants to contribute feel free to PM me.

Oh, and we're not anarchist. Just vegan.

beforewisdom · **Joined:** Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am **Posts:** 591

There are no shortage of degreed vegan experts.

Why not write to those experts directly and ask them for essays for the site?

VeganLu · **Posted:** Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:24 pm

This person who wrote the book was not vegan. Being vegetarian is just about one's diet. Being vegan is much, much more. After all, vegans goes all the way!

etherspin · **Joined:** Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:15 pm **Posts:** 43

the author was vegan prior to writing the book

VeganLu · **Posted:** Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:58 pm

I haven't read the book, but from what I read here, it sounds like the author never was vegan, because I have not read any postings here that mentions the author's feelings about the suffering animals that us vegans are unable to ignore. She might have said that she still wants to be kind to animals, but in what way is she still going to be kind to animals? Eating meat and being kind to animals is an oxymoron, isn't it? And to hell with her health problems. We all know that being vegan is not bad for our health, plus, our compassion for animals is good for our health as well. Not eating or using any animals for anything and, instead treating all animals with compassion by not exploiting them, is good for my health, both mental and physical. Such love for animals gives me peace of mind, especially in this screwed up world we are living in at the present time. My veganism, exercise, my goats, chickens and cats that I rescued, my hobbies and me taking an occasional vacation are all I need to maintain my present good health. The author ate a vegan diet for 20 years, and has not died, but instead, went back to eating meat and writing a book about it so she can make money. If she is not a fraud, she did not have to undermine veganism. What a bitch!

beforewisdom · **Joined:** Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am **Posts:** 591

Erik Marcus recently posted about an article Keith wrote for Mother Earth News(http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-c ... anism.aspx):

http://www.vegan.com/blog/2010/08/02/li ... tarianism/

In it he pointed to an excellent review of her book that ripped it to shreds:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3M4LC3USB ... r_rdp_perm

My favorite quote from that review

Quote:

The author sites 207 references in this book.
62 of those references are websites (~30%)
18 are newspapers and magazines (~7%)
32 are journals (~15%)
95 are other books (~46%)

First of all, think about that. 30% of the references in this book come from website information. Five of those 62 website references were Wikipedia. Wikipedia! One was Google Answers. I wont let my freshmen students use Wikipedia as a reference in their papers, why would it be acceptable for a book? Like websites, newspaper and magazine information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Of the 32 journals less than half come from well known, peer-reviewed sources. The remaining 46% are books, which can truly say anything the author cares to print (as this one does) and only show that the author is getting her information from another source (and another opinion) aside from the primary one. The point of this is to make clear that this is a book that is sold as (and which many positive reviews hype as) providing scientific, factual, intellectual knowledge on the vegetarian/diet/health debate. In reality less than 8% of the book is coming from peer-reviewed, fact-checked sources which can provide unbiased, neutral information.

beforewisdom · **Joined:** Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am **Posts:** 591

Yet another article that shows Lierre Keith did not make an informed or serious effort to get the facts right in her book. This time is pawned on her claim that plant based diets do not have tryptophan:

Tryptophan, Milk and Depression by Virginia Messina RD
http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/trypt ... ssion.html

beforewisdom · **Joined:** Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am **Posts:** 591

http://vegetarianmythmyth.wordpress.com/

"the vegetarian myth"

Who is online