WOW! My how a thread can go off course.

I'd just say to you folks who are against the open exchange of ideas, including differing viewpoints, or who are not comfortable with polite dissension (last time I checked, I was perfectly reasonable and civil), that you simply not participate in the discussion. Just ignore the thread and go on about your business. Why would it bother you that other people are engaged in debate? Just move on.

In every online forum I've participated in, there are always a handful of people who want to CONTROL the discussion -- keep some information in and keep other information out. Sorry folks -- if information is posted that conflicts with your beliefs and ideologies, either refute that information logically and rationally, or don't participate.

One of the beauties of the internet, imo, is that it is largely uncensored. Unpopular or previously unheard ideas can be shared and discussed in a forum without some authority deciding what can and cannot be said. I say let freedom ring. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

To answer the original question, I think you'll find that a "low carb, high protein vegetarian diet" is a bit of an oxymoron. Should anyone find some research or other scientifically-based information that contradicts that supposition, I'd be interested in seeing it.

For those vegetarians that consume dairy products, you might consider that you are very much participating in the slalughter of animals. Guess where those dairy cows end up after they have been used up to provide your milk, cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese and so on -- you guessed it.

As to the qualifer "intentionally" being added to killing animals, you might consider that the drunk driver does not *intend* to kill people, but he is still held legally responsible for manslaughter. If you know that countless birds, squirrels, and mice will be mutilated by combines to produce your meals, and you participate in that process anyway, I would suggest you hold some moral responsibility in the deaths of those creatures based upon the fact that you know that harm will be inflicted and you do it anyway. If you wish to argue that killing mice, birds, and snakes is somehow morally acceptable and killing bison is not, or that killing the mice, birds and snakes is "necessary" and killing bison is not, then you'll have to define exactly what makes something necessary. But before you've done that, you'd have to somehow show that killing animals for food is "improper" or "wrong". You can't just claim that is, and that be the end of it.

As to these other tangential issues, I'm afraid when quotes from the bible are being used as evidence to support one argument or another, then we have strayed from the standard of logic and reason as the basis for making decisions and into the realm of "beliefs". I've seen the bible used to justify meat eating and veganism alike, which goes to show you how flexible the bible is as a source. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> After all, if you use your book as evidence of absolute truth, what's to prevent me from using my book, whether that is Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat or the Koran? If you say the Bible is God's word therefore it is true, and L. Ron Hubbard says his book contains the words of God, what makes your book right and L. Ron's wrong? Because the bible is more popular? Is that your standard? Because you grew up Christian and those millions of Chinese buddhists must therefore be wrong? It's all quite arbitrary, isn't it?

Now these thoughts may make you uncomfortable, and you may therefore say that they are inciteful, but then am I responsible for your reactions? Think about that.