Jump to content

Vegans arent better


Nova
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/1/2016 at 10:14 PM, Gamedog said:

Wrong

Vegans are people who don't want anyone's food to come from animals. Ive never met a vegan who didnt feel the need to try and justify their shit to me

Its within the realm of possibility for anyone to see this post and, as a result, become a vegan for the sole purpose of proving you wrong you know. Just the fact that anyone CAN do this should be sufficient enough evidence that such a generalization is false.

The irony of the proposed vegans who aren't concerned with what other people are eating is that by not being concerned they aren't going to go noticed, since they won't be speaking out against eating or using things from animals in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally hate responding to Nova Threads

But why is this an issue again? Can't we just mind our own business and eat whatever the hell we want? By the end of the day it's your body and you're responsible for it. If you're smarter you'd ignore other people's opinions. You can't change people's views on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

Can't we just mind our own business and eat whatever the hell we want? By the end of the day it's your body and you're responsible for it.

One would think, right

32 minutes ago, Battlechili said:

Its within the realm of possibility for anyone to see this post and, as a result, become a vegan for the sole purpose of proving you wrong you know.

When that day happens you'll get a "you're right" from me, but until then...

Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gamedog said:

It's not a strawman, though.

Veganism is claimed to be a cruelty-free diet, and one that's more ecologically beneficial in the long run. If we look at the impact that modern day farming (not even farming for meat, just crops) and the run-offs that occur, we can see how a vegan diet isn't "cruelty-free", it's just re-directing the cruelty elsewhere. Vegans don't eat LESS than everyone else, they just substitute meat with plant-based foods, mostly made from soy or quinoa.

Algae blooms in Lake Erie are caused by vegetable farming and chemical run-off from these farms. The algae blooms cause massive "dead-zones" in the lake and kill huge amounts of fish and aquatic life.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/lake-eries-toxic-algae-bloom-is-back-and-its-spreading/55354

An increase in the consumption of quinoa by veg*ns is the direct cause of Bolivians and other South Americans starving and becoming poorer because their main food source is being eaten by those who think that by doing so, they're "cruelty-free" or doing "less harm". All these people have done is redirect their harm onto someone else and shrugged it off. HEre are some fancy lapel pins in case you haven't told enough people you're cruelty-free by being vegan.
http://www.petacatalog.com/images/products/787.jpg

On top of all this, vegans will claim that raising cattle is farm more detrimental to the environment because they incorrectly believe that crops are grown specifically to feed the beef industry -- this is by and large FALSE on every account. Vegans will say that it takes X amount of corn/grain (these are used interchangeably, strangely enough) to produce 1lb of beef.
What they fail to realize, mostly due to a lack of self-education and self-research, is that beef cows are not fed straight corn or grains, they're fed the BY-PRODUCTS that humans don't eat! The by-products from soy, corn, and any other grain is given to cows, so eating vegan supports the beef industry by feeding their cattle! The fertilizer sprayed on vegan crops is made up of a mixture of cow, pig, and chicken shit sourced from slaughterhouses and mink from fur farms!

I've never met a vegan who educated themselves on the meat industry with an open mind, not once. I've set through all the vegan documentaries that people have thrown at me and they all circulate the same old crock of shit.

Again, if you've got any questions feel free to ask me, I've been debating with vegans for years.

A great example of how many people don't see the forest for the trees (interconnected system) including all the yummy animals therein.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gamedog said:

It's not a strawman, though.

Veganism is claimed to be a cruelty-free diet, and one that's more ecologically beneficial in the long run. If we look at the impact that modern day farming (not even farming for meat, just crops) and the run-offs that occur, we can see how a vegan diet isn't "cruelty-free", it's just re-directing the cruelty elsewhere. Vegans don't eat LESS than everyone else, they just substitute meat with plant-based foods, mostly made from soy or quinoa.

Algae blooms in Lake Erie are caused by vegetable farming and chemical run-off from these farms. The algae blooms cause massive "dead-zones" in the lake and kill huge amounts of fish and aquatic life.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/lake-eries-toxic-algae-bloom-is-back-and-its-spreading/55354

An increase in the consumption of quinoa by veg*ns is the direct cause of Bolivians and other South Americans starving and becoming poorer because their main food source is being eaten by those who think that by doing so, they're "cruelty-free" or doing "less harm". All these people have done is redirect their harm onto someone else and shrugged it off. HEre are some fancy lapel pins in case you haven't told enough people you're cruelty-free by being vegan.
http://www.petacatalog.com/images/products/787.jpg

On top of all this, vegans will claim that raising cattle is farm more detrimental to the environment because they incorrectly believe that crops are grown specifically to feed the beef industry -- this is by and large FALSE on every account. Vegans will say that it takes X amount of corn/grain (these are used interchangeably, strangely enough) to produce 1lb of beef.
What they fail to realize, mostly due to a lack of self-education and self-research, is that beef cows are not fed straight corn or grains, they're fed the BY-PRODUCTS that humans don't eat! The by-products from soy, corn, and any other grain is given to cows, so eating vegan supports the beef industry by feeding their cattle! The fertilizer sprayed on vegan crops is made up of a mixture of cow, pig, and chicken shit sourced from slaughterhouses and mink from fur farms!

I've never met a vegan who educated themselves on the meat industry with an open mind, not once. I've set through all the vegan documentaries that people have thrown at me and they all circulate the same old crock of shit.

Again, if you've got any questions feel free to ask me, I've been debating with vegans for years.

I'm not sure why you spell vegan with an apostrophe; is it because you are on your phone?

Anyway, you continue to highlight that it's not possible to avoid all animal suffering by abstaining from meat. You haven't demonstrated that abstinence from meat is ineffectual or that eating meat less frequently has no effect on the burden of agriculture on land.

In general, because of trophic levels, a smaller land area is required to support the equivalent energy content of plants, compared with livestock. This reality, which is a manifestation of essential thermodynamics, means that eating agriculturally intensive food items, like meat, less often, reduces pressure on the environment.

It doesn't mean that there are no other problems with the envrionment; such an assessment would be facile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2016 at 2:59 PM, Gamedog said:

No

Vegans are once-ordinary people who become holier thou after being exposed to incorrect information and becoming egotistical and ignorant due to this.

Well, yeah, that's what I meant by special snowflakes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

I'm not sure why you spell vegan with an apostrophe; is it because you are on your phone?

Anyway, you continue to highlight that it's not possible to avoid all animal suffering by abstaining from meat. You haven't demonstrated that abstinence from meat is ineffectual or that eating meat less frequently has no effect on the burden of agriculture on land.

In general, because of trophic levels, a smaller land area is required to support the equivalent energy content of plants, compared with livestock. This reality, which is a manifestation of essential thermodynamics, means that eating agriculturally intensive food items, like meat, less often, reduces pressure on the environment.

It doesn't mean that there are no other problems with the envrionment; such an assessment would be facile.

Veg*n is short for both vegan and vegitarian, it's just easier than typing both out.

 

i just answered your other questions and explained how veganism just redirects harm instead of abstaining from it but you don't wanna read

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

I find this odd

Not a question related to the debate.

Why does humans find eating meat more satisfying than they do with vegetables. Is this an indication that we are technically carnivores?

Its biological 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Veg*n is short for both vegan and vegitarian, it's just easier than typing both out.

 

i just answered your other questions and explained how veganism just redirects harm instead of abstaining from it but you don't wanna read

I don't think it does 'redirect harm', because it is implicit in your logic that no piece of land that could be used for crop agriculture for humans is used to produce feedstock for livestock. (Or you could violate thermodynamics)

People who eat less meat reduce their carbon footprint, so it's a justifiable choice. They also avoid being involved in animal suffering they needn't be. You can't exactly abstain from all food though, so you will always have an ecological footprint.

Your approach seems to be that, because they haven't reduced their ecological footprint to zero, then you're going to pretend they haven't reduced it at all. Which is dishonest.

I've got a better question.

Would In Vitro Meat still be Vegan? It was, afterall, never a part of an animal. It's purely synthetic.

I think it's carbon footprint would be the most important thing; would it be lower than normal meat?

At the moment, no, because experimental petri dish meats are fed animal proteins.

Maybe in the future a different process will be used, such as the fermentation barrels which grow fungus used to make products like Quorn. Quorn is already widely distributed and entails a carbon footprint 80% less than real meat:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140729081412/http://www.ktponline.org.uk/ktp-provides-carbon-footprint-certification-for-quorn-tm/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Saxon

Its clear that you're not reading what I wrote so I'm done debating with you

i already explained to you what livestock eat and where it comes from

 crops are not grown for livestock

 crops are grown for humans

the livestock eat the stem, husks and seed shells

 

why is this so hard to understand

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gamedog said:

@Saxon

Its clear that you're not reading what I wrote so I'm done debating with you

i already explained to you what livestock eat and where it comes from

 crops are not grown for livestock

 crops are grown for humans

the livestock eat the stem, husks and seed shells

 

why is this so hard to understand

Your response to anybody you debate is always incredulity that they're reading your comments.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1/fulltext.html

(Scarborough et al 2014) already audited the overall carbon footprints of different diets, including vegan and vegetarian diets, and found that you can reduce your food's green-house-gas emissions by a factor of 2 by abstaining from meat.

The scientific experts' consensus agree with me, not you. Are you going to admit your argument has been demonstrated wrong by real world evidence?

Sure but that's not quite what I asked. So petri dish proteins count? Really?

I think your question was semantic, so it missed the more important points.

People are vegans for different reasons. Some want to reduce their carbon footprint (as demonstrated by authors such as scarborough et al 2014, seinfeld et al 2006, Audsley et al 2009 and so on), so the most important thing to them would be whether synthetic meat has a low carbon footprint.

Others, who abstain from meat for health or religious reasons, may not be interested in meat wherever it has come from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gamedog said:

@Saxon

i just have a feeling that you don't read my comments because I said "veganism just redirects harm" and you then say "veganism causes less harm"

less methane? Sure! More masses of dead aquatic life? You bet!

 

Vegan food doesn't cause 'more dead aquatic life'. Eutrophication is associated with overuse of fertilisers. Since the cultivation of cereal crops for livestock (documented by seinfeld et al 2006) requires fertilisers, eating more meat will lead to greater amounts of fertiliser run off and hence more eutrophiciation, not less.

(incidentally seinfeld et al 2006 proves your earlier contention, that livestock are only fed byproducts unsuitable for human consumption, to be incorrect)

Eutrophication is, in any case, a red herring; the biggest problem for our environment is green house gas emissions.

Authors such as scarborough et al 2014 have objectively quantified the green-house-gas footprint associated with different diets and shown that abstience from meat usually reduces green house gas emissions of someone's diet by a factor of 2.

 

Hence vegans and vegetarians, or even people who still eat meat but simply eat it less frequently, are causing less overall harm to the environment.

This has, effectively, been demonstrated to be an unassailable hypothesis now. So will you admit your mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

@Saxon

yes... Phosphorus in fertilizers for crops

crops like corn, soybeans, etc lol

Phosphorous is used to cultivate crops. This causes eutrophication when the phosphorous runs off into rivers and fertilises algal blooms.

Livestock need to eat, and as Seinfeld et al 2006 explain, cereal crop cultivation to feed livestock is routine.

Because livestock represent an extra trophic level, the amount of land that needs to be fertilised with phosophates and nitrates to create the equivalent energy in flesh exceeds the amount of land that is required to create the equivalent energy in crops.

Hence livestock rearing is associated with a higher risk of eutrophication than crop cultivation.

 

This discussion of eutrophication is a red herring though, because there are much bigger problems facing our environment. Reducing eutrophication is one good reason to reduce meat consumption, but the best reasons are that reducing meat consumption reduces green house gas emissions and reduces the overall amount of land needed to feed the human population, which means that more land can be left for carbon sinks, like forests.

 

Given that I've sited papers by scientific experts to prove these points, will you finally admit that you made mistakes and that reducing meat consumption is good for environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

Phosphorous is used to cultivate crops. This causes eutrophication when the phosphorous runs off into rivers and fertilises algal blooms.

Livestock need to eat, and as Seinfeld et al 2006 explain, cereal crop cultivation to feed livestock is routine.

Because livestock represent an extra trophic level, the amount of land that needs to be fertilised with phosophates and nitrates to create the equivalent energy in flesh exceeds the amount of land that is required to create the equivalent energy in crops.

Hence livestock rearing is associated with a higher risk of eutrophication than crop cultivation.

 

This discussion of eutrophication is a red herring though, because there are much bigger problems facing our environment. Reducing eutrophication is one good reason to reduce meat consumption, but the best reasons are that reducing meat consumption reduces green house gas emissions and reduces the overall amount of land needed to feed the human population, which means that more land can be left for carbon sinks, like forests.

 

Given that I've sited papers by scientific experts to prove these points, will you finally admit that you made mistakes and that reducing meat consumption is good for environment?

Well Im sorry to say but you're wrong. Crops are not grown specifically for livestock -- livestock are fed the by-products of crops grown for humans. If you think that you can twist this to mean "crops are grown to feed livestock" then be my guest, but your studies and you are incorrect.

It's certainly not unheard of for veg*ns to make shit up though

http://www.explorebeef.org/CMDocs/ExploreBeef/Beefs%20Shrinking%20Environmental%20Footprint_Fact%20Sheet.pdf

 

http://agrithoughts.tumblr.com/post/78868068728/shoobedoowop-agrithoughts-shoobedoowop

 

You've said it yourself, supply and demand! More demand for ""vegan"" crops means more will be grown, which means more deaths in our lakes and waterways, and more starving Bolivians.
Everyone wins!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gamedog said:

Well Im sorry to say but you're wrong. Crops are not grown specifically for livestock -- livestock are fed the by-products of crops grown for humans. If you think that you can twist this to mean "crops are grown to feed livestock" then be my guest, but your studies and you are incorrect.

It's certainly not unheard of for veg*ns to make shit up though

http://www.explorebeef.org/CMDocs/ExploreBeef/Beefs%20Shrinking%20Environmental%20Footprint_Fact%20Sheet.pdf

 

http://agrithoughts.tumblr.com/post/78868068728/shoobedoowop-agrithoughts-shoobedoowop

 

You've said it yourself, supply and demand! More demand for ""vegan"" crops means more will be grown, which means more deaths in our lakes and waterways, and more starving Bolivians.
Everyone wins!

Citing a tumblr blog doesn't invalidate scientific research. One might also suspect that 'explorebeef.org' has a vested interest in convincing people that eating beef is good. If you read their page they explain that new agricultural practices have reduced the carbon footprint of beef produced today, compared to some decades ago. Beef still entails a significantly higher greenhouse gas emission than crops.

The findings of scarborough et al 2014 are consistent with the consensus that was already widely known in the scientific community; that meat has a higher associated carbon footprint and ecological impact and that we can reduce our impact by replacing meat with other foods.

Why do you think that the scientists disagree with you, Gamedog?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saxon said:

Citing a tumblr blog doesn't invalidate scientific research. One might also suspect that 'explorebeef.org' has a vested interest in convincing people that eating beef is good. If you read their page they explain that new agricultural practices have reduced the carbon footprint of beef produced today, compared to some decades ago. Beef still entails a significantly higher greenhouse gas emission than crops.

The findings of scarborough et al 2014 are consistent with the consensus that was already widely known in the scientific community; that meat has a higher associated carbon footprint and ecological impact and that we can reduce our impact by replacing meat with other foods.

Why do you think that the scientists disagree with you, Gamedog?

 

Nowhere did I say that I believe one or the other has a higher carbon footprint, I've been speaking on the harm that comes from fertilizers and the effects it has on lakes/waterways, and the animals that are killed to protect said crops.

I'm sure you also believe the lies about veal and refuse to educate yourself from the words of beef farmers on why they're "chained to small dog houses" too, right? lol

 

The "Tumblr link" that you likely didn't even click had an image with a source typed on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Nowhere did I say that I believe one or the other has a higher carbon footprint, I've been speaking on the harm that comes from fertilizers and the effects it has on lakes/waterways, and the animals that are killed to protect said crops.

I'm sure you also believe the lies about veal and refuse to educate yourself from the words of beef farmers on why they're "chained to small dog houses" too, right? lol

 

The "Tumblr link" that you likely didn't even click had an image with a source typed on it.

To be honest I don't think about veal; I don't eat any meat so why would it concern me? Even if I didn't know about veal, what exactly are you expecting that to prove? ._.

I did click on the tumblr link; stop being so presumptuous.

You're ignoring the harm that green house gas emissions do, because you know that as soon as you admit that you're obsessing over a red herring (over which the research shows you're wrong anyway) that you'll have to admit that your assertion that eating less meat is 'just as environmentally harmful' has been shown categorically wrong.

 

I'm not sure how this argument erupted; I think it was based entirely on your initial comments that all vegans were snooty people who only cared about animal cruelty and spent all their time sending hateful messages to you.

Somehow we have ended up at this.

I merely sought to show you that people abstain from meat for a greater variety of reasons than you were aware of, including to reduce their environmental footprint, and that much of the claims you were making about this subject contradict established biology.

You've effectively only been engaging easy strawmen arguments. 'Erm...I might be wrong about the environmental impacts....but HAVE YOU HEARD THE LIES ABOUT VEAL I bet you believe them?'. 'I don't like vegans because they're all nasty people,' 'All vegans think their lifestyle prevents any animal cruelty whatsoever' 'reducing your environmental impact is pointless is eutrophication can't be stopped'. and so on and so on and so on.

These arguments have either been lies which misrepresent your opponent as holding facile positions that are almost self-evidently wrong, or have ignored the wider scientific reality, for example talking of environmental harm and only discussing small examples, making assumptions that the research demonstrated are wrong, and ignoring the leading reasons for environmental damage as 'irrelevant'. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cricket and mealworm farms, an extremely efficient source of animal protein, are becoming A Thing, so it'll be interesting so see if those catch on at all.

I believe they consume something along the lines of 1000x less water, and 10x less feed per gram of protein compared to beef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kazooie said:

Cricket and mealworm farms, an extremely efficient source of animal protein, are becoming A Thing, so it'll be interesting so see if those catch on at all.

I believe they consume something along the lines of 1000x less water, and 10x less feed per gram of protein compared to beef.

I'll never live to see the day where western countries starts eating insects

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Strawmen and putting words in my mouth

"These arguments have either been lies" (....) "why are you bringing up topics X, y and z?????"

 

 

Lmao, bye

I mean you could just admit that the scientists disagreed with you, but go ahead; run away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2016 at 6:15 AM, Gamedog said:

 

The livestock eat the stem, husks and seed shells.

Just a heads up that livestock can also be supplied with a low grade grain from wheat crops,

however this is not detracting from the argument on the supply of human food as these grains have failed to reach the adequate protein levels for human consumption due to a poor yield so instead of wasting a farmer's harvest, the grain is then sold off for a lower price for use in animal consumption.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...