veganism and what people think of it

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
I never denied the impact of livestock on the environment. I only said that everyone turning vegetarian would not necessarily improve sustainability, because crops also have their issues.

The last paragraph applies to you, in fact. And it's quite amusing that you're trying to teach me about the environmental impact of livestock when I was a vegetarian for years.

But this is what you do: misrepresent my claims, and attempt to teach me things I used to say for years as if they are some novelty.

Good for you I guess!

I didn't misrepresent anything you said, you really need to give up that broken record, and I'm honestly quite over whatever issues you have with me... It was your choice to quote me in the beginning, and then tag me in your own misrepresentation of my post!

I'll see ya in the next thread where you decide you want to be contrarian for absolutely no reason :)
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Good for you I guess!

I didn't misrepresent anything you said, you really need to give up that broken record, and I'm honestly quite over whatever issues you have with me... It was your choice to quote me in the beginning, and then tag me in your own misrepresentation of my post!

I'll see ya in the next thread where you decide you want to be contrarian for absolutely no reason :)

I quoted you to say that crops also have their environmental issues. I never claimed that livestock doesn't. But you are arguing as if I did. And this is what you do all the time.

So you need to chill and absorb what people tell you before you comment.
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
I quoted you to say that crops also have their environmental issues. I never claimed that livestock doesn't. But you are arguing as if I did. And this is what you do all the time.

So you need to chill and absorb what people tell you before you comment.

You actually did lol! In the first post you said the environmental argument doesn't hold because we need the space for crops, failing to realise that animals also eat crops so it's the same either way, by reducing the numbers of animals needed to feed humanity you also reduce their environmental impact on the planet, that was my entire pov here! You kept insisting on proving me wrong for whatever reason that you were the one who misrepresented my opinion in fact! So yeah stop accusing me of the crap you're pulling!

I'm quite honestly done with this entire thing! You can have the last word, it's no longer worth it for me!
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
You actually did lol! In the first post you said the environmental argument doesn't hold because we need the space for crops, failing to realise that animals also eat crops so it's the same either way, by reducing the numbers of animals needed to feed humanity you also reduce their environmental impact on the planet, that was my entire pov here! You kept insisting on proving me wrong for whatever reason that you were the one who misrepresented my opinion in fact! So yeah stop accusing me of the crap you're pulling!

I'm quite honestly done with this entire thing! You can have the last word, it's no longer worth it for me!

My claim: "The environmental argument doesn't hold."

Not my claim: "Livestock does not cause environmental issues."
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
The environment argument doesn't hold though. If everyone stopped eating meat, we'd have to cut more forests to have more agricultural space to grow crops.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat. The problem is that we eat too much of it, and the animals get mistreated in the process. There are more humane ways to produce meat.
It does because we are already cutting more forests for agricultural spaces in order to grow crops to feed cows pigs and chickens that are kept in deplorable conditions and contributing to depleting resources that are already under threat from the sheer amount of human beings on the planet!

I don't think there's anything wrong with eating meat, once again I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian and I do agree that it should be done in moderation. But I do however see the arguments that are compelling people to stop altogether

For the sake of clarity, this is what you quoted me with, and my reply! I didn't misrepresent anything you had to say, and actually the only thing you had to say was that the environmental argument for veganism doesn't hold because we will need the space to feed humans! You were actually the one who decided to defend a pov you probably don't actually hold just to pick an argument with me!
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
For the sake of clarity, this is what you quoted me with, and my reply! I didn't misrepresent anything you had to say, and actually the only thing you had to say was that the environmental argument for veganism doesn't hold because we will need the space to feed humans! You were actually the one who decided to defend a pov you probably don't actually hold just to pick an argument with me!

I replied to your reply and told you it's too simplistic and gave you an article to read that shows why it's too simplistic.

Stop wasting my time.
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
My claim: "The environmental argument doesn't hold."

Not my claim: "Livestock does not cause environmental issues."

Cool story that was never stated by me, I replied to your actual claims and told you you are underestimating the environmental impact of livestock because you actually are since you think it's comparable to rice! It is actually more severe than freaking cars and all other industries!
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Cool story that was never stated by me, I replied to your actual claims and told you you are underestimating the environmental impact of livestock because you actually are since you think it's comparable to rice! It is actually more severe than freaking cars and all other industries!

Stop wasting my time.
 

morpheus_

New Member
PEOPLE !!!!
WHY ALL THIS HATRED ???
we're killing all these animals and for some it's okay as long as they're satisfied yet we should hate EACH OTHER ,please raise above hatred guys
 

SeaAb

Legendary Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
Virtue signaling? Lol

Why does someone following their own convictions have to be virtue signaling?


Every social movement has its fakers, including major religions. And insofar as veganism has become a social movement, there will be plenty of fakers.

I believe killing animals is never right unless it is accidental or in self defense, or to prevent encroachment, or as a hunted food source when needed, or raised in a personal non commercial farm. Using animal products is never right unless they are products gathered , byproducts of hunting, or products from a personal non commercial farm.

Humans do many things that aren't right. I am not vegan nor vegetarian. I also do not follow what I believe in and stated above, but I know I am wrong for not doing so.

BTW you are so wrong saying that people who have compassion for animals must have weak stomachs and personality. In fact by saying that you are being nothing but a bit of a bully and a preacher yourself. Unless of course you are saying that simply because it sounded good and fit well into your little sermon.
Despite sa2altak, I loved you before this post and i love you even more now. :)
anigif_sub-buzz-32364-1490802797-6.gif
 

Sayyid Jewry

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
@Muki @Isabella

Sustainability is a multi-factor issue. It can't be reduced to one, clear-cut argument. There is a lot to take into consideration. This article gives some examples. You can find more on the subject online.

Is a vegetarian diet really more environmentally friendly than eating meat?

You are the one who reduced it into "one, clear-cut argument" by stating:

"The environment argument doesn't hold though. If everyone stopped eating meat, we'd have to cut more forests to have more agricultural space to grow crops."

Clearly, you did not consider other factors such as livestock housing, livestock feeding, and environmental impact of livestock, to name a few. If you did, you wouldn't say we'd have to cut more forests. We already cut down trees for agricultural space to feed livestock -- that space will be converted to agricultural space to feed humans. These are all based on an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario that you've drawn and which considers all humans completely cutting off meat. Never gunna happen.

As far as that article, it makes no mention about the same environmental impacts associated with the import and export of meat around the globe. The article is therefore incomplete. It ends by giving same general advice I gave earlier: eat local, know where your food sources come from.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
You are the one who reduced it into "one, clear-cut argument" by stating:

"The environment argument doesn't hold though. If everyone stopped eating meat, we'd have to cut more forests to have more agricultural space to grow crops."

Clearly, you did not consider other factors such as livestock housing, livestock feeding, and environmental impact of livestock, to name a few. If you did, you wouldn't say we'd have to cut more forests. We already cut down trees for agricultural space to feed livestock -- that space will be converted to agricultural space to feed humans. These are all based on an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario that you've drawn and which considers all humans completely cutting off meat. Never gunna happen.

As far as that article, it makes no mention about the same environmental impacts associated with the import and export of meat around the globe. The article is therefore incomplete. It ends by giving same general advice I gave earlier: eat local, know where your food sources come from.

Of course I considered other factors. That's precisely why I posted an article examplifying other factors.

And of course the article isn't complete. No one article can cover the entire topic. That's precisely why I said there are more of them on google if you care to look.

Next.
 

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
Man the best beast the most selfish and arrogant being God created.. I wonder how funny it would be when Aliens come and claim us as food...lol.. it would be real fun to watch it...
Where is the compassion religion talks about why someone must die so that someone lives.. why animals bleed yet we eat them.. I was touched...your right Morpheus... hope you have the courage to remain a vegan...

I wonder how some who are smart dont look more then their nose... for a chicken the best life is a chicken life... for a cow its the cows life for humans its human... but Nah.. GOD Created animals so that we eat them... same God created some aliens so that one they they eat us... or animals like lion or tiger eat us... clearly there is a missing point out there.. we should really look into it....

Aliens and god in the sentence? Ouch!
u're one progressive individual to tjink that god created you to eat animals and he created aliens who have to travel lightyears to come and eat this delicacy that is human flesh.

Eat kale, its like taking a khat 3askaré to heaven
 
Last edited:

Sayyid Jewry

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Of course I considered other factors. That's precisely why I posted an article examplifying other factors.

And of course the article isn't complete. No one article can cover the entire topic. That's precisely why I said there are more of them on google if you care to look.

Next.

Your original claim did not consider other factors and your original claim has been refuted. We do not need more agricultural land if humans cut out meat entirely from their diets; we'd need the same area of land, if we're going by these rough hypothetical estimates. Insisting that your claim has not been debunked by continuously adding to it is intellectually dishonest.

No one article can cover everything, but leaving out relevant key information from an article in order to sway the readers one way is more than simple oversight. The subject is comparing which diet is more environmentally friendly, with implicit bias (from the title of the article) towards meat diet being more environmentally friendly. The support of the argument are the associated costs with import and export of vegetables and beans from all around the globe. The second is waste. The article, however, neglected to mention that said associated costs, as well as waste, are also prevalent in the meat industry in an equal fashion. That is relevant information that debunks the claim being argued in the article... and it's being (deliberately?) left out.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Your original claim did not consider other factors and your original claim has been refuted. We do not need more agricultural land if humans cut out meat entirely from their diets; we'd need the same area of land, if we're going by these rough hypothetical estimates. Insisting that your claim has not been debunked by continuously adding to it is intellectually dishonest.

No one article can cover everything, but leaving out relevant key information from an article in order to sway the readers one way is more than simple oversight. The subject is comparing which diet is more environmentally friendly, with implicit bias (from the title of the article) towards meat diet being more environmentally friendly. The support of the argument are the associated costs with import and export of vegetables and beans from all around the globe. The second is waste. The article, however, neglected to mention that said associated costs, as well as waste, are also prevalent in the meat industry in an equal fashion. That is relevant information that debunks the claim being argued in the article... and it's being (deliberately?) left out.

Here's your nuance. Didn't know googling was so difficult.

"Surprisingly, however, a vegetarian diet is not necessarily the most efficient in terms of land use," said Peters.

The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland, he explained. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay. A large pool of such land is available in New York state because for sustainable use, most farmland requires a crop rotation with such perennial crops as pasture and hay."

Diet for small planet may be most efficient if it includes dairy and a little meat, Cornell researchers report | Cornell Chronicle
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
"The moral high ground of food just shifted a little bit.

Using biophysical simulation models to compare 10 eating patterns, researchers found that eating fewer animal products will increase the number of people that can be supported by existing farmland. But as it turns out, eliminating animal products altogether isn’t the best way to maximize sustainable land use. Their work was published in Elementa, a journal on the science of the anthropocene.

The researchers considered the vegan diet, two vegetarian diets (one that includes dairy, the other dairy and eggs), four omnivorous diets (with varying degrees of vegetarian influence), one low in fats and sugars, and one akin to the modern American dietary pattern.

Based on their models, the vegan diet would feed fewer people than two of the vegetarian and two of the four omnivorous diets studied. The bottom line: Going cold turkey on animal-based products may not actually be the most sustainable long choice for humanity in the long term."

Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think
 

Elvis left the building

Legendary Member
We have been meat eaters for over 2 million years. those who don't eat meat have vitamin deficiencies and suffer decrease brain volume, fatigue and confusion. even diabetes masalan was brought in when the vegetarians took over not when people were eating meat. people eating potato and grains actually have higher rates of diabetes as these foods break into sugar. meat is a necessity.

Meat is nessecary in small quantity

Older generations ate meat, but way less than us, it was a valuable commodity

If u eat well from sources of protein like brokoly and soy and in our current society where every food is available and cheap, u can mostly avoid meat without suffering any health defiencies (unless u are a guy, then u must avoid soy for its estrogene effects)

Meat is normal, but not a big must

We arabs are particularly obssesed by it

In addition to that, we chose the crappy quality meat

Cow & chicken over bakon , goat & fish
 
Top