Why are you NOT vegetarian

[BrainBlow]

In any case, make all those fat bastards (including my dad) cut back on their food intake, stop throwing food away, ship the food to the countries that need it and voilà !
No ma'am, not having enough food is really not the worlds problem, being a greedy bunch of fuckwits is our problem.

That is called "dumping", and it is being done already. And it does not help. (see, we actually produce way too much meat, especially of swine and chicken)
For one, the food expires way too fast and most of these countries have no means of which to preserve the food.
And in many cases, the ones getting their hands on it use it to get themselves rich.

I do agree with the rest of what you say though.

 

[Inferno]

In any case, make all those fat bastards (including my dad) cut back on their food intake, stop throwing food away, ship the food to the countries that need it and voilà !
No ma'am, not having enough food is really not the worlds problem, being a greedy bunch of fuckwits is our problem.

That is called "dumping", and it is being done already. And it does not help. (see, we actually produce way too much meat, especially of swine and chicken)
For one, the food expires way too fast and most of these countries have no means of which to preserve the food.
And in many cases, the ones getting their hands on it use it to get themselves rich.

I do agree with the rest of what you say though.

It would suffice to distribute the meat locally, there are enough poor people in Europe, North America, etc. Also with what I said earlier (cutting back on the food, especially meat, of which we eat far too much) we'd have more than enough space (land) to grow stuff that lasts a long time. (Rice, etc.)

 

[Independent Vision]

There is not enough resources for everyone in the world to eat meat, not even just two times a week.
If everyone in the world were to eat two portions of meat per week 40% of the arable land world wide would be needed to raise the cattle.
5.75 acres in total to raise one cow for beef on a mix diet (including soy), one cow equals 1000 portions.
5.75 divided by 1000 = 0.00575
0.00575 * 6,852,472,823 (mid 2010 estimation) = 39,401,718.73
39,401,718.73*2= 78,803,437.46
78,803,437.46*52= 4,097,778,747.92

In the world there is around 10,230,162,792.7 acres of total potential arable land.
4,097,778,747.92 is 40.05% of 10,230,162,792.7... meaning that 40% of all arable land would go to raising beef cattle if everyone had 2 servings of beef per week.

This is calculated on the total POTENTIAL arable land on the planet. Meaning area that is suitable for agriculture soil wise and climate wise. This includes areas that is currently forests, settlements and natural grassland.

In our calculations we have not included cows for milk production, pigs or poultry, only enough beef cattle for people to have 2 portions of meat per week.

So, no... we can't all eat two portions of meat per week and still be okay. Or I might be wrong in my calculations... Anyway... it's not possible. Now... if everyone that is now eating meat cut down their meat consumption... maybe. Because there are whole nations of people out there who are not eating much meat, at all.

See where it gets... iffy?

Yeah, wastefulness and greed is a problem as well, but if everyone was eating meat... dude... if everyone in the world wanted to eat one portion of beef per day we wouldn't have enough potential arable land to sustain that, and that's JUST the meat, not including milk, eggs, and veggies. We'd be f*ed if people wanted to eat beef only four days per week.
So yes, I do think I can argue for a largely vegetarian or wholly vegetarian lifestyle based on solidarity and environment.

And the reason there could be enough food might just have to do with the fact that there are a lot of vegetarians around. 1.7 million vegetarians in Taiwan. 358 million PURE vegetarians in India, 7 million vegetarians in Germany...
An estimated 4 million vegetarians in the UK.
Over 12 million vegetarians in the US...
That's 5% of the worlds population right there in those 5 countries, unless I am mistaken. (Which I might be, my brain needs more caffeine)

Ugh... you know what. Don't take my word for all these calculations I've made. Check them yourself, I might be wrong, but unless I am wrong... If everyone ate 2 steaks per week, we'd be screwed. *shrugs*

 

[Independent Vision]

Now... furthermore I am not telling anyone that you can't eat meat. I'm not even saying whatever personal reasons you have aren't valid for YOU. But there are, however, a lot of people here trying to convince me that my personal reasons for not eating meat, aside from medical and not liking the taste, are false.

People saying that the ethical, moral and environmental reasons I have for my diet are based on misunderstandings... and making assumptions about my sources and the nature of those sources.

I don't give a flying pig in hell what you do, because, quite frankly, I'm not out to change your mind. What I am trying to get across is that my reasons for not eating meat are just as valid as your reasons for eating it.

Shit, everywhere one goes one has to first justify one not eating meat by listing reasons, then one has to present evidence for the reason one uses those reasons to not eat meat, and then one has to present evidence for the evidence for the reasons one use the reasons one does to not eat meat.
In the ratio of who is more harmful with their dietary choices, I think people who do eat meat should be subjected to it more than me. Fuck... try to do something positive in the world and people trow a hissy. Real classy for supposed rational and logical skeptics. :lol: I cannot believe I sat down and played with numbers to get one person to see that I am not basing my dietary choices on PETA propaganda. I effin' hate the PETA.

I base my dietary choice, when talking about ethics in the realms of solidarity and the sustainability of humans on this planet as well as environmental issues, on peer reviewed studies and reports. Not PETA or animal activist propaganda. Mmmmmkay? Is that good enough for you people out there? I don't spend time on animal activist boards, I am not a member of an animal activist group, and the most contact I have with political vegetarians and vegans is when I need to look up if the gravy my husband bought is in fact vegan or if it has actual chicken in it... or to see which ones of my favorite beers are made with isinglass.
That's it.
Otherwise I spend my days pretty much isolated from vegetarians and vegans. I am married to a man who likes his meat, but has limited his intake largely because of the same studies.

And yes, I do have a right to be indignant. If people think a couple of articles about the waste of food in the UK shows that my sources and reasons for my dietary choices are misunderstandings or not valid, then I do have the right to be indignant. I have no problem with you eating meat. I do have a problem with you questioning my reasons for it when peoples reasons for eating meat is "it's yummy and healthy(!?)".

There, I said it.

 

[Inferno]

I'll go and make the proper calculations later, but I'd please like to see your sources.
For example, you calculate that "If everyone in the world were to eat two portions of meat per week 40% of the arable land world wide would be needed to raise the cattle." and you calculate this with 1 cow per 5.75 acres. ("5.75 acres in total to raise one cow")
The total cattle population today is (as per wikipedia) roughly 1.3 billion. A quick calculation show that 1.3 billion cows * 5.75 acres = 7,475,000,000 acres. (Area of land needed for all of the live cattle)
So are you saying that the total live population of all cattle today needs 75% of arable land, yet what I'm proposing needs only 40%, as per your calculation? I can live with that, you know.

As soon as I get to see your sources, I can check the maths, but it's impossible at the moment. (I'm going to assume that your resource is not wiki-answers, is it? Because if it is, I won't even bother to check the calculations and just dismiss your argument out of hand.)

 

[Independent Vision]

I'll go and make the proper calculations later, but I'd please like to see your sources.
For example, you calculate that "If everyone in the world were to eat two portions of meat per week 40% of the arable land world wide would be needed to raise the cattle." and you calculate this with 1 cow per 5.75 acres. ("5.75 acres in total to raise one cow")
The total cattle population today is (as per wikipedia) roughly 1.3 billion. A quick calculation show that 1.3 billion cows * 5.75 acres = 7,475,000,000 acres. (Area of land needed for all of the live cattle)
So are you saying that the total live population of all cattle today needs 75% of arable land, yet what I'm proposing needs only 40%, as per your calculation? I can live with that, you know.

As soon as I get to see your sources, I can check the maths, but it's impossible at the moment. (I'm going to assume that your resource is not wiki-answers, is it? Because if it is, I won't even bother to check the calculations and just dismiss your argument out of hand.)

My calculation was per portion of meat per person. Total cattle production today would include dairy cattle as well, wouldn't it?

I didn't pay attention to the source. So sue me. I looked up a number of different ones and then made an estimation from there.

You can completely disregard the numbers if you want to, that doesn't mean jack squat to me.

I don't care what you can or cannot live with, so why the hell, as per my question, should you demand that I put up all this evidence for my personal choice to not eat meat? I have nowhere stated a moral superiority. Just that I made a decision to do this and I have a myriad of reasons for it. Yet you come barging in telling me that whatever reasons I have are bullshit?
And to justify that you put up articles about the UK wasting a shit load of food.
I stated environmental reasons as one of my main ones, did you have a look at the peer reviewed study I am currently reading that I linked to? And how much Animal Husbandry effect the environment?
The WHO and UN has a report out that suggests people have a primarily plant based diet for health reasons. Do you want a link to that one?
Or the UN report that states that we need to move to a vegan diet more and more to lessen starvation, fuel impact and climate change? http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/documents/pdf/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report_Full.pdf

I am so sick and tired of this shit. YOU NEED TO JUSTIFY YOUR LACK OF MEAT IN YOUR DIET. Yeah, about as much as you need to justify my lack of belief in a god. Seriously. Can you back up the fact that meat is yummy with scientific data or peer reviewed reports?

If you can come up with credible sources that meet the peer reviewed reports and the UN reports I have read, and some I have linked to, then do so. Until then I think we can agree that my basic reasons for a vegetarian diet is well substantiated.

I am off to snuggle in bed with my cat and my husband. I had the yummiest tacos for dinner, refried beans substituting the meat most people put in them. Filling and delicious, and apparently offensive to a lot of people.

 

[Inferno]

Am I the only one who thinks that Independent's posts are ever-so-slightly ironic? If so, I should check if my head is screwed on straight...

Now... furthermore I am not telling anyone that you can't eat meat. I'm not even saying whatever personal reasons you have aren't valid for YOU.

Laughable. You're basically whacking our fingers with a ruler, saying "bad meat-eaters, look at the poor animals, the environment, etc." and then you turn around and say "but whatever, suit yourselves". I don't buy the whole "I am not telling anyone that you can't eat meat".
Also notice the second sentence in the quote, it's going to be important in a bit.

People saying that the ethical, moral and environmental reasons I have for my diet are based on misunderstandings... and making assumptions about my sources and the nature of those sources.

Indeed, that's what I'm (and possibly others, not sure) saying. Look, I'm not even saying that whatever personal reasons you have aren't valid for YOU... Do you understand how ridiculous your rant must seem to me?

and making assumptions about my sources and the nature of those sources.

Well so far, I'm not particularly impressed.
EDIT: Holy crap, I just reloaded the 8th page and you made a new post. You even admit it yourself!

I didn't pay attention to the source. So sue me. I looked up a number of different ones and then made an estimation from there.

How can I take your sources seriously if you
a) don't cite them
b) just look at anything on the web
c) make an estimation based on any number of unaccredited sources?

I'm sorry, but if you're going to show me that I'm wrong, at least use proper sources and cite them.

And yes, I do have a right to be indignant. If people think a couple of articles about the waste of food in the UK shows that my sources and reasons for my dietary choices are misunderstandings or not valid, then I do have the right to be indignant. I have no problem with you eating meat. I do have a problem with you questioning my reasons for it when peoples reasons for eating meat is "it's yummy and healthy(!?)".

What other reasons are there? Every single reason you've mentioned for not eating meat is (as I hope that I have shown) based on at least one fallacy. I'm not saying that I'm saving the planet by eating meat because that's BS. But neither are you saving the planet by not eating it, it's equal tosh. The only reasons why one would eat/not eat meat are (and I have yet to be shown wrong about this) taste and medical conditions.

I don't care what you can or cannot live with, so why the hell, as per my question, should you demand that I put up all this evidence for my personal choice to not eat meat?

If you'd have kept your reasons to yourself, you wouldn't have. Not eating meat is certainly not a bad thing, so I couldn't care less.
However, you have stated here that some of the reasons for becoming a vegetarian are
"it is wrong to kill animals.
Environmental.
Solidarity with your fellow humans.
Sustainability."

That would mean that people who eat meat don't care about these issues. It's therefore not so much an issue of "why should you be asked to cite your sources" but rather "why should you be "allowed" to state something like that without evidence?".
You make a statement, you back it up. It's as simple as that.

I have nowhere stated a moral superiority.

*cough*see above quote*cough*
Also see "the ethical, moral and environmental reasons I have for my diet"

YOU NEED TO JUSTIFY YOUR LACK OF MEAT IN YOUR DIET. Yeah, about as much as you need to justify my lack of belief in a god.

But that's the whole point. My original statement was this:

A little late, but: I'm a non-vegetarian for the same reason that I'm an Atheist. You didn't give me a reason to become a veggy. Meat is delicious and that is enough of a reason to eat meat.
No argument for becoming a vegetarian has so far convinced me. Save the environment, the poor animals, healthier... All based on one fallacy or more. The only two arguments for becoming a vegetarian that hold their water are: I don't like the taste of meat and I can't eat meat because of some medical condition.

Also: Bacon.

YOU are the one who says that it's better for X, Y and Z, so why should I be the one to justify stuff? As I have stated: You (the vegetarian) have not given me enough reasons to abandon meat. Just like with a Theist/Atheist argument, you're telling me that my position is bad because of arguments X, Y and Z and I'm telling you that you're wrong because the arguments X, Y and Z are inherently flawed.
That shouldn't stop you from being a vegetarian, but don't make it sound like you've got more rational arguments than I have, because you don't and I don't either. The only argument the Theist has is faith, the only ones that you have are taste, medical ones and personal ones. But none of them are more moral, environmentally friendly, etc. than mine.

Can you back up the fact that meat is yummy with scientific data or peer reviewed reports?

Do you even want an answer to that?

Until then I think we can agree that my basic reasons for a vegetarian diet is well substantiated.

So basically your two links trump everything? They trump the bad reasoning from before, all of my arguments, sources, etc.? :facepalm:


EDIT: Give me your fricking statistics so that I can check them. If not, you can hardly be annoyed that I don't take your PoV seriously.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Am I the only one who thinks that Independent's posts are ever-so-slightly ironic? If so, I should check if my head is screwed on straight...

Now... furthermore I am not telling anyone that you can't eat meat. I'm not even saying whatever personal reasons you have aren't valid for YOU.

Laughable. You're basically whacking our fingers with a ruler, saying "bad meat-eaters, look at the poor animals, the environment, etc." and then you turn around and say "but whatever, suit yourselves". I don't buy the whole "I am not telling anyone that you can't eat meat".
Also notice the second sentence in the quote, it's going to be important in a bit.

Talk about ironic - you must be delusional; take a look at her post again and find one instance where she even hinted at "bad meat-eaters" - basically you don't have an argument so you're acting like a douche. Yay for you!

People saying that the ethical, moral and environmental reasons I have for my diet are based on misunderstandings... and making assumptions about my sources and the nature of those sources.

Indeed, that's what I'm (and possibly others, not sure) saying. Look, I'm not even saying that whatever personal reasons you have aren't valid for YOU... Do you understand how ridiculous your rant must seem to me?

Mmmhmmm did you or did you not say "I've already pointed out that each and every one of them is based on at least one misunderstanding. So why exactly are you still pouncing them?" Perhaps your head isn't screwed on tight enough.

and making assumptions about my sources and the nature of those sources.

Well so far, I'm not particularly impressed.
EDIT: Holy crap, I just reloaded the 8th page and you made a new post. You even admit it yourself!

So you're just going to ignore the peer reviewed stuff she provided? Hmmm sounds like you've been hanging with the king of the slavs.

I didn't pay attention to the source. So sue me. I looked up a number of different ones and then made an estimation from there.

How can I take your sources seriously if you
a) don't cite them
b) just look at anything on the web
c) make an estimation based on any number of unaccredited sources?

Please, so far you've cited a fucking newspaper - bring it or shut up

I'm sorry, but if you're going to show me that I'm wrong, at least use proper sources and cite them.

She did, you ignored them

And yes, I do have a right to be indignant. If people think a couple of articles about the waste of food in the UK shows that my sources and reasons for my dietary choices are misunderstandings or not valid, then I do have the right to be indignant. I have no problem with you eating meat. I do have a problem with you questioning my reasons for it when peoples reasons for eating meat is "it's yummy and healthy(!?)".

What other reasons are there? Every single reason you've mentioned for not eating meat is (as I hope that I have shown) based on at least one fallacy. I'm not saying that I'm saving the planet by eating meat because that's BS. But neither are you saving the planet by not eating it, it's equal tosh. The only reasons why one would eat/not eat meat are (and I have yet to be shown wrong about this) taste and medical conditions.

Bullshit, read the links she posted you ignoramus.

I don't care what you can or cannot live with, so why the hell, as per my question, should you demand that I put up all this evidence for my personal choice to not eat meat?

If you'd have kept your reasons to yourself, you wouldn't have. Not eating meat is certainly not a bad thing, so I couldn't care less.
However, you have stated here that some of the reasons for becoming a vegetarian are
"it is wrong to kill animals.
Environmental.
Solidarity with your fellow humans.
Sustainability."

That would mean that people who eat meat don't care about these issues. It's therefore not so much an issue of "why should you be asked to cite your sources" but rather "why should you be "allowed" to state something like that without evidence?".
You make a statement, you back it up. It's as simple as that.

I have nowhere stated a moral superiority.

*cough*see above quote*cough*
Also see "the ethical, moral and environmental reasons I have for my diet"

YOU NEED TO JUSTIFY YOUR LACK OF MEAT IN YOUR DIET. Yeah, about as much as you need to justify my lack of belief in a god.

But that's the whole point. My original statement was this:

A little late, but: I'm a non-vegetarian for the same reason that I'm an Atheist. You didn't give me a reason to become a veggy. Meat is delicious and that is enough of a reason to eat meat.
No argument for becoming a vegetarian has so far convinced me. Save the environment, the poor animals, healthier... All based on one fallacy or more. The only two arguments for becoming a vegetarian that hold their water are: I don't like the taste of meat and I can't eat meat because of some medical condition.

Also: Bacon.

YOU are the one who says that it's better for X, Y and Z, so why should I be the one to justify stuff? As I have stated: You (the vegetarian) have not given me enough reasons to abandon meat. Just like with a Theist/Atheist argument, you're telling me that my position is bad because of arguments X, Y and Z and I'm telling you that you're wrong because the arguments X, Y and Z are inherently flawed.
That shouldn't stop you from being a vegetarian, but don't make it sound like you've got more rational arguments than I have, because you don't and I don't either. The only argument the Theist has is faith, the only ones that you have are taste, medical ones and personal ones. But none of them are more moral, environmentally friendly, etc. than mine.

Can you back up the fact that meat is yummy with scientific data or peer reviewed reports?

Do you even want an answer to that?

Until then I think we can agree that my basic reasons for a vegetarian diet is well substantiated.

So basically your two links trump everything? They trump the bad reasoning from before, all of my arguments, sources, etc.? :facepalm:


EDIT: Give me your fricking statistics so that I can check them. If not, you can hardly be annoyed that I don't take your PoV seriously.[/quote]


Ah fuck it, you're a waste of time.

I'll post some for details for the actual rational member of this board tomorrow.

 

[Independent Vision]

No, Inferno. I am not going to look up the statistics again. If you can't have a look at the one peer reviewed article that I posted way before the numbers, which I have already said in said post that they may not be accurate, and the UN study first then I really don't see why I should bother. And yes, they do trump articles about the UK wasting food.

Secondly, I didn't say that people who do not eat meat don't care about those things. I just said that there are more reasons than just thinking life is sacred for being a vegetarian.

If you can't wrap your head around the fact that I don't care if you eat meat or not, but I can think I am doing something positive in my choices, then that's ultimately your issue.

Now, I second Admiral Peacock. You're not worth the effort. Good night, I'm off to bed.

 

[BrainBlow]

*looks at the recent posts*

Ok, this is pathetic! I've never gotten such a good confirmation of the "looking down their noses" stereotype, ever!

 

[Nemesiah]

I,´m sorry I have not been able to respond to this post, I,´m going through exams ATM and I want to give good responses to your opinions. I wholeheartedly want to thank everyone for participating but specially to those that have endured criticism in defense of the vegetarian ideal, I will start to answer shortly.

In the meantime just alow me to say that I wish less animosity was expressed towards those of us that try to live a more humane and sustainable life through the ethical treatment of animals.

More to come.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Why are you so curious? What does it matter? How can this be, at all, relevant?

Because I wasn't sure if people actually like the taste of MEAT or just the taste of the seasonings. Which, if it was the case of "Meat without seasoning is yucky" would mean that the taste of meat is not what they like, but rather the taste of the marinades, etc.

I've heard this argument before, in a different context, and it's ridiculous. That's like saying I don't really like coffee because I put cream and sugar in it... or that the English don't really like tea because they drink it with milk. If what you were saying made any sense, I would simply drink sugar cream...

Yes, most people like to season their meat. That doesn't mean that what they really crave are the salt licks. Seasoned meat is still meat!

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Life doesn't have to be inherently sacred for people to think it's wrong to kill. I can't find any benefit for me, logically, to eat meat or contribute to the suffering of animals or humans alike.
If you take the...."If it serves our purposes to kill them, then why shouldn't we" approach you'd pretty much have to drag that all across the board, including human beings. No?

Sad to say, even in the civilized world, we do kill each other when it suits our needs...

There are many reasons, both emotional and practical, not to kill each other. Since you seem to have a strong emotional response to killing animals and no compelling reason to do so, I can see why you don't. The rest of the world, on the other hand...

I don't see the logic or reason in the "if we can and it makes our life easier, then why shouldn't we?". There are way more reasons to be vegetarian than just thinking it is wrong to kill animals.
Environmental.
Solidarity with your fellow humans.
Sustainability.

This is crazy. We do what makes our lives easier because... who wants to live a hard life? I don't know about you but I'm only here for a short time so I plan on enjoying life while I'm alive! You don't see the logic and reason in that?

It's certainly true that meat is not very economical compared to most other foods but it's worth it! Not to you, of course, which is why you don't eat it... but to me, in the same way that my car is not the most economical way to travel or my house is not the most economical dwelling, I can afford it and I think it's worth the cost...

I don't understand your point about solidarity. How does vegetarianism produce solidarity among "fellow humans?"

 

[Anachronous Rex]

How does vegetarianism produce solidarity among "fellow humans?"

I'm actually curious about this point as well. In my experience solidarity is best achieved with people are allied against something.

 

[Aught3]

It might be nice to calm it down, insulting people is never going to lead to a productive conversation.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I think this is literal psychopathy!

While I understand that your cat does have a greater impact on your life than some human stranger... the lack of empathy required to kill another human, even a stranger, over your cat is frightening! You know you can just get another cat, right?

What do you think of humans you actively dislike or even hate? Would you kill them if only you could get away with it?

I'm not saying I would willingly kill a human, I wouldn't. But if I had to make an active choice, that is what I might do. And no... I wouldn't kill a human being even if I hated them just because I could get way with it. I can't even physically harm humans unless I am in great danger.

Okay, so you're not a literal psychopath... but there is something funny going on with you...

But saying that I can "just get another cat" IS a bit off to me. Cats have their own personality. I wouldn't want to kill anything or anyone. I don't like accidentally stepping on snails either. What I am saying is that faced with the choice, and I had to do one or the other, why wouldn't I chose my cat, if I was to be completely rational about it?

I understand that getting another cat just wouldn't be the same but still... Getting another computer just wouldn't be the same. Even if I bought all the same parts over again, I'll never quite get the same combination of data together to form the system that I have. However, if you heard that, given the choice, I would kill a stranger over losing my computer, wouldn't that give you pause?

I don't see a human as something inherently more important than a cat. I might be more concerned about a member of my own species in general, but not when it comes to animals and humans I know.

I have decided to take responsibility for my cat, to keep him safe, to keep him fed, to be there for him. He's not just a furry toy. He's a living creature. A living creature just as much as a human being is. OR is he worth less because cats have not passed the self-awareness test? Pigs have, you know. And people EAT pigs.

Hey, I'd eat a cat if you cooked it right!

Is he worth less because he doesn't have opposable thumbs?

I am trying to minimize the harm my being on this planet causes other humans, animals and plant life as much as I can while still maintaining a lifestyle I have the energy to maintain.

I do not have a lack of empathy in any way, shape or form. I have a very well-developed sense of empathy. I'm extremely moral, to the point where my husband has trouble to get me to cross the street if we don't have a green light, I don't lie on application forms AT ALL... actually... I can't lie very well.

If you were to be completely rational about a choice, I know what my cat has and has not done in his life. He can't lie, he doesn't rape, he does kill lizards and such... but... y'know.

I do know... who gives a shit about lizards, right?

A complete stranger I know nothing about could be a really great person, or he/she could be a seriously rotten egg.
The only thing I can base that decision on would be my own feelings. And I don't know if I would be able to kill a creature I had volunteered to care for, love and protect. A human stranger wouldn't be easy, in any way, shape or form to kill. But if I had to do it myself... I can't even take the gorram cat to the vet when he gets his shots because I don't want to be there when someone does something he doesn't like. That's my husbands job. *shrugs*

I don't know if your problem is a lack of empathy or hyper-empathy. It's a god damned cat! Is it a male cat? If you weren't already married, would you fuck it?

Here's what gets me. Okay, you don't know anything about the stranger and you love your cat. I guess the question is how much do you love your cat? The stranger probably has friends and family. Parents who love him, maybe a spouse who adores him, perhaps children who need him... that's a lot of suffering... but thank God you have your cat!

What if your situations were reversed? You want to live but he clearly loves his cat. You do what you got to do for your cat, right?

This is what I mean by empathy. It just seems to me that you have your priorities mixed up...

 

[Independent Vision]

:lol:

Yeah. I'm obviously a psychopath who would fuck my cat in an instant if he wasn't neutered ,and any reasons other than taste and medical to be a vegetarian is completely unsupported despite being based on things like peer reviewed articles and UN reports instead of articles from the independent.co.uk about the food the UK throws away.
And I obviously spend every day looking down my nose and feeling morally superior to my family, my husband and everyone here. :lol:

I'm done in this thread, for what should be obvious reasons. When people call me a psychopath and suggest I might be sexually attracted to my cat, I usually don't feel like even trying to continue a discussion. :roll:

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Ok, since the vegetarians have been point up with the "you're a stupid tree hugger looking down their noses at me" shit for the last few posts, I'm going to ignore all that and just post the facts. Those that have their panties in a twist, this is not for you.


Firstly the calculations made by Independant Vision

agricultural land covers 38% of the world's land area (with only a 11% devoted crop arable land)
World Development Indicators
[u=ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/wsr.pdf]LAND RESOURCE POTENTIAL AND CONSTRAINTS ATREGIONAL AND COUNTRY LEVELS[/u]

The surface of the earth is approximately 70.9% water and 29.1% land
total: 510.072 million km^2
land: 148.94 million km^2
water: 361.132 million km^2
My 5th grade textbook I would also note, in virtually any other conversation these facts would be considered a given. lol


38% of 148,940,000 km^2 = 56,597,200 km^2

56,597,200 km^2 of agricultural land devoted to livestock.




5.75 acres in total to raise one cow for beef on a mix diet (including soy), one cow equals 1000 portions.
5.75 divided by 1000 = 0.00575
0.00575 * 6,852,472,823 (mid 2010 estimation) = 39,401,718.73
39,401,718.73*2= 78,803,437.46
78,803,437.46*52= 4,097,778,747.92

In the world there is around 10,230,162,792.7 acres of total potential arable land.
4,097,778,747.92 is 40.05% of 10,230,162,792.7... meaning that 40% of all arable land would go to raising beef cattle if everyone had 2 servings of beef per week.

.... you know what, the word troll get thrown around a lot, but whether or not they intend to, serveral members in this thread a trolling - or at mentally challenged.

anywho

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
[u=http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html]U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists[/u]
Roots Sources of Dietary Energy Consumption
Hungry world 'must eat less meat'
How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture
Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment
Food production will have to increase by 70 percent - FAO convenes high-level expert forum
Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production
LIVESTOCK'S LONG SHADOW
Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle

There are peer review, opinions based on peer review and articles the link to peer review. Educate yourself.

Oh, I'm not a vegetarian but I am looking down my nose at you.

 

[boonw]

Well, the way I see it, we are part of nature, no different standards really from any other animal. Animals eat other animals, its always been that way, always will be. If you argue that it is wrong for us to eat meat, then to me its like saying you need to stop all other animals from eating meat. One thing that has always baffled me is that anti-hunting advocates have told me that people dont have the right to go out and "murder" deer, but then act like I am insane when I ask them if we should hunt coyotes and wolves as they kill more deer than hunters ever could (its a very absurd double standard I find, always ok is some other animal does it).

Unless the people raising them are dicks, the animals actually have better lives than they ever could have had in the wild, where they would have to be terrified of every small movement they pick up on. Besides, I dont know why you are against consuming milk and honey. For one, most modern dairy farms try and make a stress free enviornment for the cows in order to make superior milk, and bees gain a massive benefeit from living with beekeepers (they still have plenty of food, a structually superior home thats mostly already built, and protection from predators). Besides, most bees die within 3 days of maturing, so I dont really see why they would even be on the list of things you shouldnt eat.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Well, the way I see it, we are part of nature, no different standards really from any other animal. Animals eat other animals, its always been that way, always will be. If you argue that it is wrong for us to eat meat, then to me its like saying you need to stop all other animals from eating meat.

That really doesn't make any sense at all, with the exception of a few species of ants, we're the only species that actively engages in agriculture. We have (in the post-industrial world at least) have overcome a number of a instincts that are common among primates - we take a negative view on forcefully taking a mate, assaulting or killing a rival (sexual or social), masturbating in public, mating with our offspring, killing our offspring and/or the offspring of a rival, cannibalism, and so on. Let me show you how your logic is flawed.

We are part of nature, no different standards really from any other animal. Animals kill other animals, its always been that way, always will be. If you argue that it is wrong for us to kill each other then to me its like saying you need to stop all other animals from killing each other.

Or
we are part of nature, no different standards really from any other animal. Animals forcefully mate with other animals, its always been that way, always will be. If you argue that it is wrong for us to forcefully mate (rape), then to me its like saying you need to stop all other animals from forcefully mating.