Plywood contains animal by-products.
Your walls have animal products in them.
What do?
Printable View
Plywood contains animal by-products.
Your walls have animal products in them.
What do?
burn down everything
What if they live in a brick house?
What if they're homeless?
Not even gonna check for validity, posting for the lolz.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dGlKR2WeIw...From+Cows.jpeg
No wonder India worships the cow man
We do the best we can with what we have. Not everything is all or nothing.
They should stop eating plywood. That would be a good start, wouldn't it?
People get really buttsore about vegans and vegetarians and expend an astounding amount of effort trying to prove them to be hypocrites or liars or ignorant or to throw their hands up in the air and cry "Oh thank you for saving me, for I was blind before, and now I shall change my ways and gleefully revel in the suffering of animals!"
Oh yay, a troll thread!
Is there anything wrong with wanting as little do with animal by-products as possible? It would be pretty impossible in modern times to try to completely distance yourself from them, and I'm pretty sure that vegans are aware of this but do the best they can.
Being vegan honestly appeals to me on a level of morale but I can't even handle being vegetarian because roast and cheese and ice cream.
Dear vegan members,
I just ate a steak. It was great. Sucks to be you.
Keep fighting the good fight,
P
Dear Hypo,
We don't care.
Love,
Vegans & Vegetarians
Honestly it applies both ways. I've met some stuck up vegans who've harassed me for not giving a crap. If people respect my choices I respect there's, simple as that. Some people just like to annoy (Hypo :stare:) :monster:Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
They'll tell you
I don't think I've met a single vegan or vegetarian who was really obnoxious about it in my life. And I know several. But I have personally been all, "Oh my god, you don't even want to TRY bacon???" which I'm sure is more obnoxious than anything a vegan/vegetarian has ever said to me.
I had the most amazing vegan kale salad with Calliope while she was in town.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
so long as they don't breathe their organic broccoli breath on me about the evils of eating meat, let 'em get skinny.
Yes. :colbert:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
Do vegan farmers use manure as fertiliser?
I don't like being made to feel like some kinda monster for eating delicious animals so I don't make fun of carrot munchers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
A long time ago, I would poke fun at vegetarians and vegans. One of them, unfortunately much later, told me how much it hurt them. I don't really do that kind of thing anymore.
I don't really give a damn what people eat, as long as they don't hassle me about what I'm eating.
I appreciate that there is a lot wrong with the meat industry, etc, but dammit I love that food and horror stories do nothing to sway me. xD
I know of one militant vegan who says things like "I look forward to the revolution and all you meat-eaters getting what's coming to you" and it's just like... what? It's probably an exaggerated response to people being overly negative about veganism, but damn, it's not a great image to project - especially since that is about 90% of the exposure I get to veganism since nobody else I know cares enough to let me know their dietary preferences on a semi-frequent basis.
Dear vegetarians and vegans. Thank you for trying to reduce your consumption of meat and use of animal products. Eating meat is inefficient compared to eating vegetables directly, so you vegans and vegetarians are freeing up agricultural resources that could in some cases be used to produce more food for humans.
Even though I won't be cutting back on my own meat consumption, I think you're probably doing a good thing. Instead of doing what you do, I try to help out humankind by spreading some of my excess resources to less fortunate areas of the world, through for example donating to charities.
The only real problem I have is when some vegans or vegetarians (most commonly vegans, and I do know most of them don't do this anyway) attempt to use poorly put together arguments about health and stuff to make me change my mind. Maybe it is detrimental to my health to eat a lot of animal products, but I don't really care. I haven't been shown a significant amount of evidence of it, and even if I was shown some, I would care exactly as much as I care when a teetotaler tells me I shouldn't drink alcohol.
I know a few pescetarians, vegans and vegetarians, and they are all lovely people. I'm very wary of this fear and awkwardness around vegans, from a purely practical standpoint there's more meat for everyone else! And besides, no one is perfect, you can't be the perfect vegan. As stated previously, many products uses animal products anyway. It's just being the best vegan you can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
My experience as someone who was a vegetarian for nearly 5 years and as someone who loves to eat meat now is that it's funny. I was never vegetarian because of the humanitarian or whatever they want to say that it is side of things. I was vegetarian because the girl I was engaged to was and frankly I wanted to be able to eat around her and not have her feel ill about the prospect of kissing me afterwards. Seriously though, more vegetarians and vegans make a stink about how I stopped eating meat and went back to doing so than anyone who eats meat does.
Though this argument is redundant a bit like the plastic bag and recycling argument is: The animal is going to be slaughtered and farmed regardless, therefore is it not more wasteful/cruel to the animal to leave that meat sitting on the store shelf to go off than it is to eat it? I would say yes because if you do that then essentially you say it is ok for the animal to live and die in vain. You're also making a mockery of humans elsewhere in the world who cannot eat and are starving as a result. I would rather eat the meat and know that it had not gone to waste then waste it by leaving it to go off.
By that same measure I argue that it's essentially irrelevant if you take your own shopping bags or use plastic bags from the supermarket, the bags will still be made in as high a volume tomorrow as they were today. Just because you took your hemp/canvas jute bags in to carry your groceries home doesn't mean that will change. The best you can do is take the plastic bags and see that they get recycled. Unless you introduce legal changes on a global scale about the production and use of plastic bags you'll never change the world.
Damn, that's a very good point you've made. Rep points for you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceglow
I argue this same point to people, and then they hit me with the "Oh, but you eating it gives them permission to produce more meat. We need more people to be vegan, so that the amount of food sent to the store gradually becomes less."Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceglow
The folly of that argument which has been made to me too in the past is simple: They're assuming that the food industry is going to respond to this, unfortunately I can guarantee otherwise, the scale and size of the industry literally does mean almost any product be it steak or potatoes is as interchangeable for something like computer chips or plastic bags that their point is moot. I mean the farmers are still going to raise the same amount of animals for slaughter, the slaughter houses will still cull them just as effectively and the supermarkets will still stock the food. Or failing that governments will buy the meat produce to donate to charitable causes meaning a whole lot of starving people are suddenly going to get given a meat rich diet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Wolf LeonhartI argue this same point to people, and then they hit me with the "Oh, but you eating it gives them permission to produce more meat. We need more people to be vegan, so that the amount of food sent to the store gradually becomes less."Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceglow
On the flip-side lets say that supply and demand does take effect, fruit and veg are in higher demand and the meat market shrinks by say 33% what happens then?
Well 33% meat market drop will require a 33% growth in the fruit and veg market people will still need to eat the same amount of food/calories/meals. This will require at least a 66% growth in arable farming land suitable for crops. The reason why I settle on 66%? Well really I'm being generous you're meant to farm a field for like 4 years then leave it going fallow for 4 years so that the soil builds up some nutrients again, I'm suggesting 1 year farm, 1 year fallow with nutrient rich fertilizers.
Ideally we're talking about 132% growth on the land needed. Where does this land come from? Most of our regular meats such as; lamb, pork, chicken can be farmed and raised on land unsuited to crop growing looking at lamb in particular Wales and New Zealand being the two biggest exporters of the stuff in the globe, most of the land mass in both countries being mountainous and poor in terms of soil quality. We create a bigger global problem than we already have with starvation, we also cause problems with dust bowl effects as America should well understand by now considering the experience it has with this. With the reduced meat market the source of powerfully rich manure/fertilizer goes down too making the issue with dust bowls worse too don't forget.
Then we look at the human problem for the farmers of meat such as lamb, pork or chicken their income is dropping dramatically we force thousands of farmers who are already poor further below the poverty line. And for what? A group of people to be happy that we aren't eating meat? We are omnivores simple really we are designed to eat both meat and veg and as our population on this earth grows we're unlikely to be able to change that any time soon unless of course we find a way of terra-forming and colonizing Mars then simply use the planet purely to farm crops and force population to live out there working the soil. But then we'd need to work out a way of continuously shipping crops between the two planets.
You know what's even worse than a militantly vocal vegan/vegetarian or a militantly vocal anti-vegan/vegetarian?
The new trend of people being militantly vocal against MSG and PRESERVATIVES and CARBS and SUGAR and SODIUM and CORN SYRUP and GLUTEN and PEANUTS and RUFFAGE and DRINKING ANY BEVERAGE THAT ISN'T WATER and YOU REALLY NEED TO BE EATING ROMAINE NOT ICEBURG BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH NUTRITION THERE and DON'T EAT ANYTHING BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS GOING TO KILL YOU!
I'm not doubting the legitimacy of arguments for or against meat, no meat, or any of the aforementioned ingredients, but must you start your preachy bulltrout the minute I sit down to eat? I mean every time I go out to eat anymore I have to have my meal-buzz killed because there's that ONE PERSON who has to start in how no one should be eating what we're eating because it's going to kill us.
Seriously, just worry about your own diet, eat what you want, and leave the rest of us alone, pretty please?
My father in law went on a huge vegan craze for a few months. I tried, I just couldn't handle the lack of cheese :(
Yeah, it's weird that, when a person makes sacrifices for their health, planet, and morals, a lot of people react by giving them trout for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
I've sat on both sides of this fence and I agree that they get trout for being vegetarian/vegan but as I've stated earlier I don't believe they're doing their health or the planet any good. Morals don't come in to this for me. Though I also see how much trout slinging the vegetarian and vegan community do towards those who enjoy eating meat. I think it's a case of those in glass houses should not throw stones. I'm more of the live and let live demeanour, I don't care that you're a vegetarian or a omnivore or even if you insist on a diet that contains meat and nothing else (almost impossible but I'm sure someone would find a way) and class yourself as a carnivore. So long as there isn't trout slinging in my direction for my personal choices when it comes to food I'm going to leave everyone else's choices alone. Of course when I get a militant vegan/vegetarian call me things like "traitor" or "scum" because I started eating meat again I destroy their puny little dreams and existence, I rip their bubble of ignorance and bliss away with the scathing facts that unless they wish to cull over a third of the Earth's human population a vegan/vegetarian only society is impossible and demand to know how they propose to solve the situation or how they propose to make an industry that generates billions of dollars a year globally to take heed?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupYeah, it's weird that, when a person makes sacrifices for their health, planet, and morals, a lot of people react by giving them trout for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
I too also follow the live and let tradition. As long as you're not eating humans, I really don't care what you eat or do not eat.
Speaking for myself, I can say that I'm a vegetarian not because I genuinely expect less animals to be slaughtered as a result of lowered demand, but because I don't feel comfortable with the idea of deliberately putting money into a system of meat production that I feel is cruel. If the system could be adjusted, that'd be great, but I'm really only one person, obviously, so I'm not expecting some kind of giant change. It's more of a personal choice than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceglowThe folly of that argument which has been made to me too in the past is simple: They're assuming that the food industry is going to respond to this, unfortunately I can guarantee otherwise, the scale and size of the industry literally does mean almost any product be it steak or potatoes is as interchangeable for something like computer chips or plastic bags that their point is moot. I mean the farmers are still going to raise the same amount of animals for slaughter, the slaughter houses will still cull them just as effectively and the supermarkets will still stock the food. Or failing that governments will buy the meat produce to donate to charitable causes meaning a whole lot of starving people are suddenly going to get given a meat rich diet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Wolf LeonhartI argue this same point to people, and then they hit me with the "Oh, but you eating it gives them permission to produce more meat. We need more people to be vegan, so that the amount of food sent to the store gradually becomes less."Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceglow
On the flip-side lets say that supply and demand does take effect, fruit and veg are in higher demand and the meat market shrinks by say 33% what happens then?
Well 33% meat market drop will require a 33% growth in the fruit and veg market people will still need to eat the same amount of food/calories/meals. This will require at least a 66% growth in arable farming land suitable for crops. The reason why I settle on 66%? Well really I'm being generous you're meant to farm a field for like 4 years then leave it going fallow for 4 years so that the soil builds up some nutrients again, I'm suggesting 1 year farm, 1 year fallow with nutrient rich fertilizers.
Ideally we're talking about 132% growth on the land needed. Where does this land come from? Most of our regular meats such as; lamb, pork, chicken can be farmed and raised on land unsuited to crop growing looking at lamb in particular Wales and New Zealand being the two biggest exporters of the stuff in the globe, most of the land mass in both countries being mountainous and poor in terms of soil quality. We create a bigger global problem than we already have with starvation, we also cause problems with dust bowl effects as America should well understand by now considering the experience it has with this. With the reduced meat market the source of powerfully rich manure/fertilizer goes down too making the issue with dust bowls worse too don't forget.
Then we look at the human problem for the farmers of meat such as lamb, pork or chicken their income is dropping dramatically we force thousands of farmers who are already poor further below the poverty line. And for what? A group of people to be happy that we aren't eating meat? We are omnivores simple really we are designed to eat both meat and veg and as our population on this earth grows we're unlikely to be able to change that any time soon unless of course we find a way of terra-forming and colonizing Mars then simply use the planet purely to farm crops and force population to live out there working the soil. But then we'd need to work out a way of continuously shipping crops between the two planets.
As for being designed as omnivores, well, sure, but I don't feel like being "designed" a particular way should dictate what I do. If I was "designed" to eat meat, tough luck to my designer, I guess! :P I still get all of what I need to stay alive and healthy, so I'm not too worried about not putting my ability to digest meat to use.
You weren't designed to, we all just evolved that way because it was beneficial. Those who ate both meat and veggies died less often/reproduced more often than those who ate just veggies :p.
Then you clearly haven't put much thought or research into the topic. Which is fine--not everyone needs to be an expert on everything--just saying that the benefits of replacing animal proteins with vegetable proteins and with reducing the demand for meat farming aren't really arguable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceglow[...]I don't believe they're doing their health or the planet any good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupYeah, it's weird that, when a person makes sacrifices for their health, planet, and morals, a lot of people react by giving them trout for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Well yeah, I know that. I just felt like it was appropriate to reply in the same terms that Iceglow used is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
No I'm merely arguing the logic of agriculture and food production more than anything. The logic of not eating meat = better for the environment/planet is utterly flawed and wrong and you don't need to have studied geography past GCSE to know that if you overly farm a region of land you end up with a big old Dust Bowl effect and America found that out the bloody hard way in the early 20th century. It's also pretty explanatory at that level of Geography that farmers have to leave fields to go fallow and recover and that there are many different soil types some of which are not suitable for growing crops the simple maths of it is the Earth would be irreparably damaged by as little as a 33% global demand. Maybe not immediately no, but within 40 years yes. I thought the whole idea was to leave something for future generations not strip the soil bare of nutrients meaning it cannot and will not provide enough food to support the already growing and aging population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
Still if we wanted to go on to health issues. I've been vegetarian which is more than most people who disagree with it can say. I've been there and tried it for several years. There are issues with health that vegetarianism does not help with.
What do you mean when you say that there are issues with health that vegetarianism doesn't help with? It seems like it would go without saying that it doesn't help with everything. Or am I just misunderstanding what you mean?
What do you think livestock eats?Quote:
Originally Posted by IceglowNo I'm merely arguing the logic of agriculture and food production more than anything. The logic of not eating meat = better for the environment/planet is utterly flawed and wrong and you don't need to have studied geography past GCSE to know that if you overly farm a region of land you end up with a big old Dust Bowl effect and America found that out the bloody hard way in the early 20th century. It's also pretty explanatory at that level of Geography that farmers have to leave fields to go fallow and recover and that there are many different soil types some of which are not suitable for growing crops the simple maths of it is the Earth would be irreparably damaged by as little as a 33% global demand. Maybe not immediately no, but within 40 years yes. I thought the whole idea was to leave something for future generations not strip the soil bare of nutrients meaning it cannot and will not provide enough food to support the already growing and aging population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
The existence of health issues that aren't helped by vegetarianism doesn't mean it's not healthier overall. No one said vegetarianism was a cure-all. I feel like you didn't think your phrasing through on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceglow
They're more arguable than most people think, but I doubt this is the thread, or even the forum section, to get into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
They're less arguable than you think, you hussy.
Ahh but you see you're missing my point. We can raise livestock on poor soil such as is commonly found in places like Wales and Scotland but we cannot grow many if any crops there. Sheep will happily live their entire lives eating grass humans won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
EOFF: where the playground retorts you learned in the 1st grade are still perfectly valid arguments. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
Maybe Shlup likes to eat grass. Don't discriminate!Quote:
Originally Posted by IceglowAhh but you see you're missing my point. We can raise livestock on poor soil such as is commonly found in places like Wales and Scotland but we cannot grow many if any crops there. Sheep will happily live their entire lives eating grass humans won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
That might be because Shlup is a complete cow... lmfao :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by MirageMaybe Shlup likes to eat grass. Don't discriminate!Quote:
Originally Posted by IceglowAhh but you see you're missing my point. We can raise livestock on poor soil such as is commonly found in places like Wales and Scotland but we cannot grow many if any crops there. Sheep will happily live their entire lives eating grass humans won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
The answer is there are simply too many humans. About 5 billion of them just need to disappear.
You'd be surprised about grass's health benefits.
... *omnomnom*
It takes a lot of vegetation to raise a pound of meat. If you think the animals are all eating grass that already happens to grow there, and that many acres of farmable land aren't used to make food for livestock, you're very uninformed. There's also the issue of the livestock themselves poisoning the soil and nearby water supplies. And those are just a couple of problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceglowAhh but you see you're missing my point. We can raise livestock on poor soil such as is commonly found in places like Wales and Scotland but we cannot grow many if any crops there. Sheep will happily live their entire lives eating grass humans won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
Damn right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22EOFF: where the playground retorts you learned in the 1st grade are still perfectly valid arguments. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
I don't think he's suggesting that doesn't happen. What he is saying is there are many places in the world where livestock is raised because they can't farm the land for anything else. I remember reading the percentages somewhere a while ago, but sadly I can't remember where, but they did indicate that a significant portion of the land which can be used to raise food on the Earth isn't suitable for anything but livestock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlup
Now, that isn't to say that people don't use farmable land to raise food for livestock. They absolutely do, in large part because feeding animals like cows grain is a remarkably easy way to fatten them up so that farmers can sell them for more money come slaughtering time. But regardless, we produce more food than we can actually eat right now, so if some land which could raise crops is used to produce meat instead (which I fully believe is absolutely necessary to a healthy diet), then I'm not going to complain too much.
That's more a failing of modern farming techniques though, not simply raising animals period. And modern farming techniques in general tend to be bad for nutrient levels in soil, soil erosion, and water supplies in the area, whether you're raising livestock or plants. There's a serious problem there, but it's not solely caused by raising meat, which absolutely can be done responsibly just like raising crops. Only problem is, it's more expensive which means a whole host of other problems would spill out of it if we tried to fix it. And we already have government organizations like the USDA giving out some fairly substantial subsidies to control the prices of food as it is. This is the sort of stuff which I think is actually worth complaining about.Quote:
There's also the issue of the livestock themselves poisoning the soil and nearby water supplies. And those are just a couple of problems.
Or that's what you WANT us to think, don't you? All part of a bigger plot, I'm sure.
I love how I can troll Americans every other week and get tonnes of rep, but HC tries once and sets off a nuclear drama bomb.
Trolling a country of more than 300 million people is funny because they're all exactly the same and the rest of the world looks down on them all of the time. Trolling about nutrition is serious business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys
Sadly, I only wish that last sentence were a joke. People always say you should avoid discussing religion and politics to avoid arguments. Nutrition should be added to that list as well.
I think there are lots of people who can take jokes about nutrition well enough, but at the same time, it's also the kind of thing people are going to get antsy about when it deals with a deliberate life-style choice, or if it's just part of their culture. I remember telling someone that skyline chili is disgusting once, and they said I was insulting their city's cuisine. :greenie: Woops.