(January 8, 2014 at 9:00 am)LastPoet Wrote: I figured that much, have you noticed that this is a discussion forum, that arguing is the purpose of this forum?

Now you are completely correct there. Alternatively one could go to A+ where you have to agree with everything they say.

Momma said food is the devil, breast milk the best!

(January 8, 2014 at 8:13 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(January 8, 2014 at 5:53 am)là bạn điên Wrote: This is nonsense. You do not need to be am omnivore. There is nothing in meat that you need and I don't.

Fat. Which vegetable do not provide.

Wait what? So if I chopped up a potato and cooked it in vegetable oil, that would be fat free??? OMG! *eats more chips*

---

(January 8, 2014 at 8:58 am)là bạn điên Wrote:

(January 8, 2014 at 8:56 am)LastPoet Wrote: Right, you got nothing but your opinion and personal sensibilities. My meat eating habits do not interfere with your choice of not eating meat. Thanks for proving my point, you are a fine example of the kind of vegan that I portrayed on my post.

What one that thinks meat eating is wrong -excellent. I don't think child abuse or slavery is just a personal choice either.

Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of vegetarians and vegans.

(January 8, 2014 at 5:24 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 8, 2014 at 2:53 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Huh. La ban, are you going to answer my post?

I will.

There are two problems with a vegetarian (especially vegan) diet. Getting all your nutrients is not one of them: it is that some nutrients require a lot of extra work to get, and possibly extra money as well. Protein can be completely covered in a civilized country with dairy, soy products, beans, nutritional yeast, and gluten. Getting certain nutrients is hard, and may involve eating yucky stuff (like flax or hemp seed for Omega-3).

The other problem is that it's hard to know whether vegetarian foods actually lead to a net reduction in animal suffering or death. (This came up in a similar thread a few months ago). Massive ploughing and harvesting machines are likely to cause very many injuries or death to field mice and voles, to birds, etc. So to really walk the walk, I'd say a self-sufficient commune is really only the way to go, since it's really the only way you can have control over how your food is grown and processed.


As for anecdotes about people "trying" to be vegetarian: any attempt to suddenly alter your health regimen, from diet to running a lot or to lifting weights, is likely to end disastrously. Unless you are allergic to beans and vegetables, it should be a matter of motivation and education, and added discipline. I recommend anybody who's interested in what goes into their body at least study vegetarian options-- the knowledge will give you one more level of control over what you take in, or what you are putting into your family members' bodies.

And how does this answer my post? Are you trying to tell me to spend more time thinking about food? That's not happening. if you read my original reply, you would know food is a HUGE stressor for me, maybe my biggest. I refuse to allow it to be more of one. My psychologist agrees.

(January 8, 2014 at 5:48 am)là bạn điên Wrote: That would be a good argument if the meat industry weren't massive users of such crops themselves. It takes 7 units of vegetable protein to make one unit of beef protein so if grains are used (as they generally are in teh industrial agrobusiness of meat,) then you are killing 7 times as many voles, fieldmice etc)

If we became vegetarian worldwide out crop use would substantially decrease.

Wouldn't it increase the amount of crops needed for humans to eat? So it really would not makes a difference.

Also since it is really bugging me, and you ignored my post... If you really care about animals, why are you letting PETA kill thousands of innocent dogs, like pit bulls?

(January 7, 2014 at 12:36 am)là bạn điên Wrote: Bullshit. You are lying through your teeth and repeating stuff found online published by a pro factory farming group.

They do not kill anything like that amount. for a start they send any healthy rehomeable animal to alternate shelters. Those shelters will not take chronically sick or animals ,like pitbulls, that are unrehomeable. Peta put to sleep animals that have chronic issues because it feels that keeping something suffering is abhorrent -and I agree. They euthanise animals with the utmost care, indeed it started because their leader worked in a pound and was outraged by the way the workers killed animals so she took the job over to make it as painless as possible

(January 7, 2014 at 11:23 am)StoryBook Wrote:
Tell me did not just say that. That is like believing the bible to be true. Pit bulls and other bully type dogs are NOT aggressive as a breed. ALL dogs, no matter what the breed can bite and be aggressive. There are different reasons for a dog to bite, fear is one of them. Such a hypocritical bullshit lie that you got from PETA.

Like I said, we here at atheist forums argue about everything.
Even if it is a thread about why cows jump over the fucking moon.

(January 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm)Belac Enrobso Wrote: Like I said, we here at atheist forums argue about everything.
Even if it is a thread about why cows jump over the fucking moon.

Cows jump over the moon? I'm going to need to see a source!!!1111

(January 8, 2014 at 12:39 pm)StoryBook Wrote: Wouldn't it increase the amount of crops needed for humans to eat? So it really would not makes a difference.

FFS do some mathematics. As I said it takes 7 times as much plant protein fed to cows as it does to get one times in return. So to eat beef you need 7 times as much arable land than you would do if you eat the grain directly. If you use land for grass rather than grains then it goes well above that. So its a massive difference

Quote:Also since it is really bugging me, and you ignored my post... If you really care about animals, why are you letting PETA kill thousands of innocent dogs, like pit bulls?

They are obviously innocent. unfortunately it is almost impossible to rehome pitbulls a bread that is massively abused and is abandoned vastly more than any other breed.

They are euthanised because there is no human alternative. Many of the No Kill shelters have appalling conditions and those that doen;t have a chronic shortage of space. there just aren;t the facilities to house so many dogs.

Peta are NOT in the shelter provision business but they deal with the dogs the regular centres won't take.


Bullshit. You are lying through your teeth and repeating stuff found online published by a pro factory farming group.

They do not kill anything like that amount. for a start they send any healthy rehomeable animal to alternate shelters. Those shelters will not take chronically sick or animals ,like pitbulls, that are unrehomeable. Peta put to sleep animals that have chronic issues because it feels that keeping something suffering is abhorrent -and I agree. They euthanise animals with the utmost care, indeed it started because their leader worked in a pound and was outraged by the way the workers killed animals so she took the job over to make it as painless as possible[/quote]

(January 7, 2014 at 11:23 am)StoryBook Wrote:
Tell me did not just say that. That is like believing the bible to be true. Pit bulls and other bully type dogs are NOT aggressive as a breed. ALL dogs, no matter what the breed can bite and be aggressive. There are different reasons for a dog to bite, fear is one of them. Such a hypocritical bullshit lie that you got from PETA.

[/quote]

Still going huh? I better snort another line I'm getting sleepy.

(January 8, 2014 at 3:48 pm)Belac Enrobso Wrote: Still going huh? I better snort another line I'm getting sleepy.

Grumpy will be jealous...