RE: Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?
March 9, 2014 at 6:31 pm
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2014 at 6:54 pm by bennyboy.)
(March 9, 2014 at 5:14 am)Aractus Wrote:Yes, that's right. I was trying to look for the most animal-killy skew on it, to show that 500-1000 is an unreasonably high figure no matter how generous you are with the calculations.(March 3, 2014 at 7:13 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Now, let's take dairy. How many cows kill per person of milk? Not even 1, I'd wager. There are fewer than 10 million milk cows in the US, and surely almost 100% of people drink milk. But even if we say only 50% drink milk, that's still 150 million milk-drinkers. Given a lifespan of just ONE year, that's still 1/15 of a single cow directly destroyed per person drinking milk.Your maths is off.
However, including milk-calves in the kill count only makes sense if those calves aren't part of the normal meat-consumption circle: i.e. if there were no cows being used for milk, would there be fewer calves brought into the world? I doubt it-- we don't drink pig milk, but reproduction is limited only by demand.
Great job on your post, though. Graphs and numbers = win.
(March 9, 2014 at 10:07 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: We do "need" heme-Iron, I personally am unable to process metallic/ vegetative iron. It frankly makes me violently ill and one step away from hospital.You are allergic to raisins, spinach and broccoli? That's harsh! Surely, you have a medical condition, since 100% of people I've ever met can eat all of those foods without getting sick-- did your physician tell you what your horrible condition is called?
OR you are introducing anecdotal evidence into a moral argument, because while you want to maintain the argument that meat-eating is a dietary necessity, the actual numbers on the health of vegetarians are outstanding.
Quote:Anything other than the above is religious dogma. No vegetarian has 'saved' any animal, nor have they stopped any 'live animal trade' (it is currently expanding here in Oz to the SE Asian markets) so really it is no better than say xtianity as a personal 'idealism'This really is enrico-level reasoning. It's like saying that no moral person has 'saved' any girl from rape, because rape levels are increasing somewhere. Should I shout at you for being a religious idealist because you don't want to contribute directly to the number of girls being raped?
Obviously not. No matter what anyone else does, and whether the number of people engaging in an activity that harms others goes up or down, each individual's actions represent a vote on how the species behaves as a whole. And in the end, this is what morality really is-- each person's vote on how people should behave.