So, meat is bad in excess? This is true for anything, even water.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
here are articles about the unhealthy aspects of eating meat:
http://www.askdrsears.com/html/4/T043500.asp
http://juiceguy.com/Meat-toxic-substanc … gest.shtml
The problem with you is that you throw the work all around way too much, and it makes your argument seem like a stereotype instead.Mek-Izzle wrote:
The problem with America (never noticed this here) is that they all think Vegetarians are meat-hating pricks with an agenda. For some people it's just a life choice. You know. Like how you listen to Death Metal and watch Anime cartoons. (Yes, that's you, the Bf2s member)
But my point is, the food ISN'T being used to feed us. It's being used to feed the animals. That's the bottom line. By not eating the meat provided by that grain, you're in essence being more wasteful than those raising the meat.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
I dont understand... I was saying that the food being fed to animals that we then eat could be used to feed us instead. Just like Ken-Jennings said.RedTwizzler wrote:
Wow. That is by FAR the dumbest reason for vegetarianism I've ever heard. If you wanna be a vegetarian, fine, more food for me, but your logic is totally fucked.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
This is one of the reasons I try to avoid eating meat. And not only is horrible towards the animals, but so much food is used to feed them, food that could be used to feed ourselves.
You're saying that a lot of food is wasted by feeding soon-to-be-steaks, and that's why you won't eat it? So not only are you wasting the grain, but you're wasting the food that the grain was wasted on?
...I don't understand.
And I do eat meat sometimes, but Veggies are just so superior to meat.
Free-range meat ftw.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-01-29 18:40:33)
are you one of those i do not eat meat fag preachersSnorkelfarsan wrote:
No it's not, because if we wouldnt be eating all of the meat we could use the food for ourselves.The_Mac wrote:
Well considering they feed us, I find that somewhat of a retarded argument.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
This is one of the reasons I try to avoid eating meat. And not only is horrible towards the animals, but so much food is used to feed them, food that could be used to feed ourselves.
And besides, meat is not really good for us anyway, except for fish. Atleast not compared to fruit and veggies.
Who really gives a damn anyways if they suffer. They are going to live a short life anyways
People who actually have a small sense of morality and figure that you might as well treat the creature well since it's gonna end up on your plate?The#1Spot wrote:
Who really gives a damn anyways if they suffer. They are going to live a short life anyways
That's a really shitty reason... stupid to say the least. And there are many reasons as to why I think it's not beneficial to eat meat.The#1Spot wrote:
are you one of those i do not eat meat fag preachersSnorkelfarsan wrote:
No it's not, because if we wouldnt be eating all of the meat we could use the food for ourselves.The_Mac wrote:
Well considering they feed us, I find that somewhat of a retarded argument.
And besides, meat is not really good for us anyway, except for fish. Atleast not compared to fruit and veggies.
Who really gives a damn anyways if they suffer. They are going to live a short life anyways
I take it you own no animals and never have...The#1Spot wrote:
Who really gives a damn anyways if they suffer. They are going to live a short life anyways
Your above statement is ignorant.
As far as I know, its not so much the meat itself that is unhealthy, but the hormones and other artificially added chemicals in the meat.
Animals still need to eat and drink water even if they aren't going to be eaten. You don't want to eat the same shit they do either.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The current system of raising livestock and other foodstuffs in general is incredibly wasteful, including water and power. Water is used to wash livestock and grow literally tons of grains and corn for animals to eat - food that could otherwise contribute to a healthy diet of many more people than an animal could feed. I could go in to much more depth, but I really can't be bothered to at this time.HurricaИe wrote:
edit2: Some guy said raising livestock wastes water... what the fuck? Law of conservation of mass buddy... water doesn't disappear when you drink it. You piss it out and it goes into the sewage system to be treated. Or your dog pisses it out onto the lawn, and the water eventually evaporates.
And seriously how the fuck is it wasteful? Because it isn't being used how you think it should be used? Wasteful = more food being produced than is needed, not food going to somthing you don't think it should go to. There's plenty of food grown in fields for us humans to eat too.
See that's where you're wrong. I know enough about diet to know that to be healthy you have to have a balance. You need both ideally, however little supplements or whatever will do.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
And I do eat meat sometimes, but Veggies are just so superior to meat.
It's like saying Water is more important than Food. You need both...
Do you know what livestock raised for food eat? I guess not. For the most part, cornmeal and grains, and sometimes ground up meat - effectively eating the meat of their own kind. All that food (and it is in the tons for each cow slaughtered) could be better used for feeding the general population.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Animals still need to eat and drink water even if they aren't going to be eaten. You don't want to eat the same shit they do either.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The current system of raising livestock and other foodstuffs in general is incredibly wasteful, including water and power. Water is used to wash livestock and grow literally tons of grains and corn for animals to eat - food that could otherwise contribute to a healthy diet of many more people than an animal could feed. I could go in to much more depth, but I really can't be bothered to at this time.HurricaИe wrote:
edit2: Some guy said raising livestock wastes water... what the fuck? Law of conservation of mass buddy... water doesn't disappear when you drink it. You piss it out and it goes into the sewage system to be treated. Or your dog pisses it out onto the lawn, and the water eventually evaporates.
And seriously how the fuck is it wasteful? Because it isn't being used how you think it should be used? Wasteful = more food being produced than is needed, not food going to somthing you don't think it should go to. There's plenty of food grown in fields for us humans to eat too.
I don't have a problem debating this idea (of wasting resources feeding animals), but you sir are ignorant to the discussion. I suggest you read up on the process of slaughterhouses and food production before you come up with your (obviously) ignorant response.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-30 12:30:08)
Thank you for calling me ignorant. Thats very mature, and is by every means an actual arguement that I personally am going to care about. This is why nothing every gets resolved in here. People are more concerned with insulting the other person than actually persuading their opinion.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Do you know what livestock raised for food eat? I guess not. For the most part, cornmeal and grains, and sometimes ground up meat - effectively eating the meat of their own kind. All that food (and it is in the tons for each cow slaughtered) could be better used for feeding the general population.
I don't have a problem debating this idea (of wasting resources feeding animals), but you sir are ignorant to the discussion. I suggest you read up on the process of slaughterhouses and food production before you come up with your (obviously) ignorant response.
So have it your way dumb hippie. There's more than enough food and water for the general popluation and all the livestock. It's not even close to being an actual issue to worry about. You're making an issue out of nothing. Used to better feed the population? When exactly was the last U.S. famine anyways? The current system is working just fine so please stfu and go smoke some more pot.
ARE you ignorant? I called you ignorant to the discussion - which is a valid observation. There is a difference.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Thank you for calling me ignorant. Thats very mature, and is by every means an actual arguement that I personally am going to care about. This is why nothing every gets resolved in here. People are more concerned with insulting the other person than actually persuading their opinion.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Do you know what livestock raised for food eat? I guess not. For the most part, cornmeal and grains, and sometimes ground up meat - effectively eating the meat of their own kind. All that food (and it is in the tons for each cow slaughtered) could be better used for feeding the general population.
I don't have a problem debating this idea (of wasting resources feeding animals), but you sir are ignorant to the discussion. I suggest you read up on the process of slaughterhouses and food production before you come up with your (obviously) ignorant response.
So have it your way dumb hippie. There's more than enough food and water for the general popluation and all the livestock. It's not even close to being an actual issue to worry about. You're making an issue out of nothing. Used to better feed the population? When exactly was the last U.S. famine anyways? The current system is working just fine so please stfu and go smoke some more pot.
I really like how say I insulted you (when I didn't) then call me a dumb hippie. I am not a hippie, sorry to disappoint. It is a waste of grain and corn to feed animals that produce less sustanence than the corn or grain could - by far. The current system is NOT working fine - we are wasting resources, and almost everything could be more efficient. Get a clue as to what you are talking about before making generalizations that are incorrect.
It's not always about me, you, the U.S., or the general population. At least as far as I see it. It's ok though, I don't expect you (or everyone) to have the same worldview as me.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-30 17:09:51)
Been to Ethiopia? Nigeria? Somalia?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
So have it your way dumb hippie. There's more than enough food and water for the general popluation and all the livestock. It's not even close to being an actual issue to worry about. You're making an issue out of nothing. Used to better feed the population? When exactly was the last U.S. famine anyways? The current system is working just fine so please stfu and go smoke some more pot.
Anyplace outside the first world?
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
I've heard of them yes. I think thats where black people come from. Care to make a point?LaidBackNinja wrote:
Been to Ethiopia? Nigeria? Somalia?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
So have it your way dumb hippie. There's more than enough food and water for the general popluation and all the livestock. It's not even close to being an actual issue to worry about. You're making an issue out of nothing. Used to better feed the population? When exactly was the last U.S. famine anyways? The current system is working just fine so please stfu and go smoke some more pot.
Anyplace outside the first world?
1st world, 2nd world, 3rd world. These terms are relics from the cold war. It is inaccurate to describe a country as being 3rd world. 3rd world has a very specific meaning.
My point is that there is NOT enough food to go around. The current system is NOT working. People are starving over there.
GS:
Who gives a shit what it's called. It's not about semantics. It's about people not getting food and fucking dying because of it.
GS:
Who gives a shit what it's called. It's not about semantics. It's about people not getting food and fucking dying because of it.
Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2008-01-30 17:22:35)
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
The currently en vogue terms are global north and south.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
1st world, 2nd world, 3rd world. These terms are relics from the cold war. It is inaccurate to describe a country as being 3rd world. 3rd world has a very specific meaning.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-30 17:26:52)
T.I.A.LaidBackNinja wrote:
My point is that there is NOT enough food to go around. The current system is NOT working. People are starving over there.
GS:
Who gives a shit what it's called. It's not about semantics. It's about people not getting food and fucking dying because of it.
http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes … 200_lg.jpg
-Blood Diamond
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-01-30 17:28:31)
This is Africa, bru.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
T.I.A.LaidBackNinja wrote:
My point is that there is NOT enough food to go around. The current system is NOT working. People are starving over there.
GS:
Who gives a shit what it's called. It's not about semantics. It's about people not getting food and fucking dying because of it.
http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes … 200_lg.jpg
-Blood Diamond
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The currently en vogue terms are global north and south.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
1st world, 2nd world, 3rd world. These terms are relics from the cold war. It is inaccurate to describe a country as being 3rd world. 3rd world has a very specific meaning.
I don't know what that means.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
T.I.A.LaidBackNinja wrote:
My point is that there is NOT enough food to go around. The current system is NOT working. People are starving over there.
GS:
Who gives a shit what it's called. It's not about semantics. It's about people not getting food and fucking dying because of it.
http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes … 200_lg.jpg
-Blood Diamond
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Calling someone ignorant is always an insult. The only thing you accomplish is telling someone you think you know more than they do. You would make a terrible negotiator if you think otherwise. Quite frankly, adding little things like that at the end of posts makes you look like an arrogant asshole. "At least as far as I see it. It's ok though, I don't expect you (or everyone) to have the same worldview as me." - only proves my point.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ARE you ignorant? I called you ignorant to the discussion - which is a valid observation. There is a difference.
I really like how say I insulted you (when I didn't) then call me a dumb hippie. I am not a hippie, sorry to disappoint. It is a waste of grain and corn to feed animals that produce less sustanence than the corn or grain could - by far. The current system is NOT working fine - we are wasting resources, and almost everything could be more efficient. Get a clue as to what you are talking about before making generalizations that are incorrect.
It's not always about me, you, the U.S., or the general population. At least as far as I see it. It's ok though, I don't expect you (or everyone) to have the same worldview as me.
I would like to see you prove how the current system is not working fine because really all its going to come down to is your opinion, which is stupid.
Children starving and dying is sad but it has nothing to do with a lack of available resources.LaidBackNinja wrote:
My point is that there is NOT enough food to go around. The current system is NOT working. People are starving over there.
GS:
Who gives a shit what it's called. It's not about semantics. It's about people not getting food and fucking dying because of it.
http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes … 200_lg.jpg