Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[Spymaster]

ooo the irony

it's quite clear what you're doing and it's slimy and dishonest.

Oh calm down, ffs. That slimy turd ddraig had been insulting meat eaters for years with “fragile carnists” with not a peep out of anyone else. It’s a term whose use is very clearly designed to irritate, just as someone is suggesting this one is. Now that the boot’s on the other foot the vegigans are getting all shirty. Well there’s a surprise.

For the record, I can’t speak for anyone else but I am absolutely not anti-vegetarian or vegan. I am anti-posters who post to annoy and belittle others with uninformed, hit-and-run articles edited by agenda monkeys, and then get ultra-stroppy when this is pointed out or they get teased about it. And their slimy sidekicks.

Some of my best friends are vegigans.

 

[redsquirrel]

Ignoring the crap of the last 10 pages can I ask your thoughts on plant milks? (Apologies if you've already posted something but I may have missed it in the crap).

 

[two sheds]

Oh calm down, ffs. That slimy turd ddraig had been insulting meat eaters for years with “fragile carnists” with not a peep out of anyone else. It’s a term whose use is precisely designed to irritate just as someone is suggesting this one is. Now that the boot’s on the other foot the vegigans are getting all shirty. Well there’s a surprise.

For the record, I can’t speak for anyone else but I am absolutely not anti-vegetarian or vegan. I am anti-posters who post to annoy and belittle others with uninformed, hit-and-run articles edited by agenda monkeys, and then get ultra-stroppy when this is pointed out or they get teased about it. And their slimy sidekicks.

Some of my best friends are vegans.

Yeh fair play. I've had that sort of bullying crap myself and hate it, it was just the I'm trying to have a serious conversation what are you getting irritated about tone that got to me.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeh fair play. I've had that sort of bullying crap myself and hate it, it was just the I'm trying to have a serious conversation what are you getting irritated about tone that got to me.

Hilarious as it’s been, there’s been nothing serious posted on this thread for about 20 pages. It has been a total troll-fest.

 

[two sheds]

Yep, the argument sketch is I think my favourite though

Aside from the cruelty of the industry side, Funky Monks nailed it for me. There didn't look like a lot more to say.

I've not really got involved in these type discussions so haven't seen the posting history.

 

[Spymaster]

Yep Aside from the cruelty of the industry side, Funky Monks nailed it for me. There didn't look like a lot more to say.

I've not really got involved in these type discussions so haven't seen the posting history.

Basically, someone starts, or contributes to, a thread posting articles with inflammatory headlines purporting to be scientific. When those articles are examined they are found to be no more than edited compilations by animal rights or other interest group bloggers, usually grossly misrepresenting the actual facts. This thread’s title is a prime example. Every superhero needs a sidekick and on these threads Dangermouse is ably assisted by Penfold, who stands on the sidelines and spits at people occasionally.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Dangermouse is ably assisted by Penfold, who stands on the sidelines and spits at people occasionally.

Pppppenfold

 

[Proper Tidy]

In the case of poultry then grain thy could be eaten by humans. Or do all the chickens need retraining before release to gather their eggs, take them to market to sell so they can buy some grain?

Do you know there are quite a lot of wild chickens and various forms of fowl that were never domesticated for food, cos either I'm missing something or your line of argument is a bit shit

 

[Funky_monks]

Ignoring the crap of the last 10 pages can I ask your thoughts on plant milks? (Apologies if you've already posted something but I may have missed it in the crap).

Well, it depends upon where they come from.
Soy milk is pretty nutritious, but there's the question of where the soy comes from and what you do with what's left after you've made the milk - its really useful animal feed, as you know.
The others are odd - almond milk contains something like the equivalent of 5 almonds per litre, so is mostly fortified water.
Oat milk is basically very weak porridge.
None of them are as nutritionally dense as animal milks.

 

[JimW]

One yet to make the journey west is the classic Beijing douzhi, which is mung beans and the by-product of making a type of noodles: Douzhi - Beijing, China - Local Food Guide Quite an acquired taste as it's fermented and quite sour but everyone seems to think it's pretty nutritious. Mind, that might be as compared to an empty belly

 

[JimW]

Double post

 

[Pickman's model]

Hilarious as it’s been, there’s been nothing serious posted on this thread for about 20 pages. It has been a total troll-fest.

You say that like it's a bad thing

 

[Larry Noppius]

Yes you are. I find the word offensive because I know the dismissive, patronising context in which it's being employed, and the motives behind the people who are desperately trying to make it 'stick' here. If you want a grown-up debate, stop acting like a fucking infant and using makey-uppey words designed to belittle people with different views to you.

It's very simple. At first the word "vegan" was used to generally denote "non-meat eater." But you then dismissed research findings by playing gotcha with words because "vegans" are different from "vegetarians" who are in turn different from whatever-itarians. So a term was introduced to generally denote "non-meat eater", which was chosen to be a portmanteau of vegetarian and vegan, ie vegigan. You were asked to provide a better term if you didn't like this one, but you didn't do so and instead chose to continue complaining about the word. And why did you not do so? Your problem with the word isn't what you claim it to be, because if it was you'd just suggest another term more to your liking. Your problem is that having a term (any term) for the combination of vegan and vegetarian would stop you from playing games about "but vegans aren't the same as vegetarians" whenever evidence is presented that contradicts your claims.

 

[Spymaster]

You say that like it's a bad thing

Not at all, I've thoroughly enjoyed it. It's fun watching someone defend an absurd position tooth and nail, whilst comprehensively annoying some people who generally need to be comprehensively annoyed.

More of this kind of thing!

 

[JimW]

Whats's the "i" doing there if it's a portmanteau? Inquiring minds actually couldn't give a fuck.

 

[Larry Noppius]

The argument stopping eating meat, would be bad because you'd be denying would be animals a potential positive life is exquisite sophistry.

Except that wasn't the argument that was made, the argument that was made is the following:

"It is inconsistent to simultaneously hold the following beliefs:

1) Because some animals have shitty lives therefor they shouldn't exist in the first place.

2) Animals should be considered as equal to humans.

3) Some humans having shitty lives does not mean they shouldn't exist in the first place."

That argument is valid.

As for the numerous strawmen extracted from it, such as the one I quoted, well those aren't my responsibility.

 

[JimW]

That argument is valid.

Larry, ever victorious in an empty war of words. Other people create strawmen, Larry merely refines the terms of debate

 

[redsquirrel]

Well, it depends upon where they come from.
Soy milk is pretty nutritious, but there's the question of where the soy comes from and what you do with what's left after you've made the milk - its really useful animal feed, as you know.
The others are odd - almond milk contains something like the equivalent of 5 almonds per litre, so is mostly fortified water.
Oat milk is basically very weak porridge.
None of them are as nutritionally dense as animal milks.

Ta I was thinking more from an environmental perspective than nutritionally.

 

[Larry Noppius]

What do vegigans not eat?

Meat. They don't eat meat. The term was explicitly defined as the complement of "meat eater."

 

[Larry Noppius]

Larry, ever victorious in an empty war of words. Other people create strawmen, Larry merely refines the terms of debate

Do you seriously not know the difference between creating strawmen of other people's arguments and reposting one's own argument? And this is now the second time you've haven't engaged with the argument that's actually been presented, why? Either you agree it's valid or you don't, in which case you could just refute it rather than ignore it in favour of making silly remarks about it and then start arguing against strawmen.

 

[JimW]

Do you seriously not know the difference between creating strawmen of other people's arguments and reposting one's own argument?

You clearly don't.

 

[Pickman's model]

You clearly don't.

it's wicked to mock the afflicted

 

[Pickman's model]

Do you seriously not know the difference between creating strawmen of other people's arguments and reposting one's own argument? And this is now the second time you've haven't engaged with the argument that's actually been presented, why? Either you agree it's valid or you don't, in which case you could just refute it rather than ignore it in favour of making silly remarks about it and then start arguing against strawmen.

you of course found a third way between considering an argument valid or invalid, namely to declare 'i'm not sure'

yet you'd deny the option to others.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Meat. They don't eat meat. The term was explicitly defined as the complement of "meat eater."

The complement of meat eater would be either plant eater, or if you want to argue that meat eaters also eat plants then non-meat eater.

 

[CNT36]

Except that wasn't the argument that was made, the argument that was made is the following:

"It is inconsistent to simultaneously hold the following beliefs:

1) Because some animals have shitty lives therefor they shouldn't exist in the first place.

2) Animals should be considered as equal to humans.

3) Some humans having shitty lives does not mean they shouldn't exist in the first place."

That argument is valid.

As for the numerous strawmen extracted from it, such as the one I quoted, well those aren't my responsibility.

1) Who here has taken that position? Who said they shouldn't exist in the first place?
2) Who here has taken this position?
3) Who is advocating such retroactive changes?

There are plenty of situations where suffering humans particularly those kept alive are allowed to die. There are also situations where a social or economic relation being changed because of the suffering it causes. Many of these lead to less humans being conceived/born than would have anyway.

 

[ice-is-forming]

Vegegan would be a better word than vegigan

 

[Pickman's model]

Except that wasn't the argument that was made, the argument that was made is the following:

"It is inconsistent to simultaneously hold the following beliefs:

1) Because some animals have shitty lives therefor they shouldn't exist in the first place.

2) Animals should be considered as equal to humans.

3) Some humans having shitty lives does not mean they shouldn't exist in the first place."

That argument is valid.

As for the numerous strawmen extracted from it, such as the one I quoted, well those aren't my responsibility.

the argument you proposed was some GROUPS of humans shouldn't exist: which is markedly different from individuals having shitty lives not existing in the first place

 

[Pickman's model]

Vegegan would be a better word than vegigan

and gets rid of more of those pesky e's in scrabble

 

[Larry Noppius]

you of course found a third way between considering an argument valid or invalid, namely to declare 'i'm not sure'

yet you'd deny the option to others.

I said I wasn't sure of the premise that there would be a sufficient increase in milk, cheese, and egg consumption to make up for the decrease in meat consumption. Is that why you chose not to actually present an argument, because of such a dubitable implicit premise? Feel free to defend the premise by looking up how many cows are bred for meat, how many for milk, and what increase in milk consumption would be required to compensate for those bred for meat.

 

[CNT36]

Ta I was thinking more from an environmental perspective than nutritionally.

They're connected though if people are attempting to replace the nutrition gained from milk. This obviously isn't always case. To get the same amount of protein from plant milk as cow's milk requires drinking twice as much or more. It still appears to work out better with soya on the emissions, water and land use fronts. It's more complicated when you throw in other nutrients and you'd have to move away from plant milks to get them.