Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[Larry Noppius]

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

Well yes, some groups. For crying out loud, here try this:

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 groups of animals have shitty lives therefor these groups of animals shouldn't exist in the first place.

2) Animals should be considered as equal to humans.

3) Some groups of humans having shitty lives does not mean these groups of humans 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.

 

[CNT36]

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

It's almost like groups of humans and animals don't pop in and out of existence often due to processes both natural and man made. This obsession with the preservation of a narrow range of characteristics is a bit odd tbh.

 

[Pickman's model]

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.

you seem to have missed out a few important word in what i actually said. i said i wasn't presenting an overarching argument - i wasn't presenting an entire opposing worldview- because i didn't need to to show how shit your argument is. and if your argument actually had anything going for it you wouldn't be continually shuffling the goalposts.

 

[Larry Noppius]

you seem to have missed out a few important word in what i actually said. i said i wasn't presenting an overarching argument - i wasn't presenting an entire opposing worldview- because i didn't need to to show how shit your argument is. and if your argument actually had anything going for it you wouldn't be continually shuffling the goalposts.

Well then, this nicely solves the following:

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.

So generally, an argument can be considered either valid or invalid, and some generic assertions which don't actually amount to an argument can also be considered with a simple "I'm not sure."

You're also free to show any goalposts having been moved if think there are some.

 

[two sheds]

or an even simpler "I don't care"

 

[Pickman's model]

It's almost like groups of humans and animals don't pop in and out of existence often due to processes both natural and man made. This obsession with the preservation of a narrow range of characteristics is a bit odd tbh.

for me what it boils down to is that larry would prefer to see animals born to be slaughtered, often in appalling conditions, simply so they continue to exist - so they don't become extinct.

 

[Larry Noppius]

or an even simpler "I don't care"

That option seems sufficiently contained in simply not responding at all. Otherwise it's more of a "I don't care but I do care about telling everyone that I don't care."

 

[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 groups of animals have shitty lives therefor these groups of animals shouldn't exist in the first place.

2) Animals should be considered as equal to humans.

3) Some groups of humans having shitty lives does not mean these groups of humans 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 holds this position and advocates such retroactive changes?
2) Who here holds that position?
3)Who advocates such retroactive changes?

In reality groups of humans and animals are condemned to existence or non-existence in process natural, artificial and social. Smallpox sufferers have been eliminated. There have even been attempts to destroy entire groups of humans that are not suffering by various moral authorities. Some have been trying to do away with Nazis for the best part of a century.

 

[Larry Noppius]

1) Who here holds this position and advocates such retroactive changes?
2) Who here holds that position?
3)Who advocates such retroactive changes?

What retroactive changes? You know that time travel is impossible, right? Also, as you can easily read, nowhere does it say in the argument that necessarily anyone here holds all or some of the given beliefs. But keep strawmanning away I guess.

 

[Funky_monks]

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

Well, with soya, it depends, as I've said - and is it good or bad practice to feed all the byproducts to animals or simply throw them away, having spent chemical and human energy to produce it?
Almonds can be absolutely hideous for the environment, depending upon where they are grown, but I suppose you need to balance that with the fact that almond milk hardly contains any....
Oats are fine, environmentally, but again, do you just throw away all the bits we don't eat or do you use the straw for something?
Do you rely on chemical inputs for them or do you think manure is more sustainable?

 

[Funky_monks]

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.

The dairy industry is also the beef industry - they don't exist separately.

 

[Larry Noppius]

for me what it boils down to is that larry would prefer to see animals born to be slaughtered, often in appalling conditions, simply so they continue to exist - so they don't become extinct.

Of course not, I prefer them to keep existing so I can eat their meat, not because I have some inherent interest in not having them die out. Why should I care about the latter?

 

[Larry Noppius]

The dairy industry is also the beef industry - they don't exist separately.

Oh I thought that different breeds were being used for dairy and for beef. What if dairy consumption and meat consumption diverge? Won't you then have at least some cows only bred for meat or only bred for dairy but not for both at the same time?

 

[Larry Noppius]

This here seems to say that there are about 30 million beef cows and 10 million dairy cows in the US. So if everyone stopped eating meat then dairy consumption would have to increase 3-fold to 4-fold to compensate.

 

[Pickman's model]

This here seems to say that there are about 30 million beef cows and 10 million dairy cows in the US. So if everyone stopped eating meat then dairy consumption would have to increase 3-fold to 4-fold to compensate.

er that's bollocks

 

[Jeff Robinson]

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

Oat milk or soy milk all round probably the best

Climate change: Which vegan milk is best?

With sales of vegan foods on the rise, check the environmental impact of plant-based milks.

www.bbc.com

 

[Pickman's model]

Larry Noppius it's bollocks because there's none of your actual need to compensate. the united states exports large quantities of milk products - do you think there is the domestic or indeed international market for such a vast increase in milk production? did you engage brain before posting? i think not.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Why would there be 3x as many beef cows than dairy cows? I get that you can milk a cow x numbers of times before its milk supply is exhausted but dairy consumption is really high across the western world and there's a fuckload of meat on a cow. Makes no sense.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I remember reading that the average person will eat about five thousand chickens during a lifetime but only ten cows or something. Massive meaty things aren't they

 

[Funky_monks]

Why would there be 3x as many beef cows than dairy cows? I get that you can milk a cow x numbers of times before its milk supply is exhausted but dairy consumption is really high across the western world and there's a fuckload of meat on a cow. Makes no sense.

You'll have beef only herds, ie suckler beef - all the milk goes to the calf, cows not milked and you have dairy herds - cows need to be got in calf to lactate, so are usually put to a beef sire and those calves are fattened for beef. They are only put to a dairy sire to breed replacement milking cows. Of course, half of these will be bulls and therefore, beef.

 

[Larry Noppius]

Larry Noppius it's bollocks because there's none of your actual need to compensate. the united states exports large quantities of milk products - do you think there is the domestic or indeed international market for such a vast increase in milk production? did you engage brain before posting? i think not.

No I don't think there is a market for such a vast increase in milk production. Are you now in agreement that the premise that such a market exists is dubitable and is at best responded to with an "I'm not sure that's true"?

 

[Proper Tidy]

You'll have beef only herds, ie suckler beef - all the milk goes to the calf, cows not milked and you have dairy herds - cows need to be got in calf to lactate, so are usually put to a beef sire and those calves are fattened for beef. They are only put to a dairy sire to breed replacement milking cows. Of course, half of these will be bulls and therefore, beef.

Yeah I know farmers usually are either beef or dairy and the male cows in dairy herds are killed for beef, I still don't get why beef would be 3x higher even accounting for this. The male cows in dairy herds are killed young aren't they (why pay for feed) and I'd have thought the volume of dairy consumed would have meant if anything it would be other way around. Either there's a lot more milk produced by a dairy cow than I'd have thought possible or we must hammer through the beef

 

[Larry Noppius]

Yeah I know farmers usually are either beef or dairy and the male cows in dairy herds are killed for beef, I still don't get why beef would be 3x higher even accounting for this. The male cows in dairy herds are killed young aren't they (why pay for feed) and I'd have thought the volume of dairy consumed would have meant if anything it would be other way around. Either there's a lot more milk produced by a dairy cow than I'd have thought possible or we must hammer through the beef

If a person eats 10 cows over a lifetime, that's one cow every 7-8 years, and a milk cow is kept for at least 7-8 years, then there will be more beef cows just as long as a single milk cow produces more milk than needed for a single person. That last statement seems quite true, so there will be more beef cows than milk cows.

 

[editor]

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.

"Vegans and vegetarians" does the job very well, thanks.

 

[two sheds]

That option seems sufficiently contained in simply not responding at all. Otherwise it's more of a "I don't care but I do care about telling everyone that I don't care."

Well yes it's a thread on a bulletin board, that's what you do on threads on bulletin boards - give your opinion.

 

[Proper Tidy]

If a person eats 10 cows over a lifetime, that's one cow every 7-8 years, and a milk cow is kept for at least 7-8 years, then there will be more beef cows just as long as a single milk cow produces more milk than needed for a single person. That last statement seems quite true, so there will be more beef cows than milk cows.

This is you all over isn't it. If a milk cow is kept for at least 7-8 years. Fuck off, they won't live half that long never mind get milked for it. Lucky to get a year out of them. Know nothing dickhead

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If a person eats 10 cows over a lifetime, that's one cow every 7-8 years, and a milk cow is kept for at least 7-8 years, then there will be more beef cows just as long as a single milk cow produces more milk than needed for a single person. That last statement seems quite true, so there will be more beef cows than milk cows.

That's a bit optimistic. Dairy cows are generally slaughtered around age 4-5 cos their milk production starts to go down. They end up as corned beef.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

"Vegans and vegetarians" does the job very well, thanks.

hmmm. Three words contracted into one. You might not like the term but you can't deny that it has the virtue of concision.

 

[redsquirrel]

Oat milk or soy milk all round probably the best

Climate change: Which vegan milk is best?

With sales of vegan foods on the rise, check the environmental impact of plant-based milks.

www.bbc.com

Thank, yeah it's things like that have made me (partially) move to oat milk, I was more wondering how they fit in with what Funky_monks was talking about before this thread went fucked up again.

 

[Larry Noppius]

This is you all over isn't it. If a milk cow is kept for at least 7-8 years. Fuck off, they won't live half that long never mind get milked for it. Lucky to get a year out of them. Know nothing dickhead

Ah, so your problem is that you do know the variables that go into the equation but you're still not capable of figuring out which type of cow would be more numerous. Now that's what I call "know nothing" - much more so than simply not knowing the variables that go into it but being able to figure out the answer if those variables are known.