Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[CNT36]

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.

,
Yes, but I wanted to move away from fanciful notions of what should or should not have existed to what does, has and will. As no one here has necessarily brought this up I'm not sure why you've brought it up. I wsd trying to figure out who this was aimed at. It seems pointless without time travel hence the retroactive changes.
Good work on not dealing with the substance of the post.
I think you may have missed the point of my "nuff said" post above. If you think that life only has value if it has use to you be it the unborn or those condemned to existence rejecting irrelevant ethical or moral concerns just say so.

 

[Proper Tidy]

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.

Jesus larry you can't live like this mate

 

[redsquirrel]

It's a huge pity that threads like this seems to draw so many dickheads there's loads on really interesting political discussions to be made - as JimW, CNT36 and Funky_monks were doing 20 or so pages back - but just too many wankers

 

[CNT36]

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.

For those of us lacking omniscience unknown variables are something to consider just as Proper Tidy did.

 

[JimW]

It's a huge pity that threads like this seems to draw so many dickheads there's loads on really interesting political discussions to be made - as JimW, CNT36 and Funky_monks were doing 20 or so pages back - but just too many wankers

I would love an ongoing debate about food production, its political economy, environmental impact and any further moral considerations. Essential stuff really.

 

[Spymaster]

- but just too many wankers

On both sides of the argument.

Certain vegigans go missing completely when Funky_monks is posting because they aren't interested in debate either and he knocks their silly arguments into a cocked hat.

 

[CNT36]

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.

Yeah, I'm just confused why he is treating it as some kind of gotcha to no one in particular all dressed up in pseudo-intellectual garbage.

 

[Funky_monks]

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

No - most of the time, dairy cows are put to a beef sire to produce beef calves, if you put them to a dairy sire and assume that 50% of the progeny were female, you'd be looking at 50% of your herd as replacement milkers annually, which you don't need. Generally, your put your top performing animals to a dairy sire to breed replacement milkers.
So; most of the calves produced in a dairy herd are beef animals.
Pure dairy bull calves are often raised on schemes now - a neighbour of mine used to grow them on contract with waitrose - I believe that they ended up as mince.

You then have pure beef herds of beef breeds - most cattle in marginal areas will be these.

 

[CNT36]

I would love an ongoing debate about food production, its political economy, environmental impact and any further moral considerations. Essential stuff really.

I'd say start a thread but we'd find it.

 

[Funky_monks]

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

Why would you replace a dairy cow annually?
She isn't got in calf until her second year, youd reasonably expect them to do at the least 5 lactations (one lactation per year).

 

[Larry Noppius]

For those of us lacking omniscience unknown variables are something to consider just as Proper Tidy did.

And those of us who would actually be interested in the answer to the question of which type of cow should be more numerous, rather than just going around calling people know nothing dickheads, would have improved the variables in the equation if we knew them better. See, this is what if would've looked like if Proper Tidy were interested in the answer rather than name-calling:

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.

A milk cow is only milked for 1 year rather than 7-8, so this should be adjusted:

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 1 year, then there will be more beef cows just as long as a single milk cow produces more milk than needed for a single 7-8 persons. That last statement seems quite true, so there will be more beef cows than milk cows.

See how that approach actually gets us closer to an answer.

 

[Proper Tidy]

No - most of the time, dairy cows are put to a beef sire to produce beef calves, if you put them to a dairy sire and assume that 50% of the progeny were female, you'd be looking at 50% of your herd as replacement milkers annually, which you don't need. Generally, your put your top performing animals to a dairy sire to breed replacement milkers.
So; most of the calves produced in a dairy herd are beef animals.
Pure dairy bull calves are often raised on schemes now - a neighbour of mine used to grow them on contract with waitrose - I believe that they ended up as mince.

You then have pure beef herds of beef breeds - most cattle in marginal areas will be these.

My other half has rellies who are beef farmers, small scale as they are old and tbh don't make any money. I find it interesting, they send the lads away really young for slaughter then every couple of years spend a fuckload on a bull, never quite grasped why they don't just keep a male cow back but suppose cost of feeding must be higher than the few grand a bull costs.

 

[Funky_monks]

And those of us who would actually be interested in the answer to the question of which type of cow should be more numerous, rather than just going around calling people know nothing dickheads, would have improved the variables in the equation if we knew them better. See, this is what if would've looked like if Proper Tidy were interested in the answer rather than name-calling:



See how that approach actually gets us closer to an answer.

Except a decent dairy animal should last at least 5 lactations (making her 7 years old) and the better ones should make 10

 

[Funky_monks]

My other half has rellies who are beef farmers, small scale as they are old and tbh don't make any money. I find it interesting, they send the lads away really young for slaughter then every couple of years spend a fuckload on a bull, never quite grasped why they don't just keep a male cow back but suppose cost of feeding must be higher than the few grand a bull costs.

Because he's related to the females, for a start.
You'd buy the best bull for the traits you are interested in to improve your herd.

 

[JimW]

My other half has rellies who are beef farmers, small scale as they are old and tbh don't make any money. I find it interesting, they send the lads away really young for slaughter then every couple of years spend a fuckload on a bull, never quite grasped why they don't just keep a male cow back but suppose cost of feeding must be higher than the few grand a bull costs.

Also a crapshoot rearing your own bull compared to getting cover/sperm from a proven animal.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Because he's related to the females, for a start.
You'd buy the best bull for the traits you are interested in to improve your herd.

I don't think they do tbh, I think they just go for a big size and in working order. But then they're not very successful farmers tbf

 

[editor]

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

Not if it makes an ugly, clumsy word that has - given the context from which it has been spawned - the stench of negative connotations. I can't imagine any vegan or vegetarian describing themselves with that word.

 

[editor]

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.

Oatly 'semi' milk is lovely, particularly on cereals and coffee and it's an easy one to switch to for people looking to give up/reduce their dairy intake, and of course it's far better for the environment than regular milk. As a bonus for me, when I stopped drinking dairy milk my eczema cleared up considerably.

I prefer soya on tea though as oat is quite rich.

 

[Larry Noppius]

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

That's not a term, those are two terms. Vegigan it is. Though to compromise I'll use "vegans and vegetarians" rather than "vegigan" whenever you use "chicken eaters and other meat eaters" rather than "meat eaters."

 

[editor]

That's not a term, those are two terms. Vegigan it is. Though to compromise I'll use "vegans and vegetarians" rather than "vegigan" whenever you use "chicken eaters and other meat eaters" rather than "meat eaters."

I've never felt the need to write "chicken eaters and other meat eaters". Or chickmeaters as you'd probably describe them.

 

[Larry Noppius]

Not if it makes an ugly, clumsy word that has - given the context from which it has been spawned - the stench of negative connotations. I can't imagine any vegan or vegetarian describing themselves with that word.

As opposed to "meat eaters" which has, to the contrary, no negative connotations at all, especially in a thread titled "meat eaters are destroying the planet."

 

[Larry Noppius]

I've never felt the need to write "chicken eaters and other meat eaters". Or chickmeaters as you'd probably describe them.

I've never felt the need to write "vegans and vegetarians" either. It seems we're in agreement then, you use the shorthand "meat eaters" to describe a grouping of various distinct diets and I use "vegigans" to describe another grouping of various distinct diets.

 

[editor]

As opposed to "meat eaters" which has, to the contrary, no negative connotations at all, especially in a thread titled "meat eaters are destroying the planet."

You're right. It should say 'Chickmeaters.'

 

[Spymaster]

Is there any stench of negative connotations about the phrase "fragile carnists"?

 

[editor]

I've never felt the need to write "vegans and vegetarians" either. It seems we're in agreement then, you use the shorthand "meat eaters" to describe a grouping of various distinct diets and I use "vegigans" to describe another grouping of various distinct diets.

I know you're desperate to make it stick, but it's a shitty ugly word that no sensible person is ever going to use, least of all the people you're trying to label.

How do you think you've done on this thread overall, by the way?

 

[Larry Noppius]

You're right. It should say 'Chickmeaters.'

Are people who only eat chicken once in a while "destroying the planet"? I thought it was people who eat meat regularly, especially beef.

 

[Larry Noppius]

I know you're desperate to make it stick, but it's a shitty ugly word that no sensible person is ever going to use, least of all the people you're trying to label.

Why would I care whether others use it or not? I'm saving myself some keystrokes, I don't care if others do so or not. Don't worry, you're perfectly free to use "vegans and vegetarians" as much as you want.

How do you think you've done on this thread overall, by the way?

Enough to know not to care about your evaluation.

 

[editor]

Why would I care whether others use it or not? I'm saving myself some keystrokes, I don't care if others do so or not.

If you want to communicate and share your fascinating insights, it's usually advisable to use words that actually exist and ones that people understand and don't find offensive/annoying/ugly/twatty. But if you want to keep on sounding like a twat parroting your makey-uppey word, feel free - and I'll judge you accordingly.

 

[CNT36]

Is there any stench of negative connotations about the phrase "fragile carnists"?

Is anyone pretending otherwise?

 

[Larry Noppius]

If you want to communicate and share your fascinating insights, it's usually advisable to use words that actually exist and ones that people understand

New terms are being defined all the time which aren't in the dictionary. You know, like: let "vegigan" be the complement of "meat eater." That you still can't understand that definition, even when being linked to the definition of the term "complement" is hardly my fault. Perhaps ask someone to explain it to you?

don't find offensive/annoying/ugly/twatty

Like I said, if you have another one you'd prefer you're always free to provide it. But you don't, why?

But if you want to keep on sounding like a twat parroting your makey-uppey word, feel free - and I'll judge you accordingly.

Yeah I'll get started caring about your "judgement" any moment now... You really should go read any sort of scientific or mathematical publication/communication once and be amazed at all the "makey-uppey words" in there.