Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[Larry Noppius]

No cows exist that don't produce milk.
In beef herds, that milk goes exclusively to the calf.

Yes of course, not milk consumed by humans though, ergo not relevant in a comparison of the cow populations used to sustain human beef consumption vs human dairy consumption.

 

[Big Bertha]

I know exactly what you are, and it's neither a vegetarian or a vegan.

Duh! I’m a vegegian! As previously stated...

 

[Big Bertha]

Ooh, A HASHTAG?!!!!!!

But none for your makey-uppey vegigan then?

You do realise that “makey-uppey” is a neologism don’t you?

 

[Saul Goodman]

Yes of course, not milk consumed by humans though, ergo not relevant in a comparison of the cow populations used to sustain human beef consumption vs human dairy consumption.

You're grasping at straws here, They're the same animal. The method by which their udders are emptied doesn't matter.

 

[8ball]

Wow - last couple of days on this thread have been proper busy.

 

[ddraig]

What's desperate? That most people are meat eaters?

nope

 

[two sheds]

Wow - last couple of days on this thread have been proper busy.

There should be a flag that posters could set when they're actually adding something of value to the thread. Then people could just navigate to the next useful post and skip the vacuous ones that I and others have been adding over the last 20 pages or so.

 

[Larry Noppius]

You're grasping at straws here, They're the same animal. The method by which their udders are emptied doesn't matter.

For crying out loud, it's patently obvious that if people were to stop eating beef but not stop consuming dairy that the population of bred cows would go down. I even gave the numbers for the US from which this can be clearly seen. If the set of cows bred for beef and the set of cows bred for dairy were the same, then why does the data say there are 20 million more of the first category than the second?

 

[Saul Goodman]

nope

Then what?

 

[CNT36]

For crying out loud, it's patently obvious that if people were to stop eating beef but not stop consuming dairy that the population of bred cows would go down. I even gave the numbers for the US from which this can be clearly seen. If the set of cows bred for beef and the set of cows bred for dairy were the same, then why does the data say there are 20 million more of the first category than the second?

You know those goalposts people keep mentioning...
If you have made an error or been unclear somewhere just own it. No one will think any less of you.
You're saying it's not relevant. It may not be but I'd wager Funky will be along in a minute with a 400 word post explaining why it is.

 

[Larry Noppius]

You know those goalposts people keep mentioning...

Me: "The problem is calculating the orbital period of Jupiter."
Someone: "Here's the orbital period of Saturn."
Me: "That wasn't the question."
You: "Yeah those goalposts just keep moving."

No there are no moving goalposts, just people not bothering to actually read and understand the point they're responding to before responding. The point that started this tangent is and has always been that if people stop eating beef but not stop consuming dairy products this would still drastically reduce the cow population because these are not the same animals and the fact that dairy cows are also beef cows (ie the set of dairy cows is a subset of the set of beef cows) does not make these sets the same, it merely makes one a subset of the other.

If you have made an error or been unclear somewhere just own it. No one will think any less of you.

What error?

You're saying it's not relevant. It may not be but I'd wager Funky will be along in a minute with a 400 word post explaining why it is.

I highly doubt it. It doesn't take an agricultural expert to realize that farmers would not raise beef herds if nobody ate beef, and the fact that cows in those beef herds produce milk for their own calves does not change this, as that milk does not provide income for the farmer - for that it would have to be sold rather than just consumed by the cows' own calves.

 

[CNT36]

Me: "The problem is calculating the orbital period of Jupiter."
Someone: "Here's the orbital period of Saturn."
Me: "That wasn't the question."
You: "Yeah those goalposts just keep moving."

No there are no moving goalposts, just people not bothering to actually read and understand the point they're responding to before responding. The point that started this tangent is and has always been that if people stop eating beef but not stop consuming dairy products this would still drastically reduce the cow population because these are not the same animals and the fact that dairy cows are also beef cows (ie the set of dairy cows is a subset of the set of beef cows) does not make these sets the same, it merely makes one a subset of the other.



What error?



I highly doubt it. It doesn't take an agricultural expert to realize that farmers would not raise beef herds if nobody ate beef, and the fact that cows in those beef herds produce milk for their own calves does not change this, as that milk does not provide income for the farmer - for that it would have to be sold rather than just consumed by the cows' own calves.

I never said you made an error. It does seems you were at least unclear about milk production.

You do understand something being relevant doesn't mean it has to completely alter something right?

 

[ddraig]

Then what?

if you look I was responding to someone's post who was in turn responding to someone so it was about that
hope that's enough spoonfeeding for you

 

[Saul Goodman]

if you look I was responding to someone's post who was in turn responding to someone so it was about that
hope that's enough spoonfeeding for you

I figured that might be the case. Sniping for no other reason than people were talking about meat. And you call meat eaters fragile.

 

[WouldBe]

I figured that might be the case. Sniping for no other reason than people were talking about meat. And you call meat eaters fragile.

One word replies are hardly conducive to any debate are they? Unfortunately this is ddraig's modus operandi. He may as well not bother.

 

[WouldBe]

He was warned in complete accordance with the rules on mutual ignore - something he delights in pushing his luck with most days. Why do you think those rules should not apply to him?

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/enforced-mutual-ignore-rules-statement-closed-thread.344419/#post-16500200

In this case I think Spymaster was right to pull you up. You frequently complain about posters calling each other names yet you find it acceptable to call me a bozo. These boards are well known for not tolerating bigotry yet you seem to think it's OK to take the piss out of someone with dyslexia. Would you do that to someone with mental or neurological problems? Does it make you feel big and clever to do so?

If spy deserves a warning then do you. Or is it a case of do as I say not as I do?

 

[editor]

In this case I think Spymaster was right to pull you up.

No he wasn't. The terms of mutual ignore are very, very clear and I see no reason why he should be made specially exempt from those rules.

But just to be clear, you're now saying that all the time that you were carefully explaining what you meant by 'vegigan' and detailing how you put the word together, you were actually referring to 'vegegan' and you made that mistake because you say that you are 'slightly dyslexic'?

It's just that you seemed quite assured that 'vegigan' was the exact word you meant and were happy to defend it:

As it was me that coined the word vegigan I fully know how it was intended. As I've previously explained I have no problem with anyone who is vegetarian or vegan. Some vegigans on these boards have had tantrums in the past when someone has called them vegetarian when they are vegan and vice versa so it was coined to avoid the ballache of having to type vegetarian / vegan all the time to avoid upsetting the more sensitive of you. So don't go putting words ( or definitions ) in my mouth as it makes you look a dick.

And to clear something up: At no point was it my intention to take the piss out of dyslexics, because that is something I would never do. I had no idea you suffered from dyslexia and I don't actually recall you ever mentioning that you suffered from this condition, so apologies.

 

[ginger_syn]

As it was me that coined the word vegigan I fully know how it was intended. As I've previously explained I have no problem with anyone who is vegetarian or vegan. Some vegigans on these boards have had tantrums in the past when someone has called them vegetarian when they are vegan and vice versa so it was coined to avoid the ballache of having to type vegetarian / vegan all the time to avoid upsetting the more sensitive of you. So don't go putting words ( or definitions ) in my mouth as it makes you look a dick.

So you were just being lazy, thank you so much, this has added a new level of hilarity to this whole thing, genius even if it was unintentional hope the rest of this keeps it up.

 

[8ball]

And to clear something up: At no point was it my intention to take the piss out of dyslexics, because that is something I would never do. I had no idea you suffered from dyslexia and I don't actually recall you ever mentioning that you suffered from this condition, so apologies.

I'm sure it wasn't. I seem to remember some informal rule followed by quite a few posters here on avoiding bringing people up on spelling, just in case.

 

[WouldBe]

But just to be clear, you're now saying that all the time that you were carefully explaining what you meant by 'vegigan' and detailing how you put the word together, you were actually referring to 'vegegan' and you made that mistake because you say that you are 'slightly dyslexic'?

It's just that you seemed quite assured that 'vegigan' was the exact word you meant and were happy to defend it:

Yeah funny that. That's the problem with dyslexia you have problems spelling things. It was only when iceisforming? suggested vegegan would be better that I realised I'd spelt it wrong.

And to clear something up: At no point was it my intention to take the piss out of dyslexics, because that is something I would never do. I had no idea you suffered from dyslexia and I don't actually recall you ever mentioning that you suffered from this condition,

Yet you made no attempt to find out or even suggest that vegegan would make more sense. You just jumped in and took the piss.

so apologies.

Thanks.

 

[8ball]

Vegegan would be a better word than vegigan

I think that makes it difficult to tell whether it is a hard or soft 'g'.
Though pronouncing veg*n is a lot harder tbf.

 

[editor]

I'm sure it wasn't. I seem to remember some informal rule followed by quite a few posters here on avoiding bringing people up on spelling, just in case.

I'm not sure that rule applies when someone proudly announces their new made up word and dedicates multiple posts explaining the reasoning behind its specific spelling, and continues to only use that one spelling throughout the thread.

 

[8ball]

I'm not sure that rule applies when someone proudly announces their new made up word and dedicates multiple posts explaining the reasoning behind its specific spelling, and continues to only use that one spelling throughout the thread.

Well, there is some leeway as to it being allowable for posters who generally spell flawlessly. It's one rule I try to tread lightly with, though.
Except when especially ornery, or pissed, or tired. But the other 5% of the time I'm quite scrupulous.

 

[editor]

Yet you made no attempt to find out or even suggest that vegegan would make more sense. You just jumped in and took the piss.

Right. So you're insisting that you meant 'vegegan' all along now, despite carefully explaining how you created the 'veginan' word. OK. But then that means that you didn't make that word up - so why claim ownership?

As it was me that coined the word vegigan I fully know how it was intended. As I've previously explained I have no problem with anyone who is vegetarian or vegan. Some vegigans on these boards have had tantrums in the past when someone has called them vegetarian when they are vegan and vice versa so it was coined to avoid the ballache of having to type vegetarian / vegan all the time to avoid upsetting the more sensitive of you.

Neither word make any sense to me, so I'll continue to take the piss and laugh at that ridiculous meat eating blog by a non-existent vegan 'chef' you claimed supported the adoption of its definition.

 

[8ball]

Fwiw, the general vegan philosophical position is that factory farmed animals should not exist in the first place, regardless of numbers, and this is due to the primacy of suffering as the chief evil in the vegan mindset.

It's not such a terrible general principle to apply to humans either, and we do it routinely.

So I think Larry's argument (if I understood it), is essentially correct, there is an inconsistency in those statements.

Animal suffering not caused by humans is a thornier matter, though, and may go some way to explain some AR activists releasing animals into unsuitable conditions that they deem "the wild", in order to meet a drawn out and grisly death.

 

[WouldBe]

So you were just being lazy,

No just dyslexic. I only need to spell one word instead of two. I've also explained that some vegans on here get annoyed if you call them a vegetarian instead so it was intended as an inclusive word so as not to offend the more sensitive souls on here.

thank you so much, this has added a new level of hilarity to this whole thing, genius even if it was unintentional hope the rest of this keeps it up.

Nice to see taking the piss out of people with mental / neurological problems brings you hilarity.

 

[JimW]

I'm sure it wasn't. I seem to remember some informal rule followed by quite a few posters here on avoiding bringing people up on spelling, just in case.

Not really just pulling someone up on spelling when you're querying a new word they've coined.

 

[editor]

Fwiw, the general vegan philosophical position is that factory farmed animals should not exist in the first place, regardless of numbers, and this is due to the primacy of suffering as the chief evil in the vegan mindset.

I think they actually argue for the elimination of factory farms rather than the elimination of the animals contained therein.

 

[alfajobrob]

I'm confused, is the generally accepted term Vegegan now?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm confused, is the generally accepted term Vegegan now?

Yes.