This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Vegetarianism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
The original post is just flat out bad.
A) 450,000,000 fewer animal deaths would occur each year in the U.S. under a system in which half the land available for harvesting was devoted to raising grazing animals for slaughter (with the other half devoted to crops for humans) than under a vegan model in which all the land was devoted to harvesting plants for human consumption. (from the article "Does ethical meat eating maximize utility")
B) Pictures of how "ugly" something is doesn't change how right or wrong it is. It would be easy to flash some pictures of people whose limbs are blown off and then say "We shouldn't engage in war because look at this", even though there are times where we're going to need to defend ourselves.
C) I'm sure if you separated out all of the fat people (who won't listen to you either way) from the other more balanced eaters, you would likely see life expectancy either neutral with vegetarians or possibly greater than vegetarians.
Post by
Orranis
Maybe if a significant amount of people thought like that, but just me alone would not.
So until I am convinced that I would actually save anything, I'm not gonna give up ma baconz.
So let me get this: You think eating meat is bad, but you're not stopping since it wouldn't have any effect if you stopped eating meat. But you still think eating meat is bad, and you only approve your own meat consumption?
Do you know how much meat does one eat during 10 years?
I never said eating meat is bad. This is all hypothetical. Plus, if we're talking about over ten years, every piece of meat I would have bought would have been bought by someone else, so even so my point stands.
What about the next ten years though?
Yes. It's about the amount of people, not time.
Post by
469842
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Wait, what?
Edit: Do some more googling around about that link, if you like. Everything I've found suggests they were respected scientists and that their diet served them admirably.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
469842
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Also @ Faceshield: The original question was whether or not you know how much meat one eats in ten years, so actually it is about time. I don't understand what you mean when you say it's about the amount of people and not the time.
The fact is that whether or not I eat it, someone else will. Even if it's over ten years. However, if say a hundred people in my immediate community stopped eating it, then you might see a very small change.
Post by
469842
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Also @ Faceshield: The original question was whether or not you know how much meat one eats in ten years, so actually it is about time. I don't understand what you mean when you say it's about the amount of people and not the time.
The fact is that whether or not I eat it, someone else will. Even if it's over ten years. However, if say a hundred people in my immediate community stopped eating it, then you might see a very small change.
If 100 people in your community stopped eating meat, that would be about $1,000,000-2,000,000 not spent on meat in a year, or 10 million to 20 million over the ten years mentioned. (Still trying to find the article I found this at D= )
If I produced meat I would not be happy if I suddenly lost $2,000,000 a year simply because a small community decided to abstain from eating meat.
You say someone will eat it even if you don't, but it will still get eaten slower. It's not as if someone would eat double the meat because you stopped, just so that it will get eaten. The animals will not be slaughtered as fast if one person stops eating, though the meat will be eaten eventually.
No, but the package would nonetheless be taken from the shelf and eaten. You're thinking of this from moneys perspective. Assuming the butcher I go to (I don't actually eat meat of the shelf, I was just using an example) was always fully stocked, the amount of money spent would not change the amount of animals killed. The producer would not cut back, he would simply relocate.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
469842
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
469842
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
469842
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
469842
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
469842
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.