[Closed] Vegetarianist nonsense

Maggie Thatcher found sinking the belgrano acceptable, because she resolved it personally does that remove her moral obligation?

Yes, great analogy. 😕

I clearly pointed out I have no moral high ground, I don't see how I could be any more humble about it. I'm benused by the vitriol to be honest. It is only a discusiion.

And yet you just tried to draw a parallel between being vegetarian and the sinking of the Belgrano. 😕

Balls.

Who cares?

I eat what i want, you lot eat what you want.

Anyone who has an opinion on another persons eating habits unless it directly affects them (e.g. they ate your lunch), should find a hobby or something.

Haven't found the fruitarian mum/baby yet but [url= http://mangodurian.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/fruitarian-interview-26-jamshed.html ]I did find this interview featuring fruitarianism with one of my wife's old friends.[/url] Great beard. I think she said he rode a singlespeed town bike too. 😀

Meat eaters need to accept that the reason they eat meat is because they like it.

And yet you just tried to draw a parallel between being vegetarian and the sinking of the Belgrano.

Meat eaters need to accept that the reason they eat meat is because they like it.

I missed this nugget.

What other reason is there? Do some people eat meat because they have some unnatural compulsion to kill and devour cows?

People argue that meat eating is nutritionally necessary.

What other reason is there? Do some people eat meat because they have some unnatural compulsion to kill and devour cows?

I suppose it depends on the culture you are brought up in. If you are told that a meal is inciomplete without meat you may feel you ought to, and if you are told meat is baaaaad you may avoid it rather than try it with an open mind.
I tried to minimise any social expectations about diet and religion with my children and ended up with one veggie, one pig and chicken fan, one atheist and one eight year old white english Hindu. (although she is 'backsliding' of late...)

I don't eat it because it's nutritionally necessary, I eat it because I like it. Not sure why i needed to accept that though, but thanks for helping me through this difficult time 😛

Machamish, you have accepted it, thats what your statement means, ie you are not trying to make excuses foryourself like the meat eaters who say eating meat is necessary, chapeau, we will fight off the vegans together on judgement day. Hopefully using a few cow shinbones as clubs..

JulianWilson: I suppose after 15 years of treehugging, I ought to also read up on and consider the effect of milk, particularly cow's milk. ie methane and the how if everyone stopped eating cows overnight there would still be a demand for them as milk producers.

You probably know but besides any moral arguments, many people reckon cow's milk isn't too good for your health anyway.

I think you could argue that the general public have very little understanding of 'nutrition', and that has nothing to do with whether you eat meat or not.

Machamish - agreed.
Tazzy - mitchell n webb, comedy leviathans.

Strangely enough the vegans I have come across tend to be more circumspect.

There's a simple explanation for this I think. Most vegans I know, myself included, started out as very holier than thou, moral high ground types who invariably became vegan after much thought about the issues (it's not the sort of thing you do for fashion after all). After a few years of being very strict and putting lots of effort into it, you gradually come to the view that it's near impossible to be completely vegan. Everyone has their own boundaries, but because most(?) vegans have come to accept that it's a target rather than a black and white thing, they lose the holier than thou attitude and come to recognise that it's more complex than simply labelling yourself or others as 'good' or 'bad'. Vegetarians on the other hand have probably not had to go through this thought process so still have the attitude.

Or maybe that's bollox and the explanation is that most vegetarians do it for fashion and are shallow individual who like to put themselves on a pedestal and feel like they're somehow better than others???

dazh, speaking as someone who's been vegan for over 20 years, i'd say that was spot on.

As a herbivore/carnivore I have little problem with veggies I like to think as a "meat eater" I do you a service. Once you have milked said cow that had to have a calf to produce your milk I eat the bit you don't want, the calf.

Err, no. Male calves from dairy herds are generally unsuitable for human consumption, so end up as pet food. A small percentage are raised as "rosé" veal.

Maggie Thatcher found sinking the belgrano acceptable, because she resolved it personally does that remove her moral obligation?

Actually, she probably found it acceptable because defending yourself proactively against a threat of violence is perfectly legal and in fact really just basic common sense.

Imagine how many people would be grizzling like babies had we suffered huge losses because the Belgrano hadn't been stooped?

It should be noted that the leader of Argentine naval task force also accepted the Belgrano sinking was acceptable.

Still, military experts and legals teams v/s the media and some-uneducated ignoramuses, hmm, hard to know which side could be right isn't it. 😯 🙄

Only read the first page, but I saw this come up again:

It takes a lot more land to breed animals than it does to grow grain.

And I have no idea how that can make sense. You can't replace meat with grain, can you? Meat is protein.

I'd like to see some comparisons between meat and all the legumes/seeds you'd need to replace them. And not just intensively reared US beef, but also including chicken (free range and otherwise), and hill farmed UK lamb or mutton.

Actually, she probably found it acceptable because defending yourself proactively against a threat of violence is perfectly legal and in fact really just basic common sense.

I'm aware that arguments can be advanced for and against, but please do not pretend that it's clear-cut, because it isn't.

and I watch cans of carcinogen-contaminated horsemeat-filled products pulled out of supermarkets

I think tinned tomatoes are one of the worst for carcinogens, aren't they? Apart from the tobacco which is also on the shelves, and is vegan.

Those tomatoes have been shipped around the world too, haven't they? As opposed to the lambs that I can see from my window...

I eat meat but I would consider myself a vagitarian.

And I have no idea how that can make sense. You can't replace meat with grain, can you? Meat is protein.

I'd like to see some comparisons between meat and all the legumes/seeds you'd need to replace them. And not just intensively reared US beef, but also including chicken (free range and otherwise), and hill farmed UK lamb or mutton.

I don't understand your point? Animals turn their food into protein very inefficiently - I think it's something like 10:1. Land used for raising animals or growing grain could also usually be used for growing other crops - which will be much more efficient than producing meat.

As for hill sheep farming - any lamb you buy this time of year will come from animals kept in sheds over winter and fed on grain. I'm not sure how much UK lamb actually comes from hill sheep farming - most of it round here seems to be on improved pasture.

What I want to know us why is there no meat option at a vegetarian restaurant!
I mean you go to any other restaurant then they cater for veggies!

If that's not imposing your beliefs on someone I don't know what is!

just loads of meat eaters with massive chips on their shoulders

Mmmm, chips. I'll have mine cooked in animal fat please.

If that's not imposing your beliefs on someone I don't know what is!

Have to admit, never knowingly been to a veggie restaurant and double checked the menu.

But on a personal front, when meat eaters come round for a meal. We cook them a meal with meat in.

However, the above is easy as my decision to not eat meat has very little to do with ethics.

hmmm chips

Dreaming of a chippy bacon and egg butty..... hmmmmmm

Them darn pigs, its a weakness

I mean you go to any other restaurant then they cater for veggies!

Utter bollocks

I don't understand your point? Animals turn their food into protein very inefficiently - I think it's something like 10:1. Land used for raising animals or growing grain could also usually be used for growing other crops - which will be much more efficient than producing meat.

But animals CAN turn grass into protein. We can't do that. I've heard the statistic that you get 7x more calories if you simply eat the grain than if you turn it into meat - but we can't live on just grain. Yields per acre for legumes are probably a lot lower than wheat, I'd imagine, and it may be more intensive to grow and harvest. Also, how much land is actually suitable for beans? We can't even grow lentils in this country commercially, can we? Not sure.

I'm just trying to look behind the over-used quotes, since I am sure they don't tell the whole story.

I'm not sure how much UK lamb actually comes from hill sheep farming - most of it round here seems to be on improved pasture.

Round here, in Wales, there's a lot of upland sheep farming. I try and buy Welsh lamb.

Mmmm, chips. I'll have mine cooked in animal fat please.

The chippy where i grew up used to fry their chips in lard...best chips i've ever had.

What I want to know us why is there no meat option at a vegetarian restaurant!

I was similarly outraged at the menu of my local italian restaurant: can a man not order a curry anywhere he likes any more?!

The chippy where i grew up used to fry their chips in lard...best chips i've ever had.

I ate some lardy chips by accident recently. They tasted like the smell of an average McDonalds. Bloody awful it was. I will however admit that chips which are cooked in the same oil as fish taste very nice.

Wow. Just wow.

OP trolling or being obtuse for another reason? Just so you know, cheesy, your shockingly terrible 'counter-argument' in no way discounts the equally terrible 'argument' you attempt to counter. Really bad - you should be very ashamed.

Molgrips - what the wobbly blue hell are you rambling on about? Plenty non-meat protein in the veg world. Farming animals for meat is far less efficient in resources and output than farming crops. You do know that an awful lot of crops go to feed the animals don't you? Even more when the pastures have been flooded and grass has been unavailable.

Here is a BIG figure from the USA:

Field corn (also known as dent corn or simply, corn) occupies the majority of the corn acres in the United States, with 93.6 million acres planted in 2007 and 86.0 million acres in 2008. Of the 14.4 billion bushels produced in the United States in 2007, 42% went to animal feed, 22% to produce ethanol, 17% to export, 9% for domestic food uses, and 10% surplus.

A bushel is ~35 litres volume.
If half of that land were given over to not feeding animals for meat, a lot of world hunger could be stopped. Now.

Loathed to reference Wiki, but this has several studies linked, so good as a primer to 'look behind' things:
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production ]Environmental_impact_of_meat_production[/url]

Molgrips - what the wobbly blue hell are you rambling on about? Plenty non-meat protein in the veg world.

Don't get angry, I'm just interested in the facts behind the soundbites.

I know there are non-meat protein crops, I just want to clear up the figures. I've read comparisons of wheat vs meat for land use, but not legumes or other protein crops.

You do know that an awful lot of crops go to feed the animals don't you?

In some cases more than others, but yes of course. I'm wondering if that's actually necessary. I'm not anti veggie, I'm just in search of more information.

I have a suspicion that the figures that people quote are cherry picked to make meat sound as bad as possible. I think that some meat could be sustainably produced, and I'm sure that agricultural meat rearing practices are nothing like as efficient as they ought to be.

I've given you some.
You need about 56 grams of protein a day. A glass of milk, 3oz of meat/fish, some beans and some yogurt would give you that.

If we reduced the meat we eat and it went back to being something 'special', we'd be healthier and there would be more land available to grow crops for humans (including the poor ones who can't afford the western lust for meat) and alleviate many of the problems that poverty and climate chnge bring. As former 'developing nations' grow, many increase their desire for meat, putting further strain on world food production.

I'm sure that agricultural meat rearing practices are nothing like as efficient as they ought to be.

have a look at some of the American feedlot methods. Cattle on concrete, fed (genetically tweaked) corn, pumped full of preventative medical products, hormone enhanced. Very efficient indeed, not very natural at all. Mono-culture farming is also terrible environmentally, so what efficiency are you convinced isn't being achieved and to what gain?

You need about 56 grams of protein a day. A glass of milk, 3oz of meat/fish, some beans and some yogurt would give you [s]that.[/s] explosive diarrhea

have a look at some of the American feedlot methods

Seen it first hand, I totally agree.

I've also seen cattle on millions of square miles of semi-desert ekeing out a living.

Cattle on concrete, fed (genetically tweaked) corn, pumped full of preventative medical products, hormone enhanced. Very efficient indeed

I'm talking about people fed against land use or energy use. You already said it was NOT efficient in those terms. The farmers might call it efficient in terms of money in vs beef out though.

If we reduced the meat we eat and it went back to being something 'special', we'd be healthier and there would be more land available to grow crops for humans

Hard to argue that we don't eat a lot more meat than we need to. I'm sure I could eat a lot less, and we're probably way down on what a lot of people eat.

So is the argument not to totally get rid of animal farming, just reduce it somewhat?

So is the argument not to totally get rid of animal farming, just reduce it somewhat?

Probably, but that isn't what badly-formed OP was about.

I mean you go to any other restaurant then they cater for veggies!

They really don't. My OH is veggie and most places are ok these days but still there's plenty where there's no veggie option whatsoever, or one crap option. I cook mostly vege food at home and can make some really interesting, tasty stuff with a bit of effort, so there's no excuse really.

I mean you go to any other restaurant then they cater for veggies!

Not naming names, but a certain bunkhouse at Afan is carp for veggies....
The veggie option was cheesy chips..
In the morning the eggs were in the tray with the sausages.
Simple things like that a lot of folks don't think about but effectively they are reducing their customer base which can't make good business sense.

It really is much, much better at pubs and restaurants these days but still you struggle to find much of a choice beyond pasta bake or lasagne..

The single veggie option at quite a 'foodie' pub near me was grilled beef tomato... Oh the ironing.

I once went cycle-touring in France with a friend who was a vegetarian. And who didn't speak French.
After 2 weeks I was fed up with explaining to supercilious waiters that, no, he wasn't ill and no, roast chicken wasn't a valid vegetarian option. And he was pretty tired of a diet of chips and salad.

Mainland Europe can still be hilariously crap for vegetarians. Often people seem to think that having a few little bits of ham or bacon in something is fine, and will even say 'no that's not meat'. 😆