Suppose I say (I’m not, just to be clear here) that 87.3% of all vegetarians have below average IQs. And 93.2% of the male vegetarians have abnormally small penises. Now suppose that someone else says this is nonsense. Who are you going to ask to prove it? That’s right, the person who made the claim. Try again.
Also, it took Satori less than 1 minute to copy and paste that crap from one of his veg-head (his phrase) spam friends. I’m not interested in spending an hour researching each point just to satisfy you it’s false. If you have faith in Satori, bully for you.
Angel of the Lord: thanx for the kind words. “Diet for a New America” is the book from which all those facts, however you’d like to take them, were cited. Sorry for not keeping with protocol.
Bill H.: not a born-again, but appreciate your efforts to categorize me. I do not distance myself from people who are militant about vegetarianism or any other “ism”, and don’t recall saying I do. I do not consider myself one of them because I can accept that what works for me may not work for others, and I don’t expect anyone to concede to my view simply because I say so. At best I will share what I know and let anyone else come to their own conclusions.
I find your sweeping judgements interesting, even a bit amusing. You know virtually nothing about me, have read a meager few paragraphs of my thoughts, and from this feel you can decidedly conclude that I am uneducated, unbalanced, and even abnormal.
Like anyone else, even you, I am educated in some ways and not in others, and balanced in some ways and not in others. I’m sure many would think I’m abnormal, but many would not. The concept of “normality” is relative at best, no? I find your quickness to insult and judge quite abnormal, but that is only my perception, and does not mean that you ARE.
As for “replacing words in the name of honesty” as you would say (ie: referring to “meat” as “animals” or “flesh”), again, I suppose it’s perception at best. I recognize that meat comes from animals, that chicken legs are in fact, legs of chickens. Is a chicken leg or a cow’s rib NOT body parts from an animal? I admit, I don’t appreciate euphemisms. It’s a personal thing. You can insult and judge me for having this perception, but at the end of the day, my recognizing that meat is animal parts is much more grounded than you labelling me abnormal and unbalanced for doing so. Meat IS animal parts, regardless of your opinion of that fact or me. Your apparent hostility about my perception is curious indeed.
Re: what you refer to as “nutty statistics” - they’re FACTS, which are different from statistics. You find the facts “nutty”, and that’s okay. You’re entitled to think whatever you like.
GuanoLad: you’re right. The killing of animals for food is a totally natural thing. When was the last time you went out and shot yourself dinner? It’s AGRIBUSINESS that’s unnatural.
Milroyj: I agree that telling it like it is does often create antagonism. The facts I cited are not unsubstantiated. As mentioned above, they were compiled as part of John Robbin’s research for his fairly well-known book “Diet for a New America”.
Bill H: I find it fascinating that you brought up marijuana users who want the plant legalized because they recognize the uses of the plant which extend beyond smoke. Again, your quickness to negate their perception because they smoke pot amazes me. You don’t have to smoke the plant to realize the incredible value of the cannabis plant. I find your judgements very telling. From what you’ve stated, it appears you’d be content to wipe every tree off the planet before conceding that some potheads were maybe onto something sensible and true, simply because of your own apparent preconceptions about people who smoke pot. (and to settle any assumptions your mind may be creating about me right now, no, I don’t smoke it. But of course I’m for legalization.) I heartily recommend Jack Herer’s “The Emperor Wears No Clothes” as a starter for anyone who wants to know what all those “militant pot-heads” are on about. I’ll spare you all the facts I know - it’s a whole other conversation and I’ve unwittingly caused enough antagonism for today.
emorphien: donating food to the starving in the world is a band-aid solution. Recognizing the policies which cause the starvation and replacing them with policies which allow each of us to have enough food in a day is what needs to happen. You don’t have to be concerned if you don’t want to, but don’t deny facts.
Tony Montana: some do think pork is good. There are even those that think haggis is good. Whatever works for you.
are you referring to what I said? boo hoo.
as for someone waving meat in your face, thats very disrespectful and waay out of line.I may make a comment about me liking meat, but not your choice. I sat and ate w/a vegetarian at work. I did ask a few questions but not in a disrespectful way, I was curious.
No. You have come here with an agenda to push. You have not come to listen and you have not come to be neutral. Your words make your intentions crystal.
As I hope you were able to understand in my post, I referred to you as “abnormal” because the definition of the word “abnormal” is someone who is outside the norm, not average. And the word “unbalanced” means one who is not in the center, but rather to one side. I chose those insulting words to demonstrate what it feels like when you choose to use the words “flesh” and “animals” instead of meat. Did you lie? Of course not; I’m perfectly aware of where meat comes from. But your choice of words made your true intentions clear: you are here for a fight.
Here is even deeper evidence of the above. Your insistance that you are “only speaking the truth” leaves two possibilities: a) You honestly don’t understand or b) you are here for a fight.
Fine. Go do your homework. Go get cites for everything you posted, including why the logic works. As I said in my last post, you cutting and pasting some spam doesn’t make you a debater, and your calling them facts – wait; I’m sorry, you called them FACTS – does not make them so.
Bill, you did not “refute” my claims, you discarded them with nothing but judgements and insults. If you want to refute them, then you would spend an hour, or more even, researching every point I made to prove them false. I’m somehow not surprised that this endeavor does not interest you.
“refute - prove falsity or error of (statement, opinion, argument, person advancing it), rebut or repel by argument.”
- English Dictionary
I am not a vegetarian, but I would be if not for chicken/turkey/fish and the occasional hamburger. I coulkd really are less if someone is a vegetarian or not. It is not really a big deal.
The only thing that really bothers me, is whan vegetarians try to force me to be one. I don’t try to force tou to eat meat, so why do you force your beliefs on me?
No dear. The rolleyes smiley was for you, because the “it tastes good” comment was old long before it was ever used in Pulp Fiction. The rest of my comment was “in general”.
So, now that I’ve refuted your definition of the word “refute”, please look to the meat of the matter (pun fully intended) and explain why you are happy to make two pages of claims (which you describe as “FACTS”) with no intentions of backing them up. At all.
The problem here is, you brought up “stats” that you didn’t claim sources so BillH could easily go to read the sources and indentify who or where they come from. A statement you wrote does not give him any other information that you have these stats.
In fairness to him and others that asked for a cite, if you can’t provide a cite then most people here will be highly scepticle (sp.)
< shrugs >
That’s usually how it works, pretty much no matter what forum you post it in here people will ask where you got your information and if you can’t cite it it becomes a difficult thing for anyone to swallow.
Kinda like if I say “The moon is made of cheese” and until I can come up with the facts and a cite to back that up, most (generally 90%) of the people here (old and new alike) will question your material, regardless if you think it’s true or not.
I am a vegetarian, and am regularly harrassed by people about it. At a party, at work (one of my coworkers often calls me a “granola eater” with mocking disdain), at Dopefests, whatever. I don’t take it seriously and am not offended, but it does bug me when I see threads like this wherein meat eaters complain about how rude and pushy vegetarians are. I would never tell anyone else how to eat - I think most people here, veggie and omnivore alike, would agree with me that it is extremely impolite to criticize another’s dietary choices. But veggies get stuck with the bad rap.
Let us take it for granted (for a moment) that if the US cut meat production by 10% then there would be enough extra food grain in the US to feed 60 million people. Do we have any reason to believe that these 60 million people would get fed?
Satori, I tried to find stats for this and can only offer up NZ dairy farming ones. In NZ we run (approx) 1 dairy cow per acre. Avg. dairy cows are only around the 1,000 pound mark, and the avg. herd (from the stats I could find) “churns” (i.e. culls old cows and gains new) at 9-10% per annum. I’m not sure what happens to the old cows… but I’m betting pet food and low grade mince. That seems to me to be 1/10th of a cow, or about 100lbs per acre. (The heard also produces about 800lbs of dairy products per acre per year). I have zero doubt that beef farming gets less pound per acre, but I have trouble beleiving it is 0.
Interestingly in NZ the biggest cause of greenhouse gas is Cows. Which, being a primarily agricultral/dairy country explains our problems in meeting the Kyoto agreed emission levels. I’m having problems too with the “50 times” claim for non-meat diets. Much of the fossil fule burned in the US goes to make electricity, for air-con and heating (depending on the season). I’m not sure how diet will affect this.
To the best of my knowledge, farm subsidies in NZ were removed in 1984. Current cost of beef in NZ: about NZD$10 per kilo for mince, NZD$20 kilo for eye-fillet steak. Translate to USD as you like. NZD worth $0.42 US… but salaries about same in local currency so cost to me is about dollar for dollar.
I believe I am much more open to listening than you think, Bill. I apologize if my language unsettles you, but that is your problem, not mine. I am not pushing an agenda. And I am as neutral as anyone can be (absolute objectivity being impossible as we each experience the world subjectively).
If abnormality constitutes not being average, than I am proud to be abnormal. Who’d want to be average?
Your claim that my insisting that I am speaking the truth means that I a)honestly don’t understand or b)am here for a fight intrigues me. I assure you I am NOT here for a fight and would like to know what you believe I don’t understand.
As for those “nutty facts”, I have done my homework. Wouldn’t have posted them if I hadn’t. I have cited the published and respected book from which those facts are derived - I’ll plug it again: “Diet for a New America” by John Robbins. The complete bibliography can be found in the back of this book.
I do not think of myself as a debater. The facts were not cut and paste from “spam”, as you so kindly assume. I transcribed them into my computer myself from the book (one more plug for those who didn’t get it yet: DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA BY JOHN ROBBINS). And they will remain facts until anyone can prove otherwise. I invite you to disprove me.
I am not pushing an agenda. I am not saying vegetarianism is superior to other diets. I choose it for my own reasons. As I stated in the original post, I offered the information I know about the larger picture to those who perhaps had not considered it before. They are facts. Do with them what you will. Renounce meat and get all militant about veganism if you want to. Ignore the facts and eat a cow a day. Or just take them for what they are: information at your disposal. Make your own choices. I personally strive to make INFORMED choices, which is why I have this kind of information in my head and on my computer. The citation was offered to those who feel open to the same.
So… everytime I stop in at the Golden Arches and order a 1/4 pounder 55 sq ft of Amazonian forest is destroyed?!
I can entertain the thought that if the number of 1/4lbs consumed in 2001 is greater than the number in 2000 then forest gets cleared, but surely if the total number remains constant (or drops) the forest is safe. To say that forest is cleared for every burger is somewhat misleading, and could be uncharitably called lying with statistics.
milroyj: one more time. They are facts which were compiled by JOHN ROBBINS for his book DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA. I did not cut and paste from anywhere. I transcribed them myself from the book.
For the record and for the last time: I AM CITING JOHN ROBBINS’ BOOK DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA AS THE SOURCE TO WHICH YOU CAN GO TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT LIST OF FACTS I OFFERED EARLIER.
What a load of rubbish. Satori I suggets you find another board for ignorant tripe, OK, it won’t wash with anyone here.
This, people, is exactly the type of high-handed, sanctimonius BS Iwas referring to in my previous post.
It’s equally frustrating when people keep repeating Urban Myths, particularly on this message board. Virtually everything you posted has been debunked thouroughly on these boards, but in an attempt to demonstrate the level of vearcity of your claims I’ll address some of the more ridiculous ones.
Yes, and little pink unicorns inhabit the sugar bowl where I keep my tabs. Groovy man, but witnessing is preserved exclusively for GD.
Absolute rot. Even in ruminants the protein utilisation rates are around 60-70%. ref. Pajak, J. J. Zebrowska, T. Slowak, M. Dlugolecka, Z. 2000. Fattening of Polish Lowland lambs on diets with different energy and
protein levels. Journal of Animal & Feed Sciences. 2000. 9: 3: “A tendency towards somewhat better protein utilisation (586 vs. 674 g/kg) from isoenergetic rations was observed in lambs fed rations containing 14% CP than in those receiving 16% CP”
Added to this ruminants can actually produce their own protien simply by being fed fertiliser. This about 85% more efficient that fertilisng fields to produce protiens via crops.
Non ruminants can do slightly worse depending on dietary makeup, but evn the worst of the lot: pigs have a protein conversion rate of 30 - 60%. Ref Yatsenko, K. L., 1986. Effect of the level of protein nutrition on
growth and metabolism in pigs. Zhivotnovodstvo. 1986. No. 1. “The pigs took 4.12, 4.13, 4.20 and 3.98 feed units and 349, 351, 356 and 339 g digestible protein/kg gain.”
Galimov, Sh. Tkachev, V. Ten, A. 1983, Utilization of rice meal by young pigs. Svinovodstvo, Moscow. 1983. The pigs gained on average daily 500, 501 and 501 g and ate 5.1, 5.0 and 5.1 feed units and 595, 585 and 590 g digestible protein to gain 1 kg.
Absolute rubbish. Much of the protein in grains is found in the kernel which is largely indigestible to humans but easily digestible to livestock. Whole wheat for human consumption recies as protein digestability score of only 40%. Meat products recieve a score of 100%. Looking at this it can be seen that even with a pig with a conversion fator of 60%, 1 kg of grain protein= 600g of bacon protein with 100% digestion = 600g of human tissue. Eating the wheat directly we have 1kg of grain protein = 400g human tissue. Obviously animal protein is a more efficiient way of producing protein even if we rely on the worst case examples. If we use cattle and sheep, mixed roughage/grain diets and urea suplements we can get protein conversion rates of kg grain= 5-6 kg human protein.
Another lie. Animals in feedlots are commonly stocked at 40 sq ft/hd.. That translates to 1089 cattle/acre. Allowing a fairly conservative turnoff weight of 200kg and a fairly conservative dressing percentage of 50% we get about 49500lbs of beef produced on 1 acre.
I can;t tell offhand if that figure is right, it sounds outrageous, but of the land devoted to beef production approximately 70% is unsuitable for any other type of agricultural endeavour because of a lack of water, climate or otehr environmental variables. Even if this weren’t so, so what? Beef has been demonstrate to be one of the most efficient forms of protein production in the owrld. We should be encouraging it on those grounds alone.
Absolute tripe. Strangely enough cattle survived for a long time before people were around by etaing grass. They seemed to grow up and have calves despite no soybeans and no grain. Most (in the range of 70%) of the world’s beef is produced by free-range grazing and uses absolutely zero soybean or grain.
Of course even for grain fed animals feed conversion efficiency is >20%. Any animal not managing >20% performance on a grain diet would be culled at first muster. Ref Mabuku, O. Hatendi, P. R. Medlinah Mguni. 1996 Effect of feeding different mixtures of whole to milled maize grain in a complete diet on feedlot
performance of steers. Zimbabwe Journal of Agricultural Research. “The ratio of feed intake to liveweight gain ranked D>E>C>A>B>A, ranging from 5.0 to 5.8 kg/kg.” That’s a fair discrepancy with the 6kg/kg figure stated above.
Stated as fact. Go and do a search on this in GD. It’s far from being a fact.
According Wolman, W.G. & Riggs H.C 1990, The Geology of North America vol. 0-1, Geological Society of America approximately 50% of topsoil losses are attribuatble to natural attrition and 60% of the remaninder to cultivation prcatices with the remainder being attributabel to a range of human activities including grazing. Sustainable grazing results in better grass conditions than would
exist if there were no grazing. Ref.Harrington, G.N., Friedel, M.H., Hodgkinson, K.C., Noble, J.C., 1984, Management of Australias Rangelands, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia
An outright lie. There are numerous laws that require feedlots to have eitehr ‘in house’ sewage systems or arrange for it to be transported to a facility approved by the EPA. See here for details
An in return for this the countries gain a stonger economy and an ability to provide infrastructure, healthcare and other little ‘luxuries’ that would be impossible without US dollars. The grasp of basic economics in this staemnet is woeful for someone who started his post by informing us of the capitalist conspiracy.
Why does this remind me so much of my last Pit rant?
Suffice it to say most US hamburger meat comes form US and Australian sources, neitehr of which consume rainforest. Again the lack of basic understanding of economics is applaing and the simplification of a complex argument ludicrous. Is this individual suggetsing that if people couldn’t grow beef their they would not clear it and hencforth produce no food?
A best estimate species extinction runs at about 200/year worldwide most from temperate regions.
People who drive fast are 4 times more liely to commit break and enters than peolpe who drive defensively, therefore driving fast causes people to become burglars. :rolleyes:
According to USGS total water withdrawn for livestock was 5,490Mgal/day. The quantity withdrawn for irrigation was 134,000mgal/day. The quantity withdrawn for commercial use was 9590Mgal/d. The amount withdrawn for industrial use was 27,100Mgal/d. The amount used for domestic use was 26,100 giving a grand total of 202280Mgal/d. That means that livestock use was 3% of irrigation use and total animal and plant agriculture 68% of the national total. To make Satori’s stement true more than 73% of irrigated land would have to used to grow crops for livestock to make his statement true. Another obvious untruth.
According tothis At an extreme range a beast uses 20 gallons of water a day. Allowing a turnoff at 4 years, ludicrous for grainfed animals, we have 29200 gallons or 132860 litres. According to this individual the avgerage destroyer has a displacement of only 110 cubic metres or about the size of a large room. I don’t think so Tim.
Wanna see someone get caught in their own lies? C’mon, it’s fun.
See above this individual (damn I wish this were the Pit) has said that “16 pounds of grain and soybean are needed to produce 1 pound of beef.” Now I’ve proven this to be a lie but just for fun we’ll let it ride. Soybean is less water efficient than dryland wheat, but anthing above 20% soybean in a diet is excessive, so roughly we should need 12.8lbs wheat@25 gallons + 3.2lbs soy@say 100 gallons = 320+ 320 gallons = 640 gallons of water to produce 1lb of beef according to Satori’s own figures above. Then he goes on to say:
Hang on, that can’t be right can it. Unless we’re also talking about the 29200 gallons the animal actually drinks, but then that’s not right either.
Ignoring of course the water subsidies given to heavy and light industry and agriculture. Of course the government subsidises dams and pipelines. It’s called infrastructure.
Oooh, ooohh, I’m gonna repost this in GQ so ANthracite can rip it to shreds.
Hang on, that means that the US uses 3% + whatever is used in domestic, plant agriculture, industrial etc. energy use. You’re saying that the single biggets consumer of fossil fuels in the US is animal agriculture. What a load of BS.
Which tells us what people?
So all you veges whose cholesterol is normal are going to die of heart disease 50% of the time.
Residues in what?
[quote]
in the US this year alone, 37 and 1/2 billion grasshoppers, 85 and 1/2 billion leaf miners, 5 and 1/2 billion aphids, 242 billion cutworm and 4 billion 147 million sawfly will be slaughtered to preserve plant crops. Makes the deaths of food vertebrates pale into insignificance doesn’t it.
50000000 thousand animals are slaughtered every minute to protect plant crops in the US.
AI accounts for less than 0% of fertilisation in the US.
Less than 5%
Kicking and dragging animls is against animal welfare laws.
raising crops is a competitive business; being humane means “costs will go up”.
the gross cost to net fruit crops is -2.00/kg harvest, it saves money.
the reason given by the fruit industry for not using the nets: “too expensive”.
Nah, we did this in GQ a few weeks back, there no impartial support for that statement at all.
There is medically no such thing as ‘too much protein’ in a product, that staement is total nonsense. ANimal products contain far less fat than wheta germ, sunflower, coconut or peanuts. Being meatatarian does not in any way prevent one from eating fibre.
What protein myth?
PLease go over to GD if you want to witness and I will cheerfully show your post for the ignorant, trendy pap that it is.
Thank you.
I’ve just reviewed this and seen the other ‘information’ Satori has posted. This post is too long already so I’ll adress those if I feel I need to. This should be more than enough to convince people the man has just posted abunch of lies that he read somewhere and swallowed.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of the type of people I referred to in my first post if I’d tried Satori. You’re a model vegetarian. Tahnk you for perpetratinga hijack that so brilliantly illustrates my point.
Militant offbalance types will say anything to get you on the bandwagon. Going so far as lying to your face. I live in AK, and tourism is HUGE here. I overheard one tourist say to his wife: “I thought the loggers cut down all of the tree’s here” So I said: “'scuse me,I overheard you and am curious as to who told you this?” he replied :" the logging protesters" I have found out a coupla suprising things from tourists about AK I didn’t know about such as: theres no more fish here because the “greedy commercial fishermen strip-mined the ocean” (no joke BTW)
…hold on a sec were getting OT, this thread is now closed, Oh wait I am not a moderator heh sorry…
Just throwing in my two cents worth, and hoping others follow my lead in ignoring this hijack (I mean, there are enough other meat vs. vegie threads out there)
I honestly think it’s not so much about the issue that gets people all hot under the collar. I think it says more about the actual people involved. I would never tell either person what they should or should not eat. Or that what they were eating was wrong, dangerous, stupid or whatever. Those people who would, have obviously no respect for other peoples choices. It reflects on the person !!!
Think about it, all you fundie animal-killers (omnivores) & protein-deficients (vegetarians) [sub] settle down, tongue is firmly in cheek[/sub]
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with either side asking interested questions about the others dietary choices, if this is welcomed, and perhaps debating with them on points made by either side. ** THIS IS WHAT ADULTS DO !!! ** Adults do not sit on either side of the dining table and hurl slogans at each other. Therefore, if you ever find yourself in a situation where someone is deriding your choices and uses a slogan or two, you can safely assume they are not adults, or capable of adult conversation.
(I am using the term adult, to signify how mature, responsible level-headed individuals act, not a specific age group)
That seems to me to be 1/10th of a cow, or about 100lbs per acre. (The heard also produces about 800lbs of dairy products per acre per year). I have zero doubt that beef farming gets less pound per acre, but I have trouble beleiving it is 0.