I’m an omnivore. I have two different vegetarian friends. One is a charming person; when she and I go to lunch, we pick a mutually agreeable place and each order whatever we please. Neither of us comments on the other’s choice. It’s no different than going to lunch with a friend who has a food allergy or one who hates Chinese food.
The other friend, when discussing food, preaches, prosletyzes, exaggerates, distorts facts, and behaves as if this makes her a better person. I will not eat with her, because I am dangerously close to hitting her with a brick. She often eats lunch alone; I wonder why?
Sartori, you are displaying the exact behavior that so many people object to. It won’t win you any friends or converts. Also, please understand that a favorable book review does not qualify as a supporting factual cite.
>> - the amount of water used in the production of one average cow would be sufficient to float a destroyer.
:: scratching head:: Yes, and…? Are the seas short of water to float destroyers? Last time I went sailing there seemed to be plenty of water to float destroyers.
What kind of argument is this? Like the rest of that long list it sounds like bullshit to me. Lots of cattle produce lots of bullshit I guess.
**
As I have already pointed out, I have a whole series of books by a bloke called von Daniken, all best-sellers published over forty years and all demonstrating that the Earth has been visited by aliens for millennia. I have another best-seller by a gentleman called Hovind that states that dragons are real and there’s one living in the Congo. All three of these men are crackpots to be sure, but all successful crackpots. You are aware of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority?. Since you seem determined to post on these boards I suggest you familiarise yourself with it. It doesn’t wash around here and will be ignored for what it is every time you mention it.
von Daniken was joined in his crusade by Charles Berlitz, head of the world famous Berlitz language school. von Daniken continued to write successful books for decades. that means little green men really did build the pyramids.
Just more appeal to authority folks. No one seems to know who Robbins is or what his qualifications are.
I also suggest that you become familiar with the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. Comment ignored due to being ignorant and illogical.
Uh huh. So you make assertions that:
Animals have a protein conversion ratio of 5%
Animals have a 6.25% feed conversion efficiency
I provide cites from respected, peer reviewed scientific journals and you still say that those figures haven’t been discredited.
Like I said, you don’t base your beliefs on facts or science and that’s not real popular on a board that’s dedicated to fighting ignorance.
And every single independent source says that he has made things up. Who should we believe, you and von Robinson, or the world’s entire academic community?
Authors like von Robinson, Von Daniken and Hovind ignore established fact without any logical cause. Science is all about challenging established fact using logic, facts and reasoning. Ignorance consists of ignoring those facts inconvenient to your own world view.
I’d hardly say that 5 minutes searching on Ovid was moving mountains. The man is so easy to discredit it didn’t even require me to leave my desk, much less move mountains.
The difference is that von Robinson has strayed into the realm of science with his bullshit, and with science things can be indisputably disproved. The man’s assertions have been disproved within hours of being posted here and continue to be so with every post.
There you have it folks, the man believes that if the facts don’t fit his beliefs the facts have been derived as part of a massive conspiracy.
But seriously sartori, how do we know it’s not you and von Robinson who are the conspirators? It’d be a whole lot more reasonable to have a small conspiracy of one organisation, one man and his followers than a worldwide conspiracy of governments.
My God, I’m getting scared now. :rolleyes:
As Gaspode says, bullshit is written by those who can’t be bothered to research it.
Yes Sartori. Tell me, whom would you accept as an impartial source not spewing rhetoric. Since farmers, doctors, scientists, politicians, teachers, lawyers and judges all seem out to get you and von Robinson who do you trust. Is your world view such that anyone who doesn’t support your views is part of the conspiracy to discredit them? You do know how paranoid that sounds don’t you?
What, Alan Alda, a has-been actor best known for playing a drunkard on TV in the seventies says a book is well researched and I should believe him? If the book is well researched stop dicking around give us the cites and tell us why his views clash with scientific results that have been reproduced routinely since the 920’s? You’ve had enough time to post an entire review, now post three little cites. Hell I’ll settle for one. Juts one cite for where he got those figure on animal feed conversion ratios or US grain production.
People who set out to preach a quasi-religious hippy lifestyle choice cannot afford to consider the evidence that contradicts them.
The mans a proselytiser folks. This whole hijack has been pure spam to attempt to get educated intelligent people to buy a book that on the basis of three paragraphs has been totally discredited.
Whether I believe that is irrelevant. The scientific community believes that.
All hail the Messiah, for he hath come forth to lead us to a land of mil… (scratch that) tofu and soy milk.
This blokes starting to remind me of Hiryuu now.
No, it’s the opinion of the scientific community, the medical community, the governments of the world and so many other organisations I can’t be bothered to list them. You on the other hand have von Robinson and yourself.
I think I’ll let people make up their own minds now that they’ve been presented with the facts and credentials of both sides.
Not easily, no. Not given that it requires a worldwide conspiracy of government, industry, media, educational facilities, doctors, researchers and so on.
Not something I’d say easily, at least not with a straight face.
No, facts are facts. They don’t require understanding, just knowledge. You can draw whatever conclusions you like form the known feed conversion efficiencies of ruminants or the US corn harvest, but the facts are indisputable.
Yes, I can see that now.
Animosity?
Hostility?
Vehemence?
If this goes on much longer I’m going to take this to the Pit, then you’ll see vehemence, hostility and animosity. this forum’s moderated so I have to be polite and constrained. If you think this is hostile I suggest you back off now. Funnily enough a lot of people on these boards are hostile towards ignorance and quite vehement in their belief in the value of knowledge over ignorance.
That has certainly not been evidenced by anything you’ve posted to date.
Not even close. Facts have to be accepted. It’s a fact that animals that were fed 00kg of feed put on 20kg. That’s a fact. Now von Robinson can say that they didn’t put on that weight. Whatever. The fact remains. Ignorance comes from a selective acceptance of facts and an unwillingness to embrace any information that contradicts with ones previous beliefs.
Yep, that’s me. That’s what I’m known for around here and IRL. Towing the line, not upsetting people. A real PC, quite corporate clone all right.
Or I could just rely on 7 years of tertiary eduction in the Biological sciences including a Research Master’s degree and assume that von Robinson is a lying crackpot, and that you have swallowed everything he’s written.
Uh, Dale, the nitrates in the slurry that is spread on the fields do find their way into the water table. This is pretty well established. Yes, steps are taken to reduce the impact, but the impact is still there.
Well, yeah, they can eat grass. In fact, that’s what they’re supposed to eat. But feedlot operators don’t feed their cattle grass. They are fed a protein-supplemented grain feed, because the quality of the meat produced by animals fed this diet is much more marketable. Apart from being good grain that humans could eat, it’s really hard on the cattle because their digestive systems are really meant for a graminacious diet.
[quote]
[ul][li]Bloat is caused by the slime of starch-fermenting bacteria that entraps fermentation gases. If cattle cannot burp and expel the gas, the rumen can compress the lungs and the animal suffocates. Some ionophores are highly effective in preventing bloat.[]Acute rumen acidosis is caused by a sudden switch from forage to grain and the overgrowth of starch-fermenting, lactate-producing bacteria. When lactate accumulates, pH decreases (that is, acidity increases) drastically and the animal can die as water rushes from blood into the rumen.[]Chronic acidosis is caused by an accumulation of normal fermentation acids (acetic, propionic and butyric acids). The animal does not die but stops eating until the pH increases. Cattle feeders counteract chronic acidosis by adding buffers to the rations. Up to half the soda bicarbonate produced in the United States is used in cattle feed. Lime also can be added to the ration.[]Rumen ulcers occur because the rumen is not protected by mucous. Ulcers arise if the rumen pH remains low for more than a few hours. Bacteria such as Fusobacterium necrophorum can grow on the lactate and migrate through the ulcers into the blood.[]Liver abscesses are caused by F. necrophorum that travel from rumen ulcers to the liver. Some 13 percent of livers from grain-fed beef have abscesses and are declared unfit for human consumption.[]Lameness is caused by metalloproteinases that are released by inflamed rumen walls and travel via the blood to the hooves.[]Sudden death can be caused by excess starch in the intestines and an overgrowth of Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that produces a powerful enterotoxin.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Because of all this, a grain diet increases the need for heavy use of antibiotics, which creates another host of problems. Still, Grain-Fed = Tastier beef, and more of it, so that’s what they’re fed. Saying that raising beef is efficient because cows can eat grass is like saying that diesel engines have less fuel emissions because they can run on vegetable-based fuel. They don’t.
No one has said that it is unprofitable to raise animals for food. It’s not. It’s still not the most efficient way to feed a nation.
That being said, Tofu isn’t the most efficient use of soybeans. You puree the beans, boil them in plenty of water, strain it, and discard the pulp (okara). Now you have soymilk. You curdle the soymilk with epsom salts, drain off the whey, and press the curds. What’s left is tofu. Very inefficient - but worth it, if you’d rather eat tofu than baked soybeans. (To be fair, I use the whey for soup stock, and some people even use the okaru, although I don’t bother with it. The texture is gross.)
I choose to eat tofu and other soya-protein products even though it’s “inefficient,” so I’m not about to criticize someone for eating steak because they like it better than bread. That’s just silly. People don’t starve because resources are not used to the fullest. People starve because of economics. Grain surplus is destroyed keep the prices up, so feeding less grain to cows isn’t going to end world hunger.
Larry I’m thinking you missed Dale’s point. Meat production is a very efficient way to produce food under most circumstances. Just because some people choose to use inefficient production techniques does not mean we have to agree with VeraGemini’s assertion that meat is an inefficient food source. Cattle can eat grass, they can eat alfalfa, they can eat Acacia leaves and meat production from those foods is very efficient.
Yes their are environmental problems caused by feedlot waste, just as their are from vegan kosher breweries, orchards and grainfields. I think his point with using manure for fertiliser was that we can’t just discount the nergy savings of using meat as food and only calculate the costs, and then compare that to vegetabe production where we ignore the costs and only calculate the savings. By law cattle waste should be stored so that groundwater contamination is impossible just as by law pesticide spray drift should be minimised. Both types of agriculture have technical problems and deliberate actions making this impossible, but in context Dale’s comment that waste is stored baove ground is true. Accidents do of course occur and people do of course break the law but that doesn’t mean we can’t use the legal scenario as the standard. Most politicians probably take bribes too, but our benchmark for democracy is that politicians are accountable to the public via the ballot box. That’s the standard we use when we argue that democracy is the best form of government and I see nothing wrong with Dale using the legal standard as his benchmark for the best form of food production.
Yes, that’s right folks. Scientific results reproduced for well over a thousand years. Can’t argue with those results. Why, I was wondering where these figures came from, and then I happened upon Olaf the Spikeybearded Viking’s account of saving oodles of money and time on the pot by feeding grass to his cow and then eating ole’ Bessie, instead of mulching it up in his own guts…
Er. Ok. I’ve had my happy joy moment. Way to be Gaspode. Stick it to the man. And stuff like that.
Actually, I think you missed mine. I don’t disagree with Dale in substance. My point is:[ul][li]Yes, it would be a somewhat more efficient use of grain to simply mill it and make it into bread.[sub](Dale’s argument relies on a model of beef-production that is not in practice.)[/sub]The “efficiency” of meat production is a red herring. Most people like to eat meat, so it’s worthwhile to use the energy & resources to produce it. The “That Grain Could Be Used To Feed The Starving” argument is ludicrous and not really worth debating. Here is a good, objective debunking of it.[/ul][/li]
It is a fact that it takes nine pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. This is the basis of the “Vegetarian Fundamentalist” argument of beef’s inefficiency. There is a value judgement implicit in that argument: That we would be “better off” if we just kept the nine pounds of grain. This is not necessarily so.
This seems like sophistry to me. Almost all beef produced for human consumption in North America is raised on feedlots. Economics dictate that that’s the way it’s going to stay, so it doesn’t make any sense to argue that you could recycle lawn clippings for cattle-food.
I think that this underlines the point of the OP - People tend to “take up sides” and stretch their arguments further than they ought to.
(If it’s not clear, I completely agree with everything that you’ve posted, with the exception of what I’ve quoted, and fundamentally agree with Dale.)
I’m not normally one to tell people what they should or shouldn’t eat and drink, but might I casually suggest that you try switching to decaf? Or at least reading my entire post before you respond?
I did not say that vegetarian diets are always healthier than meat-based diets. I said that it’s an unsettled question, and that people should do a little research for themselves and make their own decisions. Most people who have posted in this thread and others agree with that standpoint. You, however, have declared with your supreme voice of authority that you have the one and only, absolutely, undeniably correct answer to this question, and that anybody who disagrees with you is an “ignorant jackass”. If you want to find somebody who apparently isn’t capable of debating this topic in a reasonable way, consult a mirror.
I didn’t mean anything in my comments. I did say, “I hate it when vegetarians force me to try to be one too”, and that was not really the best thing. Of all the vegetarians I know, only one does that, so I am sorry if I offended you, Kyla and any other vegetarians.
Neither one of those sites say that eating some meat is bad for you, and neither did I.
I’ll grant you that. We could quibble endlessly about what constitutes an “average Western diet”, for my purposes here I mean “A diet that is high in saturated fats and refined sugars and low in complex carbohydrates and fiber.”
By who’s definition? This statement makes no sense. I repeat, what axe do you have to grind against vegetarianism?
I have just posted evidence for my statement. Not enough? Give me time, I’m sure I can find lots more.
It is “hieously misleading” and pejorative of you to suggest that a vegetarian diet will lead to retardation of growth and brain development in children.
I repeat, I have nothing against those who choose to eat meat. The problems start when you use unsupported statements to disparage those of us who choose not to.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Larry Mudd *
My point is:[list][li]Yes, it would be a somewhat more efficient use of grain to simply mill it and make it into bread.[/li][/quote]
Quite true, but Veragemini’s post ignored the fact that beef can be produced quite happily with no grain. That’s the reason why his/her statement that beef production is inefficient is erroneous. As I stated in my response to her, we can agree that producing meat by feeding cattle a predominantly grain-based diet is an inefficient way to produce food. Producing meat is horrendously efficient. We can take agricultural wastelands and produce high protein, patable food. It’s impossible to get any more efficient than that.
True, it’s also a lie.
True, there is a value judgement. There is also an outright lie. It is no more a fact that it takes nine pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef than it is a fact that it takes 40 child slaves to make a floor rug. It can take nine pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef and it can takes 40 child slaves to make a floor rug. That is not to say that all, or even most, beef is made using grain or that most rugs are made using child slaves. I don’t forswear floor all floor rugs to end child labour and I don’t foreswear all beef to end feedlotting. A sensible person refuses feedlot beef and slave made floor rugs.
No, it’s not sophistry. It can take the body fat of a dozen executed prisoners to make 2 cakes of soap. It can take 3000, 0000 hectares of timber from European forests to power a house for 50 years, it can take the life of a Lithuanian child to perform a kidney transplant. Those things are all true (well my figures may be wrong, but you get the point). If I started saying that it does take the life of a Lithuanian child for people to get organ transplants, or that it does take human fat to make soap you wouldn’t be guilty of sophistry if you pulled me up. These people have a problem with feedlotting, that’s great, so do I. Arguments against feedlotting =/= arguments against meat. Inefficiency in feedlotting =/= inefficiency in beef production and soap production in Dachau =/= sopa production in Arkansas.
No, but it does make sense to say that you can, and in fact do, produce your beef using free-range methods or else purchase foreign beef that is free-range. This isn’t stuff that can potentially be done, this is stuff that has been done, is being done and will continue to be done. Arguing against meat consumption based on the performance of feedlots is like arguing against democracy based on Nixon, or against evolution based on the Piltdown man or against medicine based on thalidomide. It’s a special class of strawman, whereby the worst aspects of the worst case example of that which you oppose are projected onto the entire opposition. In short it is not a fact that it takes nine pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef just as it is not a fact that United States Presidents are corrupt, that the theory of evolution is based on frauds or that medicine causes birth defects. The word ‘some’ is very important in making all those sentences true and I really don’t think it’s sophistry to suggest that its ommision changes the meaning of the sentences dramatically.
An allegation I reject as applied to myself (well mostly). One can not argue that the meat industry is inefficient based on the feedlot industry any more than one can argue that negroes are violent criminals based on Mike Tyson. Both are examples of misplaced prejudice. Mike Tyson is a violent criminal, not negroes, and feedlots are inefficient, not beef production.
Ahem… The OP was “why do Vs and non-Vs get at each other?”, not “how do they, with examples?”
What bugs me is how vegetarians inconvenience omnivores, but not vice-versa.
Whenever people have a Chinese or other “shared-dishes” restaurant meal with my V brother around, it’s a pain. Rather than take a bit of everything, like everyone else, he assumes the right to scoff too much of some dishes and none of the others, thus unbalancing everyone else’s meal.
He and his V SO also expect special meals prespared for them at home. I will always eat anything they make - a meal without meat is no big deal - but is the opposite true? Nope.
Look at it this way. I don’t know what your brother and his sig-o’s motivations are, but if someone is a vegetarian for moral or religious reasons, then asking them to eat meat is asking them to compromise their values.
