The war on meat

SlowBlowin

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Remember what happened the last time we depended on plants for food, that didn't work out too well.

Ive tried not eating meat for a short period of time, but having been raised next to a farm and eaten meat for 50+ years my body expects bacon and beef on a regular basis.

SB

gozunda

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I don't find it logical.

So there is not going to be enough land to feed the world population with meat = stop eating meat.

Surely the answer is the worlds population is too big.

This is normally countered with "so what are you going to do, kill people", but what happens when the population is too big to be fed with veg only, what do you do then ?

I don't have answer but I think the logical conclusion is there are too many people on little ole earth.

SB

Its not. It pure propaganda. All this bs is simply to supporting a extemist agenda because there are those who dislike animal farming for personal reasons and will throw any old ****e including the proverbial kitchen sink. Btw they don't like this been called out for what it is and theres those who are more focused on trying to find fault with the messengers pointing this out. But hey not really surprising tbh.

mikeecho

I Picked steaks in Lidl today 3 X 2 Irish sirloins for €9

I got €18 worth .. 12 steaks. a DOZEN STEAKS for less than €20

Might get another 3packs (6 steaks) tomorrow.. pop them into the deep freeze.

Also got 15g of caviar, for €10 .. someone will probably have an issue with that as well... I shouldn't mention the farmed smoked salmon., There'll be a linch mob outside my house at dawn.

Ultimanemo

gozunda wrote: »

Referred to now as 'climate change' . Afaik the logic is that the heating up of the globe causes local weather systems to go haywire ....

Yeah, climate change suits them better, you can't scare wet and cold countries by telling them: global warming will make you hot and dry, "climate change" comes handy here, if you are hot and dry they say: you will get hotter and drier, if you are cold they will tell you: you gonna freeze, or whatever you hate.

MFPM

mikeecho wrote: »

I Picked steaks in Lidl today 3 X 2 Irish sirloins for €9

I got €18 worth .. 12 steaks. a DOZEN STEAKS for less than €20

Might get another 3packs (6 steaks) tomorrow.. pop them into the deep freeze.

Also got 15g of caviar, for €10 .. someone will probably have an issue with that as well... I shouldn't mention the farmed smoked salmon., There'll be a linch mob outside my house at dawn.

You don't go for quality then?

There'll be a linch mob outside my house at dawn.

I think you'll find it's 'lynch' - all that sh!t meat not doing much for your brain!

YFlyer

emaherx wrote: »

So you are in favour of culling the world population?

SlowBlowin

YFlyer wrote: »

So you are in favour of culling the world population?

As predicted the kill question, please read my last post...

SB

Sorry it was not my last post but here is what I said:

"I don't find it logical.

So there is not going to be enough land to feed the world population with meat = stop eating meat.

Surely the answer is the worlds population is too big.

This is normally countered with "so what are you going to do, kill people", but what happens when the population is too big to be fed with veg only, what do you do then ?

I don't have answer but I think the logical conclusion is there are too many people on little ole earth."

YFlyer

SlowBlowin wrote: »

As predicted the kill question, please read my last post...

SB

Sorry it was not my last post but here is what I said:

"I don't find it logical.

So there is not going to be enough land to feed the world population with meat = stop eating meat.

Surely the answer is the worlds population is too big.

This is normally countered with "so what are you going to do, kill people", but what happens when the population is too big to be fed with veg only, what do you do then ?

I don't have answer but I think the logical conclusion is there are too many people on little ole earth."

I'm more bemused with the issue of people living in cities.

Should we have two billion stand alone houses scattered around the globe?

Dannyriver

mad muffin wrote: »

Fücking cünts. Compared to them my carbon footprint is like an ant to an elephant.

These are the kind of fückers ruining the earth. Not me. All they are trying to do is consume as much of the earths resources as they can whilst telling me I need to cut back lol. Fücking vampires. That’s all they are. Makes me so fücking mad. :mad:

A pox on them and their kind.

So lets ignore the message because we don t like the messenger. ?

emaherx

YFlyer wrote: »

So you are in favour of culling the world population?

Don't know where you got that from?

I'm in favour of cutting carbon emissions from fossil fuels that are releasing carbon that was stored in oil for millions of years and not blaming animals that are part of the carbon cycle.

mad muffin

Dannyriver wrote: »

So lets ignore the message because we don t like the messenger. ?

Oh I read the message loud and clear. Reduce your consumption, so we, the rich have more to consume.

LOUD AND FÛCKING CLEAR

Dakota Dan

Dannyriver wrote: »

So lets ignore the message because we don t like the messenger. ?

In this case the messenger is a hypocrite but I’m sure you already know that.

YFlyer

emaherx wrote: »

Don't know where you got that from?

I'm in favour of cutting carbon emissions from fossil fuels that are releasing carbon that was stored in oil for millions of years and not blaming animals that are part of the carbon cycle.

From the meme.

It is much easier to cut carbon emissions from people in large cities than in stand alone houses scattered everywhere.

emaherx

YFlyer wrote: »

From the meme.

It is much easier to cut carbon emissions from people in large cities than in stand alone houses scattered everywhere.

You got a lot from that meme.

The meme is still apt. Our current cities are a bigger issue for carbon emissions than cattle. It doesn't offer a solution or suggest the solution might be easy.

Don't think spreading out our population will help either as it will use more land and further reduce our natural carbon sinks.

Ultimanemo

Dannyriver wrote: »

So lets ignore the message because we don t like the messenger. ?

When the messenger is a liar, the message is likely to be a lie

batgoat

Ultimanemo wrote: »

When the messenger is a liar, the message is likely to be a lie

The Lancet Medical journal are a pretty well respected peer reviewed journal. People are free to create a piece of a research that debunks it and send it through the same peer reviewed process if they can back it up..

gozunda

batgoat wrote: »

The Lancet Medical journal are a pretty well respected peer reviewed journal. People are free to create a piece of a research that debunks it and send it through the same peer reviewed process if they can back it up..

The Lancet have nothing to do with the actual 'research'. There have been many controversies over some of the papers they publish. Including one of several withdrawn articles where data had been fabricated in an article.

The 'research' was funded by this crew

What exactly is EAT? ... EAT was founded in 2013 by Gunhild Stordalen, an animal right activist for the Norwegian Animal Welfare Alliance (and the wife of hotel tycoon Petter Stordalen). This couple who are listed as being amongst Europe’s richest individuals ... display a particularly lavish lifestyle despite their image as green avengers.

The Stordalens have both the means and networks to put their ideas into action, as their contacts include CEOs, politicians, and royalties.

And where budgets allow it, influence can be purchased: 3.5 million Norwegian Kronar was paid to Bill Clinton - who went vegan (briefly) in 2010 - for a one-hour speech at an EAT conference in 2014.

To get something published in the Lancet also costs serious money.

The fee has initially been set at $3000 per article for all Elsevier journals except those published by Cell Press, which have a $5000 per article fee, and The Lancet, which will have a feeof £400 per page.

artvanderlay

I think if we just ate what we can grow/rear in our own countries, it would be a start. You might have to do without avocados and bananas, but f*ck it! Get back to an indigenuous diet. This importing and exporting of food is not helping the planet. Look at the amount of land sitting idle in Ireland; grow everything we need, get high-tech green-houses going, whatever we need to reduce importing food. And I hate the idea of us exporting live animals to foreign countries, even China now. There is just no need for it. Cut back on that **** and it should help the planet a bit.

Ultimanemo

batgoat wrote: »

The Lancet Medical journal are a pretty well respected peer reviewed journal. People are free to create a piece of a research that debunks it and send it through the same peer reviewed process if they can back it up..

No questions about the lancet, he is talking about Gunhild Stordalen, If you conduct a well funded research you may be able to publish it in the lancet as you plug all the "holes".

emaherx

batgoat wrote: »

The Lancet Medical journal are a pretty well respected peer reviewed journal. People are free to create a piece of a research that debunks it and send it through the same peer reviewed process if they can back it up..

Like this?

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-09/tl-tld091018.php

Edit: link was borrowed from another thread.

nagel wrote: »

back in september they published this , good old butter and dairy,
They must have got a new veggie lover on board,
Linky https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-09/tl-tld091018.php

wakka12

Water John wrote: »

Not a scientific sample but had a family wedding, over 200 guests. 3 vegetarians for meal, 2 in the extended family and the third a neighbour, all female. No vegan. That to me seems to be the reality of the numbers.

Depends entirely on the demographic youre dealing with, in my year in UCD of the 35 girls theres at least 5 vegans and about ten vegetarians/pescetarians

silverharp

wakka12 wrote: »

Depends entirely on the demographic youre dealing with, in my year in UCD of the 35 girls theres at least 5 vegans and about ten vegetarians/pescetarians

the vast majority of vegans are female, probably a lot of churn in veganism too so most likely demographic is younger. Then you have the issue of young girls with eating disorder being attracted to veganism "as cover". you seem to have a peak group there, oddly or not i dont think i have ever met a vegan

Dakota Dan

wakka12 wrote: »

Depends entirely on the demographic youre dealing with, in my year in UCD of the 35 girls theres at least 5 vegans and about ten vegetarians/pescetarians

Around 0.5% of the worlds population are vegan.

Dannyriver

Ultimanemo wrote: »

When the messenger is a liar, the message is likely to be a lie

She s hardly the only one with this message now is she? Plus she has the overwhelming backing of science. As for the logic that if the messanger is a liar then the message is likely to be a lie then I wish Trump/Johnson/Rees-Mogg supporters were just as unequivocal with their assumptions.

emaherx

Dannyriver wrote: »

She s hardly the only one with this message now is she? Plus she has the overwhelming backing of science. As for the logic that if the messanger is a liar then the message is likely to be a lie then I wish Trump/Johnson/Rees-Mogg supporters were just as unequivocal with their assumptions.

Overwhelming backing of science?
Plenty of scientists speaking against it and it's only published a few days.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Another link about the report being flawed.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know%3famp

Dannyriver wrote: »

She s hardly the only one with this message now is she? Plus she has the overwhelming backing of science. As for the logic that if the messanger is a liar then the message is likely to be a lie then I wish Trump/Johnson/Rees-Mogg supporters were just as unequivocal with their assumptions.

And also...
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-we-fell-for-clean-eating
https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/eat-lancet-reports-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-sustainable-food-production/

https://twitter.com/SBakerMD/status/1085589745206358016
https://twitter.com/GHGGuru/status/1086461773836779520

whisky_galore

artvanderlay wrote: »

I think if we just ate what we can grow/rear in our own countries, it would be a start. You might have to do without avocados and bananas, but f*ck it! Get back to an indigenuous diet. This importing and exporting of food is not helping the planet. Look at the amount of land sitting idle in Ireland; grow everything we need, get high-tech green-houses going, whatever we need to reduce importing food. And I hate the idea of us exporting live animals to foreign countries, even China now. There is just no need for it. Cut back on that **** and it should help the planet a bit.

Schpud and turnip smoothie...yaaay.

I think the native food industry would contract or collapse if it was only relying on the home market.

gozunda

whisky_galore wrote: »

Schpud and turnip smoothie...yaaay.

I think the native food industry would contract or collapse if it was only relying on the home market.

You missed the old style Irish reliable - POC gardening.

Potatoes
Onions
Cabbage

In Ireland because of the vageries of our climate litte else except grass is reliable. Hell of a 'suststainble' vegan diet tbh. Hope we have enough wood pulp for toilet roll all the same : :pac:

Water John

Ireland's home market is Europe.

This conflation of vegan and climate change is false.

c.p.w.g.w

YFlyer wrote: »

So you are in favour of culling the world population?

Yes