Why aren't you a vegan!?

IrishKev

emaherx wrote: »

Says the person who wants to tar all livestock farmers with the same brush and constantly post very misleading information about same.

Some of my family are farmers. I've got nothing personal against any farmer. I just disagree with their practises. Name me one dairy farmer who doesn't use AI. Or find me one thing I've said about farmers that's untrue. I appreciate it's your profession and you've got a livelihood to make but this is valid discussion.

gozunda

IrishKev wrote: »

It comes across as very narrow minded if you tar all 'veganised' people with the same brush from one person's comment.

Also, 'outside forces'? That just sounds like a conservative us against them mentality. Appreciation of your own country and dietary choices don't really line up either.

I presume the poster is referring to the multitude of anti farming videos, films etc nearly exclusively produced in places like the states or Australia which are regularly trotted out to show the Irish yokels how bad farming is supposed to be how meat / dairy is the same as nuclear waste or whatever the scare story is today...

Look definitely not the first to trot out these type of stuff on boards like the China Study etc - similar proselytising has been going on for years tbh and it does nothing for the image of veganism imo. It's really not surprising that people are not convinced with the use of this type of stuff. People aren't fools or kids who are going to be convinced by some flashy film backed by plant food interests. So really - no not particularly surprising as per the thread title tbh...

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

Personally, I draw the line where the intention is. If I walk in a forest chances are I'll trod on some insects unintentionally. That's completely different to raising an animal specifically for profiting from their death

The intention of insecticide is to kill insects, plant food growers profit from killing the insects which is not the same thing as stepping on something in the forest.

The intention of a plough is to rip up the earth and anything in it's path.

Obviously I don't have any issue with growing veg most of what I eat is plant based just not all. But claiming your food is grown without pain and suffering to make yourself feel better is just nonsense.

PokeHerKing

If you get cancer doctors will tell you to cut out dairy and eat more vegetables. Why do they give this advice?

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

Some of my family are farmers. I've got nothing personal against any farmer. I just disagree with their practises. Name me one dairy farmer who doesn't use AI. Or find me one thing I've said about farmers that's untrue. I appreciate it's your profession and you've got a livelihood to make but this is valid discussion.

I'm not going to name you any farmers but I know a few and I don't know that many Dairy farmers but my next door neighbor is one.

Untrue and misleading are too very different things. How much water is needed to make a beef burger? And how much of that is not just rain watering a field. Large figures given purely for shock reasons there was 1, your group 1 carcinogens remarks was another. Showing aweful practices by factory farms in foreign countries has little to do with farming practices here.

gozunda

IrishKev wrote: »

Sorry mate but that makes zero sense. Replacing something I said with the word 'vegetables' and sticking italics around it to make it sound legible doesn't really make a valid counter-argument.
Your link was making a silly argument that if everyone went vegan we would have a massive overpopulation of animals which is just untrue. The animals wouldn't be there if there wasn't a demand for them. That's just simple logic.
Regarding mistreatment of workers on vegetable farms - as I've said earlier, buy in season - buy local, buy organic and buy from who you know.Edit: implying somebody is watching 'whacky foreign based propaganda films' is condescending.

The paraphrase was simply to show that comment was so general as to be meaningless.

Btw you need to read that link in its entirety - it's neither 'silly' nor is it just about abandoning animals.

But yes the fact is that there are billions of farmed animals on this planet. They are not going to magically disappear just because a very small minority of wealthy westerners dont like that.

Regarding mistreatment of workers on vegetable farms - as I've said earlier, buy in season - buy local, buy organic and buy from who you know.

Well there we are - buy local, buy organic and buy from who you know. Yup that goes for meat and dairy as well. I personally do not buy or consume any Australian agricultural produce. Thanks all the same.

Edit: implying somebody is watching 'whacky foreign based propaganda films' is condescending.

That was in reply to your rather strange ideas where leather comes from in this country. And well frankly that film is 'whacky' and propaganda imo. If you think that is condescending then thats your own impression. I can't help that.

IrishKev

gozunda wrote: »

I presume the poster is referring to the multitude of anti farming videos, films etc nearly exclusively produced in places like the states or Australia which are regularly trotted out to show the Irish yokels how bad farming is supposed to be how meat / dairy is the same as nuclear waste or whatever the scare story is today...

Look definitely not the first to trot out these type of stuff on boards like the China Study etc - similar proselytising has been going on for years tbh and it does nothing for the image of veganism imo. It's really not surprising that people are not convinced with the use of this type of stuff. People aren't fools or kids who are going to be convinced by some flashy film backed by plant food interests. So really - no not particularly surprising as per the thread title tbh...

Thank you for proving my point.

If you don't agree with somebody that's ok! Maybe just lay off on implying people who don't share the same opinion as you are 'fools' or 'kids' though.

emaherx wrote: »

The intention of insecticide is to kill insects, plant food growers profit from killing the insects which is not the same thing as stepping on something in the forest.

The intention of a plough is to rip up the earth and anything in it's path.

Obviously I don't have any issue with growing veg most of what I eat is plant based just not all. But claiming your food is grown without pain and suffering to make yourself feel better is just nonsense.

As I said earlier, there's a big difference between intentionally killing an animal to harvest its meat and planting some cabbage and unintentionally killing some insects in the process. One is completely avoidable, the other not so much. Veganism is about not harming animals as far as is practical and possible. I prefer to buy vegetables grown naturally without pesticides which is very possible.

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

Your link was making a silly argument that if everyone went vegan we would have a massive overpopulation of animals which is just untrue. The animals wouldn't be there if there wasn't a demand for them. That's just simple logic.

So, we'd either have to kill every last one of them making the extinct? Or the small number left will breed and without natural predators will require regular culling. It has to be one or the other.

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point.

If you don't agree with somebody that's ok! Maybe just lay off on implying people who don't share the same opinion as you are 'fools' or 'kids' though.



As I said earlier, there's a big difference between intentionally killing an animal to harvest its meat and planting some cabbage and unintentionally killing some insects in the process. One is completely avoidable, the other not so much. Veganism is about not harming animals as far as is practical and possible. I prefer to buy vegetables grown naturally without pesticides which is very possible.

Like I said Insecticide is intentionally killing. Where do you buy vegetables without insecticide? Organic growers use it a lot and organic pesticides are not healthy.

IrishKev

emaherx wrote: »

I'm not going to name you any farmers but I know a few and I don't know that many Dairy farmers but my next door neighbor is one.

Untrue and misleading are too very different things. How much water is needed to make a beef burger? And how much of that is not just rain watering a field. Large figures given purely for shock reasons there was 1, your group 1 carcinogens remarks was another. Showing aweful practices by factory farms in foreign countries has little to do with farming practices here.

Just because you see something happening in a different country (with very strong Irish roots btw) that doesn't mean it doesn't affect or apply to us. I've linked videos in previous posts from the UK that are very similar. I'm fed up of the "That's happening in *country*, therefore it doesn't go on here" argument.
Also it's not just cows - battery hen farms are very much alive here.

Every point I made that you've pointed out there is true. If you can prove any of them wrong let me know.

IrishKev

emaherx wrote: »

So, we'd either have to kill every last one of them making the extinct? Or the small number left will breed and without natural predators will require regular culling. It has to be one or the other.

What a silly argument. It's not like the whole world is going to go vegan tomorrow. But demand has been shown to be reducing little by little. As demand decreases, so does supply.

emaherx wrote: »

Like I said Insecticide is intentionally killing. Where do you buy vegetables without insecticide? Organic growers use it a lot and organic pesticides are not healthy.

I eat home grown veg for a good chunk of the year. But again, they're different arguments. One is avoidable, in today's world the other one isn't.

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

Just because you see something happening in a different country (with very strong Irish roots btw) that doesn't mean it doesn't affect or apply to us. I've linked videos in previous posts from the UK that are very similar. I'm fed up of the "That's happening in *country*, therefore it doesn't go on here" argument.
Also it's not just cows - battery hen farms are very much alive here.

Every point I made that you've pointed out there is true. If you can prove any of them wrong let me know.

I've already agreed about all forms of factory farms. And yes pigs in particular are an issue poultry can be good or bad. But the representations of cattle farms is far from the norm here an the vast majority of beef consumed here comes from Irish Farms.

True but very misleading I've all ready proved that.You seem to be avoiding the misleading bit.

gozunda

IrishKev wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point.If you don't agree with somebody that's ok! Maybe just lay off on implying people who don't share the same opinion as you are 'fools' or 'kids' though.
As I said earlier, there's a big difference between intentionally killing an animal to harvest its meat and planting some cabbage and unintentionally killing some insects in the process. One is completely avoidable, the other not so much. Veganism is about not harming animals as far as is practical and possible. I prefer to buy vegetables grown naturally without pesticides which is very possible.

Nope sorry you must be mixing me up with someone else :pac:

And btw there is no need to be getting personal. Not going to rise to that sorry - this is a discussion so let's stick with that. I said

People aren't fools or kids who are going to be convinced by some flashy film backed by plant food interests.

That does not imply that "people who don't share the same opinion as you are 'fools' or 'kids' " so drop the shovel thanks.

But yes the promotion of slick movie productions regarding agriculture in other countries with the expectation that people swallow them hook line and sinker - does seem to imply that those watching should be as easily convinced as children / kids would be. And no people are not fools either.

The problem with all types of food production is that involves the killing of animals. Cultivation does this deliberatly and no it's not only insects. It is estimated that billions of land mammals die each year due to the cultivation of vegetables and growing arable crops. If someone doesn't want to eat meat or dairy - then that's ok with me - but hey just forget about trying to guilt trip others into somehow believing vegans are doing anything different.

So as you say buy local, buy organic and buy from who you know - and that goes for meat and dairy as well.

Bass Reeves

IrishKev wrote: »

It's not just the water they drink, but also the water used up in the massive amounts of food they eat.

It's not enough to just argue that because we're in Ireland, we should be OK doing X, Y or Z. Ireland creates the 3rd highest amount of carbon emissions in Europe per capita, and we export a hell of a lot of beef. We're contributing to the global emissions crisis as much as anyone else, and more than most.

Its hard still to quantify 6 million L of water for a fairly average animal. An animal killed under 30 months in Ireland being feed mainly grass and less than a ton of concentrates and may are fed less than half that is considered to consume over 6 million L of water. There own water consumptions over a lifetime would be sub 20K litres.

Just to put this BS in context these are the figures for the Niagara falls 75,750 gallons/second go over it on the American and Bridal falls that is 340K litres it would take 20 seconds of that used in the burgers of one animal

But this is only part of Niagra falls The horse shoe falls has a flow rates of 682K gallons/minute this is slightly over 3 million L/minute. So it would take over two seconds of water going over the falls to be equivilent to your water rate for a quarter pounder if a total animal was processed for quarter pounders.

Just to give you an idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTOHJZY2VRE

Just nearer home the flow rate for the Shannon is 208K litres/second. It would take 30 seconds of it water for burgers from the average bullock in Ireland.

Sorry I lake to see the science not a throwaway answer

atticu

Unearthly wrote: »

All I see is an opinion. Are opinions being preachy now?

Is the person who said eating meat is mandatory to be healthy being preachy or just having an opinion?

Where in their post did they say - ‘In my opinion’ or ‘I think’?

So, yes, it is being ‘preachy’.
In my opinion the poster was trying to pass it off as fact.

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

What a silly argument. It's not like the whole world is going to go vegan tomorrow. But demand has been shown to be reducing little by little. As demand decreases, so does supply.



I eat home grown veg for a good chunk of the year. But again, they're different arguments. One is avoidable, in today's world the other one isn't.

But the fact remains if the whole world went vegan tomorrow there would be a need to continue killing animals, it would be unavoidable unless we reintroduce the right amount of natural predators. All ready we need to do this with deer.

The fact that the world won't go vegan tomorrow means we will continue on eating and not wasting what we kill.

IrishKev

emaherx wrote: »

I've already agreed about all forms of factory farms. And yes pigs in particular are an issue poultry can be good or bad. But the representations of cattle farms is far from the norm here an the vast majority of beef consumed here comes from Irish Farms.

True but very misleading I've all ready proved that.You seem to be avoiding the misleading bit.

'Misleading' points:
- A burger requires an obscene amount of water to produce - true, and not misleading. It does take into account the water from grass roots, but it's accurate. If you and enough people don't eat it, the water isn't used. Not misleading.
- Processed meats are type 1 carcinogenics according to the WHO - true, it's a carcinogenic. I'll admit this could be taken out of context by comparing to tobacco.
- Showing practices that take place in the UK and Australia which, culturally speaking, are very close to Ireland. Australia is world renowned for its beef, as is Ireland. Just because that doesn't go on at your farm doesn't mean it doesn't go on anywhere else in the country.

That documentary might be seen as scaremongering by somebody in your profession, and that's fair enough. But there is a massive disconnect between what people eat and their knowledge about where it comes from. If you can't sit through seeing what happens in a slaughterhouse maybe you shouldn't be buying it and not thinking about its origin.

emaherx wrote: »

But the fact remains if the whole world went vegan tomorrow there would be a need to continue killing animals, it would be unavoidable unless we reintroduce the right amount of natural predators. All ready we need to do this with deer.

The fact that the world won't go vegan tomorrow means we will continue on eating and not wasting what we kill.

Mate that argument is discrediting everything else you say. Speaking in idealisms just isn't how the world works. If the whole world decided to stop drinking beer tomorrow what would happen? It doesn't matter, because that's unrealistic. But demand decreasing over time? That could happen.

wakka12

gozunda wrote: »

Has it really? I think you will find that is mainly propaganda and misinformation btw.

Meat and dairy products are also whole foods and remain a recommended part of a healthy balanced diet.

Heres the NHS least you accuse our own health authority of being biased

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/

Many dairy products are not whole foods. If they are whole foods then bread is a whole food.

ted1

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yet you come out with statements about the NRA sums up veganism for me.
That 'veganised' people are largely influenced by outside forces, and they do not really appreciate thier own country.

I’m not a vegan

decky1

Unearthly wrote: »

You are using anecdotal evidence to form an opinion. In science this is not a credible form of evidence

try telling the boss that when he see's you've stopped working cos your tired. Science LOL:D:cool::rolleyes:

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

'Misleading' points:
- A burger requires an obscene amount of water to produce - true, and not misleading. It does take into account the water from grass roots, but it's accurate. If you and enough people don't eat it, the water isn't used. Not misleading.
- Processed meats are type 1 carcinogenics according to the WHO - true, it's a carcinogenic. I'll admit this could be taken out of context by comparing to tobacco.
- Showing practices that take place in the UK and Australia which, culturally speaking, are very close to Ireland. Australia is world renowned for its beef, as is Ireland. Just because that doesn't go on at your farm doesn't mean it doesn't go on anywhere else in the country.

That documentary might be seen as scaremongering by somebody in your profession, and that's fair enough. But there is a massive disconnect between what people eat and their knowledge about where it comes from. If you can't sit through seeing what happens in a slaughterhouse maybe you shouldn't be buying it and not thinking about its origin.

I'm sure there are plenty of better farms in those countries also some videos of poorly treated animals does not depict practices on all farms their either to be fair.


Mate that argument is discrediting everything else you say. Speaking in idealisms just isn't how the world works. If the whole world decided to stop drinking beer tomorrow what would happen? It doesn't matter, because that's unrealistic. But demand decreasing over time? That could happen.

Yes the water was used by grass some of it may have passed through the cow and returned to the very same ground from which it came. In a county where irraggation is not required that just becomes a nonsense statistic.

Your exact words compared to tobacco, the site you linked to funny enough explicitly said that that particular comparison should not be made.


The last bit idealisim or not killing animals for profit or otherwise will remain nessacery. Please explain a scenario where it dose not. Mearly saying they will reduce makes little sense, there is only one way to reduce numbers and keep them down.

IrishKev

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Its hard still to quantify 6 million L of water for a fairly average animal. An animal killed under 30 months in Ireland being feed mainly grass and less than a ton of concentrates and may are fed less than half that is considered to consume over 6 million L of water. There own water consumptions over a lifetime would be sub 20K litres.

Just to put this BS in context these are the figures for the Niagara falls 75,750 gallons/second go over it on the American and Bridal falls that is 340K litres it would take 20 seconds of that used in the burgers of one animal

But this is only part of Niagra falls The horse shoe falls has a flow rates of 682K gallons/minute this is slightly over 3 million L/minute. So it would take over two seconds of water going over the falls to be equivilent to your water rate for a quarter pounder if a total animal was processed for quarter pounders.

Just to give you an idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTOHJZY2VRE

Just nearer home the flow rate for the Shannon is 208K litres/second. It would take 30 seconds of it water for burgers from the average bullock in Ireland.

Sorry I lake to see the science not a throwaway answer

It's definitely a fair question. But the water isn't just consumed by the cow, it takes into account every litre of water used in producing its feed, cleaning etc. Irish cows are only pasture fed for part of the year.

gozunda

IrishKev wrote: »

'...That documentary might be seen as scaremongering by somebody in your profession, and that's fair enough. But there is a massive disconnect between what people eat and their knowledge about where it comes from. If you can't sit through seeing what happens in a slaughterhouse maybe you shouldn't be buying it and not thinking about its origin.

The fact is that it is scaremongering and you dont need to personalise that or be a farmer to see it.

The film is clearly cherry picked and biased footage which lacks any balance. It's a film made in Australia about farming - which bears little if any resemblence to farming here. Happily most people here know a lot more about where their food comes from than you seem to suggest above. Personally not only have I sat through edited videos - I've been in a slaughterhouse and I was happy with not only how the facility was run but also the handling process prior to slaughter. The inspection process was A1 with a vet in attendance. The animals not aware of what was happening and death was quick without any welfare issues.
Most likley you wont believe that but there you go. People really need to stop relying on slick movies to inform their beliefs - too often it bears little or no resemblence to reality.

IrishKev

emaherx wrote: »

Yes the water was used by grass some of it may have passed through the cow and returned to the very same ground from which it came. In a county where irraggation is not required that just becomes a nonsense statistic.

Your exact words compared to tobacco, the site you linked to funny enough explicitly said that that particular comparison should not be made.


The last bit idealisim or not killing animals for profit or otherwise will remain nessacery. Please explain a scenario where it dose not. Mearly saying they will reduce makes little sense, there is only one way to reduce numbers and keep them down.

I already said that was taken out of context. What are you trying to prove?

You're flogging a dead horse with that argument (excuse the pun). Demand will not plummet overnight. As demand drops, farmers would reproduce less and less cows.

Unearthly

decky1 wrote: »

try telling the boss that when he see's you've stopped working cos your tired. Science LOL:D:cool::rolleyes:

Haha ok I won't continue with your discussion. You got me there with your debunking of science

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

It's definitely a fair question. But the water isn't just consumed by the cow, it takes into account every litre of water used in producing its feed, cleaning etc. Irish cows are only pasture fed for part of the year.

The bigger part of the year, most of the rest saved from the same land in the summer months in the form of hay/silage.

Have you a breakdown of where all this water is consumed by any chance? And how is the amount of water used an issue in a country where soil is literally saturated for most of the year.

How does this compare to irraggation required in places like California to grow almonds for example?

Unearthly

atticu wrote: »

Where in their post did they say - ‘In my opinion’ or ‘I think’?

So, yes, it is being ‘preachy’.
In my opinion the poster was trying to pass it off as fact.

Ok want me to go through your entire post history and see if you said 'imo' or I think?

Now that you have set the rules.

I reckon with these rules 100% of boards are preaching

gozunda

wakka12 wrote: »

Many dairy products are not whole foods. If they are whole foods then bread is a whole food.

No I'm not referring to foods which have undergone processing such as cheese strings or whatever. They are no more whole foods as ****e such a I can't believe-its-not-burger or whatever are whole plant foods

Milk and beef are wholefoods. They remain a recommended part of a healthy balanced diet.

IrishKev

gozunda wrote: »

The fact is that it is scaremongering and you dont need to personalise that or be a farmer to see it.

The film is clearly cherry picked and biased footage which lacks any balance. It's a film made in Australia about farming - which bears little if any resemblence to farming here. Happily most people here know a lot more about where their food comes from than you seem to suggest above. Personally not only have I sat through edited videos - I've been in a slaughterhouse and I was happy with not only how the facility was run but also the handling process prior to slaughter. The inspection process was A1 with a vet in attendance. The animals not aware of what was happening and death was quick without any welfare issues.
Most likley you wont believe that but there you go. People really need to stop relying on slick movies to inform their beliefs - too often it bears little or no resemblence to reality.

'Free range' chickens held in captivity, male chicks being killed instantly as they're useless, ducks using the ability to walk as they're meant to spend time in water - it's not just cows mate. But it comes down to idealogical and ethical differences. I believe we're no superior to animals and don't need to kill and eat them as there are better alternatives out there. You have a different opinion and that's fine.

emaherx

IrishKev wrote: »

I already said that was taken out of context. What are you trying to prove?

You're flogging a dead horse with that argument (excuse the pun). Demand will not plummet overnight. As demand drops, farmers would reproduce less and less cows.

No it wasn't, you defended your statement until you were called out on it, you even reworded it to make processed meat sound as bad as tobacco and radioactive material.


So you agree we need to and will continue to need to kill a certain number of animals?