Vegetarian

Poll Dubh · 03-02-2019 05:44PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Don't worry I'll est your share!

Have a rasher sandwich for me- I still get the odd craving!

wakka12 · 03-02-2019 06:55PM

Zorya wrote: »

Couldn't give a damn what people eat.
Lots of meat dishes look delicious.
I don't think one's diet has much of an effect on the planet - like someone once said washing out our jam jars while Big Oil keeps raping the planet makes little sense.
I'm not sure vegetarianism has much effect on one's health either. If people eat too many white carbs and sugar and junk, it doesn't matter that they don't eat meat. Moderation is the key.
I haven't eaten meat for 35 years though because I don't like the idea of slaughtering animals so that I eat, or the cruelty they inevitably endure in factory farming. That's about it. There are other ways to get enough food.
If the apocalypse comes though I will be the first one out on the hills with my spear stalking sheep. Hundred percent. Stay back or I might even eat you!

Who is using the oil created by Big oil? You, and all of us

One's diet has a huge massive impact on the planet, not individually, but collectively

Church on Tuesday · 03-02-2019 07:24PM

I eat meat because it's gorgeous but yeah, too much of anything is bad for you, not just meat.

What I don't like is vegetarians who look down their nose at you and feel morally superior because they don't eat meat. I've got this attitude many times.

I don't judge folk for being vegetarian or vegan because why would I?

Livestock is there to be eaten, it's the food chain and while we could all do with cutting back with everything that should be taken in moderation I don't think we should label meat consumption as a dirty thing all of a sudden.

Pac1Man · 03-02-2019 07:43PM

Free range chicken. Should I feel bad about eating it?

gozunda · 03-02-2019 07:47PM

Pac1Man wrote: »

Free range chicken. Should I feel bad about eating it?

Nope. If its your own free range chicken all the better. You know where it's been and what it's fed. Otherwise check up with your free range chicken supplier is source locally. Look for ‘Free range – total freedom’. There are pecise and stipulated regulations that must be met for free range chickens welfare and rearing. See: https://www.fsai.ie/faq/free_range.html

A report by the WWF-UK and the Food Climate Research Network found that in the UK, commercial tomato, pepper, and cucumber production is worse for the environment than chicken and turkey.

Also consider suppliers local to you when looking at how best to produce food with the lowest carbon footprint.

Poll Dubh · 03-02-2019 08:18PM

Pac1Man wrote: »

Free range chicken. Should I feel bad about eating it?

You’re going in the right direction by taking into account the welfare of the birds. You’ll be limited to fresh chicken though as pre-prepared meals/burgers/nuggets will be from battery farms.

kenmc · 03-02-2019 08:42PM

If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made of food?

Anyway, occasionally we have meatless dinners. Everyone needs a bigger portion than a meatinclusive dinner, or else gets hungry faster after. So it seems at least to me that veges are not as nutritionally dense as meat. E.g. 100g lentils has 116calories, 100g beef has 250calories according to Google.

MFPM · 03-02-2019 09:04PM

gozunda wrote: »

Parody is the most appropriate response to attack. If you can't understand context then the fault lies with you alone. And If you are simply commenting in order to offer up pathetic personal insult - you are on your own.

The point to be made is that we are averaging one of these vegenista type proselytizing posts at least once a week.

A quick check shows the OP started a post on the same rubbish the last time using the old hoary chestnut "dog thou" veganista argument. Then only a few created posts over 3 and half years and then BAM straight into spreading misinformation without any proper references or otherwise. And you demand I provide some when I point out it's baloney????

You can drop the faux outrage - few on boards swallow the anti-meat and animal products propaganda as you can clearly see. But you know that already.

Well here's some more counterpoint for you to read and digest (aka 'substantiated' references) You apparently didn't bother reading the last one i posted. Why is that?

https://www.nutritionadvance.com/vegan-propaganda-and-meat/

https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

Enjoy.

Btw before I forget ...

I noticed you referred to the recent EAT 'lancet report' (sic)

And you also said
Really?
Then you must have missed this ...

'Legitimate' my rear end.

See:
https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053

*Btw it is spelled p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a. I can lend you a dictionary if you like ...

Parody is the most appropriate response to attack.

Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned.

If you can't understand context then the fault lies with you alone. And If you are simply commenting in order to offer up pathetic personal insult - you are on your own.

As implied above - my 'pathetic personal insult' was in response to yours.

The point to be made is that we are averaging one of these vegenista type proselytizing posts at least once a week.

Perhaps if you peppered your thought process with an ounce of objectivity you wouldn't need to resort to such subjective ad homineun. Secondly any push back against orthodoxy involves people shouting louder and occassionally more forcefully. There are valid reasons to question meat consumption based on health, environmental and ethical grounds but such is the power and wealth of the meat industry it is difficult to be heard. Change never comes from keeping quiet.

A quick check shows the OP started a post on the same

rubbish

And again with the ad hominem.

when I point out it's baloney

And again...

You can drop the faux outrage - few on boards swallow the anti-meat and animal products propaganda as you can clearly see. But you know that already.

What 'faux outrage' would that be? Secondly, the suggestion that 'few on boards swallow the anti-meat' 'propoganda' is immaterial - surely that's all the more reason for debate, is it not? How does opinion shift and change if one doesn't debate?

Well here's some more counterpoint for you to read and digest (aka 'substantiated' references) You apparently didn't bother reading the last one i posted. Why is that?

I did read the opinion of that individual - you think I should just change my mind set because someone writes a counter point?

Btw it is spelled p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a. I can lend you a dictionary if you like ...

Will it help improve my typing skills?

Now back to the questions I posed and you duly ignored, instead choosing to post links to get other people make arguments for you...

I have a healthy diet that doesn't include meat or fish and hasn't done so for years - what's abnormal about my diet? Again, those 'pushing' a vegan or vegetarian diet are simply making an argument and raising issues for debate - what is wrong with that?

Oh and in your reponse - do try for a little objectivity...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/objectivity

The link will assist if you're unsure what it means.

MFPM · 03-02-2019 09:07PM

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I eat meat because it's gorgeous but yeah, too much of anything is bad for you, not just meat.

What I don't like is vegetarians who look down their nose at you and feel morally superior because they don't eat meat. I've got this attitude many times.

I don't judge folk for being vegetarian or vegan because why would I?

Livestock is there to be eaten, it's the food chain and while we could all do with cutting back with everything that should be taken in moderation I don't think we should label meat consumption as a dirty thing all of a sudden.

What I don't like is vegetarians who look down their nose at you and feel morally superior because they don't eat meat. I've got this attitude many times.

That perhaps says something about those people rather than vegetarians more generally. Most debates around vegan or vegetarian diets involve many meat eaters posting memes of burgers on bar-b-q or bacon on a pan or some other such idiocy.

gozunda · 03-02-2019 09:49PM

MFPM wrote: »

Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned. As implied above - my 'pathetic personal insult' was in response to yours. Perhaps if you peppered your thought process with an ounce of objectivity you wouldn't need to resort to such subjective ad homineun. Secondly any push back against orthodoxy involves people shouting louder and occassionally more forcefully. There are valid reasons to question meat consumption based on health, environmental and ethical grounds but such is the power and wealth of the meat industry it is difficult to be heard. Change never comes from keeping quiet. And again with the ad hominem. And again...What 'faux outrage' would that be? Secondly, the suggestion that 'few on boards swallow the anti-meat' 'propoganda' is immaterial - surely that's all the more reason for debate, is it not? How does opinion shift and change if one doesn't debate?I did read the opinion of that individual - you think I should just change my mind set because someone writes a counter point?Will it help improve my typing skills?Now back to the questions I posed and you duly ignored, instead choosing to post links to get other people make arguments for you...Oh and in your reponse - do try for a little objectivity .https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/objectivity The link will assist if you're unsure what it means.

Lol. The main thing I take from that mess is that you think it is ok for the OP to post unsubstantiated statements, but anyone pointing this out, holding such comment up to scrutiny or providing links to substantiate how the OP statement is incorrect, is liable to be attacked. And rather than making any contribution to the discussion, you've opted to have a go at the poster who highlighted this*.
Yup that's a real logical and 'objective' approach there

Btw you may not know this, but there is a major difference between debate and discussion and putting up 'unsubstantiated' misinformation as a fait accompli.

*btw your initial comment and puerile use of insult' were unsolicitated and not by way of 'response'

"ad hominem" refers to words directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Fyi 'baloney' and 'rubbish' were directed at the OPs comment. But then you should know that having engaged in already throwing insult.

gozunda · 03-02-2019 10:05PM

MFPM wrote: »

That perhaps says something about those people rather than vegetarians more generally. Most debates around vegan or vegetarian diets involve many meat eaters posting memes of burgers on bar-b-q or bacon on a pan or some other such idiocy.

So those maligned for eating normal diets (ie what most people eat) should be happy at being castigated by a small number of 'food facists'? And btw this does not include all - just a small number of those who openly proselytize. Yes and they are the same everywhere just like those who post about eating dog and 'other such idiocy' (sic)

As to why this current phase of endless pushing of 'plant based diets" . There are very valid reasons to question who are the current movers and shakers behind much of this type of promotion. Such as mr&mrs Stordalen listed as being amongst Europe’s richest individuals, living a very unenvironmental lifestyle whilst financially backing the recent EAT report.

With regard to the EAT report itself, Stanford meta-researcher John Ioannidis has stated that nutrition science hasn’t yet been able to prove if there is a single set of nutritional guidelines as specific as the ones in the Lancet report for all humans to follow.

The problem, Loannidis said, is that the nutrition studies provided by the researchers to back up this “healthy” diet are observational, which means they can’t actually tell us whether one thing caused another thing to happen — only that two things are associated. “Much has never been tested in randomized trials and they continue to promote it as if it is solid knowledge.

As to issues of environmental impacts of plant based diets see:
https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/can-the-world-go-vegan-a-studied-viewpoint-re/

Others have legitimately questioned the role of big businesses and multi-nationals in promoting same. The following articles are indeed food for thought.

https://www.mouthymoney.co.uk/how-vegan-evangelists-are-propping-up-the-ultra-processed-food-industry/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/01/whats-really-behind-the-plant-based-diet-agenda/

Church on Tuesday · 03-02-2019 10:16PM

MFPM wrote: »

That perhaps says something about those people rather than vegetarians more generally. Most debates around vegan or vegetarian diets involve many meat eaters posting memes of burgers on bar-b-q or bacon on a pan or some other such idiocy.

Pretty much all vegetarians have this attitude that I've met anyways TBH.

wakka12 · 04-02-2019 12:37AM

kenmc wrote: »

If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made of food?

Anyway, occasionally we have meatless dinners. Everyone needs a bigger portion than a meatinclusive dinner, or else gets hungry faster after. So it seems at least to me that veges are not as nutritionally dense as meat. E.g. 100g lentils has 116calories, 100g beef has 250calories according to Google.

You mean calorie dense. The lentils are probably more nutritionally dense

kenmc · 04-02-2019 12:49AM

wakka12 wrote: »

You mean calorie dense. The lentils are probably more nutritionally dense

Yeah that. But I don't find rare lentils very palatable

MFPM · 04-02-2019 11:56AM

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. The main thing I take from that mess is that you think it is ok for the OP to post unsubstantiated statements, but anyone pointing this out, holding such comment up to scrutiny or providing links to substantiate how the OP statement is incorrect, is liable to be attacked. And rather than making any contribution to the discussion, you've opted to have a go at the poster who highlighted this*.
Yup that's a real logical and 'objective' approach there

Btw you may not know this, but there is a major difference between debate and discussion and putting up 'unsubstantiated' misinformation as a fait accompli.

*btw your initial comment and puerile use of insult' were unsolicitated and not by way of 'response'

"ad hominem" refers to words directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Fyi 'baloney' and 'rubbish' were directed at the OPs comment. But then you should know that having engaged in already throwing insult.

that you think it is ok for the OP to post unsubstantiated statements, but anyone pointing this out, holding such comment up to scrutiny or providing links to substantiate how the OP statement is incorrect, is liable to be attacked.

I post your initial response to the OP below, it is also the post I initially responded too. You'll note it is an 'unsubstantiated statement', you certainly don't hold it to scrutiny and you attack the poster. I see we can add hypocrisy to your posting method.

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Wrong. An agenda driven by plant-based protein companies and nutcases who are trying to dictate what we eat. You'd want your head examined to believe that bull**** tbh.

And rather than making any contribution to the discussion, you've opted to have a go at the poster who highlighted this*.
Yup that's a real logical and 'objective' approach there

I have made several contributions inclduing asking you specific questions which you've duly ignored instead trawling the internet and posting links to what a random set of individuals think, perhaps you're incapabale of formulating an argument for yourself.

Btw you may not know this, but there is a major difference between debate and discussion and putting up 'unsubstantiated' misinformation as a fait accompli.

Indeed I do. Might I remind you again, that you've simply posted links based on the opinion of others, in a rather 'fait accompli' method too, I might add.

*btw your initial comment and puerile use of insult' were unsolicitated and not by way of 'response'

The evidence of your post which I've helpfully reposted above rather undermines this nonsense.

"ad hominem" refers to words directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Fyi 'baloney' and 'rubbish' were directed at the OPs comment. But then you should know that having engaged in already throwing insult.

Thanks for the lecture, unlike you I don't use words I don't understand - it's entirley appropriate to use in the now litany of attacks you're engaging in.

Lastly I note in the interest of discussion and debate, you've yet to answer my questions, you seem quite reticent instead focusing on childish ad hominem...:rolleyes:

MFPM · 04-02-2019 11:59AM

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Pretty much all vegetarians have this attitude that I've met anyways TBH.

Well we've just your word to take for that...I've met a fair few meat eaters who on hearing I'm a vegetarian delight in telling me about the exotic meats they've consumed - perhaps there are d!ckheads on both sides?

MFPM · 04-02-2019 12:18PM

gozunda wrote: »

So those maligned for eating normal diets (ie what most people eat) should be happy at being castigated by a small number of 'food facists'? And btw this does not include all - just a small number of those who openly proselytize. Yes and they are the same everywhere just like those who post about eating dog and 'other such idiocy' (sic)

As to why this current phase of endless pushing of 'plant based diets" . There are very valid reasons to question who are the current movers and shakers behind much of this type of promotion. Such as mr&mrs Stordalen listed as being amongst Europe’s richest individuals, living a very unenvironmental lifestyle whilst financially backing the recent EAT report.

With regard to the EAT report itself, Stanford meta-researcher John Ioannidis has stated that nutrition science hasn’t yet been able to prove if there is a single set of nutritional guidelines as specific as the ones in the Lancet report for all humans to follow.

The problem, Loannidis said, is that the nutrition studies provided by the researchers to back up this “healthy” diet are observational, which means they can’t actually tell us whether one thing caused another thing to happen — only that two things are associated. “Much has never been tested in randomized trials and they continue to promote it as if it is solid knowledge.

As to issues of environmental impacts of plant based diets see:
https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/can-the-world-go-vegan-a-studied-viewpoint-re/

Others have legitimately questioned the role of big businesses and multi-nationals in promoting same. The following articles are indeed food for thought.

https://www.mouthymoney.co.uk/how-vegan-evangelists-are-propping-up-the-ultra-processed-food-industry/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/01/whats-really-behind-the-plant-based-diet-agenda/

So those maligned for eating normal diets (ie what most people eat) should be happy at being castigated by a small number of 'food facists'?

I don't believe in attacking people over their diets, I don't believe it's the best way to bring about change but I am in favour of debate and discussion that deals with the impact of meat consumption on the environment, health and in particular animal welfare. Much of the improvement in animal welfare in the meat industry has precisely come from people on this side of the debate, it certainly hasn't come from the owners of KFC!

As to why this current phase of endless pushing of 'plant based diets" . There are very valid reasons to question who are the current movers and shakers behind much of this type of promotion. Such as mr&mrs Stordalen listed as being amongst Europe’s richest individuals, living a very unenvironmental lifestyle whilst financially backing the recent EAT report.

I've no difficulty with transparency at all, people should be questioned - it just seems odd that all your questions are aimed at people arguing for vegan and vegetarian diets. You seem to have no questions for the meat industry, their methods or activities.

With regard to the EAT report itself, Stanford meta-researcher John Ioannidis has stated that nutrition science hasn’t yet been able to prove if there is a single set of nutritional guidelines as specific as the ones in the Lancet report for all humans to follow.

The problem, Loannidis said, is that the nutrition studies provided by the researchers to back up this “healthy” diet are observational, which means they can’t actually tell us whether one thing caused another thing to happen — only that two things are associated. “Much has never been tested in randomized trials and they continue to promote it as if it is solid knowledge.

And he may indeed be right, of course he may indeed be wrong! Trump can find scientests to udermine CC, doesn't make them right! The Lancet report is a welcome addition to an ongoing debate - the response of sections of the media, the meat industry and sections of the farming community was riddled with defensivness and ridicule and little enough in the way of factual debate.

Others have legitimately questioned the role of big businesses and multi-nationals in promoting same. The following articles are indeed food for thought.

I'm not sure why you're posting these articles? Food is a commodity be it meat based or plant based, people are out to make money from it given the nature of the economic system in which we live. The fact that multi nationals are profiteering off a move to vegan/vegetarian based diets is utterly irrelevant to the arguments in favour of a non meat based diet. Does the fact that a multi national clothes retailer may produce #metoo or profeminist t-shirts undermine the campaign for gender equality?

gozunda · 04-02-2019 12:41PM

MFPM wrote: »

I don't believe in attacking people over their diets, I ...[insert rant] ...I'm not sure why you're posting these articles? ...[insert rant]..

Lol. To go back to my first post which you had a go at. Again that is the point. The OPs post was an attack on other people diets. The statement was completely unsubstantiated and does not stand up to scrutiny imo. Yes I pointed that out! Do you Understand?

Others have also pointed this out!

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you explain?

biko wrote: »

All the evidence points to the opposite direction.

Since you didn't bother backing up your statement I won't bother either.

I then further 'substantiated' / posted articles in order to highlight that much of the OPs post is clearly refuted by expert opinion and current research. As someone who has stated they have completed a third level essay course, I would have presumed you understand how using references to support an argument works. I'm obviously wrong there.

It is quite clear you will not listen to any criticism of such ideology or propaganda. Funny that! That as it may be could I suggest that if you wish to support the OP etc do so but without resorting to further poster bashing. Thanks

Btw making a debate about yourself and asking frankly stupid questions of what I think of 'your diet' etc is irrelevant. Either way I'm not going to bother to further reply to the continued ad hominem which I note you use as a personal militant posting style. You are now added to the ignore list.

Don't slam the door on the way out :pac: oh you just did!

MFPM wrote: »

I post your initial response to the OP below, it is also the post I initially responded too. You'll note it is an 'unsubstantiated statement', you certainly don't hold it to scrutiny and you attack the poster. I see we can add hypocrisy to your posting method.I have made several contributions inclduing asking you specific questions which you've duly ignored instead trawling the internet and posting links to what a random set of individuals think, perhaps you're incapabale of formulating an argument for yourself. Indeed I do. Might I remind you again, that you've simply posted links based on the opinion of others, in a rather 'fait accompli' method too, I might add. The evidence of your post which I've helpfully reposted above rather undermines this nonsense. Thanks for the lecture, unlike you I don't use words I don't understand - it's entirley appropriate to use in the now litany of attacks you're engaging in. Lastly I note in the interest of discussion and debate, you've yet to answer my questions, you seem quite reticent instead focusing on childish ad hominem..

mr chips · 04-02-2019 02:18PM

I like meat & fish, and have & will continue to include probably a wider variety of both in my diet than most people would - I eat duck far more often than steak or bacon, maybe even than chicken, plus venison, goat or rose veal (all cruelty-free that I get direct from a farm about 8 miles away), other game birds, more unusual stuff like kangaroo, impala, zebra ... even tried alligator and I've had roast camel for Christmas dinner a couple of times. Plus all sorts of fish & seafood that would be way too long to list!

However ... for me it's a head-in-the-sand approach to ignore all the information about things like the impact of intensive meat production and fishing on climate change and other significant environmental consequences (toxic run-off, overfishing, species collapse etc), in tandem with what our real needs are in terms of having a nutritionally adequate diet as opposed to eating our way to an obesity crisis. Plus I would have a certain amount of sympathy for the lives of animals which are only brought into existence because we breed them solely to suit our needs, then put them through a fairly horrendous existence and end of life (battery farming, slaughtering practices etc). So I don't want to eat any more meat than I think I have to in order to (1) stay healthy and (2) keep on enjoying my food - life's too short to be miserably denying yourself everything you like, whether it's meat or drink or the odd bit of chocolate or whatever.

I do try to seek out cruelty-free stuff whenever I can - even though it's sometimes a little bit more expensive it's not normally a huge difference, and cheap meat is cheap for a reason. Sometimes though it's also clear that either the supermarket or the producer are taking the pi55 so I don't blow half the shopping budget on stuff with a 60% mark-up. I did try quorn once and then gave it a second chance, but each time I thought I may as well be eating snot, so that was the end of that. I have previously gone through a few periods of anywhere between 2-6 months of living as a vegetarian, but never any longer than that and I'm not evangelical about it. I'll happily use some leftover duck fat for later cooking, even if the meal itself contains no meat (sweet potato fried in duck fat, nom).

Despite my experience with trying quorn, I keep an open mind and recently I started looking into a few of the meat substitutes that have started to become more readily available, like jackfruit and seitan. That's been a bit of an eye-opener for me, as both are tastier than the likes of chicken or mince etc and equally as satisfying in terms of what people refer to as "mouth feel". So those are now regular items on the shopping list - if anyone wants to try them, there's a brand called Upton Jack's which does a fairly broad range of both, e.g Thai curry, sweet or spicy BBQ etc as well as the unflavoured variety - which actually has a taste, unlike fecking quorn! You can get them online if they're not in your local shops. One packet costs £3, which is fine - the one pack is nearly too much for two of us, but wouldn't be enough for four.

I still think we evolved as a species to be omnivorous - having both canines and molars in our heads is a pretty clear indicator of that - and I'm not sure I'll ever be at the point where I'll give up eating meat, eggs or fish completely (that said, I'd have no hesitation in switching to those lab-grown meats if they become widely available for the same sort of cost or less). However I'm happy to reserve them as an intermittent part of my diet rather than something I eat on a daily basis. Since about the beginning of December, I've only eaten meat or fish at most twice in a week, usually only once, and use the jackfruit/seitan as a substitute for when I would otherwise have had chicken or mince in a curry or bolognese etc, plus one or two meals a week with nothing but veg prepped from raw (i.e. nothing processed). The new approach hasn't stopped me having a couple of fries the morning after a night out at the rugby or anything like that, so I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything at all.

I'm fairly physically active and tbh carrying a bit too much weight, but in that two months I've lost half a stone without trying to. I haven't lost out in terms of my protein intake - I'm still benching more than my own bodyweight in the gym! So I'm pretty happy with how it's going so far. If I get myself down to eating meat every 10-15 days or so, grand, but I can't see it ever going further than that. And I ain't ready to give up cheese!

Dakota Dan · 04-02-2019 02:20PM

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Right. let's not beat around the bush anymore.. it looks like the consumption of meat is terrible both for the environment and for our physical health.

I know we get nowhere preaching or criticising, but I'm interested to know if boardsies have cut back?

Sorry to burst your bubble but you do know that the lancet report was torn apart for the rubbish it is within hours of its release?

Dakota Dan · 04-02-2019 02:35PM

nervous_twitch wrote: »

OK, we will continue in this ignorant bliss. If you can show me that the consumption of meat is actually good for the environment, I will be all ears

Grazing animals put co2 back in the plants, methane only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere unlike co2 from fossil fuels which last 200+ When they were comparing meat production to transport they left out the carbon sink that farming creates and only took emissions from exhaust pipes leaving out everything associated with transport. Also constantly tilling land for vegetables will wreck the soil and lots of land is more suited to growing grass, constant ploughing also releases co2.. The fairytale of everyone eating plants will not work in the real world.

MFPM · 04-02-2019 02:39PM

gozunda wrote: »

To go back to my first post which you had a go at. Again that is the point. The OPs post was an attack on other people diets. The statement was completely unsubstantiated and does not stand up to scrutiny imo. Yes I pointed that out! Understand?

Others have also pointed this out!

I then further 'substantiated' / posted articles in order to highlight that much of the OPs post is clearly refuted by expert opinion and current research. As someone who has completed a third level essay course, I would have presumed you understand how using references to support an argument works. I'm obviously wrong there.

It is quite clear you will not listen to any criticism of such ideology or propaganda. Funny that! That as it may be could I suggest that if you wish to support the OP etc do so but without resorting to further poster bashing. Thanks.

Btw making a debate about yourself and asking frankly stupid questions of what I think of your diet etc is irrelevant. Either way I'm not going to bother to further reply to the continued ad hominem which I note you use as a personal militant posting style. You are now added to the ignore list.

My, my you don't like to be challenged do you. You want to liberally throw out attacks against people and when some hits back you cry foul - the definition of hypocrisy!

It is quite clear you will not listen to any criticism of such ideology or propaganda. Funny that!

I'm not sure how you you arrived at that but a glance at my posts would counter this rather silly assertion.

Btw making a debate about yourself and asking frankly stupid questions of what I think of your diet etc is irrelevant.

You seem confused, I didn't make the debate about 'me'. You made a statement about a healthy diet based around meat and I countered - you've yet to comment, dispute, disagree on the point, hardly surprising given your inability to articualte a single argument thus far.

Either way I'm not going to bother to further reply to the continued ad hominem which I note you use as a personal militant posting style. You are now added to the ignore list.

Touch of the snowflake about you I see...run away when you're challenged.

:rolleyes:

MFPM · 04-02-2019 02:40PM

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble but you do know that the lancet report was torn apart for the rubbish it is within hours of its release?

By whom?

Church on Tuesday · 04-02-2019 02:57PM

MFPM wrote: »

Well we've just your word to take for that...I've met a fair few meat eaters who on hearing I'm a vegetarian delight in telling me about the exotic meats they've consumed - perhaps there are d!ckheads on both sides?

There's a big difference between having a bit of craic and being a condescending prick.

But, yeah I take your point.

Dakota Dan · 04-02-2019 03:00PM

MFPM wrote: »

By whom?

https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053

Bigbagofcans · 04-02-2019 03:08PM

MFPM wrote: »

Well we've just your word to take for that...I've met a fair few meat eaters who on hearing I'm a vegetarian delight in telling me about the exotic meats they've consumed - perhaps there are d!ckheads on both sides?

I assume some of those are travel knobs who at any given opportunity will tell people that they ate guinea pig or camel's ballsack.

gozunda · 04-02-2019 03:38PM

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

There's a big difference between having a bit of craic and being a condescending prick.

But, yeah I take your point.

Tbh with the regularity of posts trying to claim that meat is the worst possible thing in the history of the universe - it's really not surprising that the occasional poster just might take the piss. And then someone pretend to actually get annoyed and upset and start a tantrum lol

I mean seriously what do they expect people to actually believe the constant and frankly stupid bullskite - really? Even the smallest bit of research will show most of this stuff up for what it is.

:rolleyes:

MFPM · 04-02-2019 04:11PM

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh with the regularity of posts trying to claim that meat is the worst possible thing in the history of the universe - it's really not surprising that the occasional poster just might take the piss. And then someone pretend to actually get annoyed and upset and start a tantrum lol

I mean seriously what do they expect people to actually believe the constant and frankly stupid bullskite - really? Even the smallest bit of research will show most of this stuff up for what it is.

:rolleyes:

Tbh with the regularity of posts trying to claim that meat is the worst possible thing in the history of the universe - it's really not surprising that the occasional poster just might take the piss.

I dare say for the animals involved, it's not pleasent but undoubtedly your anthropocentric perspective permits you to understand that.

jimgoose · 04-02-2019 04:17PM

nervous_twitch wrote: »

...I'm interested to know if boardsies have cut back?

No. If anything, I'm eating more beef, venison and various pork products.

gozunda · 04-02-2019 04:51PM

Dakota Dan wrote: »

https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053

Dan - I see you had to post that link again.

The funny thing is - I've already posted it once in this thread. Something must be very hard to understand

Vegetarian

Comments