freshpopcorn wrote: » Don't worry I'll est your share!
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!
Pac1Man wrote: » Free range chicken. Should I feel bad about eating it?
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.
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
rubbish
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?
Btw it is spelled p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a. I can lend you a dictionary if you like ...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
wakka12 wrote: » You mean calorie dense. The lentils are probably more nutritionally dense
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.
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
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.
Church on Tuesday wrote: » Pretty much all vegetarians have this attitude that I've met anyways TBH.
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'?
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.
Others have legitimately questioned the role of big businesses and multi-nationals in promoting same. The following articles are indeed food for thought.
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]..
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.
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..
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?
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
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.
It is quite clear you will not listen to any criticism of such ideology or propaganda. Funny that!
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.
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?
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?
MFPM wrote: » By whom?
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.
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.
nervous_twitch wrote: » ...I'm interested to know if boardsies have cut back?
Dakota Dan wrote: » https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053
