Deleted User wrote: » What about the weight of the moral question though? For example, a century or two ago, the idea of "homosexuality" being a "morally acceptable" behavior would have been frowned upon, but because most people believed that and, at the time, the suppression of homosexuality ensued. Here, it's the maltreatment of animals, often severely. Just because the vast majority of people are meat eaters doesn't make the practice a justifiable or good one, if you see what I mean. So, in terms of this moral standpoint - yes, the majority are in favour of eating meat, but that surely wouldn't justify maltreatment of animals in the same way that the vast majority against homosexuality was justified many decades ago etc. Many people are disgusted at "trophy hunting", yet spend the next hour eating a medium-rare steak? Where's the consistency?
FeirmeoirtTed wrote: » How do you feel about abortion?
Deleted User wrote: » Cards on the table, I'm not a vegan. That said, it's very hard to argue against the common vegan. After all, almost nobody argues that there is some positive benefit toward the infliction of suffering on animals. Nobody would argue in favour of collecting dogs in the back of a truck, and sending them off for slaughter in some local abatoir. But that's precisely what happens with the other sentient animals. The process is often brutal, but even if it were pain-free, the argument goes that animals shouldn't be killed in the same way we wouldn't recommend it for horses or dogs. I can't really think of a valid argument against veganism. You'd think, then, that I would convert to veganism, but I haven't - and won't. It's a purely selfish endeavour, then, because I'm being hypocritical about how I would react if I saw dogs treated in the same way as farmed animals. True, there are evolutionary reasons for eating meat. I think the argument now is that there are sufficient plant alternatives. So, why aren't you a vegan? Perhaps you have a valid position I, or others here, haven't thought of. But thus far, I can't frame a case against it.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Not pushing it at all!. My OP is an authentic one; a legitimate case of where I understand the vegan arguments, but can't bring myself - nor will I ever - to become a fully, paid-up subscriber to all-things vegan. Ultimately, the best I can come up with is that we should sideline the emotional case for purely pragmatic reasons. As for the post you quoted, that was part of a wider political analogy, and in it, I used vegan and bland food interchangeably to make a point. Still no answer to this, any takers:
emaherx wrote: » I'd wager last year's drought effected potato and cereal crops worse than it did any cattle farm.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » To be honest I think you are aright. You are only looking at it from the one angle. In my view it is the vegans who are the ones who are hypocritical. For ones who are so environmentally conscious and in-tune with nature they eat unnaturally. Humans have incisors for a reason. Meat gives us the many nutritional benefits a healthy lifestyle needs. Meanwhile the vegans have to supplement this artificially! I never understood this dichotomy in thier mindset nature loving, but going completely against nature. I know a family relative who is a staunch vegan and she has developed severe sun allergies (it cannot be a confidence) From my point of view I accept my role as human at the top of the food chain, and enjoy meat. In fact for me it is not a proper meal without a piece of meat. Meat is the first thing I go for on the plate. Rest your mind easy OP you are behaving as nature intended, enjoy your meat. If others want to be vegan let them off. But you have no reason in the world to feel guilty for eating meat/fish etc it is perfectly natural. The non vegans are the ones who are really true to nature, that is the irony of the whole thing.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Irish beef is fed on maize and soy from the Americas though, as well as our own grass. We have so many cattle on the island that we can't grow enough food for them.https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/farming/we-depend-two-times-more-on-imported-animal-feed-than-our-neighbours-832683.html Anyway, regarding vegans, I don't understand why they trigger everyone so much. I'm not sure I've ever even met one, yet people go on like they're everywhere all up in your faces trying to change the way you eat. The world is eating more and more meat globally, so you can all relax.
YFlyer wrote: » I doubt it.
gozunda wrote: » Thelonious - it has been been detailed many many times in response to your endless anti farming rantings - that livestock here are fed relatively very small amounts of supplementary feedstuffs - mainly during winter months when the animals need to be housed for animal health and welfare reasons. The reason we import a range of these feedstuffs (mainly made up of the wastes of the human food industry btw) is that we dont grow arable crops particularly well here due to our climate and topography. We have less cattle here than we had in 1973 when Ireland joined the EU. So your statement about 'many cattle' is complete bolloxology. Anyway, regarding omnivores (ie those eating a normal diet) - I don't understand why they trigger everyone so much. Tbh - I'm really not sure some ever even met one, yet people go on like they're everywhere all up in your faces trying to change the way you eat. If you want to eat plants no problem! The rest of the world is eating a fairly balanced diet based on a range if plant and animal derived foods, so you can all relax.
emaherx wrote: » Based on what? Your own gut intuition or have you any insight into the struggle of Irish farms through the drought. I know of many crops which failed or produced very small yields last year, but the cattle survived.
Deleted User wrote: » A necessary evil.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » How do they promote that? If everyone was a vegan, far less land would be required worldwide to feed the population. Much of the world's agricultural land is used to grow food to feed animals to feed humans.
YFlyer wrote: » Well a tonne of potatoes may need about 22,000 litres of water. 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water whereas to produce 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water. btw were the cattle not brought to the abbaitors much earlier than normal?
Unearthly wrote: » Appeal to nature fallacy. It's an extremely poor lowest common denominator argument
silverharp wrote: » you havnt said anything useful here.if there happened to be a movement that said exposure to sun light was wrong for whatever reason , appealing to nature would be appropriate.
emaherx wrote: » Ah you have no idea what you are talking about.
gozunda wrote: » Is it that you doubt anything or anyone which points out the usual rubbish anti animal farming propaganda is for a want of a better description complete cow manure? Perhaps you believe what was actually reported about the drought no?https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/tillage/harvest-2018-cereal-harvest-estimated-as-smallest-since-1995-37566081.htmlhttps://www.thejournal.ie/cereal-harvest-forecast-4145585-Jul2018/
YFlyer wrote: » True according to Teagasc crop production is down. Be interesting to know what the average tonnage of beef per beast was in 2018 compared to other years in this decade?
ted1 wrote: » We eat plenty of imported meat here , and that number will grow as a Result of the EU South America deal
Unearthly wrote: » It's a stupid argument. What are the rules? What is natural? Is it natural to drink cows milk over human milk? It was pointed out earlier that when you go down the natural route you end up in very murky territory where terrible acts could technically be natural depending on the rules
gozunda wrote: » Whose pushing that?
YFlyer wrote: » That wasn't the question.
emaherx wrote: » Droughts affect all food production in all countries whether meat or plant based, thankfully don't happen here very often. I can only remember 2 droughts here, last year and 1995. I'd wager last year's drought effected potato and cereal crops worse than it did any cattle farm.
gozunda wrote: » There wasn't a question. To this comment You posted I simply pointed out that the arble and horticulture sector were devastated by the drought conditions experienced. So no it was not just our livestock sector which was impacted - all food production was. That's not hard to understand unless some are deliberately choosing to cherry pick only one agricultural sector for the purposes of pushing an agenda
YFlyer wrote: » The question was. I'd wager last year's drought effected potato and cereal crops worse than it did any cattle farm?
gozunda wrote: » Perhaps go talk to a potato farmer who lost an entire years crop due the drought and ask him how he / she felt about that ...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
