Vegan Death Cult

seamus · 15-01-2020 09:59AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

If you for some strange reason want to see Veganism as a culture war. You are losing. Vegan milk is everywhere.

And there aren't even that many vegans yet.

This is what has the IFA and Bord Bia running scared the most.

The fact that they can't just pin it on veganism. There are plenty of people making more of their diet plant-based and just generally reducing their meat and dairy intake. I'm seeing it everywhere at the moment.

Even if it's not full-on veganism, one night a week where someone uses tofu or quorn instead of a meat, or using Alpro instead of normal yoghurt, makes a big difference.

And this is the creeping change that Bord Bia can't get a handle on. The vegan choices in fast food places are a perfect example. In most cases, they've simply changed the veggie option to make it vegan, so there's no impact on the company's bottom line, but people are more inclined to choose it.

The farmers and other vested interests are pouring all their effort into attacking vegans, but they don't realise that the biggest increase in sale of vegan food is to people who aren't vegans.

IrishKev · 15-01-2020 10:01AM

gozunda wrote: »

Not regarding you but imo a lot of people are simply reacting to the aggression directed at anyone who is not vegan and something which is which is frequently very evident in these discussions.

I'm also amazed at this bizarre idea that others are outraged. The most vocal outrage I see on this thread seems to come from a few who keep going on about his dare anyone comment on anything. That and the rubbish about others being mean but the same are quite happy to engage in throwing ****e and worse.

As to ethics - it's nothing to do with agreeing with your or anyone else's personal 'ethics'. Not everyone will agree with yours and vice versa. People not believing in your personal ethics is not something to beat others up with.

I'll just leave these here for you

Cantonas [QUOTE=Cantonas Collars wrote: »

They all seem to be suffering from some type of mental illness.

Deleted User wrote: »

fritzelly wrote: »

That was worse than watching their animal cruelty propaganda videos
They need to be put out of their misery or at least rescued from this inhumanity
As for the kids, shame on those parents

MrAbyss wrote: »

I don't find it bizarre at all. Disturbing more like.

robertpatterson wrote: »

Dopes
In need of a good rasher sambo

zorro2566 wrote: »

Good vegan is a big missed steak!

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Each to their own with veganism, but it does well at attracting all sort of whack jobs who are somewhere on the spectrum

Lurching wrote: »

Any vegans I know make it their mission to ensure everyone else knows.

Hector Savage wrote: »

What a bunch of freaks ... and the kids ??? terrible ... child abuse right there.

MrAbyss wrote: »

The Vegans all become mentally ill because there is no B12 or animal fats to generate neural plasticity in the brain. They basically die because the brain and nervous systems dies.

Anyone you know today who is a vegan will be dead within a decade or in a psyche ward.

While a lot of these comments are directed moreso at the video than all vegans, there are heavily implied generalisations by each poster not separating the two.

I reckon a lot of people would have a lot more respect for such views and opinions where the high ground wasn't been automatically seized and occupied.

Maybe have a look at the title and OP and then rethink that.

gozunda · 15-01-2020 10:06AM

IrishKev wrote: »

I'll just leave these here for you...While a lot of these comments are directed moreso at the video than all vegans, there are heavily implied generalisations by each poster not separating the two. ..
Maybe have a look at the title and OP and then rethink that.

Christ almighty but I reckon most of us have already read the thread kev - each one of those stupid comments has an equally stupid response. I can quote them if you like. :rolleyes:

And if you reread my comment- you will see what I was referring to.

a lot of people are simply reacting to the aggression directed at anyone who is not vegan and something which is which is frequently very evident in these discussions.

Theres a difference to stupid comments about a video, a gif (is that for or against the OP btw?) and outright attacks aimed at posters btw. But you know that already I reckon

sbsquarepants · 15-01-2020 10:11AM

gozunda wrote: »

Ok this has already been extensively gone over in this thread already. Please read it.

Could it be a gozunda that you've put the cart before the horse? That in effect the soy is grown for animals and we are using the oil by product for humans?

I'm not saying it is the case, but could it be?

There seems to be a fairly broad consensus that soy is largely grown for animals and that it's is quite damaging environmentally.

purplesnack · 15-01-2020 10:12AM

gozunda wrote: »

That article that already been discussed - so is clear you didn read the discussion. Indeed soy cultivation is a major driver of deforestation as per above. However what that link fails to detail is that soy is grown primarily grown for its oil which is the most valuable part of the bean gram per gram. That oil gets extracted and what is left over (the soy meal) gets fed to animals.

So no "80%" of the whole soy bean crop is not fed to animals. That is the percentage of 'soy meal' left over after oil extraction. (The figures of extracted meal also vary depending on soy bean variety). In total 85% of all soybeans grown globally are crushed for their oil. For example this from the US.

https://mobile.twitter.com/donlayman/status/1188124117230333952?s=19

Industry figures
https://www.oilseedandgrain.com/soy-facts

This guy is Professor of Nutrition (emeritus) University of Illinois. That is the same process as for soy grown in SA and elsewhere

It's a subject which I have studied btw but no I do not support the growing of soy for oil or any other use in the Amazon.

Sorry, a Twitter account is not a reputable source of information. If that Professor has a peer-reviewed article with the same information, please send it on.

That also only refers to the US. So again, please send on your source that it's the demand for soy oil that is driving the growth of soybeans in the Amazon. Thanks

gozunda · 15-01-2020 10:33AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Could it be a gozunda that you've put the cart before the horse? That in effect the soy is grown for animals and we are using the oil by product for humans?I'm not saying it is the case, but could it be? There seems to be a fairly broad consensus that soy is largely grown for animals and that it's is quite damaging environmentally.

Nope. Thats not my conclusion. Thats the industry standard where soy beans are processed primarily for their oil. See Professor Laymans link for further detail.

Thelonious Monk · 15-01-2020 10:37AM

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Thats not my conclusion. Thats the industry standard where soy beans are processed primarily for their oil. See Professor Laymans link for further detail.

That Prof seems to have a problem with plant based diets, if you look at his twitter feed.

IrishKev · 15-01-2020 10:49AM

gozunda wrote: »

Christ almighty but I reckon most of us have alreafy read the thread kev - each one of those stupid comments has an equally stupid response. I can quote them if you like. :rolleyes:

And if you reread my comment- you will see what I was referring to.

The point is none of those comments were "simply reacting to the aggression directed at anyone who is not vegan". The 'preachy vegans are peachy' argument is worn out and overdone.

Theres a difference to stupid comments about a video, a gif (is that for or against the OP btw?) and outright attacks aimed at posters btw. But you know that already I reckon

I literally just said this.

mathie · 15-01-2020 10:52AM

gozunda wrote: »

each one of those stupid comments has an equally stupid response. I can quote them if you like. :rolleyes:

So reacting to incitement is the same as incitement?

I don't want to go to my childhood days but .... they started it!

purplesnack · 15-01-2020 10:57AM

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Thats not my conclusion. Thats the industry standard where soy beans are processed primarily for their oil.[/B] See Professor Laymans link for further detail.

You keep saying this but apart from a Twitter account, have not provided any source. Again, a reputable source would be good, not some guy's Twitter feed

Tar.Aldarion · 15-01-2020 10:59AM

seamus wrote: »

This is what has the IFA and Bord Bia running scared the most.

The fact that they can't just pin it on veganism. There are plenty of people making more of their diet plant-based and just generally reducing their meat and dairy intake. I'm seeing it everywhere at the moment.

Even if it's not full-on veganism, one night a week where someone uses tofu or quorn instead of a meat, or using Alpro instead of normal yoghurt, makes a big difference.

And this is the creeping change that Bord Bia can't get a handle on. The vegan choices in fast food places are a perfect example. In most cases, they've simply changed the veggie option to make it vegan, so there's no impact on the company's bottom line, but people are more inclined to choose it.

The farmers and other vested interests are pouring all their effort into attacking vegans, but they don't realise that the biggest increase in sale of vegan food is to people who aren't vegans.

Yep, supermarkets tracked beyond meat sales in the US. 98% were to people eating meat, reducing what they eat. In supermarkets here I see so many baskets have plant milk in them now.

gozunda · 15-01-2020 11:00AM

purplesnack wrote: »

Sorry, a Twitter account is not a reputable source of information. If that Professor has a peer-reviewed article with the same information, please send it on.That also only refers to the US. So again, please send on your source that it's the demand for soy oil that is driving the growth of soybeans in the Amazon. Thanks

Neither is an unauthored non peer reviewed internet article. But even that article does not try and claim that whole soy beans are grown for feed. Rather it gives the percentage (80%) of the bean which goes for animal feed. If that was a undergraduate essay - I'd send it back to be redone tbh. I cant really help you if you dont understand the process .

If you bother reading the thread - industry sources have already been provided.

Professor layman area of expertise is nutrition relating to food and agriculture. See the soy industry links provided if you dont want to believe any of that.

The amount of head in the sand rubbish is truely astounding. But hey whatever floats that boat.

gozunda · 15-01-2020 11:03AM

mathie wrote: »

So reacting to incitement is the same as incitement?

I don't want to go to my childhood days but .... they started it!

Lol. Thats some twist.. But keep going :pac:

mathie · 15-01-2020 11:06AM

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. Thats some twist.. But keep going :pac:

"each one of those stupid comments has an equally stupid response"

"So reacting to incitement is the same as incitement?"

Not a twist.
A logical assumption.

gozunda · 15-01-2020 11:07AM

mathie wrote: »

"each one of those stupid comments has an equally stupid response"

"So reacting to incitement is the same as incitement?"

Not a twist.
A logical assumption.

Not 'logical' by any hyper jump of the imagination Jim.

I'll leave you at it.

mathie · 15-01-2020 11:09AM

gozunda wrote: »

Not 'logical' by any hyper jump of the imagination Jim.

I'll leave you at it.

Great deflection though.

Now back to it :pac::pac::pac: ...

Soy. It’s much more than a latte option, tofu or a U.S. export China levied a tariff on.

Farmers grow soybeans throughout the United States. About 60 percent of U.S. soybeans are exported around the world, while the rest are processed here. But regardless of where they are used, the vast majority are crushed to separate the protein and oil in the bean.

Products made from soybeans touch everyday life in countless ways, though often behind the scenes.

Animal nutrition

Animal agriculture produces high-quality protein in the form of dairy, meat, poultry, fish and eggs. But much of that protein started as soy. In fact, global animal agriculture is the No. 1 customer for U.S. soybeans.

Animals like chickens, pigs, turkeys, cattle and fish rely on nutrient-dense soybean meal to thrive. They need high levels of quality protein and digestible energy to grow, all found in soybean meal.

https://www.unitedsoybean.org/article/what-are-soybeans-used-for

gozunda · 15-01-2020 11:16AM

mathie wrote: »

Great deflection though.

Now back to it :pac::pac::pac: ...

https://www.unitedsoybean.org/article/what-are-soybeans-used-for

You seem to have a serious ":pac:" problem there

None of that contradicts the fact that soy beans are primarily grown for oil. Once that is extracted - much of what is left over (which is soy meal) gets processed as animal feed. Though god help us - that seems to be just difficult to understand. :rolleyes:

A bonus from your quote is that it details where much of that left over soy meal goes. The small amount of supplemental feed used here is mainly sourced from the US. Where no rainforests get cut down thankfully. But I suppose you dont want to know that either?

mathie · 15-01-2020 11:20AM

gozunda wrote: »

You seem to have a serious:pac: problem

None of that contradicts the fact that soy beans are primarily grown for oil. Once that is extracted - much of what is left over (which is soy meal) gets processed as animal feed. Though god help us - that seems to be just difficult to understand. :rolleyes:

You keep repeating yourself but provide no evidence to back it up in spite of numerous links to show the opposite of what you're staing.

Though god help us - that seems to be just difficult to understand. :rolleyes:

Oh see what I did there?

Thelonious Monk · 15-01-2020 11:22AM

mathie wrote: »

You keep repeating yourself but provide no evidence to back it up in spite of numerous links to show the opposite of what you're staing.

Though god help us - that seems to be just difficult to understand. :rolleyes:

Oh see what I did there?

I'm willing to accept most soy is grown for humans if it can be proved but I can't find anything to say this on the internet myself. Everything says it's grown primarily for animals.

purplesnack · 15-01-2020 11:38AM

gozunda wrote: »

Neither is an unauthored non peer reviewed internet article. But even that article does not try and claim that whole soy beans are grown for feed. Rather it gives the percentage (80%) of the bean which goes for animal feed. If that was a undergraduate essay - I'd send it back to be redone tbh. I cant really help you if you dont understand the process .

If you bother reading the thread - industry sources have already been provided.

Professor layman area of expertise is nutrition relating to food and agriculture. See the soy industry links provided if you dont want to believe any of that.

The amount of head in the sand rubbish is truely astounding. But hey whatever floats that boat.

Sorry, but I never posted an internet article, I simply asked you for your sources. You've made the claim, multiple times, that soy oil is the main reason driving the increased growth of soybeans, but, besides a Twitter feed, have not been able to back it up.

And I can understand how to read an info graphic and I never questioned the processing of soybeans into their constituent components. What I've asked for is your source about the soy oil and you've not been able to provide any reputable link to a so-called 'industry standard'. I'm concluding that you don't have that source, so I'll leave you to your repetition.

Tar.Aldarion · 15-01-2020 11:49AM

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'm willing to accept most soy is grown for humans if it can be proved but I can't find anything to say this on the internet myself. Everything says it's grown primarily for animals.

I ran the math on the value of a soy bean and while the oil (used by humans) is more valuable than the meal (for animals), there is way more meal weight per bean, so to the seller the meal is their main product, end of. Each bean they sell the majority of the money comes from the product used for animals.

Gozunda tries to say that because the oil is worth more per gram that it is the main product, completely ignoring the business and economic aspect of it. It's simple math.

MMXX · 15-01-2020 12:01PM

Unearthly wrote: »

You can't use a comparison between different animals for our behaviour. We have moral agency

Why not? We're all animals, why are we any better? Why? Moral agency? Did you mean moral superiority?

Unearthly wrote: »

Animals sniff each others arses to greet each other. Will you now go down the street and sniff a random persons arse?

No, I won't do that - that is inappropriate and is not the way humans greet one another. I also don't roll a stone up the the feet of the woman I want to mate with, like the Penguin.

Unearthly wrote: »

Carnivore animals dont have the luxury of:

1. Have the bodies to live off plant food
2. The choice and luxury to shop for plant food
3. The ability of humans to know the difference between right or wrong

Carnivores may not, but omnivores do. Look - I don't wish to engage in an argument with you, my views are very strongly held, and I suspect, and respect - that yours are too. We have our opinions, and they are probably poles apart - but that's OK.

One of us will be wrong, and one of us will be right.

Together, both of us will be wrong and right.

Thelonious Monk · 15-01-2020 12:13PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I ran the math on the value of a soy bean and while the oil (used by humans) is more valuable than the meal (for animals), there is way more meal weight per bean, so to the seller the meal is their main product, end of. Each bean they sell the majority of the money comes from the product used for animals.

Gozunda tries to say that because the oil is worth more per gram that it is the main product, completely ignoring the business and economic aspect of it. It's simple math.

Well I'm glad that's settled then. I doubt the farmers on this thread will accept your conclusions however.

15-01-2020 12:18PM

So soya is grown both for animal feed and oil for various things like human consumption (one of the most common vegetable oils), various industrial uses like making biodiesel and it's used in inks and oil paints.

So regardless of whether it's grown primarily as animal feed or as oil, the argument that vegans are responsible for mass deforestation specifically through the cultivation of soya is completely false. Soya oil is not grown for a vegan market but is used and consumed widely by people of all diets and philosophies.

So deforestation through soya cultivation IS a human problem and a farming problem but most certainly not an exclusively vegan problem. (As is often implied).

MMXX · 15-01-2020 12:30PM

Beeping Kitchen Appliances wrote: »

Did you just ask twenty three questions?

I didn't count them, does it matter how many there was?

Beeping Kitchen Appliances wrote: »

Are you a bad poster for asking twenty three questions?

I'm not a bad poster for asking twenty three questions - are you a bad poster for asking this question insincerely? Do you really want to know if I am a bad poster? Or are you trying to mock my sincere, well-intentioned questions?

Unearthly · 15-01-2020 12:34PM

MMXX wrote: »

Why not? We're all animals, why are we any better? Why? Moral agency? Did you mean moral superiority?

No, I won't do that - that is inappropriate and is not the way humans greet one another. I also don't roll a stone up the the feet of the woman I want to mate with, like the Penguin.

Carnivores may not, but omnivores do. Look - I don't wish to engage in an argument with you, my views are very strongly held, and I suspect, and respect - that yours are too. We have our opinions, and they are probably poles apart - but that's OK.

One of us will be wrong, and one of us will be right.

Together, both of us will be wrong and right.

Moral agency, shamefully copied and pasted from google.

"Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

Animals don't have the intelligence for this. On top of this they are in no position to decide what food they can eat from a survival point of view and their bodies capability

The point I'm making that if you are using a lion or a tiger as a reason why humans should eat meat, then in order to be logically consistent, you should be copying all their traits and not cherry picking whichever ones suits your argument

To summarise, we are completely different and can't be compared that way

gozunda · 15-01-2020 12:36PM

mathie wrote: »

I would like to see that too.

Mathie you already posted this. So I presume you are ok with the source yes?

I think you forgot to mention this little detail no?

Nearly all soybeans are processed for their oil. Soy processors (such as Cargill & ADM) take the raw soybeans and separate the oil from the meal. The oil may be refined for cooking and other edible uses, or sold for biodiesel production or industrial uses. The processors bake the high-protein fiber that is left after the oil is removed and sell it for animal feed.

https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/

Btw that oil is gram for gram the most valuable part of the bean. But hey why would some so intent on painting absolutely everything to do with animal agricultute as black actually believe anything eh?

Heres a PhD - if you still want to actually learn more about soy bean processing etc

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6284%26context%3Detd&ved=2ahUKEwiexIHdvoXnAhXyTxUIHUAtBCUQFjAWegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3_bN10SO_n3lZpR8NGb8_2

Soybeans are one of the main sources of oil crops around the world. Soybean oil is the
most common product of soybean refinery. It is a resource of edible oil and has other food and
industrial applications....

I'll let you read the rest yourself ...

No doubt some of most vocal agricultural experts here wont like either source :rolleyes:

Thelonious Monk · 15-01-2020 12:39PM

gozunda wrote: »

No doubt some of most vocal agricultural experts here wont like either source :rolleyes:

They are as much experts on soy as you are, except you have vested interests in this discussion being a cattle farmer.

gozunda · 15-01-2020 12:44PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I ran the math on the value of a soy bean and while the oil (used by humans) is more valuable than the meal (for animals), there is way more meal weight per bean, so to the seller the meal is their main product, end of. Each bean they sell the majority of the money comes from the product used for animals.Gozunda tries to say that because the oil is worth more per gram that it is the main product, completely ignoring the business and economic aspect of it. It's simple math.

Sorry Tar but myself and several other posters have already busted that pet 'per bean' theory. And you know that.

The fact that the beans are primarily grown for soy oil and it's only when the oil extracted that the left over soy meal is then sold on for feed is ignored again I see.

No worries. At least some of you are learning something about agricultute and have to realise you cant simply repeat stuff of your favourite vegan website. I suppose thats progress.

15-01-2020 12:47PM

mathie wrote: »

I'd highlighted the "in pretty above average amounts"

But you are not "highlighting" it are you - you are reading it in isolation from context and the text before and after it. What I actually said was - and I will add bold and underline to an important word to help you out - and show you where your highlight _should_ have been -

" _only if eaten daily consistently and in pretty above average amounts_"

- but not the first time on this thread you have taken my words entirely into an implication of something else entirely different from what I actually said.

You see the findings apply to people who are eating such things in the highest consumption bracket. As in they are eating it consistently and daily. No one exept you is talking about a single sausage here. The findings are talking about someone who is eating - for example - such a sausage daily, every day, over a life time. That would be over average amounts.

And yet if _that_ is your diet then your _relative_ risk factors increase. But almost no one has that diet. And even those that do - the fact is _relative_ risk factors are quite minor. Some of these things have an overall effect of 1 or 2 out of 100,000. You might think the value 18% sounds awfully large - which is why news papers and blogs and opinion pieces love it - but it is not actually all that interesting a number at all.

That is why quoting opinion pieces in blogs hosted by news papers is not as good as reading the original source material and finding out what they are actually saying - why they are saying it - and what it actually means. You appear to have done none of these three things here.

The most you can say off the back of the actual studies - should you bother to read them at any point - is something like "Most people today will not actually benefit all that much from modifying their diet - but if they feel they should modify it anyway then lowering their consumption of red meats will probably not do anything at all - but treating processed meats with the same caution you would over consumption of salt or sugar or alcohol is probably not a bad thing to do - but if you are a moderate processed meat eater too - then you probably are not going to improve much there either even by cutting it out completely".

Which - lets be honest here - is not a sentence that is going to sell news papers or get clicks on a blog.

Vegan Death Cult

Comments