kerble wrote:

n.c. wrote: People are naturally herbavoures, cat's are not.

Your spelling and punctuation are off. Maybe you need a steak?

I don't believe that humans are naturally herbivores. Most of the staple foods that vegans eat (rice, bread, noodles, even mass grown vegetables) are all the result of an industrialized agriculture process, which does not predate the advent of humanity. Unless you are personally foraging for berries, your statement just sounds like more vegan rationalization.

Vegetarianism is just another religion.


Faiz

What a fucking moron. Rice and wheat not being around before man? Ha. Why are our intestines over 20 feet long then? Did Jesus just pick a number?

Ignorance is just another religion.

mr.arrison wrote:
Wow, yut, you are the dumbest motherfucker I think I have seen on this board. Your argument is so skewed and scientifically retarded that you have left me speechless.

Wow. You must be carrying over some personal grudge with Yut to this thread. His post showed a lot of thought and an uncommon perspective.

Skronk wrote:

kerble wrote:

n.c. wrote: People are naturally herbavoures, cat's are not.

Your spelling and punctuation are off. Maybe you need a steak?

I don't believe that humans are naturally herbivores. Most of the staple foods that vegans eat (rice, bread, noodles, even mass grown vegetables) are all the result of an industrialized agriculture process, which does not predate the advent of humanity. Unless you are personally foraging for berries, your statement just sounds like more vegan rationalization.

Vegetarianism is just another religion.


Faiz

What a fucking moron. Rice and wheat not being around before man? Ha. Why are our intestines over 20 feet long then? Did Jesus just pick a number?

Ignorance is just another religion.

Kerble didn't say that rice and wheat didn't exist before the human race. He said that organized farming permitted vegetarianism to become a lifestyle choice for those who do not live off the land themselves.

I grew up in a really small town in New Zealand. Vegetarians were seen as being at least oddball, if not verging on being some kind of pervert.

I'm not a vego - but I think that at least vegetarians think about what they're putting in their mouths, unlike 90% of the population who just eat what ever is served up to them (and it's normally intensively farmed, filled with preservatives & other chemicals and then flown in from the other side of the world).

I only eat meat once or twice a week. My girlfriend and I eat food grown locally, and if possible organic. When we eat meat it is free range always, and again organic if possible - we have a great local butcher and game specialist. But I know that we are lucky to be well off enough to make these choices. We don't have to stress out about spending money on food like some people do.

I would like my Vege friends to eat meat once in a while. I make a great slow cook lamb stew - I think they're missing out. But I also applaud them for making their choice be it for health or ethical reasons.

I like lamb shanks, pork belly and confit duck leg too much to ever give them up.

clocker bob wrote:

mr.arrison wrote:
Wow, yut, you are the dumbest motherfucker I think I have seen on this board. Your argument is so skewed and scientifically retarded that you have left me speechless.

Wow. You must be carrying over some personal grudge with Yut to this thread. His post showed a lot of thought and an uncommon perspective.

No I have no grudge. What this argument fails to mention is that producing meat takes millions of gallons of fresh water, compared to vegetables and grains. Producing a pound of meat protein takes thousands of gallons MORE fresh water than a pound of vegetable/grain protein. Producing meat creates an exorbitant amount of waste, methane and ultimately pollution that producing a pound of protein from grain and vegetables don't. I am a partial vegetarian and I don't care if others eat meat, but his argument is as flawed as the one that this century's climate change is natural.

mr.arrison wrote: What this argument fails to mention is that producing meat takes millions of gallons of fresh water,

Failing to mention something is not the same as disagreement. Yut didn't say anything about the resources consumed by livestock compared to vegetables and grains. He said that when oil becomes scarce, the costs to ship produce to areas that can't grow it will escalate. That makes sense to me. I still don't see how he deserved to have words like 'dumbest motherfucker' and 'retarded' thrown at him for what he wrote.

clocker bob wrote:

mr.arrison wrote: What this argument fails to mention is that producing meat takes millions of gallons of fresh water,

He said that when oil becomes scarce, the costs to ship produce to areas that can't grow it will escalate.

yut's posted many things to this forum that have been dumb in my opinion. While you may be right that I am being "mean" he can handle it.

The cost to grow, butcher and then ship meat to these areas will also escalate. This argument yut is posing assumes that everyone who is a vegetarian has to eat watery gourmet vegetables grown in the valley in California and that all vegetarians in the world will have to eat these vegetables delivered in oil-guzzling tankers and cargo airplanes. That is retarded. Vegetables can be grown in many areas if there is decent soil and fresh water. Meat can't be produced at this volume without MORE natural resources, including OIL expended. When Oil becomes scarce, the cost for the world's population to eat a full meal will increase regardless. It doesn't matter if meat's on the plate or not. That's another argument altogether. yut's using a popular right wing tactic to make his argument by bringing in something that has no real bearing on the discussion to make his point.

If starving people in Ethiopia, Somalia etc. had fresh water and grain they could be both vegetarian and not-starve to death. I am not suggesting that this would cure world hunger or give them all the vitamins and minerals needed but it would help- and be better than dying. It makes more sense to do this than using the fresh water to grow grain that is then fed in exorbitant amounts to create a pound of meat-based protein (creating waste and wreaking environmental havoc in the process).

clocker bob wrote:

mr.arrison wrote:
Wow, yut, you are the dumbest motherfucker I think I have seen on this board. Your argument is so skewed and scientifically retarded that you have left me speechless.

Wow. You must be carrying over some personal grudge with Yut to this thread. His post showed a lot of thought and an uncommon perspective.

Have you read this entire thread?

Go to page 7 where I respond to his fabricated dietary information. Everything else out of his mouth has been nothing but opinion or misinformation.

mr.arrison wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

mr.arrison wrote: What this argument fails to mention is that producing meat takes millions of gallons of fresh water,

He said that when oil becomes scarce, the costs to ship produce to areas that can't grow it will escalate.

yut's posted many things to this forum that have been dumb in my opinion. While you may be right that I am being "mean" he can handle it.

Okay, now that I've read the entire thread ( and not just the post of yut's that you quoted ), I find more to disagree with yut about. To better understand why I disagree with it, I read some of the articles found here, Oil Empire's 'peak grain' page. Another cheery site about the relationship between population, petroleum, and food production is dieoff dot org.

i don't get people who have a problem with vegetarians. seems to me like it's just their guilty conscience kicking in, getting all defensive and shit.

personally i don't eat meat, with the exception of fish which i still haven't been able to quit. in a few generations no one will eat meat.