BADSPOT IS most pathetic user in blockland history

Author Topic: BADSPOT IS most pathetic user in blockland history  (Read 27658 times)

well that's a different question; you said it wasn't affordable. i'm not trying to say that grain is a full substitute for meat and milk. we could be growing tons of other crops in the spaces we use growing grain for cattle to eat. a wealth of crops could replace the nutrition we get from eating cows.

i'm not saying we should completely axe beef from human diets, i'm saying growing other crops rather than depending on beef as a staple would result in 10x as much food as we get from growing beef as per the rule of 10% and be way more sustainable.

Replacing 10% of livestock with grains would be in no way an affordable substitute. If it was, we already would have done this.

Plants are slow to grow and cant be made bigger or put very close together like livestock can.

It's weird how Zealot is making a point about us not evolving to argue over the Internet. I don't think we evolved to drastically change our diet because some butt baby said "muh animals"! either.

It'd be a lame cow and would actually be killed by some form of disease not even a year after. Either that or something takes down and eats the lame cow. There's no winning here, Ms. Terra.
Why would it be killed by some form of disease? I didn't mention anything about the cow having no immune system or anything like that. Why is it okay for animals to literally eat each other alive, but not for us to simply kill them and harvest their meat? I think that's a lot more humane than a gazelle watching it's organs get torn out by a lion or some other predator. Nice stuffty ad-hominem there by the way bud, you sure you got any room to talk about peoples past? Hint: you don't.

i'm not saying we should completely axe beef from human diets, i'm saying growing other crops rather than depending on beef as a staple would result in 10x as much food as we get from growing beef as per the rule of 10% and be way more sustainable.
W-we don't depend on beef?

Plus I can guarantee you a push to increase grains in third world countries would have an uptick in child labor. Human suffering will increase at the advent of trying to curb animal suffering. This is something you would have to prevent 100%, or it would be a net detriment.

also for dinner my dad is gonna charcoal some delicious burgers with hickory smoked bbq cooked into it, if ya dont like that then come to my apartment in skiatook and prevent it yourself, namecalling and insulting on a screen does jack stuff aside making you look like a brainwashed buffoon

can i come

Ike, if you'd do some research you'd learn that Beef is the one of the most environmentally damaging substance on the planet. It takes 2000 gallons of water to create a single pound of beef, and the majority of rainforest deforestation is to support cattle ranching--not to mention the fact that it takes 10 pounds of grain to produce a single pound of beef. It's wildly inefficient. Cows also release an extremely high amount of greenhouse gases, heating the Earth and damaging the envirornment--while they suffer the entire time from disgusting overfeeding and chemical injections.

The cost in gas, deforestation, water, and simply animal suffering is extraordinary. There's no way to pretend it's efficient.

This is pretty much it, we can rattle our pans about whatever the forget here, but the fact remains that nothing will change.
If you want to make any substantial changes to the food industry, this will be your first hurdle.
You keep saying my work is in vain, but that's so obviously not true. The average consumer will eat around 7000 animals in their lifetime. I've cut that down (almost to zero) and done the same for around 6-10 other people (some still eat a little meat). That means that 10 vegetarians will save seventy-thousand animals. I've convinced most of these people between the ages of 14 and 24, so I obviously haven't cut their count down to zero, but perhaps to just 1/6th of what it would be otherwise. With some basic calculations, that suggests if I died today I would've prevented the deaths of sixty-thousand animals.

Animals are raised as per demand. If you eat around one animal per day in terms of meat consumption (and most people will) you are saving one small creature from death every single day. If you convince other people to do the same, you multiply your impact. What if they convince someone else to do the same? You create waves of influence that will exponentially save life. To say it's meaningless is utterly ridiculous.

This is a Pro-Vegan website I've sourced frequently on this exactly issue, but unless you can find anything wrong their statistics, it looks extremely well-researched:
http://www.countinganimals.com/how-many-animals-does-a-vegetarian-save/

The argument of 'haha vegan I'm gonna go eat some MEAT' is really kinda laughable. It gets an eye-raise at best. Like, you're already eating meat. It's not somehow worse for you to eat it now. Do you also burn plastic in a bin or remove your cars filter because you hate eco-activists and want to show them what's-what?


Why would it be killed by some form of disease? I didn't mention anything about the cow having no immune system or anything like that. Why is it okay for animals to literally eat each other alive, but not for us to simply kill them and harvest their meat? I think that's a lot more humane than a gazelle watching it's organs get torn out by a lion or some other predator. Nice stuffty ad-hominem there by the way bud, you sure you got any room to talk about peoples past? Hint: you don't.
you're attacking your side here and i did not see that you eere on mine. sorry.
diseases can also be gotten from cuts/bruises/water. the cow wouldnt be alert of this and would simply just keep on going.

I have a good feeling Monsanto™ is looking out for us all when it comes to Delicious™ Modified™ Organic Life Sustaining Carbon Edibles™ they make at Area 51

I believe clearing more land for more plants to grow is a lot more costly to the environment around us. Also, you can't just grow stuff wherever you want. A lot of our world is desert where food we eat cannot grow, or other harsh environments besides desert.

you're attacking your side here and i did not see that you eere on mine. sorry.
diseases can also be gotten from cuts/bruises/water. the cow wouldnt be alert of this and would simply just keep on going.
A cut/bruise/water isn't a one way ticket to die-of-disease land. You know animals don't drink tapwater that is 100 percent bacteria free, right?


Cows also release an extremely high amount of greenhouse gases, heating the Earth and damaging the envirornment

if we all eat tofu dogs we could stop global warming

.
A cut/bruise/water isn't a one way ticket to die-of-disease land. You know animals don't drink tapwater that is 100 percent bacteria free, right?
It could be if this lame cow suddenly stopped feeling emotion and pain, if this cow started drinking liquids shes not supposed to or if theres stuff in the water, etc

Replacing 10% of livestock with grains would be in no way an affordable substitute. If it was, we already would have done this.
are you memeing me
the rule of 10% means that when you eat grass, you get 10% of its energy. if you eat a cow that eats grain, you're getting 10% of the energy from that beef, or 1% of the energy from the grass. it is less efficient.
i never said that we should replace 10% of livestock with grain, i said it would be more efficient, and therefore sustainable, if the land being used to grow crops to be fed to cows were used to grow crops for people. you don't have to clear more land.

also "if it was, we would have already done this" is a more than silly line of reasoning.

So if a cow lost its sense of pain and didn't feel emotions, you'd kill it? The point I'm making is that it's stupid that whether it feels it or not makes it unethical. It's still life.

Uhh for the record, I actually like some meats and don't mind if animals are killed en masse. So don't get the idea that I'm against the meat industry entirely. There was misinformation being spread about the degree to which commonly slaughtered animals could "feel" and I felt like contributing some facts.

But since you seem interest in my personal opinion-- yes, I do believe the extent of pain an organism feels should play into how it is killed for our consumption. Humans are super intelligent and I think, for both ethical and (personally) religious reasons, we should show some responsibility and humility if we are going to kill animals in large numbers.

For instance if an animal is killed for sport I don't really care about what it goes through. It's only when they are being killed off in large numbers by businesses that I think some measures need to be taken to be sure the conditions are clean, the animals are healthy, and their deaths are about as humane as we can manage.

I actually have no clue what you're getting at. "It's still life" for instance is just vague, what do you even mean by that?

jokes aside if you don't like bacon you deserve to die