BADSPOT IS most pathetic user in blockland history

[cooolguy32]

what in the hell

[Ad Bot]

[otto-san]

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.

i think it's important at this point then to note that we don't just eat food for energy, we also eat it for nutrients. if all we needed was energy, we could survive by just eating sugars all the time. like mczealot said, vegan diets have to be supplemented with nutrients that cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts from plant matter, and the process of synthesizing or cultivating those supplements would probably be more economically intensive than animal-based solutions on a society-sized scale. that being said, i'm talking stuff out of my ass here since i definitely don't have the figures to back that up available, but the point stands that it's not as simple as that contention makes it sound

ofc if we're talking morals anyway then economic viability isn't super-relevant

[IkeTheGeneric]

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.

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.

Still hinges on the very big fact that switching to a vegan lifestyle nationally just isn't economically feasible in any realistic way. I've already done my fair bit of research into this topic, including getting talking points from actual grain and dairy farmers on the topic. Appeals to emotion with the topic of animal suffering just isn't going to change anything here, this line of attack is always going to put everyone you're arguing with on the defensive.

Plus it's just a bad angle in the first place, nobody realistically cares about animal suffering. Ethics isn't something that comes into equation for capitalism when it's on the basis of providing necessary product to the population.

[Frequency]

I'll attest to that. I really don't care where my tofu comes from.

[Metario]

calling it now mczealot wins by a landslide

[Red Spy]

I'll attest to that. I really don't care where my tofu comes from.

it comes from big tofu

[Frequency]

calling it now mczealot wins by a landslide

in all possible realities he will "lose" because meat will always be in demand

it comes from big tofu

ew i didn't need to know that
guess I'll eat meat now

[IkeTheGeneric]

ew i didn't need to know that
guess I'll eat meat now

another victory for big meat...

[Metario]

in all possible realities he will "lose" because meat will always be in demand

nono he wins at being the most pathetic user ever

[Nonnel]

i think it's important at this point then to note that we don't just eat food for energy, we also eat it for nutrients. if all we needed was energy, we could survive by just eating sugars all the time. like mczealot said, vegan diets have to be supplemented with nutrients that cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts from plant matter, and the process of synthesizing or cultivating those supplements would probably be more economically intensive than animal-based solutions on a society-sized scale. that being said, i'm talking stuff out of my ass here since i definitely don't have the figures to back that up available, but the point stands that it's not as simple as that contention makes it sound

of course, but like i said: i don't think the meat industry should be axed entirely. not at all. i think factory farming should come to an end (replaced with free-range ranching) and meat should be seen as less of a staple. your body needs about 4-5oz of lean meat a day, but people eat it breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
it's a super unnecessary amount of animals which need to be slaughtered to keep that going, and we've still got millions of people dying of starvation every year. if a good amount of that land was reallocated for staple crops, it seems to me there'd be less starvation and more healthy diets.

'course maybe that's not as profitable for the big boys

[Frequency]

nono he wins at being the most pathetic user ever

Oh. I'd consider that a loss overall.

another victory for big meat...

thanks for making this weird, meathead

[otto-san]

of course, but like i said: i don't think the meat industry should be axed entirely. not at all. i think factory farming should come to an end (replaced with free-range ranching) and meat should be seen as less of a staple. your body needs about 4-5oz of lean meat a day, but people eat it breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
it's a super unnecessary amount of animals which need to be slaughtered to keep that going, and we've still got millions of people dying of starvation every year. if a good amount of that land was reallocated for staple crops, it seems to me there'd be less starvation and more healthy diets.

'course maybe that's not as profitable for the big boys

yeah market forces definitely encourage some weird behavior when it comes to food production that make it harder to ensure widespread access. and i think most people at least agree in principle that livestock should be treated as humanely as possible, even if they don't agree that they shouldn't be taken advantage of at all

[HellHound]

breaking news: armed plant rights activists break into research facility, free dozens of specimens back into the wild

[beachbum111111]

I know this is late but it's too good to pass up.

Wouldn't you rather be a vegan atheist socialist child enthusiast than a loser who spends their time cooking up hot memes to piss off people you'll never meet?

[Drydess]

tbh zealot, from a logical standpoint, i think you should worry less about animals being killed and more about the ecosystem being generally forgeted by pollution. bears kill fish, it's just a way of life. just because we're people doesn't mean we don't follow the ecosystem, if people just suddenly stopped killing and eating animals then the food chain would be all forgeted up in many ways that would just end up with even more animal deaths

there's nothing wrong with veganism it's just you shouldnt try to force it onto other people