Vegan Diet V Carnivore Diet

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by rosestone

Yes, grassland is perfectly natural, and yes, humans have been grazing animals for millennia. But so what? A third of the world’s arable land is used to raise crops just to feed livestock that’s then slaughtered. Why don’t we use that land to grow food for humans instead, and leave the animals and the grass to their own business? Again, I would be willing to bet that the average vegan gets a lot more fibre in their diet than the average meat eater consuming their digested grass from the flesh of livestock. Personally I don’t find it a compelling argument to eat meat, even if it were the case that all meat consumed by humans was raised by nomads on natural grassland (which it obviously ain't).

Every cell in your body has the ability to turn cancerous too, the question is whether it does or not. Vegans have the lowest ldl chlosterol, and the healthiest BMI. Here’s a study if you want to read about it. Interestingly in 1940 deaths from circulatory diseases in Norway dropped precipitously, and didn’t climb again until 1945 – “Strom and Jensen reported a profound decrease in circulatory diseases in Norway during WWII when the Germans confiscated the country's livestock, forcing the Norwegians to subsist mostly on plant food”.



Here’s what the WHO says about meat (I’m not going to look up the actual studies - I'll leave that to xyde, he knows more about this stuff than I do).

The flaw in your proposal is overlooking the fact that the land in question may NOT be suitable for the type of food crops best suited for humans-you could equally argue we should knock down all our cities and plough the land up-because cities are generally built on good agricultural land....essentially because humans are ultimately lazy. I wonder if vegans would be so healthy if their choices were limited to soy beans and oil palm...or the local animal feed equivalent...

One of the advantages of pastoral farming IS that it can make productive use of relatively poor land areas where geography, soil fertility, water resources and climate render cropping a second best option-or even impossible option.

[rosestone]

Originally Posted by cginok

Horses didn't go extinct because people want/need them. People keep domestic horses because they either enjoy riding them, or need them for work purposes. Most wild horses are gone in this country. Yes, they still exist. But not in the numbers they used to.

Cattle/sheep/swine are a different case. They serve no real purpose other than as a food source. If they're no longer used as a food source, they're usefulness will cease to exist, they will cease to exist. Nobody is going to set aside millions of acres of land so that Angus cattle can wander around on it.

Even leaving aside the anthropocentric nature of the argument, if you want to look at it that way, Hindus consider cows to be sacred, and there are over a billion Hindus in the world. There are sanctuaries for animals like pigs, cows, sheep (I even know somebody with a pet sheep) now, nevermind in the unlikely eventuality of the entire world suddenly going vegan, and, presumably, wanting to use a fraction of their resources to care for animals that are already 'in the system'.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you, I appreciate what you're saying, but the idea that force-impregnating creatures, keeping them in what are often torturous conditions and then slaughtering them before their time, and that we are somehow doing them a favour in this, is not a view I subscribe to (as you can probably tell ).

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

The flaw in your proposal is overlooking the fact that the land in question may NOT be suitable for the type of food crops best suited for humans-you could equally argue we should knock down all our cities and plough the land up-because cities are generally built on good agricultural land....essentially because humans are ultimately lazy. I wonder if vegans would be so healthy if their choices were limited to soy beans and oil palm...or the local animal feed equivalent...

One of the advantages of pastoral farming IS that it can make productive use of relatively poor land areas where geography, soil fertility, water resources and climate render cropping a second best option-or even impossible option.

I could argue that, but I’m not (I don't get how destroying cities is an equivalence, but ok). One could argue that we should destroy 91% of the rainforest to keep livestock (oh hey, we’ve done that already), but that don’t make it a good idea.

What is this land in question? Our much discussed nomads and their grazing cattle? How many of the 56 billion land animals that are slaughtered each year for food does this account for? I understand your point, that there is some land that is not suitable for crops, but it is suitable for grazing – but again, I say, a third of the world’s arable land is used for raising crops just to feed livestock. That’s arable land. Livestock systems account for 45% of the world’s landmass – I don’t know what percentage of that is nomads and their grazing herd, but I imagine it’s not a lot. Of course vegan’s choices wouldn’t be limited to soybeans and palm oil, because they aren’t now - but just eat soy in place of meat and follow your normal diet otherwise, if you want to look at it that way. I’m going round in circles here – a vegan diet uses 1/10th of the land that an omnovire diet does. Apparently you get 20lbs of edible beef per acre, but you 260lbs of rice per acre, 192lbs of legumes, and 356lbs of soybeans. Come to that, between a fifth and a third of all water usage goes on livestock, so just use that to halt desertification and reclaim a bunch of land.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

Well humans don't have a good track record for digesting cellulose

Human being don't get any problems to digest seeds and cereals like lentils, beans, etc... Vegans don't eat woods or grass.

Originally Posted by cginok

If we all stopped eating beef, people would stop raising cattle, the cattle would, for the most part, go bye bye.

And ?
I admit that there are farm animals who have a decent life, but they are few.
99% of the farm rabbits spend all their life in very small cages during all their life.
The reality for a lot of farm animals is that they are treated between objects and slaves.

If people would eat less animals, at least their life conditions could be improved.

What would you prefer ?
1) Never to be born
2) or to live to be exploited ?

Originally Posted by haroldeye

My wife is carnivorous, eating all sorts of meat once a day. She is 53 yrs old and a trim size 8. Her twin sister is a Vegan and is a size 14. As the Americans would say 'Go figure'.

Your sister-in-law probably doesn't manage well her vegan diet.
She probably eats too much sugar and not enough organic fruits, lentils, humus, quinoa.

That's a problem today. Some people want to be vegan but don't know how to eat properly. They abuse of sugar.

But on the same way... there are omnivorous people who have other dietetic problems, because they don't manage well their "omnivorous" diet too.

But... in general sugar became a terrible problem in our modern societies.
Our ancesters didn't consume the same kind of sugar and in less quantities. I suppose they consumed more fructose than saccharose and had not small hidden quantities added in all the manufactured food as we are used to buy and consume today.

[Sir Honkers]

The good lady and I had pan fried Porterhouse steak with fried onion and chips for tea tonight. God...melt in your mouth delicious! Ethics are all well and good, but the real reason I don't have it more often is because it's nearly forty bucks a kilo.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

What would you prefer ?
1) Never to be born
2) or to live to be exploited ?

Good Lord, you're back

That's a typical crap argument from a Vegan PETA type .... and I'll answer that, I pick number 2

At least I existed and did some good to someone hungry.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Good Lord, you're back

That's a typical crap argument from a Vegan PETA type ....

Yep.

I recently read the life of PETA leader Ingrid Newkirk, because here in Swizterland PETA is not important, we already have animal associations since decades.

She seems to be a nice woman. The Maria Theresa for the animals.

Originally Posted by Estreeter

That's a typical crap argument from a Vegan PETA type .... and I'll answer that, I pick number 2

I'll be fair with you. You don't seem to be well informed.

Case 1.

Welcome to my Estreeter farm.

I'll cut your bollocks without anestesia,
burn your ass with meltin iron,
put you in a small cage during at least 6 winter monthes with 12 or 80 other guys like you and never give you a shower,
you will spend there boring hours, days... several years of your short life.
I'll cut one of your ears to put a yellow numbered badge on it,
feed you with the same kind of food during all the remaining days of your life.
If you are nice, I'll add a bell around your neck and put a ring in your nose to show you at psychopath people during exhibition.

Or

Case 2

Do you prefer to die in a condom ?

So I give you a second chance. Case one or case two ?
Be honest guy... be honest.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I'll be fair with you. You don't seem to be well informed.

Case 1.

Welcome to my Estreeter farm.

I'll cut your bollocks without anestesia,
burn your ass with meltin iron,
put you in a small cage during at least 6 winter monthes with 12 or 80 other guys like you and never give you a shower,
you will spend there boring hours, days... several years of your short life.
I'll cut one of your ears to put a yellow numbered badge on it,
feed you with the same kind of food during all the remaining days of you life.
If you are nice, I'll add a bell around your neck and put a ring in your nose to show you at psychopath people during exhibition.

Or

Case 2

Do you prefer to die in a condom ?

Excuse me

You'll be fair to me a bit rich coming from the member who just asked a question and I gave a direct answer, unlike another thread which I asked a member a question over and over and over and still can't answer a simple question directly as I just did with a 1 or 2 , I wonder who that could be

Originally Posted by xyzde69

So I give you a second chance. Case one or case two ?
Be honest guy... be honest.

You'll give me a second chance
Why because you're a typical far left radical and my answer don't agree with what you want me to say

I think you forget who you're talking to, like I've said before, I grew up in a semi rural community, have seen animals killed for food, for for control, euthanised, killed animals myself and have no problem with it, I don't enjoy it but have no problem with it. That said, I don't like a lot of the big companies and they way they treat animals, but at the same time understand it's natural for us to eat meat.

My answer don't change for your satisfaction, like I said, if my existence was for a reason then so be it.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Why because you're a typical far left radical and my answer don't agree with what you want me to say

Because I perfectly know that you would not agree to be treated like a bull or a pig during 6 to 10 years of your life apart if you are a masochist.

But... maybe you are a masochist.

These animals are bored when detained during monthes in farms.

If there are people who would dislike to be deprived of their fundamental rights... that's clearly typical far right radical guys.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

But... maybe you are a masochist.

These animals are bored when detained during monthes in farms.

I doubt it, what I'd say is I do what comes natural, I'll show you why
See, once again you will pick and chose what you need for your agenda,
You're repeatedly suggesting in all kinds of topics over and over and over how we should live and morals and ethics, where as I don't give a damn what you eat ,but here's my point,

Here you point out what our ancestors did

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Our ancesters didn't consume the same kind of sugar and in less quantities. .

They did what comes naturally but in the case of them eating meat you decide to leave that out

I actually eat a well balanced diet, I think you're brain lacks the right amount of protein, this here

Originally Posted by xyzde69

If there are people who would dislike to be deprived of their fundamental rights... that's clearly typical far right radical guys.

I guess nobody on the left or even far left ate or still eats meat Good Lord I've seen a lot of your comments on here but that one is right up there with the best of them with the fanatsy that goes on in your head.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

One trick ponies annoy me

Me too. It's servitude of the ponies.

As always you send me on another way.
I really dislike that farmers artificially inseminate animals to kill their children later. That's one of the worst form of parasitism.

Veganism = the most ethical way to live his (her) life until his (her) death.