Discussion:
Activists take Al Gore to task on his diet
(too old to reply)
rotten
2007-09-10 20:03:57 UTC
Permalink
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.

Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture

Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.

When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".

The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.

"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.

Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.

But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.

According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.

Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.

He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
rotten
2007-09-10 20:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-10 20:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
rotten
2007-09-10 21:00:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
George Conklin
2007-09-10 21:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Actually eating meat is bad for the environment. Having said that, I'm not
going to stop eating meat either.
rotten
2007-09-10 21:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many
people
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your
own
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Actually eating meat is bad for the environment. Having said that, I'm not
going to stop eating meat either.
How is meat bad for the environment?
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 03:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many
people
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your
own
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Actually eating meat is bad for the environment. Having said that, I'm not
going to stop eating meat either.
How is meat bad for the environment?
1) Feed inputs have to be produced for the animals, which means
pesticides, fertilizer runoff, and petroleum use, both in producing and
transporting the feed.
2) Feedlots concentrate animal waste in an area that many animals were
not ever intended by nature to live in, resulting in more runoff of
high-nitrogen substances, methane production, etc.
3) The dead animals are usually then trucked thousands of miles to where
they will be eaten.

But by far the greatest environmental cost is in 1 and 2. This is why it is
possible to eat meat and not harm the environment. For instance, you can
shoot Bambi, hack a hole in his belly, pull out his steaming entrails, and
throw him on the roof of your SUV, secure in the knowledge he was eating
forest products and that his waste would have been sprinkled about the woods
whether you shot him or not. Or you can raise your own pig on pasture and
slash its fat little throat when the time is right, knowing that not only
did you feed your pig stuff that would not have been anything people could
eat anyway, it also tilled your field so you could plant potatoes in the
spring.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 03:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Yes. So are a lot of things we do. But like all of the things we do that
are not healthy for us or the environment, there are many places we can cut
back, and cutting back is often as effective as elimination. I'd hate to
think that the human race is completely incapable of any type of restraint.
However, you're doing a wonderful job of proving my point that you can't
expect people to consider the consequences of their actions and change their
behavior on one issue when you are clearly not in favor of doing so on this
one... :-)
Rotten
2007-09-11 03:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Yes. So are a lot of things we do. But like all of the things we do that
are not healthy for us or the environment, there are many places we can
cut back, and cutting back is often as effective as elimination. I'd hate
to think that the human race is completely incapable of any type of
restraint. However, you're doing a wonderful job of proving my point that
you can't expect people to consider the consequences of their actions and
change their behavior on one issue when you are clearly not in favor of
doing so on this one... :-)
People are not going to be willing to cut back, actually.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 15:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Yes. So are a lot of things we do. But like all of the things we do
that are not healthy for us or the environment, there are many places we
can cut back, and cutting back is often as effective as elimination. I'd
hate to think that the human race is completely incapable of any type of
restraint. However, you're doing a wonderful job of proving my point that
you can't expect people to consider the consequences of their actions and
change their behavior on one issue when you are clearly not in favor of
doing so on this one... :-)
People are not going to be willing to cut back, actually.
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
rotten
2007-09-11 15:19:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 11, 11:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Yes. So are a lot of things we do. But like all of the things we do
that are not healthy for us or the environment, there are many places we
can cut back, and cutting back is often as effective as elimination. I'd
hate to think that the human race is completely incapable of any type of
restraint. However, you're doing a wonderful job of proving my point that
you can't expect people to consider the consequences of their actions and
change their behavior on one issue when you are clearly not in favor of
doing so on this one... :-)
People are not going to be willing to cut back, actually.
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 15:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
This proves my point. You can see negative consequences to your actions,
yet you persist in taking them anyway. At the same time, you believe other
people should be punished for doing that same thing. Who is nuts in this
conversation?
rotten
2007-09-11 16:29:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 11, 11:45 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
This proves my point. You can see negative consequences to your actions,
yet you persist in taking them anyway. At the same time, you believe other
people should be punished for doing that same thing. Who is nuts in this
conversation?
Actually, I don't see the negative consequences to my actions at all,
which is the purpose of this thread. The "meat is bad for the
environment" stuff is silly. Like I've said elsewhere, we can mitigate
any adverse effects or consequences we might have through advances in
technology and that is IF those adverse effects turns out to anything
more than a minor inconvenience.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 16:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 11, 11:45 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
This proves my point. You can see negative consequences to your actions,
yet you persist in taking them anyway. At the same time, you believe other
people should be punished for doing that same thing. Who is nuts in this
conversation?
Actually, I don't see the negative consequences to my actions at all,
which is the purpose of this thread. The "meat is bad for the
environment" stuff is silly. Like I've said elsewhere, we can mitigate
any adverse effects or consequences we might have through advances in
technology and that is IF those adverse effects turns out to anything
more than a minor inconvenience.
Just like we're successfully mitigating the consequences of destroying the
wetlands around New Orleans :-p
Tadej Brezina
2007-09-14 09:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 11, 11:45 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
This proves my point. You can see negative consequences to your actions,
yet you persist in taking them anyway. At the same time, you believe other
people should be punished for doing that same thing. Who is nuts in this
conversation?
Actually, I don't see the negative consequences to my actions at all,
which is the purpose of this thread. The "meat is bad for the
environment" stuff is silly. Like I've said elsewhere, we can mitigate
any adverse effects or consequences we might have through advances in
technology and
Which is, plain and simply, blatant nonsense coming from the media
sponsored by technology-corporations.
"Don't need to think about your behaviour and the consequences it has,
as it agregates due to population mass and their strive for ever
increasing convenience, technology will heal it all."
Whereas this has been applicable in past times, when dimensions were
smaller, as technology has allegedly mitigated some problem by deplacing
its own impacts on a geographical or time-scale, this is and will no
longer be true, due to the simple fact of the global scale of cause and
consequence and its ever increasing spread.
A simple look at data (take averagy technologies), how consumption
grows, positive exponentially, and how efficiency increases,
logarithmically, will show you, that the consumption curve will be
increasing faster (at present growth rates) than technologies'
efficiency will.
Post by rotten
that is IF those adverse effects turns out to anything
more than a minor inconvenience.
Regards
Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
rotten
2007-09-14 15:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tadej Brezina
Post by rotten
On Sep 11, 11:45 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
This proves my point. You can see negative consequences to your actions,
yet you persist in taking them anyway. At the same time, you believe other
people should be punished for doing that same thing. Who is nuts in this
conversation?
Actually, I don't see the negative consequences to my actions at all,
which is the purpose of this thread. The "meat is bad for the
environment" stuff is silly. Like I've said elsewhere, we can mitigate
any adverse effects or consequences we might have through advances in
technology and
Which is, plain and simply, blatant nonsense coming from the media
sponsored by technology-corporations.
So it's all a conspiracy? Are aliens involved?
Post by Tadej Brezina
"Don't need to think about your behaviour and the consequences it has,
as it agregates due to population mass and their strive for ever
increasing convenience, technology will heal it all."
Whereas this has been applicable in past times, when dimensions were
smaller, as technology has allegedly mitigated some problem by deplacing
its own impacts on a geographical or time-scale, this is and will no
longer be true, due to the simple fact of the global scale of cause and
consequence and its ever increasing spread.
A simple look at data (take averagy technologies), how consumption
grows, positive exponentially, and how efficiency increases,
logarithmically, will show you, that the consumption curve will be
increasing faster (at present growth rates) than technologies'
efficiency will.
Well then prices will go up which should curb consumption.
Tadej Brezina
2007-09-20 14:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by Tadej Brezina
Post by rotten
On Sep 11, 11:45 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
This proves my point. You can see negative consequences to your actions,
yet you persist in taking them anyway. At the same time, you believe other
people should be punished for doing that same thing. Who is nuts in this
conversation?
Actually, I don't see the negative consequences to my actions at all,
which is the purpose of this thread. The "meat is bad for the
environment" stuff is silly. Like I've said elsewhere, we can mitigate
any adverse effects or consequences we might have through advances in
technology and
Which is, plain and simply, blatant nonsense coming from the media
sponsored by technology-corporations.
So it's all a conspiracy? Are aliens involved?
Rupert Murdoch, Leo Kirch and other media czars don't look as bad yet,
to consider them aliens!
Post by rotten
Post by Tadej Brezina
"Don't need to think about your behaviour and the consequences it has,
as it agregates due to population mass and their strive for ever
increasing convenience, technology will heal it all."
Whereas this has been applicable in past times, when dimensions were
smaller, as technology has allegedly mitigated some problem by deplacing
its own impacts on a geographical or time-scale, this is and will no
longer be true, due to the simple fact of the global scale of cause and
consequence and its ever increasing spread.
A simple look at data (take averagy technologies), how consumption
grows, positive exponentially, and how efficiency increases,
logarithmically, will show you, that the consumption curve will be
increasing faster (at present growth rates) than technologies'
efficiency will.
Well then prices will go up which should curb consumption.
Yeah exactly, but that's not a solution on the technology side.
Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
drydem
2007-09-20 16:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by Tadej Brezina
Post by rotten
On Sep 11, 11:45 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
This proves my point. You can see negative consequences to your actions,
yet you persist in taking them anyway. At the same time, you believe other
people should be punished for doing that same thing. Who is nuts in this
conversation?
Actually, I don't see the negative consequences to my actions at all,
which is the purpose of this thread. The "meat is bad for the
environment" stuff is silly. Like I've said elsewhere, we can mitigate
any adverse effects or consequences we might have through advances in
technology and
Which is, plain and simply, blatant nonsense coming from the media
sponsored by technology-corporations.
So it's all a conspiracy? Are aliens involved?
Post by Tadej Brezina
"Don't need to think about your behaviour and the consequences it has,
as it agregates due to population mass and their strive for ever
increasing convenience, technology will heal it all."
Whereas this has been applicable in past times, when dimensions were
smaller, as technology has allegedly mitigated some problem by deplacing
its own impacts on a geographical or time-scale, this is and will no
longer be true, due to the simple fact of the global scale of cause and
consequence and its ever increasing spread.
A simple look at data (take averagy technologies), how consumption
grows, positive exponentially, and how efficiency increases,
logarithmically, will show you, that the consumption curve will be
increasing faster (at present growth rates) than technologies'
efficiency will.
Well then prices will go up which should curb consumption.
When cost go up if an economic equilibrium is not reestablished,
consumption may disappear. Economic change can destroy the
socio-economic-political institutions/markets/agencies/systems
when the change is greater than their ability to adapt.

One of the most common marketing/economic mistakes (made
by Supply-Side Economic Advocates) is to assume that a
market or an economic system is infinitely elastic and adaptable.

Keynesian economics - the child of the great depression -
was developed because the risk and cost of an market or
economic system collapse was considered too great.

A example of how keynesian[1] vs supple side economics[2]
forces plays in today's news is the recent collapse of
the subprime rate in the USA[3]. The collapse was due
to inflationary forces, lower employment/economic growth,
and a previous trend in riskier financial/banking practices.
One of its consequences was a larger than normal
mortagage defaults and less financial solvancy within
the financial industry. The risk to large mortgage
companies like Countrywide Mortgage were hanging
in the balance.

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_side
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis

A supply side economics advocate might say that
the financial industry's subprime rate market collapse
is a natural market force and there should be no
effort to intervene, e.g. cut the federal prime rate -
market forces should be allowed to weed out
finanial institutions and borrowers who make
very risky loans. A supply side economic advocate
would assert because the demand for mortgages
and loans will always be there - short term failures
of certain companies and borrowers in the industry
should not effect the long term view of the market.
Finanical corrections like the 1997 Asian financial
Crisis[4] are necessary to push financial market to
change

[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_Financial_Crisis

A Keynesian economic advocate would say a
sub prime rate market collapse would be bad
for the stabilty of the financial market and
advocate a cut the federal prime rate - limiting
or preventing collapse of financial institutions
and borrowers who had made riskier loans.
Tha ability for the banks to meet refinancing
demands caused by the collapse of the subprime
rate market would be tested unless the money
supply is increased and more favorable interest
rates were not available.

The Federal Reserve whose mission was to protect
the US Banking system saw that collapse of the subprime
rate market as putting the major banks at risk. In the
end, the Federal Reserve System ordered a drastic
cut in the prime rate to stabilize and limit the effects
of the subprime rate collapse. By providing a favorable
refinancing rate for overextended financial institution
which would have face certain large loses, the
feds came to the aid of the financial industry which
in turn made many wall street investors very happy.
rotten
2007-09-20 20:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by rotten
Well then prices will go up which should curb consumption.
When cost go up if an economic equilibrium is not reestablished,
consumption may disappear. Economic change can destroy the
socio-economic-political institutions/markets/agencies/systems
when the change is greater than their ability to adapt.
What are you talking about?
Post by drydem
One of the most common marketing/economic mistakes (made
by Supply-Side Economic Advocates) is to assume that a
market or an economic system is infinitely elastic and adaptable.
Huh? What does what I said have to do with any of this? I'm not even a
supply side economist guy so you sound like a nut to me.
Post by drydem
Keynesian economics - the child of the great depression -
was developed because the risk and cost of an market or
economic system collapse was considered too great.
Great... again, this has no bearing on what I said.

It's a well known fact that when the real price of something goes up
then they will generally consume less of it, all other things being
equal. Nothing supply-side about it.
Post by drydem
A example of how keynesian[1] vs supple side economics[2]
forces plays in today's news is the recent collapse of
the subprime rate in the USA[3]. The collapse was due
to inflationary forces, lower employment/economic growth,
and a previous trend in riskier financial/banking practices.
One of its consequences was a larger than normal
mortagage defaults and less financial solvancy within
the financial industry. The risk to large mortgage
companies like Countrywide Mortgage were hanging
in the balance.
What does this have to do with what I posted?
Post by drydem
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_side
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis
Using Wikipedia as a source for anything, especially economic or
political issues, is foolish.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-09-11 17:39:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 11, 11:45 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
This proves my point. You can see negative consequences to your actions,
yet you persist in taking them anyway. At the same time, you believe other
people should be punished for doing that same thing. Who is nuts in this
conversation?
The Rotten high tech, high revving shredding machine is operating at
high efficiency. We welcome Ms Blankenship as a new very qualified
operator. Shredding, slicing and dicing of idiot, insane Rotten has
commenced. The shrink wrap operation will be utilized for efficient
transport to the ash heaps where he so richly deserves to be esconced.

Randy
George Conklin
2007-09-11 18:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 11, 11:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Yes. So are a lot of things we do. But like all of the things we do
that are not healthy for us or the environment, there are many places we
can cut back, and cutting back is often as effective as elimination.
I'd
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
hate to think that the human race is completely incapable of any type of
restraint. However, you're doing a wonderful job of proving my point that
you can't expect people to consider the consequences of their actions and
change their behavior on one issue when you are clearly not in favor of
doing so on this one... :-)
People are not going to be willing to cut back, actually.
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
You forget that those who give up eat can in fact eat nuts!!!
rotten
2007-09-11 19:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
On Sep 11, 11:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people
to
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise
your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Yes. So are a lot of things we do. But like all of the things we do
that are not healthy for us or the environment, there are many places
we
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
can cut back, and cutting back is often as effective as elimination.
I'd
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
hate to think that the human race is completely incapable of any type
of
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
restraint. However, you're doing a wonderful job of proving my point
that
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
you can't expect people to consider the consequences of their actions
and
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
change their behavior on one issue when you are clearly not in favor
of
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
doing so on this one... :-)
People are not going to be willing to cut back, actually.
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE
there
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
Who wants to give up meat? Maybe a few nuts.
You forget that those who give up eat can in fact eat nuts!!!
Yeah let's grill up some peanuts on the backyard BBQ this weekend!
Let's have a nice pile of walnuts for Thanksgiving!

It just ain't the same, man.
George Conklin
2007-09-11 18:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Yes. So are a lot of things we do. But like all of the things we do
that are not healthy for us or the environment, there are many places we
can cut back, and cutting back is often as effective as elimination.
I'd
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
hate to think that the human race is completely incapable of any type of
restraint. However, you're doing a wonderful job of proving my point that
you can't expect people to consider the consequences of their actions and
change their behavior on one issue when you are clearly not in favor of
doing so on this one... :-)
People are not going to be willing to cut back, actually.
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
And why are most of them in India?
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 19:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 10, 4:33 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
Environmentalism and vegetarianism are not identical. Still, many people
give up meat on their own. And there's a growing movement to raise your own
food or buy local because people want to know what conditions their food
animals lived.
This says that meat is bad for the environment, period.
Yes. So are a lot of things we do. But like all of the things we do
that are not healthy for us or the environment, there are many places
we
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
can cut back, and cutting back is often as effective as elimination.
I'd
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
hate to think that the human race is completely incapable of any type
of
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
restraint. However, you're doing a wonderful job of proving my point
that
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
you can't expect people to consider the consequences of their actions
and
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
change their behavior on one issue when you are clearly not in favor of
doing so on this one... :-)
People are not going to be willing to cut back, actually.
So people have no ability to restrain themselves at all...? Why ARE there
so many vegetarians now, do you think?
And why are most of them in India?
Because the majority of people in India do not worship a God who has
historically preferred blood sacrifices.
George Conklin
2007-09-10 21:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
Rotten
2007-09-11 03:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
So? Who wants to live like they live in India?
George Conklin
2007-09-11 12:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
So? Who wants to live like they live in India?
You don't have to be a Jain to avoid meat.
rotten
2007-09-11 15:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for
the
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse
gas
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
So? Who wants to live like they live in India?
You don't have to be a Jain to avoid meat.
Nobody I know has ever successfully done it and "thrived" for very
long. This isn't just about giving up meat, it's about going 100%
vegan since diary and egg products will also create methane.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 15:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for
the
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse
gas
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
So? Who wants to live like they live in India?
You don't have to be a Jain to avoid meat.
Nobody I know has ever successfully done it and "thrived" for very
long. This isn't just about giving up meat, it's about going 100%
vegan since diary and egg products will also create methane.
It's impossible to grow vegetables without some kind of fertilizer. Animal
manure is much better for fertilizer long term and better for the
environment.

Consider the following
http://ecosyn.us/ecocity/Ecosyn/IBS_Math.html

Also, keep in mind that methane is primarily produced under anaerobic
conditions, such as a large manure pit. IOW, the particular practices used
to produce the meat are directly related to how much environmental damage
occurs. Also keep in mind that if people eat the veggies and grains, their
waste is likely going to be under anaerobic conditions for at least a little
time (a long time if they have a septic tank). The only way you could
eliminate methane production relating to your diet would be to use a
composting toilet.

Therefore, the vast majority of people are looking at reducing the methane
they are responsible for, not eliminating it completely. Your argument is
akin to a morbidly obese person saying, "well, I can't stop eating, so I
might as well eat all I want."

-Amy
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-09-11 17:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for
the
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse
gas
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
So? Who wants to live like they live in India?
You don't have to be a Jain to avoid meat.
Nobody I know has ever successfully done it and "thrived" for very
long. This isn't just about giving up meat, it's about going 100%
vegan since diary and egg products will also create methane.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You must not know too many people. I know you don't know much of
anything. There are degrees of "vegans". The strict ones won't eat
any sort of meat or chicken. The less strict will eat chicken.

In addition to being subsidised by the Heritage and Reason
Foundations, you are also subsidised by the American Beef Council.
You are being very stupid. There are a multiude of reason for not
eating meat. The biggest is the fat content. One other thing that
has not been mentioned and appearantly has bypassed your limited
intellect is the use of hormones and antibiotics in cattle.

When you are laying in the hosp preparing for your quadruple bypass,
maybe the American Beef Council will help you out.

Another reason not to east beef is the water shortage in the arid
west. It takes a lot of water to produce the feed grains. But I know
that is way, way over your head.
Alsop a lot of water is need to keep the cattle well watered.


Randy
rotten
2007-09-11 19:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for
the
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse
gas
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
So? Who wants to live like they live in India?
You don't have to be a Jain to avoid meat.
Nobody I know has ever successfully done it and "thrived" for very
long. This isn't just about giving up meat, it's about going 100%
vegan since diary and egg products will also create methane.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You must not know too many people. I know you don't know much of
anything. There are degrees of "vegans". The strict ones won't eat
any sort of meat or chicken. The less strict will eat chicken.
So you think that vegans can eat chicken? Dude you are so stupid it's
not even funny.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
In addition to being subsidised by the Heritage and Reason
Foundations, you are also subsidised by the American Beef Council.
You are being very stupid. There are a multiude of reason for not
eating meat. The biggest is the fat content. One other thing that
has not been mentioned and appearantly has bypassed your limited
intellect is the use of hormones and antibiotics in cattle.
Hey Mr. Potatohead, ever hear of organic grass fed beef?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
When you are laying in the hosp preparing for your quadruple bypass,
maybe the American Beef Council will help you out.
Actually, there's lot of evidence that refined carbohydrates cause
arteriosclerosis. It doesn't matter anyway, people know you're a kook
and they're not gonna give up meat.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Another reason not to east beef is the water shortage in the arid
west. It takes a lot of water to produce the feed grains. But I know
that is way, way over your head.
Alsop a lot of water is need to keep the cattle well watered.
Hey Pigsty, it's not just beef. According to environmentalists, any
meat at all hurts the environment.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 19:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Another reason not to east beef is the water shortage in the arid
west. It takes a lot of water to produce the feed grains. But I know
that is way, way over your head.
Alsop a lot of water is need to keep the cattle well watered.
Hey Pigsty, it's not just beef. According to environmentalists, any
meat at all hurts the environment.
No I think that was just your statement.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-09-12 15:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for
the
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse
gas
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
So? Who wants to live like they live in India?
You don't have to be a Jain to avoid meat.
Nobody I know has ever successfully done it and "thrived" for very
long. This isn't just about giving up meat, it's about going 100%
vegan since diary and egg products will also create methane.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You must not know too many people. I know you don't know much of
anything. There are degrees of "vegans". The strict ones won't eat
any sort of meat or chicken. The less strict will eat chicken.
So you think that vegans can eat chicken? Dude you are so stupid it's
not even funny.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
In addition to being subsidised by the Heritage and Reason
Foundations, you are also subsidised by the American Beef Council.
You are being very stupid. There are a multiude of reason for not
eating meat. The biggest is the fat content. One other thing that
has not been mentioned and appearantly has bypassed your limited
intellect is the use of hormones and antibiotics in cattle.
Hey Mr. Potatohead, ever hear of organic grass fed beef?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
When you are laying in the hosp preparing for your quadruple bypass,
maybe the American Beef Council will help you out.
Actually, there's lot of evidence that refined carbohydrates cause
arteriosclerosis. It doesn't matter anyway, people know you're a kook
and they're not gonna give up meat.
I am a kook?? You keep putting out the standard lies and bull shit of
the American Beef Council. Any vegans in the group are lauguing at
you. Really they are probably crying at your ignorance and lies.
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Another reason not to east beef is the water shortage in the arid
west. It takes a lot of water to produce the feed grains. But I know
that is way, way over your head.
Alsop a lot of water is need to keep the cattle well watered.
Hey Pigsty, it's not just beef. According to environmentalists, any
meat at all hurts the environment.- Hide quoted text -
Well why should you care. right????

You ignorance is only surpassed by your lying.









Listen you stupid ignorant piece of shit, quit shiling for the
American Beef Counsel. Everybody knowsare paying you to flout their
bullshit.


Randy
rotten
2007-09-12 15:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for
the
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse
gas
Post by Rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
Environmentalism will fail in the end... you'll never get people to
give up meat. There will be a revolution if you do.
In India the majority of the population does not eat meat.
So? Who wants to live like they live in India?
You don't have to be a Jain to avoid meat.
Nobody I know has ever successfully done it and "thrived" for very
long. This isn't just about giving up meat, it's about going 100%
vegan since diary and egg products will also create methane.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You must not know too many people. I know you don't know much of
anything. There are degrees of "vegans". The strict ones won't eat
any sort of meat or chicken. The less strict will eat chicken.
So you think that vegans can eat chicken? Dude you are so stupid it's
not even funny.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
In addition to being subsidised by the Heritage and Reason
Foundations, you are also subsidised by the American Beef Council.
You are being very stupid. There are a multiude of reason for not
eating meat. The biggest is the fat content. One other thing that
has not been mentioned and appearantly has bypassed your limited
intellect is the use of hormones and antibiotics in cattle.
Hey Mr. Potatohead, ever hear of organic grass fed beef?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
When you are laying in the hosp preparing for your quadruple bypass,
maybe the American Beef Council will help you out.
Actually, there's lot of evidence that refined carbohydrates cause
arteriosclerosis. It doesn't matter anyway, people know you're a kook
and they're not gonna give up meat.
I am a kook?? You keep putting out the standard lies and bull shit of
the American Beef Council. Any vegans in the group are lauguing at
you. Really they are probably crying at your ignorance and lies.
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Another reason not to east beef is the water shortage in the arid
west. It takes a lot of water to produce the feed grains. But I know
that is way, way over your head.
Alsop a lot of water is need to keep the cattle well watered.
Hey Pigsty, it's not just beef. According to environmentalists, any
meat at all hurts the environment.- Hide quoted text -
Well why should you care. right????
You ignorance is only surpassed by your lying.
Listen you stupid ignorant piece of shit, quit shiling for the
American Beef Counsel. Everybody knowsare paying you to flout their
bullshit.
So Piggy, are you on the vegan diet? I think the lack of vitamin B12
has caused you to become unhinged. Your shrill, impotent, and angry
posts are evidence of this.
George Conklin
2007-09-10 21:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In any
case, the loss is tremendous. So, yes, eating meat is really bad for the
environment unless you graze cows on grass.

As for Al Gore, he lives in a mansion and uses 10 times the average
amount of electricity. John Edwards lives in a 26,000 square foot house
too. These men want everyone else to save, but they want to be conspicuous
consumers. If Al Gore weighted less, he would also produce less human
waste.
rotten
2007-09-10 21:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In any
case, the loss is tremendous. So, yes, eating meat is really bad for the
environment unless you graze cows on grass.
As for Al Gore, he lives in a mansion and uses 10 times the average
amount of electricity. John Edwards lives in a 26,000 square foot house
too. These men want everyone else to save, but they want to be conspicuous
consumers. If Al Gore weighted less, he would also produce less human
waste.
Most grains give you back nothing but worthless calories. At least
meat generally gives you back actual nutrients.
George Conklin
2007-09-10 23:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In any
case, the loss is tremendous. So, yes, eating meat is really bad for the
environment unless you graze cows on grass.
As for Al Gore, he lives in a mansion and uses 10 times the average
amount of electricity. John Edwards lives in a 26,000 square foot house
too. These men want everyone else to save, but they want to be conspicuous
consumers. If Al Gore weighted less, he would also produce less human
waste.
Most grains give you back nothing but worthless calories. At least
meat generally gives you back actual nutrients.
You can live quite nicely on a vegetarian diet. The meat in India is so
bad that we actually did eat very little of it. You can boil the chicken
for 4 hours, the bones get soft, but the meat never does. It is like eating
strings.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 03:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Most grains give you back nothing but worthless calories. At least
meat generally gives you back actual nutrients.
You can live quite nicely on a vegetarian diet. The meat in India is so
bad that we actually did eat very little of it. You can boil the chicken
for 4 hours, the bones get soft, but the meat never does. It is like eating
strings.
How many days did you age it before cooking it?
George Conklin
2007-09-11 12:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Most grains give you back nothing but worthless calories. At least
meat generally gives you back actual nutrients.
You can live quite nicely on a vegetarian diet. The meat in India is so
bad that we actually did eat very little of it. You can boil the chicken
for 4 hours, the bones get soft, but the meat never does. It is like eating
strings.
How many days did you age it before cooking it?
Very little. The chickens came home alive and were killed in the kitchen.

Now, a good Tandouri chicken has to be aged 3 days in certain ways.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 15:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Most grains give you back nothing but worthless calories. At least
meat generally gives you back actual nutrients.
You can live quite nicely on a vegetarian diet. The meat in India
is
so
bad that we actually did eat very little of it. You can boil the
chicken
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
for 4 hours, the bones get soft, but the meat never does. It is like eating
strings.
How many days did you age it before cooking it?
Very little. The chickens came home alive and were killed in the kitchen.
If the chicken was over 16 weeks old, it should have been aged several days
under refrigeration to allow the muscles to relax, unless it was a capon.
Post by rotten
Now, a good Tandouri chicken has to be aged 3 days in certain ways.
So I'm told. I don't usually eat chicken, but I have a bad hen who has a
date with the headsman who might wind up as chicken and dumplings.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 03:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In any
case, the loss is tremendous. So, yes, eating meat is really bad for the
environment unless you graze cows on grass.
As for Al Gore, he lives in a mansion and uses 10 times the average
amount of electricity. John Edwards lives in a 26,000 square foot house
too. These men want everyone else to save, but they want to be conspicuous
consumers. If Al Gore weighted less, he would also produce less human
waste.
Most grains give you back nothing but worthless calories. At least
meat generally gives you back actual nutrients.
Putting it through a cow doesn't make it that much more nutritious.
Pastured meat is actually more nutritious and flavorful (I've heard--I don't
eat meat) than grain fed. Good, fresh, whole grains actually are very
nutritious, but we process them to death. Sprouted grains are even better.
Rotten
2007-09-11 03:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In any
case, the loss is tremendous. So, yes, eating meat is really bad for the
environment unless you graze cows on grass.
As for Al Gore, he lives in a mansion and uses 10 times the average
amount of electricity. John Edwards lives in a 26,000 square foot house
too. These men want everyone else to save, but they want to be conspicuous
consumers. If Al Gore weighted less, he would also produce less human
waste.
Most grains give you back nothing but worthless calories. At least
meat generally gives you back actual nutrients.
Putting it through a cow doesn't make it that much more nutritious.
Pastured meat is actually more nutritious and flavorful (I've heard--I
don't eat meat) than grain fed. Good, fresh, whole grains actually are
very nutritious, but we process them to death. Sprouted grains are even
better.
Grass fed beef is much better than grain fed beef. Whole grains are better
than processed grains, but there's nothing you can get in processed grains
that you can't get from fresh vegetables and with vegetables you can get
much more.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-11 15:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases.
Activists take Gore to task on his diet
Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of
animal agriculture
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month,
protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore
eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian?
Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".
The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.
"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to
global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said
Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the
documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how
man is allegedly destroying the environment.
But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-
eating.
According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research,
animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of
transport combined.
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than
since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a
likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White
House next year.
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In any
case, the loss is tremendous. So, yes, eating meat is really bad for the
environment unless you graze cows on grass.
As for Al Gore, he lives in a mansion and uses 10 times the average
amount of electricity. John Edwards lives in a 26,000 square foot house
too. These men want everyone else to save, but they want to be conspicuous
consumers. If Al Gore weighted less, he would also produce less human
waste.
Most grains give you back nothing but worthless calories. At least
meat generally gives you back actual nutrients.
Putting it through a cow doesn't make it that much more nutritious.
Pastured meat is actually more nutritious and flavorful (I've heard--I
don't eat meat) than grain fed. Good, fresh, whole grains actually are
very nutritious, but we process them to death. Sprouted grains are even
better.
Grass fed beef is much better than grain fed beef. Whole grains are better
than processed grains, but there's nothing you can get in processed grains
that you can't get from fresh vegetables and with vegetables you can get
much more.
Grains tend to be higher in protein and fiber (with the exception of
legumes). You have to eat a lot more veggies to get the calories and
protein you need from them, which is why they feed grain to meat animals.
drydem
2007-09-12 12:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.




.
rotten
2007-09-12 14:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by rotten
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 14:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
of the environmental movement for his crusade
Post by rotten
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.

You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.

-Amy
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-09-12 15:41:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 10:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
of the environmental movement for his crusade
Post by rotten
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
-Amy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ahh, Thank you for bring a very efficient operator of the high tech
Rotten shredding, slicing and dicing machine. He has been shredded,
sliced and diced, and the shrink wrap operation is underway for
efficient transport to the ash heaps where Rotten so eminently
deserves to belong.

Welcome to the shredding operation, you are a fine operator. Anyone
is welcome to become an operator.

Randy
rotten
2007-09-12 15:51:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 10:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
of the environmental movement for his crusade
Post by rotten
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.
Who brainwashes kids that way? Who tells kids that they should like
strip malls?
Post by Amy Blankenship
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
The "logic" for veganism has dubious scientific evidence for it and
you know it. There is increasing scientific evidence showing that most
of the diseases previously attributed to meat consumption are really
the result of chronically elevated insulin levels caused by processed
food consumption, in particular our standard diet of high sugar,
highly processed foods with low nutritional value. They are now
measuring elevated trigyceride counts as a standard measure of
cholesterol for example. Plus veganism would exclude some foods that
nearly everyone agrees are healthy, such as fish oil and monosaturated
fats.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 17:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Sep 12, 10:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.
Who brainwashes kids that way? Who tells kids that they should like
strip malls?
I am not certain how kids get brainwashed that way, but it is clear that it
happens. Maybe it's all the ads on Saturday morning cartoons. I don't
watch Saturday morning cartoons, but I do recall that when I moved out of
the US for two years when I was 10 and did not see any commercials at all, I
could quote most of them still.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Amy Blankenship
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
The "logic" for veganism has dubious scientific evidence for it and
you know it.
So you're saying that you believe that the science that increased pollution
and runnof from stockards is dubious?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
There is increasing scientific evidence showing that most
of the diseases previously attributed to meat consumption are really
the result of chronically elevated insulin levels caused by processed
food consumption, in particular our standard diet of high sugar,
highly processed foods with low nutritional value.
Actually, we don't use very much sugar in this country. Most sugar has been
replaced by the corn syrup whose lower price has been made possible by
subsidies. Corn syrup is actually worse for you than sugar. Factory
farmed meat is essentially processed food anyway, since it lacks the
nutritional content of more naturally raised meat.

However, there are all kinds of health risks associated with meat
consumption other than just cancer and obesity. Did you know that a
commercial processing plant has 24 HOURS to chill your chicken down to
refrigerator temperatures, and it is probably going to do it in a bath of
water that contains many other freshly eviscerated carcasses. The equipment
that they use to pull the guts out of chickens works great if the chicken is
exactly the right size. If it isn't, the machine will tear the intestines,
spilling whatever was in them into the body cavity. That body then floats
in the water with the other chickens who may or may not have been the right
size. Mmmmm....
Post by ***@yahoo.com
They are now
measuring elevated trigyceride counts as a standard measure of
cholesterol for example. Plus veganism would exclude some foods that
nearly everyone agrees are healthy, such as fish oil and monosaturated
fats.
You know, I'm constantly amazed that when I hear conversations about eating
fish, there is always a warning not to eat too much because of the danger of
mercury poisoning. But no one ever gets angry that we have so polluted our
oceans that the fish in it aren't terribly safe to eat.

You haven't really begun to scratch the surface of the things that are wrong
with raising large quantities of meat for food, such as the fact that two or
three companies control the vast majority of the market for beef, poultry
and pork, thus making it impossible for farmers to get good prices for their
product. The vast majority of poultry producers are so far in debt to the
major aggregators that they will NEVER see a profit.

Then there's the conditions that the animals live under. I don't expect you
to give a flying fig about whether an animal is miserable, since that
doesn't appear to be part of your psyche, but consider that a miserable
animal will have different hormones running through its system. Not to
mention that animals packed together under unnatural conditions are far more
likely to be diseased. Not only does this diseased meat have a good chance
of winding up in your gut, more than likely the animal has been fed
antibiotics to keep them from getting sick enough that they can't be sold.
Did you know that the antibiotic of choice in meat poultry contains arsenic?
YUM! WANNA EAT THAT! :-)

These are just a few reasons why it does not make sense to eat factory
farmed meat. But I don't expect you to actually accept any of them, for the
same reason I don't expect people to change their building practices on the
Coast. No matter what the consequences, most people won't change a behavior
that is currently convenient to receive some future benefit or because there
are negative side effects of their behavior that don't affect them directly.

-Amy
rotten
2007-09-12 18:15:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 1:13 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Sep 12, 10:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.
Who brainwashes kids that way? Who tells kids that they should like
strip malls?
I am not certain how kids get brainwashed that way, but it is clear that it
happens. Maybe it's all the ads on Saturday morning cartoons. I don't
watch Saturday morning cartoons, but I do recall that when I moved out of
the US for two years when I was 10 and did not see any commercials at all, I
could quote most of them still.
Yeah, you're not certain how it happens because it doesn't happen.
Strip malls get built because people use them and like them, they're
convenient and easy to access.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Amy Blankenship
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
The "logic" for veganism has dubious scientific evidence for it and
you know it.
So you're saying that you believe that the science that increased pollution
and runnof from stockards is dubious?
Well the whole, "meat causes global warming OMG OMG OMG OMG" is what I
find dubious... the runoff issue might have some merit although that
could be solved through regulations rather than giving up meat.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by ***@yahoo.com
There is increasing scientific evidence showing that most
of the diseases previously attributed to meat consumption are really
the result of chronically elevated insulin levels caused by processed
food consumption, in particular our standard diet of high sugar,
highly processed foods with low nutritional value.
Actually, we don't use very much sugar in this country. Most sugar has been
replaced by the corn syrup whose lower price has been made possible by
subsidies. Corn syrup is actually worse for you than sugar. Factory
farmed meat is essentially processed food anyway, since it lacks the
nutritional content of more naturally raised meat.
They do offer grass-fed beef now at certain organic stores.
Post by Amy Blankenship
However, there are all kinds of health risks associated with meat
consumption other than just cancer and obesity. Did you know that a
commercial processing plant has 24 HOURS to chill your chicken down to
refrigerator temperatures, and it is probably going to do it in a bath of
water that contains many other freshly eviscerated carcasses. The equipment
that they use to pull the guts out of chickens works great if the chicken is
exactly the right size. If it isn't, the machine will tear the intestines,
spilling whatever was in them into the body cavity. That body then floats
in the water with the other chickens who may or may not have been the right
size. Mmmmm....
Obviously, chickens are going to be covered with all sorts of stuff
you wouldn't want to eat... don't eat unwashed, raw chicken then. Or
buy free range chicken.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by ***@yahoo.com
They are now
measuring elevated trigyceride counts as a standard measure of
cholesterol for example. Plus veganism would exclude some foods that
nearly everyone agrees are healthy, such as fish oil and monosaturated
fats.
You know, I'm constantly amazed that when I hear conversations about eating
fish, there is always a warning not to eat too much because of the danger of
mercury poisoning. But no one ever gets angry that we have so polluted our
oceans that the fish in it aren't terribly safe to eat.
You haven't really begun to scratch the surface of the things that are wrong
with raising large quantities of meat for food, such as the fact that two or
three companies control the vast majority of the market for beef, poultry
and pork, thus making it impossible for farmers to get good prices for their
product. The vast majority of poultry producers are so far in debt to the
major aggregators that they will NEVER see a profit.
Then there's the conditions that the animals live under. I don't expect you
to give a flying fig about whether an animal is miserable, since that
doesn't appear to be part of your psyche, but consider that a miserable
animal will have different hormones running through its system. Not to
mention that animals packed together under unnatural conditions are far more
likely to be diseased. Not only does this diseased meat have a good chance
of winding up in your gut, more than likely the animal has been fed
antibiotics to keep them from getting sick enough that they can't be sold.
Did you know that the antibiotic of choice in meat poultry contains arsenic?
YUM! WANNA EAT THAT! :-)
These are just a few reasons why it does not make sense to eat factory
farmed meat. But I don't expect you to actually accept any of them, for the
same reason I don't expect people to change their building practices on the
Coast. No matter what the consequences, most people won't change a behavior
that is currently convenient to receive some future benefit or because there
are negative side effects of their behavior that don't affect them directly.
Hey Amy, we're talking about meat here, not factory farmed or
otherwise. The propaganda we hear is that meat in and of itself is
bad, not that you should buy free range, grass-fed beef. As in, if you
eat meat on a regular basis, you are hurting the environment and are
evil.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 19:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 1:13 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Sep 12, 10:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed
to
do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.
Who brainwashes kids that way? Who tells kids that they should like
strip malls?
I am not certain how kids get brainwashed that way, but it is clear that it
happens. Maybe it's all the ads on Saturday morning cartoons. I don't
watch Saturday morning cartoons, but I do recall that when I moved out of
the US for two years when I was 10 and did not see any commercials at all, I
could quote most of them still.
Yeah, you're not certain how it happens because it doesn't happen.
Strip malls get built because people use them and like them, they're
convenient and easy to access.
I notice you don't deny a belief that a strip mall must be built at every
intersection. You can't even bring yourself to question the idea.
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Amy Blankenship
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are
based
on
practices that are destructive at their root.
The "logic" for veganism has dubious scientific evidence for it and
you know it.
So you're saying that you believe that the science that increased pollution
and runnof from stockards is dubious?
Well the whole, "meat causes global warming OMG OMG OMG OMG" is what I
find dubious... the runoff issue might have some merit although that
could be solved through regulations rather than giving up meat.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by ***@yahoo.com
There is increasing scientific evidence showing that most
of the diseases previously attributed to meat consumption are really
the result of chronically elevated insulin levels caused by processed
food consumption, in particular our standard diet of high sugar,
highly processed foods with low nutritional value.
Actually, we don't use very much sugar in this country. Most sugar has been
replaced by the corn syrup whose lower price has been made possible by
subsidies. Corn syrup is actually worse for you than sugar. Factory
farmed meat is essentially processed food anyway, since it lacks the
nutritional content of more naturally raised meat.
They do offer grass-fed beef now at certain organic stores.
And this is all you eat?
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
However, there are all kinds of health risks associated with meat
consumption other than just cancer and obesity. Did you know that a
commercial processing plant has 24 HOURS to chill your chicken down to
refrigerator temperatures, and it is probably going to do it in a bath of
water that contains many other freshly eviscerated carcasses. The equipment
that they use to pull the guts out of chickens works great if the chicken is
exactly the right size. If it isn't, the machine will tear the intestines,
spilling whatever was in them into the body cavity. That body then floats
in the water with the other chickens who may or may not have been the right
size. Mmmmm....
Obviously, chickens are going to be covered with all sorts of stuff
you wouldn't want to eat... don't eat unwashed, raw chicken then. Or
buy free range chicken.
I don't eat chicken at all. However, the same practices that lead chicken
to be unhealthy are the ones environmentalists object to. So in advocating
consuming chickens that are not raised in factory farms (which, I hate to
tell you, most commercial free range chicken actually still is), you are
actually agreeing with the underpinnings of their arguments. So I'm not
sure why you're still maintaining that there is no argument for reducing
consumption of conventional meat, since clearly you _are_ understanding and
accepting those arguments.
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by ***@yahoo.com
They are now
measuring elevated trigyceride counts as a standard measure of
cholesterol for example. Plus veganism would exclude some foods that
nearly everyone agrees are healthy, such as fish oil and monosaturated
fats.
You know, I'm constantly amazed that when I hear conversations about eating
fish, there is always a warning not to eat too much because of the danger of
mercury poisoning. But no one ever gets angry that we have so polluted our
oceans that the fish in it aren't terribly safe to eat.
You haven't really begun to scratch the surface of the things that are wrong
with raising large quantities of meat for food, such as the fact that two or
three companies control the vast majority of the market for beef, poultry
and pork, thus making it impossible for farmers to get good prices for their
product. The vast majority of poultry producers are so far in debt to the
major aggregators that they will NEVER see a profit.
Then there's the conditions that the animals live under. I don't expect you
to give a flying fig about whether an animal is miserable, since that
doesn't appear to be part of your psyche, but consider that a miserable
animal will have different hormones running through its system. Not to
mention that animals packed together under unnatural conditions are far more
likely to be diseased. Not only does this diseased meat have a good chance
of winding up in your gut, more than likely the animal has been fed
antibiotics to keep them from getting sick enough that they can't be sold.
Did you know that the antibiotic of choice in meat poultry contains arsenic?
YUM! WANNA EAT THAT! :-)
These are just a few reasons why it does not make sense to eat factory
farmed meat. But I don't expect you to actually accept any of them, for the
same reason I don't expect people to change their building practices on the
Coast. No matter what the consequences, most people won't change a behavior
that is currently convenient to receive some future benefit or because there
are negative side effects of their behavior that don't affect them directly.
Hey Amy, we're talking about meat here, not factory farmed or
otherwise. The propaganda we hear is that meat in and of itself is
bad, not that you should buy free range, grass-fed beef. As in, if you
eat meat on a regular basis, you are hurting the environment and are
evil.
I disagree. If you actually did your homework, you would see that most
people who are against the meat industry are not against _all_ meat. They
are against the highly destructive industry of factory farmed meat. If you
eat factory farmed meat on a regular bases, you _are_ hurting the
environment. And, if you want to refrain from hurting the environment in
that way you have the choice of always eating meat from known sources or
avoiding eating meat. And for most people who are concerned in that way, it
is actually cheaper and easier to just avoid eating meat.

-Amy
rotten
2007-09-12 20:30:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 3:43 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Yeah, you're not certain how it happens because it doesn't happen.
Strip malls get built because people use them and like them, they're
convenient and easy to access.
I notice you don't deny a belief that a strip mall must be built at every
intersection. You can't even bring yourself to question the idea.
I'll question the idea, I don't think they necessary have to be built
at every corner, it'd be nice to have some parks put there instead and
build the strip malls elsewhere. But, if a town has the population to
support the strip mall, I don't see what the problem is.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
They do offer grass-fed beef now at certain organic stores.
And this is all you eat?
I try to buy it as much as possible but I don't cook at home that much
lately.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
However, there are all kinds of health risks associated with meat
consumption other than just cancer and obesity. Did you know that a
commercial processing plant has 24 HOURS to chill your chicken down to
refrigerator temperatures, and it is probably going to do it in a bath of
water that contains many other freshly eviscerated carcasses. The equipment
that they use to pull the guts out of chickens works great if the chicken is
exactly the right size. If it isn't, the machine will tear the intestines,
spilling whatever was in them into the body cavity. That body then floats
in the water with the other chickens who may or may not have been the right
size. Mmmmm....
Obviously, chickens are going to be covered with all sorts of stuff
you wouldn't want to eat... don't eat unwashed, raw chicken then. Or
buy free range chicken.
I don't eat chicken at all. However, the same practices that lead chicken
to be unhealthy are the ones environmentalists object to. So in advocating
consuming chickens that are not raised in factory farms (which, I hate to
tell you, most commercial free range chicken actually still is), you are
actually agreeing with the underpinnings of their arguments. So I'm not
sure why you're still maintaining that there is no argument for reducing
consumption of conventional meat, since clearly you _are_ understanding and
accepting those arguments.
I really don't buy their arguments, actually. I'm saying if you're
concerned with that stuff, it's not necessary to give up meat entirely
and there's nothing intrinsically unhealthy about it.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Hey Amy, we're talking about meat here, not factory farmed or
otherwise. The propaganda we hear is that meat in and of itself is
bad, not that you should buy free range, grass-fed beef. As in, if you
eat meat on a regular basis, you are hurting the environment and are
evil.
I disagree. If you actually did your homework, you would see that most
people who are against the meat industry are not against _all_ meat. They
are against the highly destructive industry of factory farmed meat. If you
eat factory farmed meat on a regular bases, you _are_ hurting the
environment. And, if you want to refrain from hurting the environment in
that way you have the choice of always eating meat from known sources or
avoiding eating meat. And for most people who are concerned in that way, it
is actually cheaper and easier to just avoid eating meat.
I don't think you are hurting hurting the environment by eating that
way actually. The damage is negligible and if there is truly a problem
with runoff and things of that nature, then regulations can be altered.
drydem
2007-09-13 14:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Sep 12, 10:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
of the environmental movement for his crusade
Post by rotten
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.
Who brainwashes kids that way? Who tells kids that they should like
strip malls?
Post by Amy Blankenship
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
The "logic" for veganism has dubious scientific evidence for it and
you know it. There is increasing scientific evidence showing that most
of the diseases previously attributed to meat consumption are really
the result of chronically elevated insulin levels caused by processed
food consumption, in particular our standard diet of high sugar,
highly processed foods with low nutritional value. They are now
measuring elevated trigyceride counts as a standard measure of
cholesterol for example. Plus veganism would exclude some foods that
nearly everyone agrees are healthy, such as fish oil and monosaturated
fats.-
The logic I was referring to is that it is possible BUT more
challenging to replicate most if not all dietary needs via plant
sources, e.g. replacing fish oil with a combination of linseed,
flaxseed, and sunflower oil. I'm not saying that children
should be brainwashed to thinking meat is bad -- but as
a society we should consider instructing children how to
vegetable proteins could be used and combined to replace
the dietary roles that meats currently play. In addition, by
providing poorer urban children (who are more at risk
of malnutrient than wealthier children) with an additional
dietary survival skills -- it just might help them survive
in the future if the cost of meat and dairy products rises.

Personally, my ability to do to meat substitition is limited
to the biochemical amino acid level - I can't replicate
the taste, smell, or feel of meats with plant sources
- so I can't replicate the same dining experience using
only plant sources.

Jane Jacob postulated the economic success
and failure of urban regions is largely dependent
on the ability of adapt and change to new economic
realities (see "The Economies of Cities" and "The Life and
Death of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs).
Being prepared is half the challenged.
rotten
2007-09-13 16:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Sep 12, 10:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
of the environmental movement for his crusade
Post by rotten
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.
Who brainwashes kids that way? Who tells kids that they should like
strip malls?
Post by Amy Blankenship
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
The "logic" for veganism has dubious scientific evidence for it and
you know it. There is increasing scientific evidence showing that most
of the diseases previously attributed to meat consumption are really
the result of chronically elevated insulin levels caused by processed
food consumption, in particular our standard diet of high sugar,
highly processed foods with low nutritional value. They are now
measuring elevated trigyceride counts as a standard measure of
cholesterol for example. Plus veganism would exclude some foods that
nearly everyone agrees are healthy, such as fish oil and monosaturated
fats.-
The logic I was referring to is that it is possible BUT more
challenging to replicate most if not all dietary needs via plant
sources, e.g. replacing fish oil with a combination of linseed,
flaxseed, and sunflower oil. I'm not saying that children
should be brainwashed to thinking meat is bad -- but as
a society we should consider instructing children how to
vegetable proteins could be used and combined to replace
the dietary roles that meats currently play. In addition, by
providing poorer urban children (who are more at risk
of malnutrient than wealthier children) with an additional
dietary survival skills -- it just might help them survive
in the future if the cost of meat and dairy products rises.
Personally, my ability to do to meat substitition is limited
to the biochemical amino acid level - I can't replicate
the taste, smell, or feel of meats with plant sources
- so I can't replicate the same dining experience using
only plant sources.
Really? Personally I love carving up the family tofu chunk at
Thanksgiving. Mmm mmm good!
Post by drydem
Jane Jacob postulated the economic success
and failure of urban regions is largely dependent
on the ability of adapt and change to new economic
realities (see "The Economies of Cities" and "The Life and
Death of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs).
Being prepared is half the challenged.
Yeah, personally I don't consider Jane Jacobs the end-all be all
of ... anything really. She had some interesting ideas on cities at a
time when we were pursuing policies that weren't really benefitial.
Personally, I think she created (or helped create) NIMBYism, and we've
been suffering ever since.
George Conklin
2007-09-12 16:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Post by rotten
of the environmental movement for his crusade
Post by rotten
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip mall
development on it.
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held beliefs
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
-Amy
If the meat gets bad enough, we may all become vegetarians, or at least
cut back we like did for awhile. But if the environmental movement wants to
push vegetarianism and then stop growing most of the wheat in the USA, it is
going to have a big fight. No wonder Al Gore pushes hatred of automobiles.
It is a cheap shot, but an easier target.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 17:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip
mall
Post by Amy Blankenship
development on it.
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held
beliefs
Post by Amy Blankenship
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
-Amy
If the meat gets bad enough, we may all become vegetarians, or at least
cut back we like did for awhile. But if the environmental movement wants to
push vegetarianism and then stop growing most of the wheat in the USA, it is
going to have a big fight. No wonder Al Gore pushes hatred of
automobiles.
It is a cheap shot, but an easier target.
Unfortunately we live in a world of people who cannot see the consequences
of their actions and will not change their actions even if they do. That
covers many issues, not just the excessive driving we do and our eating and
farming practices.
rotten
2007-09-12 18:21:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 1:42 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip
mall
Post by Amy Blankenship
development on it.
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held
beliefs
Post by Amy Blankenship
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
-Amy
If the meat gets bad enough, we may all become vegetarians, or at least
cut back we like did for awhile. But if the environmental movement wants to
push vegetarianism and then stop growing most of the wheat in the USA, it is
going to have a big fight. No wonder Al Gore pushes hatred of automobiles.
It is a cheap shot, but an easier target.
Unfortunately we live in a world of people who cannot see the consequences
of their actions and will not change their actions even if they do. That
covers many issues, not just the excessive driving we do and our eating and
farming practices.
The problem is that the claims of environmentalists are often
questionable and they generally haven't come true. Consider "The
Population Bomb" by Ehrlich, an alarmist book released in the late
60's which said that the food supply would run out and it never came
true. Many predictions of doom and gloom out there in the 70's have
never came true. Often, environmentalist claims do have a grain of
truth, but the consequences are so minor that they just amount to an
inconvenience, rather than a true catastrophe.

So, people would rather live how they want to live, to enjoy earths
resources in the here and now rather than fret about some calamity
that may or may not occur.
George Conklin
2007-09-12 18:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 1:42 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed
to
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
Post by Amy Blankenship
do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip
mall
Post by Amy Blankenship
development on it.
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held
beliefs
Post by Amy Blankenship
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are
based
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
Post by Amy Blankenship
on
practices that are destructive at their root.
-Amy
If the meat gets bad enough, we may all become vegetarians, or at least
cut back we like did for awhile. But if the environmental movement
wants
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
to
push vegetarianism and then stop growing most of the wheat in the USA,
it
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
is
going to have a big fight. No wonder Al Gore pushes hatred of automobiles.
It is a cheap shot, but an easier target.
Unfortunately we live in a world of people who cannot see the consequences
of their actions and will not change their actions even if they do.
That
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
covers many issues, not just the excessive driving we do and our eating and
farming practices.
The problem is that the claims of environmentalists are often
questionable and they generally haven't come true. Consider "The
Population Bomb" by Ehrlich, an alarmist book released in the late
60's which said that the food supply would run out and it never came
true. Many predictions of doom and gloom out there in the 70's have
never came true. Often, environmentalist claims do have a grain of
truth, but the consequences are so minor that they just amount to an
inconvenience, rather than a true catastrophe.
So, people would rather live how they want to live, to enjoy earths
resources in the here and now rather than fret about some calamity
that may or may not occur.
The Ehrlich's believe that EVENTUALLY they will be right, just not yet. By
the way, he lost his bets on the world's running out of most metals by 1990.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 20:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 1:42 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed
to
do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip
mall
Post by Amy Blankenship
development on it.
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held
beliefs
Post by Amy Blankenship
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are
based
on
practices that are destructive at their root.
-Amy
If the meat gets bad enough, we may all become vegetarians, or at least
cut back we like did for awhile. But if the environmental movement
wants
to
push vegetarianism and then stop growing most of the wheat in the USA,
it
is
going to have a big fight. No wonder Al Gore pushes hatred of automobiles.
It is a cheap shot, but an easier target.
Unfortunately we live in a world of people who cannot see the
consequences
of their actions and will not change their actions even if they do. That
covers many issues, not just the excessive driving we do and our eating and
farming practices.
The problem is that the claims of environmentalists are often
questionable and they generally haven't come true. Consider "The
Population Bomb" by Ehrlich, an alarmist book released in the late
60's which said that the food supply would run out and it never came
true. Many predictions of doom and gloom out there in the 70's have
never came true. Often, environmentalist claims do have a grain of
truth, but the consequences are so minor that they just amount to an
inconvenience, rather than a true catastrophe.
So, people would rather live how they want to live, to enjoy earths
resources in the here and now rather than fret about some calamity
that may or may not occur.
Why do you buy insurance?
rotten
2007-09-12 20:34:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
So, people would rather live how they want to live, to enjoy earths
resources in the here and now rather than fret about some calamity
that may or may not occur.
Why do you buy insurance?
Because the government makes me. ;)
George Conklin
2007-09-12 18:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
How is the logic for vegetarianism there? And PETA can fuck off if
they want their idiocy to brainwash the minds of kids. That is
downright evil.
All children are brainwashed. The question is, are they brainwashed to do
things that are good or bad? I'm not sure being brainwashed to refuse to
eat feeling is more evil than being brainwashed to believe, for instance,
that every intersection of major highways must have at least one strip
mall
Post by Amy Blankenship
development on it.
You cannot see the logic for vegetarianism because you have yourself been
effectively brainwashed and cannot allow yourself to assimilate the facts
that would allow you to understand it. Challenging your deeply held
beliefs
Post by Amy Blankenship
will only cause you to retreat further into your illogic, because you will
not be able to concede that some of your most cherished ideas are based on
practices that are destructive at their root.
-Amy
If the meat gets bad enough, we may all become vegetarians, or at least
cut back we like did for awhile. But if the environmental movement
wants
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
to
push vegetarianism and then stop growing most of the wheat in the USA,
it
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
is
going to have a big fight. No wonder Al Gore pushes hatred of automobiles.
It is a cheap shot, but an easier target.
Unfortunately we live in a world of people who cannot see the consequences
of their actions and will not change their actions even if they do. That
covers many issues, not just the excessive driving we do and our eating and
farming practices.
Are you in favor of anything? Please explain.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 14:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry.
And the subsidies on corn and soy, which also directly contribute to obesity
in humans themselves. If you read the ingredients on virtually any packaged
food, you will discover it almost certainly contains corn, soy, or both.
rotten
2007-09-12 15:54:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 10:41 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by drydem
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry.
And the subsidies on corn and soy, which also directly contribute to obesity
in humans themselves. If you read the ingredients on virtually any packaged
food, you will discover it almost certainly contains corn, soy, or both.
You are 100% right on corn and soy actually (consider it a first)...
there was a great article on the (real) environmental damage caused by
soy plantations in South America in the Guardian a few years ago.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 17:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 10:41 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
And the subsidies on corn and soy, which also directly contribute to obesity
in humans themselves. If you read the ingredients on virtually any packaged
food, you will discover it almost certainly contains corn, soy, or both.
You are 100% right on corn and soy actually (consider it a first)...
there was a great article on the (real) environmental damage caused by
soy plantations in South America in the Guardian a few years ago.
Why is it that you are having a hard time seeing that feeding corn and soy
to meat animals both contributes to the environmental damage caused by
growing these crops at excessive levels and undermines the nutritional
content of the meat?
rotten
2007-09-12 18:18:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 1:40 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 10:41 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
And the subsidies on corn and soy, which also directly contribute to obesity
in humans themselves. If you read the ingredients on virtually any packaged
food, you will discover it almost certainly contains corn, soy, or both.
You are 100% right on corn and soy actually (consider it a first)...
there was a great article on the (real) environmental damage caused by
soy plantations in South America in the Guardian a few years ago.
Why is it that you are having a hard time seeing that feeding corn and soy
to meat animals both contributes to the environmental damage caused by
growing these crops at excessive levels and undermines the nutritional
content of the meat?
Again, have you ever heard of grass-fed beef?
George Conklin
2007-09-12 18:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 1:40 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 10:41 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
And the subsidies on corn and soy, which also directly contribute to obesity
in humans themselves. If you read the ingredients on virtually any packaged
food, you will discover it almost certainly contains corn, soy, or both.
You are 100% right on corn and soy actually (consider it a first)...
there was a great article on the (real) environmental damage caused by
soy plantations in South America in the Guardian a few years ago.
Why is it that you are having a hard time seeing that feeding corn and soy
to meat animals both contributes to the environmental damage caused by
growing these crops at excessive levels and undermines the nutritional
content of the meat?
Again, have you ever heard of grass-fed beef?
It does not taste as yummy as corn-fed beef.

"Man gains through eating animals only a fraction of the energy contained in
the plants eaten by those animals."

100 lbs of Wheat Yield in Calories
Consumed as:
Bread 120,000
Chicken 9,625
Eggs 30,000
Pork 38,700
Milk 25,230
Beef 11,500

"Since other feed crops can usually be grown more adventageously, wheat is
only rural used to feed animals. However, other plans edible by humans
exhibit the same pattern of loss as does wheat." BUT "If man permits
animals to eat plants which he otherwise might himself eat, or permits land
to be used to raise plants for feed which could be used to raise plants for
human food, he limits the number of men who can fed from the land."
rotten
2007-09-12 19:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
Again, have you ever heard of grass-fed beef?
It does not taste as yummy as corn-fed beef.
Grass fed beef is pretty yummy.
Post by George Conklin
"Man gains through eating animals only a fraction of the energy contained in
the plants eaten by those animals."
100 lbs of Wheat Yield in Calories
Bread 120,000
Chicken 9,625
Eggs 30,000
Pork 38,700
Milk 25,230
Beef 11,500
"Since other feed crops can usually be grown more adventageously, wheat is
only rural used to feed animals. However, other plans edible by humans
exhibit the same pattern of loss as does wheat." BUT "If man permits
animals to eat plants which he otherwise might himself eat, or permits land
to be used to raise plants for feed which could be used to raise plants for
human food, he limits the number of men who can fed from the land."
Well, it's not just calories. You aren't suggesting that the US is
lacking in calories are you? Nutrients are as important more important
than calories, unless you are in a famine situation.
Baxter
2007-09-13 19:14:56 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by rotten
Well, it's not just calories. You aren't suggesting that the US is
lacking in calories are you? Nutrients are as important more important
than calories, unless you are in a famine situation.
There's more "nutrients" in plant matter than animal.
rotten
2007-09-13 19:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by rotten
Well, it's not just calories. You aren't suggesting that the US is
lacking in calories are you? Nutrients are as important more important
than calories, unless you are in a famine situation.
There's more "nutrients" in plant matter than animal.
Bullshit.
Baxter
2007-09-14 00:02:09 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by rotten
Post by Baxter
Post by rotten
Well, it's not just calories. You aren't suggesting that the US is
lacking in calories are you? Nutrients are as important more important
than calories, unless you are in a famine situation.
There's more "nutrients" in plant matter than animal.
Bullshit.
You're an uneducated idiot. Start with the three basic: carbohydrates,
protein and fat - you can find all three in plants, but you'll not find
carbohydrates in animal tissue. Plants contain more fiber (arguably NOT a
nutrient but still critical to health) and more different vitamins than
animal tissue.
Rotten
2007-09-14 00:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by rotten
Post by Baxter
Post by rotten
Well, it's not just calories. You aren't suggesting that the US is
lacking in calories are you? Nutrients are as important more important
than calories, unless you are in a famine situation.
There's more "nutrients" in plant matter than animal.
Bullshit.
You're an uneducated idiot. Start with the three basic: carbohydrates,
protein and fat - you can find all three in plants, but you'll not find
carbohydrates in animal tissue. Plants contain more fiber (arguably NOT a
nutrient but still critical to health) and more different vitamins than
animal tissue.
Those are called macronutrients you fool. Meat, especially lean meat,
contains a far wider variety of macro and micro nutrients per gram than any
plant source. For one thing, protein is comprised of certain amino acids.
Meat protein is the most complete amino acid profile you can eat. Meat
contains other amino acids that are simply not found at all in plant
products (including creatine). Most vegans have to do protein combining
unless they consume soy. You can generally live off of just meat for quite a
while, for example the Intuit people do it nicely, you just have to include
organ meat (which contain vitamin C for example). Try doing that with any
one single plant product. With plant combining you can get a far range of
nutrients but any nutritionist will tell you it's a lot harder. Take a gram
of lean animal protein, and a gram of random but edible vegetables, you will
find more and a greater variety of nutrients in the animal protein in
general.

Of course vegetables (not grains) contain things that are very good for you
and the more you eat the better. And there are certain things found in
vegetation that you just can't find in animal protein, like antioxidants.

I don't want to bash grains either but you do have to be careful with them.
Same thing with animal fat or anything for that matter. All things in
moderation.

The real evil in the SAD is sugar... and in particular HFCS (high fructose
corn syrup). A 100% plant product that happens to be very bad for you.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-14 14:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rotten
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by rotten
Post by Baxter
Post by rotten
Well, it's not just calories. You aren't suggesting that the US is
lacking in calories are you? Nutrients are as important more important
than calories, unless you are in a famine situation.
There's more "nutrients" in plant matter than animal.
Bullshit.
You're an uneducated idiot. Start with the three basic: carbohydrates,
protein and fat - you can find all three in plants, but you'll not find
carbohydrates in animal tissue. Plants contain more fiber (arguably NOT
a nutrient but still critical to health) and more different vitamins than
animal tissue.
Those are called macronutrients you fool. Meat, especially lean meat,
contains a far wider variety of macro and micro nutrients per gram than
any plant source.
Eggs are the most complete protein.
rotten
2007-09-14 15:02:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 14, 10:06 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Those are called macronutrients you fool. Meat, especially lean meat,
contains a far wider variety of macro and micro nutrients per gram than
any plant source.
Eggs are the most complete protein.
This is true, although cheese protein is up there as well. But red
meat and fish has a few amino acids that no other food sources have,
including creatine. At the height of the cholesterol scare... circa
1993 or so... there was a story about an 85 year old man who was
eating upwards of 25 eggs a day and little else, in perfect health
with a normal cholesterol profile. This is when they first started to
get the idea that dietary cholesterol doesn't have the effect on
cholesterol profiles that they thought it did.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-14 15:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 14, 10:06 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Rotten
Those are called macronutrients you fool. Meat, especially lean meat,
contains a far wider variety of macro and micro nutrients per gram than
any plant source.
Eggs are the most complete protein.
This is true, although cheese protein is up there as well. But red
meat and fish has a few amino acids that no other food sources have,
including creatine. At the height of the cholesterol scare... circa
1993 or so... there was a story about an 85 year old man who was
eating upwards of 25 eggs a day and little else, in perfect health
with a normal cholesterol profile. This is when they first started to
get the idea that dietary cholesterol doesn't have the effect on
cholesterol profiles that they thought it did.
I suspect he was probably eating Omega 3 eggs. They have commercial ones
now, but pastured poultry have always produced eggs with higher levels of
Omega 3 and other "good" fats. The closer an animal is to its natural diet,
the better its products will be for you. I eat lots of fresh eggs, and my
skin is plump like I was 19 again. Except I had acne when I was 19 ;-).

By the same token, raw milk and products made from it are better for you
than ones made from pasteurized and especially homogenized milk. This is if
you have a normal immune system. There are some things that can really mess
you up in milk if you're immune compromised.

-Amy
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 20:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 1:40 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 10:41 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
And the subsidies on corn and soy, which also directly contribute to obesity
in humans themselves. If you read the ingredients on virtually any packaged
food, you will discover it almost certainly contains corn, soy, or
both.
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
You are 100% right on corn and soy actually (consider it a first)...
there was a great article on the (real) environmental damage caused by
soy plantations in South America in the Guardian a few years ago.
Why is it that you are having a hard time seeing that feeding corn and
soy
Post by rotten
Post by Amy Blankenship
to meat animals both contributes to the environmental damage caused by
growing these crops at excessive levels and undermines the nutritional
content of the meat?
Again, have you ever heard of grass-fed beef?
It does not taste as yummy as corn-fed beef.
Many people believe that it tastes better, saying that corn-fed beef is
mushy and tasteless.
Post by George Conklin
"Man gains through eating animals only a fraction of the energy contained in
the plants eaten by those animals."
100 lbs of Wheat Yield in Calories
Bread 120,000
Chicken 9,625
Eggs 30,000
Pork 38,700
Milk 25,230
Beef 11,500
"Since other feed crops can usually be grown more adventageously, wheat is
only rural used to feed animals. However, other plans edible by humans
exhibit the same pattern of loss as does wheat." BUT "If man permits
animals to eat plants which he otherwise might himself eat, or permits land
to be used to raise plants for feed which could be used to raise plants for
human food, he limits the number of men who can fed from the land."
Often, the grains used as feed stock are not human consumable anyway. For
instance, chicken scratch comes from grain swept up off the floor. However,
I think even Joe here isn't advocating that anymore.
rotten
2007-09-12 20:36:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 4:18 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Often, the grains used as feed stock are not human consumable anyway. For
instance, chicken scratch comes from grain swept up off the floor. However,
I think even Joe here isn't advocating that anymore.
When have I advocated anything in terms of what to feed chickens?
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 21:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 4:18 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Often, the grains used as feed stock are not human consumable anyway.
For
instance, chicken scratch comes from grain swept up off the floor.
However,
I think even Joe here isn't advocating that anymore.
When have I advocated anything in terms of what to feed chickens?
Why would you argue against people who are against something unless you are
in favor of what they are against?
rotten
2007-09-12 21:32:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 5:24 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 4:18 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Often, the grains used as feed stock are not human consumable anyway.
For
instance, chicken scratch comes from grain swept up off the floor.
However,
I think even Joe here isn't advocating that anymore.
When have I advocated anything in terms of what to feed chickens?
Why would you argue against people who are against something unless you are
in favor of what they are against?
What?
Walter Jeffries
2007-09-13 00:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In any
case, the loss is tremendous.
Cows, pigs and chickens can all be raised on foods that are otherwise
waste to you, foods that you can not eat on land that is not suitable
for growing crops. We raise pastured pigs, sheep and chickens - no
need for commercial feeds. The livestock turn pasture into high
quality food. I'm not fond of grass - I love meat.

Someone's going to think, or say, "but pigs and chickens aren't
ruminants so they can't eat grass." That's quite simply wrong. They
can thrive on grass, hay and pasture. I've raised them that way very
successfully for years without any commercial feeds. I've done it
solely on pasture as well as a mix of pasture and excess dairy from
local farms, cheese trim, whey from cheese producers and recently a
little spent barley (sugars removed, high in fiber & protein) from a
local brewer. This makes for a very complete diet and the meat is
superb. Research the proteins and other nutrients - fascinating stuff.
There are a lot of things that people can't or won't eat that animals
can turn into good food.

If you want to avoid the hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals
that are added to livestock (and plants) by conventional farms then
don't buy from them. Buy locally from farmers who produce food without
those nasty things. I do. I produce most of what I eat - for that
exact reason. I want control over my food. This is a very large part
of why I farm and eventually I discovered I'm good at it so I now
provide that goodness to others. Capitalism is grand!

Vegetarianism may work fine in a southern climate but it is
unsustainable in our northern climate without long distance imports of
foods in the off season and pill popping. Been there, done that, got
the t-shirt - it didn't work. I'm not willing to harm my health or my
childrens's health on a diet that mandates such long distance imports
and pills for much of the year. Veganism and even vegetarianism is not
sustainable here in our climate (Vermont) even with preserving a great
deal of food from the warm months as we do.

Besides, meat and fat taste good. Both of them in moderation can be a
healthy part of your diet. In the end these things are why activists
won't convert the vast majority of people to a vegetarian diet.

Obesity isn't caused by eating meat, it's caused by an imbalance of
inputs and outputs. There are fat vegans, oddly enough given the low
calories of the diet. Meat with its high calorie count does make it
easier to get fat for people who don't get much exercise. But, meat
and fat in my diet are important because I do get so much exercise. I
look skeletal on a vegetarian diet. Ugh.

Eating meat isn't bad for the environment. The reality is the animals
can utilize a resource you can not use. With that 'waste' the animals
produce high quality lipids, proteins and other nutrients that we can
use and enjoy. With pastured livestock there is a tremendous gain in
efficiency. If you try and eat pasture you'll do poorly but if you eat
the livestock that thrive on the pasture you'll do great. More over,
the pasture benefits from being grazed. You'll see this if you watch
pastures improve with proper grazing over a period of years.

Pastured livestock produce excellent manure and urine free of
chemicals like antibiotics to use as fertilizer in our gardens and
fields. Nothing beats good animal manure for an organic garden. Even
the best non-animal based composts are not as good and they take a lot
more work to create. Don't plan on raising a healthy vegan diet in
synthetic petroleum based fertilizers or humanure from the cities that
has been filled with drain-o, prescription medications and other
lovely chemicals.

Yes, there are some environments where livestock production is not
sustainable such as drought areas. So fight that but don't lump
everything together in one package and miss the forest for the trees.
Most of all, we don't need a Nanny State government mandating from a
central authority how to live our lives. That is the road to ruin.
Better a wide variety of ways - evolution will naturally cull the
unfit. We don't need to save the planet, it's doing fine and will be
here long after humanity is gone.

By the way, don't confuse Big Ag's practices with small (micro?)
farmers and homesteaders. The former is evil, the latter is generally
good and very diverse. Big Ag is bad for the environment. Cities are
bad for the environment. Government is bad for the environment, mostly
because it sits in the pocket of Big Corp and Cities. Pastured
livestock improve the pastures and the environment utilizing resources
we could not otherwise use to produce high quality food from sunshine.
Ergo, meat is good for the environment. Eat meat. Buy locally.

On the topic of subsidies, remember that only about 6% of 'farmers'
get subsidies. That 6% who get subsidies consists primarily of the
wealthy and large corporations. Almost none are really small
farmers.The other 94% of us who don't get subsidies farm without
government assistance. I don't get subsidies. I object to the fact
that my taxes go to subsidize my competition which makes it harder for
me to compete in the market. What we really need to do is eliminate
_ALL_ subsidies: farm, oil, transport, banking, mortgage, etc. The
economy will shake a bit but think of all the money that will be saved
- money that should come back to you to make up for the higher prices.
Eliminating subsidies will encourage local jobs and local production
of foods and other goods. Eliminating subsidies would save a huge
amount of oil and cut pollution when gas prices skyrocket to their
real costs. That is environmentally friendly policy - eliminate all
subsidies.

Cheers,

-Walter
Sugar Mountain Farm
in the mountains of Vermont
http://SugarMtnFarm.com/blog/
http://HollyGraphicArt.com/
http://NoNAIS.org
George Conklin
2007-09-13 12:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In any
case, the loss is tremendous.
Cows, pigs and chickens can all be raised on foods that are otherwise
waste to you, foods that you can not eat on land that is not suitable
for growing crops.
"Man gains through eating animals only a fraction of the energy contained in
the plants eaten by those animals."

100 lbs of Wheat Yield in Calories
Consumed as:
Bread 120,000
Chicken 9,625
Eggs 30,000
Pork 38,700
Milk 25,230
Beef 11,500

"Since other feed crops can usually be grown more adventageously, wheat is
only rural used to feed animals. However, other plans edible by humans
exhibit the same pattern of loss as does wheat." BUT "If man permits
animals to eat plants which he otherwise might himself eat, or permits land
to be used to raise plants for feed which could be used to raise plants for
human food, he limits the number of men who can fed from the land."
Walter Jeffries
2007-09-14 01:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%. In
any
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
case, the loss is tremendous.
Cows, pigs and chickens can all be raised on foods that are otherwise
waste to you, foods that you can not eat on land that is not suitable
for growing crops.
"Man gains through eating animals only a fraction of the energy contained in
the plants eaten by those animals."
Your little chart of calories lies by looking at only a tiny fraction
of the picture. Since the food was completely virtually unavailable in
it's pasture form there is no real loss rather there is gain by eating
meat of pastured animals. Furthermore the manure of those animals
represents another gain as it can be used to grow veggies. The offal
of the animals can be used to feed our companion canines. The bones go
to our soup. Another very important fact is that the animals convert
the plant matter into forms that are more nutritious for us to eat
than if we ate the plants directly. Meat is more nutritious than plant
matter. Both is best.

You are of course free to just eat plants. But don't try to force it
on other people and don't lie.
Troppo
2007-09-14 08:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food.
For chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about
15%. In
any
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
case, the loss is tremendous.
Cows, pigs and chickens can all be raised on foods that are
otherwise waste to you, foods that you can not eat on land that is
not suitable for growing crops.
"Man gains through eating animals only a fraction of the energy
contained in the plants eaten by those animals."
Your little chart of calories lies by looking at only a tiny fraction
of the picture. Since the food was completely virtually unavailable in
it's pasture form there is no real loss rather there is gain by eating
meat of pastured animals. Furthermore the manure of those animals
represents another gain as it can be used to grow veggies. The offal
of the animals can be used to feed our companion canines. The bones go
to our soup. Another very important fact is that the animals convert
the plant matter into forms that are more nutritious for us to eat
than if we ate the plants directly. Meat is more nutritious than plant
matter. Both is best.
You are of course free to just eat plants. But don't try to force it
on other people and don't lie.
I'd like to add a word about one nutrient that is very difficult for some
people to obtain except from meat - Vitamin B12. Used for creating blood
and melanin - the covering of nerves. If you can't metabolise the B12
molecule (due to illness or certain antibodies) you either get 'simple'
perniceous anemia (your blood gives out and you fall over) or the other
kind, where your system protects your blood by depriving your nervous
system. Then, without diagnosis and treatment, you become paralysed and
die. That's why its called perniceous. Vegans make the whole situation
very difficult because the give it to themselves....
George Conklin
2007-09-14 11:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%.
In
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
any
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
case, the loss is tremendous.
Cows, pigs and chickens can all be raised on foods that are otherwise
waste to you, foods that you can not eat on land that is not suitable
for growing crops.
"Man gains through eating animals only a fraction of the energy contained in
the plants eaten by those animals."
Your little chart of calories lies by looking at only a tiny fraction
of the picture. Since the food was completely virtually unavailable in
it's pasture form there is no real loss rather there is gain by eating
meat of pastured animals.
You did not read the post. It stated that pasture is land that could be
used to grow crops which could directly feed humans, and thus the loss is
trememendous.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-14 14:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
When you feed grain to a cow, you get back about 10% in food. For
chickens it is less, maybe 8%, but for pigs it is more, about 15%.
In
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
any
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
case, the loss is tremendous.
Cows, pigs and chickens can all be raised on foods that are otherwise
waste to you, foods that you can not eat on land that is not suitable
for growing crops.
"Man gains through eating animals only a fraction of the energy
contained in
Post by Walter Jeffries
Post by George Conklin
the plants eaten by those animals."
Your little chart of calories lies by looking at only a tiny fraction
of the picture. Since the food was completely virtually unavailable in
it's pasture form there is no real loss rather there is gain by eating
meat of pastured animals.
You did not read the post. It stated that pasture is land that could be
used to grow crops which could directly feed humans, and thus the loss is
trememendous.
I suspect Walter has more direct knowledge of pasture and how to use it to
support people than anyone here.
Amy Blankenship
2007-09-12 19:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 1:40 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 10:41 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
And the subsidies on corn and soy, which also directly contribute to obesity
in humans themselves. If you read the ingredients on virtually any packaged
food, you will discover it almost certainly contains corn, soy, or both.
You are 100% right on corn and soy actually (consider it a first)...
there was a great article on the (real) environmental damage caused by
soy plantations in South America in the Guardian a few years ago.
Why is it that you are having a hard time seeing that feeding corn and soy
to meat animals both contributes to the environmental damage caused by
growing these crops at excessive levels and undermines the nutritional
content of the meat?
Again, have you ever heard of grass-fed beef?
I am not convinced that grass-fed beef is what you were arguing in favor of,
though it was, in fact, part of what _I_ was arguing in favor of.
rotten
2007-09-12 20:32:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 12, 3:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
Again, have you ever heard of grass-fed beef?
I am not convinced that grass-fed beef is what you were arguing in favor of,
though it was, in fact, part of what _I_ was arguing in favor of.
I'm not arguing in favor of anything,really, just against vegan
propaganda and PETA.
George Conklin
2007-09-12 18:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by rotten
On Sep 12, 10:41 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
And the subsidies on corn and soy, which also directly contribute to obesity
in humans themselves. If you read the ingredients on virtually any packaged
food, you will discover it almost certainly contains corn, soy, or both.
You are 100% right on corn and soy actually (consider it a first)...
there was a great article on the (real) environmental damage caused by
soy plantations in South America in the Guardian a few years ago.
Why is it that you are having a hard time seeing that feeding corn and soy
to meat animals both contributes to the environmental damage caused by
growing these crops at excessive levels and undermines the nutritional
content of the meat?
It actually improves the flavor and tenderness of the meat. Grass-fed beef
is tougher and has a different flavor, not better.
George Conklin
2007-09-12 16:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by rotten
He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade
against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal
rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse
gases. ...
Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the
environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are
directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.
....
...
Post by rotten
Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because
of his dramatic weight fluctuations.
Yes, Mr. Gore a bit heavier in recent times. Obesity and
inadequate physical fitness is a growing public health
issue the USA. The USDA livestock policies, US Dept
of Interior leasing of national park system, USDA
import(tarriff) system, US meat industry lobbyist
groups and USDA dairy price support system
all work to insures the economic survival
the US meat industry. PETA has never had much
success with the push for vegetarianism- While the
logic for vegetarianism is there the underlying value
is not. A logic system relies on assimilated values/
axioms to be accepted and followed. Al Gore's
arguments to push for lower energy usage
avoids attacking deep set values that are very difficult
to change but focuses on less entrenched beliefs
and values which are easier to change. To alter a deeply
entrenched values and habits in society the most
effective method is to effect the mind during
childhood -- the earlier the better. For example,
a joint USDA/UN--PETA sponsored urban pre-school
and kindergarten program to introduce
vegetarianism to children.
And this is not going to change habits either.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...