Printable View
I feel this is a very important and relevant thread, and I'm glad it was posted.
JP***, to use the pub analogy again; if someone came into the bar, dropped his trousers and shat on the floor, then walked out without explaining why he did it, would you just ignore it?
I too once thought of JP*** as an intelligent, well rounded individual, now I'm confused.
:)
I found the article a little over the top, particularly when it blamed the sinking of the Lusitania and the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand on the creation of the frankfurter.
It presented some excellent points particularly about the mistreatment of animals (I watched the flashvideo, too) but the final common demoninator was really human greed. That is why I recommended, in my very first post, that societies should enact animal protection laws to set the bar for what is allowable.
It seems that McDonald's is attempting to get meat cheap by converting rainforest into pastureland. Surprisingly rainforest soil is quite thin, the trees there have rather extensive lateral roots and not deep roots. So given the fact that it is a RAIN forest, the exposed topsoil is quickly washed away and a useless clay muck remains, most deplorable. The exposed trees are easily toppled because of their shallow roots.
The truth is that the Earth could easily feed itself now. People are being starved by their governments, not due to a true lack of food. You convert cow fields to soy bean fields and watch the war lords and government soldiers grow fatter.
Our government needs to pay farmers not to grow their crops (last time I checked, anyway) because the price of grain would fall so low that farming would not be cost effective. We have to create an artifical shortage to allow the common farmer to make money.
I, therefore, find the inefficiency argument to be moot. In addition, I disagree with his statement about land usage and how many people it can support, but I would have to read the reference to really comment. But since I find the point moot....
Although I can appreciate why you want to stop eating meat as your form of protest, I can't imagine what I would be able to enjoy if I boycotted everything that was being exploited. I see the "food" issue as being a small slice of much bigger pie.
Hmmm, not very high road of you.Quote:
Should i have condensed the points?
I don't really see how i could have, or indeed, why i should have. The article isn't really that long; maybe hobbes thinks i should have posted some pictures instead.
@SummerLinda, according to the article, the eggs and milk have to go. ;)
Too bad Biggles and Magic Nakor have not found their way here, always good stuff from them.
Quote:
Originally posted by JP+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JP)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm glad that you are not angry at having to pay a lot of tax, given that this will only happen if you have a substantial income. How magnanimous of you.
Maybe one day you may meet someone who has to decide whether to feed themself or their child. I hope not, but you never know, it might happen. [/b]
If you read the line which you quoted JP, I did say that "I would like to get a good job."
Also, do you know a great deal about my life? Why do you assume that I am not in that situation as we speak? How is it that you are so sure that I do not have this decision to make each and every day? These are rhetorical, I don't wish to discuss this, but please do not make too many assumptions about me.
I am not "whining on about people spamming", I am merely trying to ascertain the motives behind peoples need to spam.Quote:
vivitron15, you're whining on and on about people spamming, man this is the lounge. i agree with what has been said that the thread wasnt up to much to begin with
judging by your various replies that have jumped from you feeling the need to police the forum to using piss-poor analogies about phsycological theories etc etc - if you feel the need to prove a point or get something off your chest then why dont you start a new topic ?
this and the way you use your particular brand of terminology make me think that you are under the impression that you are somehow above everyone else, and you're right and everyone else is wrong. big deal if you think i spammed a topic, as i said there's a few of these already
and as for "I assure you I am very similar to you", man what the f*ck ??
I apologise if my point was badly made-my use of that was just to emphasise that there is no way a conversation can begin without someone coming here and sharing knowledge.
I am sorry that you feel this way, if you met me IRL, you may indeed like me, as I am a veryt easy-going person.
I also cannot see how you can say "the thread wasnt up to much to begin with" - this is the point i am trying to make. The concensus in the lounge is that "anything goes" when clearly it is not the case.
I did debate whether or not to start this into a new topic, however there is very little chance of a topic surviving once it has been destroyed to the extent that it had already been.
<!--QuoteBegin-linda
How low can you go JP, i think you've become an arse or maybe you always were but i didn't see it...[/quote]
Thank you linda, I think that you have summarised my feeling towards Mr Montgolfier at this present time. The fact that he has resorted to personal insults and arguments over my social and financial situation astounds me. I thought that he was beyond this.
Can I now assume, by the lack of response that there is no reason for the way in which threads are hijacked i nthe lounge? Can I assume that there is, therefore no reason at all for anyone to post here rather than to spam and flame?
I've seen this thread, but really there's so much spamming, and ironically most of it is off-topic, that it's fairly difficult to draw any conclusion whatsoever.
From the looks of the website, it appears to be some sort of PETA clone for the UK. Seeing as I don't reside in the UK, I honestly can't tell how stretched most of the statements in the article may be. However, laying blame on farming for global warming is silly; scientists can't agree what causes it. Some think it's all our fault, others say that it's just the world coming out of the Ice Age, as the world was far more temperate when the dinosaurs roamed around. Furthermore, there are different grades of grain, which, from what I've seen of these pro-vegan articles, is something that they fail to recognize. Grain that is fed to animals is not the same grain that is fed to humans.
It's really too bad that there's so much spam, although I suppose it's to be expected with a cut/paste job. Oh well.
:ninja:
Yes, an article from an agenda based website hardly holds the clout of an article from a peer reviewed journal.
The same site also claims that humans are natural vegans despite the fact that we cannot break down the basic plant structure unit- cellulose. Cellulose is a polymer of glucose, which the is "monetary unit" of our bodies energy supply. Glucose levels in the blood are regulated to ensure that cells are supplied with a steady source of energy. Glucose, as you know, is broken down within cells to release carbon dioxide, water, and usable energy(ATP).Quote:
Colin Spencer is a novelist, playright, cookery book writer and food columnist for The Guardian- the author of the article discussed below
Cellulose
So you can see the contradiction here. We cannot break down the very molecule that is composed of sub-units(glucose) that are the primary source of storable and immediate energy of humans. Cows and termites can do this, we can't. So when we eat grains and grasses and such, we are basically pooping 99% away, whereas true herbivores make much higher conversion of the same grain into body mass.
So I find a site which is not peer reviewed and presenting its version of science to the masses, to be somewhat less than authoritative, particularly since some of the contributors are not even scientists. There are some nuggets of truth there, but the intended readers of this site are not trained to critically evaluate the information (which presents speculation as fact) and simply take it and copy and paste it elsewhere.
The author you're trying desperately hard to discredit is not linked to VIVA, the website you're questioning the credibility of. VIVA chose to publish this article, which is based upon the authors book. He does not at any point of the article claim that we are natural vegans.
You've visited the site, and subsequently claim it presents speculation as fact? Care to link some examples of this, because i can't see any?
Quote:
Colin Spencer is a novelist, playright, cookery book writer and food columnist for The Guardian
Quote:
David Brubaker, Ph.D. is Director of the Henry Spira/GRACE Project on Industrial Animal Production, Center for a Liveable Future, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, USA. He also serves as
a consultant to the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment in
New York City.
Brubaker is a graduate of Temple University, Southern Illinois University and the University of Pennsylvania. He is a member of the Committee for a Global Water Contract. Brubaker has served as a consultant to numerous non-governmental organisations. Previously he was the Executive Vice President of PennAg Industries Association, a regional agribusiness trade association. He is a former president of the Agricultural Associations Executive Council, and was a member of the board of Directors of the American Feed Industry Association.
Long active in the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, he has served as Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Executive Council and in many other Bay-related positions. He lives in Lititz, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
I'm merely stating that the website is of questionable scientific validity based on the fact that they host scientific opinions presented by people who make cookbooks.Quote:
Originally posted by LTJBukem@17 November 2003 - 19:29
The author you're trying desperately hard to discredit is not linked to VIVA, the website you're questioning the credibility of. VIVA chose to publish this article, which is based upon the authors book. He does not at any point of the article claim that we are natural vegans.
You've visited the site, and subsequently claim it presents speculation as fact? Care to link some examples of this, because i can't see any?
I made no attempt to discredit Brubaker, my point about the website is that it is agenda based and not a credible scientific source. His conclusions are extreme and people might want to look elsewhere for a different opinion or a different way to tackle the problem.
To publish a book, you must simply have an opinion. Books are not peer reviewed so the author can draw any conclusion he wishes without cross examination. I find his need to blame every major environmental catastrophe on meat to a bit extreme. That is his speculation, not a fact. Did the Exxon Valdez crash into a cow? Are dioxins contained in cow farts? Is Bessy driving a gas guzzling Hummer?
Quote:
The meat industry directly contributes to all the major environmental catastrophes facing our planet.