Thousands of Animals Slaughtered?

[Secret Chief]

What a rubbish analogy.
Do we need analogies like that?

Now, as asked, are Christmas turkeys wrong, or my pork pie salads?
Or my oyster teas?

If you don't want to eat meats don't, but please don't go self righteous on us folks.

If you don't like rubbish analogies (I thought it was fine - if the general case is wrong then the specific case is wrong)
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
That is my opinion, as asked for - I am not being self-righteous. A person may think it is right to eat meat - I do not consider the person to be self-righteous. Why do you think I am being that?

 

[Piculet]

I would hope a well-informed doctor would not be saying that.

You medical school graduates are so competitive..

 

[Secret Chief]

You medical school graduates are so competitive..

My partner's ex-GP told her to stop eating pork to prevent her migraines. I'm guessing he didn't know she's a vegetarian.
The words of nutritionists I would have regard to.

 

[Piculet]

My partner's ex-GP told her to stop eating pork to prevent her migraines. I'm guessing he didn't know she's a vegetarian.
The words of nutritionists I would have regard to.

So? There are plenty of things to avoid to prevent migreanes and most people eat pork what with it being the cheapest and most available meat. It doesn't mean the doctor made a mistake.

 

[Secret Chief]

So? There are plenty of things to avoid to prevent migreanes and most people eat pork what with it being the cheapest and most available meat. It doesn't mean the doctor made a mistake.

Knowing nothing about my partner's diet or lifestyle he said cut out pork. A suggestion based on absolutely nothing, no questions asked, a random foodstuff.
Her trigger turned out to be caffeine.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1. Animals are often grazed on land that is not suitable for agriculture. So nothing is being taken away from food production in those cases.

2. In the vast majority of the world today, and historically, animals are never fed human edible plants like corn. It's not economically feasible to do so even if they wanted to. What happens in the USA is an inefficient abberation that doesn't represent how most of the world is growing their meat.

3. Your problem is that you talk as though this is the only way to raise meat, or even that it represents how most meat is raised. But it's not even true of the majority of beef in the US. Where the overwhelming majority of their growth is done off grass and scrubland - not corn feedlots. And those acres are very often not suitable to agriculture for a variety of reasons. You couldn't feed a cow only grains even if you wanted to. They'd die. That's why they can only handle getting fattened up for a short period before slaughter at feedlots.

But what I am talking about IS happening, and the same methods are taking root in other countries where populations are growing and they have the infrastructure and economic means to start into the mass-raising and slaughter business. Unfortunately, this is a case where the bar has been set, and others are actively trying to meet it.

Only things in the USA like poultry could said to be grown almost entirely based off grains. That's why other parts of the world can have trouble keeping poultry for eggs to supplement their diet - you often need a surplus of human edible food in order to keep them. You can feed poultry entirely off food and some yard waste if you generate enough of it, but you need a relatively large amount to support even a small number of chickens year round. So that's why large scale production has turned to grains.

The above paragraph is actually your admittance to there being a MASSIVE amount of food being grown that is being fed to animals. And one of your main objections is that you couldn't feed people on EXACTLY the crops grown to feed the animals - which is actually a non-issue. Without the animals, other crops could obviously be grown. There are a staggering 9 BILLION chickens slaughtered per year in the U.S. 9 BILLION!!

1. Nuts and beans don't give vitamin B12.

I basically noted this, by stating that B12 is an issue for vegans as it is a very novel nutrient only found where bacteria (mainly gut bacteria) have done the work of breaking down organic materials. And stated that if we were all working together, things like food items rich in B12 (like nutritional yeast, which I also specifically called out) could be traded for, and methods of production shared with everyone throughout the world.

2. Most parts of the world don't have a plethora of nuts available for the average person's consumption.

Which is why I specifically mentioned trade. You just seem to want to sweep everything under the rug. It's ridiculous.

This is again another skewed perspective you have as a relatively rich westerner who can have nuts from every continent put on your plate every day, all year round, on demand. The bulk of most people's diets are grains and legumes for a reason. There isn't a lot of provision made for fruits, veggies, and nuts in most people groups around the world. For practical reasons of labor, land, ecology, and/or economics.

I've said multiple times that it would take people working together, trade and sharing - which would obviously mean that those "rich" in resources would be wouldn't be hoarding it all as is happening now. I made no excuses for richer countries hoarding resources - what the hell else could I possibly have meant when I stated that we could feed the world by redirecting the efforts of agricultural produce from animals to humans? Did I mean that the people who produce it would just hold on to it, or distribute it among their friends? Is that what I could have meant? Duh man.

Not to mention, all I have been claiming is that a human being can, definitively, survive without eating animal products. Granted, bacteria has to be in there somewhere, as noted with things like B12 - but that's the only concession that needs made. I said NOTHING about ALL off us being vegan, in all current localities, with the current climate of capitalism and hoarding in play, etc. I didn't say that. You are twisting things, and it is dumb.

In the end, a human can live off of vegetation and bacterial sources of unique, key nutrients alone. Can. That is most of what I am saying. And if we all weren't so selfish, then (and only then) everyone could. That's it. That's the statement. Refute that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You mean there's scientific evidence that proves the claim that eating meat is good for your health, is false? I demand evidence.

It's certain types of meat that aren't good for you, like red meat, but meats like chicken (especially roasted and lean) and seafood are very good for you.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You've missed the entire point that most people in the world don't have the luxury of engaging in that kind of diet, for all the reasons I already gave.

This seems to be the central theme to your argument, and I will even concede that under the current, selfish, capitalistic methods of production and resource management, many humans must necessarily seek nourishment from animal sources. Fine. But that isn't what I have been advocating for, now is it? What I have been saying is that a human being can live without animal resources coming into play. An individual human being can do this. So, it stands to reason that if we could figure out how to get everyone the resources they needed to do so, everyone could do this. And currently there are a lot of stumbling blocks to a possibility like that... such as all the agricultural work and land it takes to raise grains to feed 9 BILLION chickens. Another stumbling block is people like you... who want so desperately to continue eating their tasty meat that they will argue tooth and nail about how not everyone can afford being vegetarian... which is only true because so many resources are tied up in creating all the meat resources that the richer people and countries are constantly after.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's certain types of meat that aren't good for you

Regularly eating meat that has been smoked, cured, salted, or preserved with added chemicals is by far the most effective way of improving one's chances of developing stomach or colon cancer.

 

[oldbadger]

If you don't like rubbish analogies (I thought it was fine - if the general case is wrong then the specific case is wrong)
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
That is my opinion, as asked for - I am not being self-righteous. A person may think it is right to eat meat - I do not consider the person to be self-righteous. Why do you think I am being that?

Nobody minds beliefs and opinions as long as this does not lead to the controlling of others, or dictating to others.
A few species do have a vegetarian diet but not many. And most every bird where I live feeds on living creatures. I'm in good company.
Most of the fish around here live on other life as well. I'm surrounded by life that feeds upon life.
But we humans have to listen to a few folks telling us we are wrong to eat other life.
I think vegans and vegetarians are fine folks, until they get self righteous about their diets.

 

[Secret Chief]

Nobody minds beliefs and opinions as long as this does not lead to the controlling of others, or dictating to others.
A few species do have a vegetarian diet but not many. And most every bird where I live feeds on living creatures. I'm in good company.
Most of the fish around here live on other life as well. I'm surrounded by life that feeds upon life.
But we humans have to listen to a few folks telling us we are wrong to eat other life.
I think vegans and vegetarians are fine folks, until they get self righteous about their diets.

I appreciate your answer.
I would like to unpack it a bit re the self righteous angle.
First off the birds, the fish etc. Carnivores, omnivores, herbivores. That's all part of life and death sure. I imagine we don't disagree on what birds and fish should and shouldn't eat. My cats are carnivores, they eat meat.
You say (presumably referencing me?) about "telling us we are wrong to eat other life." I'm simply expressing my opinion in an appropriate location, as you are, as is everyone. You too think some things are right and some things are wrong, yes? I don't see how that is being self-righteous. I'm not trying to dictate or control, I'm just expressing my opinion which is contrary to yours (and the majority of other people).

 

[icehorse]

Before I must answer your question you first must demonstrate what relevance it would have to disproving anything I said.

I will ask you again, how many people can be fed sustainably based on grazing animals in the regions you're describing?

==

This is your claim. This is the claim that started the discussion between you and me. I'm asking you to clarify your claim.

 

[Rise]

We have plenty of examples.

You don't have any example. Try giving one.
Chances are you are not talking about a people that would be considered long lived.

I think the mistake you are making is that you are probably confusing the idea that vetegarianism is a viable diet with the idea that vegetarianism

According to what I've read on "Blue Zone" diets, and what Dr. Wallach has also researched about longevity over the world, there doesn't appear to be any case of people regularly living to be over 100 in good health that don't incorporate some meat into their diet.

When I said earlier that Dr Wallach said there's no example of a vegan culture having regular long life and health, I actually think I misspoke - If I recall he actually said no example of a vegetarian culture.

Which is to say that they all ate at least some meat so they couldn't be considered vegetarian.

Now, that could simply be because they culturally have no reason not to eat meat and meat is widely available all over the world, so it's difficult to find people who don't incorporate it into their diet to see if that makes a dif

What I read suggests that a lot of Inuit possess specific encymes that allow them to gain more nutrients from meat than most people, so the overwhelming majority of the world's population probably wouldn't be able to replicate their traditional diet without severe health issues. I haven't heard or read anything about the Masai.

You misunderstand the point I was making about the Inuit. Your response is not relevant to the point I was making.

The point I made was that they eat unusual organ meats like brains because it gives them things like vitamin A and C that they don't otherwise get from meat and fat.

They don't have the luxury of eating plants for these vitamins because the environment they live in rarely provides the opportunity for eating plants.

The point being that their bodies have signaled to them that they need to eat this stuff to survive. So they gladly do it.

That is also why I believe the Masai are drinking so much blood - because their body is signalling to them that they need something from it that they aren't getting from their livestock's dairy.

I believe the reason most cultures don't engage in these kind of practices is because they don't need to. They have other sources of getting those vitamins that aren't as risky to eat. Some organ meats and animal parts are inherently more risky to eat, in terms of their potential to pass on toxins or pathogens to humans. So they are best avoided unless there's no other choice. I think that's part of why most cultures end up avoiding consuming certain parts of animals and why the Bible prohibits eating certain parts.

 

[Rise]

You are neither an arbiter nor permission granter, least of all in a non-debate sub-forum.

Your claim is false.

The be a permission granter or arbiter implies someone operating out of subjectivity.

But logic is an objective thing that no one owns and no one can change based on their subjective whims.

Either your argument is objectively logically valid or it isn't.
If it isn't, then no one is obligated to treat it as such.

This brings up the same question I already asked you: Why do you think you are entitled to argue using invalid logic and then have people treat them as though they are valid logic?


I have established with objective logic that your response to me was not a valid counter argument for the reasons I stated.

You haven't give any logically valid argument that would disprove what I concluded.

You've given logically invalid responses. But you can't refute a logically valid argument with invalid logic.

Getting upset that people won't let you use invalid logic to refute valid logical arguments doesn't absolve you of the requirement to use valid logic in formulating your arguments if you expect people to accept them as objectively valid counter arguments.

If you want to try to claim someone is wrong, and you want them to accept what you say is true, then you first need to be able to formulate a logically valid argument against what they have said.

No one is obligated to accept your claims or arguments as valid and true just because you state them. You are operating out of a severe deluded sense of entitlement if you think people are required to accept your arguments as valid and true just because you gave them, without any requirement that your arguments be based in logic.

If you don't want to be held to an objective logical standard then don't go around trying to tell people they are objectively wrong when you aren't capable of supporting your claim.

When you start trying to make objective claims the onus is on you to objectively and logically defend that claim.

If you aren't willing to do that then you're just stating your opinion. Opinions are fine, as long as you don't try to act as though your opinion is fact, and expect others to treat your opinion as though it were a fact.

Repetition of "Satan does not exist and is also irrelevant to this thread" is not a problem because it is a self-evident truth, every time it is repeated. You've disproven that have you?

Logical fallacy, "argument by repetition".
Proof by assertion - Wikipedia

Merely repeating your disproven claim doesn't prove it's true just because you repeat it.

I refuted your claim in my previous post and showed why it was invalid logic.

Here is a repost of that refutation:

------------

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion"

Your premise is based on an unproven assumption. You would first have to be able to prove satan doesn't exist before you could logically use that as the basis for proving your argument is true. You don't prove satan doesn't exist merely because you assert he doesn't.


Logical fallacy, "non sequitur"

Your conclusion doesn't follow logically from your premise.
Even if you could prove satan were not real, that is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not my references to satan were relevant to the content contained within this thread.

Now, if you could prove satan isn't real then you might be able to say my statements were untrue - but you can't say they were irrelevant based only on that. The two aren't logically connected. An individual would be capable of making a statement that is relevant to a given topic while also not being a true statement at the same time.

In order for you to even attempt to argue that they were irrelevant you'd have to pull out a specific quote and then explain logically why you think it has no connection to anything in this thread.


--------

I made two logically valid points and you have no valid logical counter argument to either of them.

It is logically invalid for you to ignore the points which refuted your claim and then simply repeat your claim as though it were not already refuted.

That's the very definition of a logical fallacy of "argument by repetition".

You don't provide a valid logical counter argument to my refutation of your claim by simply repeating your claim.

 

[Secret Chief]

Getting upset

Fear not, your posts don't upset me.

 

[oldbadger]

I appreciate your answer.
I would like to unpack it a bit re the self righteous angle.
First off the birds, the fish etc. Carnivores, omnivores, herbivores. That's all part of life and death sure. I imagine we don't disagree on what birds and fish should and shouldn't eat. My cats are carnivores, they eat meat.
You say (presumably referencing me?) about "telling us we are wrong to eat other life." I'm simply expressing my opinion in an appropriate location, as you are, as is everyone. You too think some things are right and some things are wrong, yes? I don't see how that is being self-righteous. I'm not trying to dictate or control, I'm just expressing my opinion which is contrary to yours (and the majority of other people).

Ah, but I don't judge people on their dietary habits, unless they are cannibals of course.
That's the diffetence.
It seems that you don't just choose for yourself, it's more than that. You seem to think that meat eating is wrong, even my local oysters growing wild.
You accept that mostly any other species can choose it's food, but not us. That is fine as long as your opinion does not become invasive upon others.
You're not alone here, of course.
It might not happen just now but if I should write that I cannot wait for McDonalds restaurants to re open with their full breakfast menus, like a breakfast wrap meal (mostly bacon, egg etc) you would see lots of posts from more refined meat eating members criticising such an idea.
Oh yes..... Seen that many times.

So it's not just some vegans and vegetarians who impose opinions upon others about various kinds of foods. Not at all.

 

[Rise]

I will ask you again,

Logical fallacy, "argument by repetition".

Simply repeating your question doesn't prove it's a relevant question to the topic, merely because you repeat it.

how many people can be fed sustainably based on grazing animals in the regions you're describing?

Since you did not understand what I was saying the first time, I will expound on it in more detail for you:

Your question is not relevant to any of the points I made because none of my points depend on being able to argue that a certain number of people can be sustained by grazing animals off a particular piece of land.

You will not be able to find a single quote of anything I said that depends on establishing that a particular number of people can be sustained by grazing animals off a particular piece of land.

Go ahead and try to find it.
If you can find it then you will have established that I am logically obligated to answer your question because it is relevant to my points.

But you won't find it because it doesn't exist.

And if it doesn't exist then the answer to your question is irrelevant to the points I made.

This is your claim. This is the claim that started the discussion between you and me. I'm asking you to clarify your claim.

You are speaking in vague generalities which prevents me from being able to give you an answer. You need to be specific about what you think I'm claiming that needs to be supported. Otherwise I don't know what you're asking for clarification on.

What exactly do you think my claim is?

We can't even examine if my claim was lacking in sufficient support or not if you don't first tell us what specific claim you are trying to challenge.

 

[Secret Chief]

Ah, but I don't judge people on their dietary habits, unless they are cannibals of course.
That's the diffetence.

I'm not judging the person, I'm having an opinion about the diet. Most people I associate with eat meat. Perhaps there's an issue over what the opinion is based on? When I ate meat I did so with an attitude it was just food on my plate, no ethical aspect to it. Some folk don't eat meat solely for health reasons (no ethical reason), some solely for welfare (no health reason) and some for both. Do meat eaters see, as I did, just food on a plate or do they see it as ethically OK? Feel free to generalise wildly.

It seems that you don't just choose for yourself, it's more than that. You seem to think that meat eating is wrong

I can only choose for myself of course. But I have opinions about what other people do, as do we all. One of my opinions is indeed that, in principle, all things considered, meat eating is wrong*. But I can't see how I am choosing for others? If I go to a restaurant (remember them?) with meat eaters I would no more expect to have an input to their menu choices as I would expect them to affect mine. I only give my opinion on such a matter if asked, although it probably hardly ever comes up, given we all know what each others dietary preferences are.
*I suppose the wrong bit refers to the killing/welfare aspect. Health is just choice, globally it's a bad (rather than wrong) course of action.

 

[Augustus]

There is also plenty of scientific evidence to refute it. But of course, you already said that you eat meat because you like the taste, so I don't really see the point of argueing over irrelevant details such as health benefits.

Any particular reason you cut this paragraph out of your reply?

I am also aware that you could say there are scientific studies that show benefits for vegetarian diets which is true, but lacking incontrovertible proof either way and given the terrible record of nutrition advice over the past century or so, I'll stick with the heuristic of what we've been doing longest.

 

[icehorse]

Your question is not relevant to any of the points I made because none of my points depend on being able to argue that a certain number of people can be sustained by grazing animals off a particular piece of land.

Well I inferred that we were talking about sustainably feeding humanity. If that was a wrong inference on my part, then there's probably nothing to discuss.

So, allow me to ask a more fundamental question: Are we talking about strategies to sustainably feed humanity?