Government Brutally Killing 40,000 Pigs

Closed Thread
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
  1. #61
    deleteduser

    Wow, now meat-eaters are causing global warming! Way to wrap everything up into one!


  2. #62

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Not friggin' Lamma no more!
    Posts
    2,181

    Not causing it no, that is just the type of knee-jerk comment which misleads and makes people disengage from your opinion, but there has been scientific proof that animals raised for consumption are a major contributor through, amongst many other things, large scale deforestation to create pastures.
    - It takes 12 pounds of grain to produce one pound of hamburger meat.
    - Cattle consume 70% of all US grain
    - 2,500 gallons of water are used to produce one pound of hamburger meat
    - 50% of all water consumed in the US is used to grow feed and provide water for cattle and livestock.

    Last edited by Lammarite; 23-04-2007 at 05:40 PM.

  3. #63
    deleteduser
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammarite:
    Not causing it no, that is just the type of knee-jerk comment which misleads and makes people disengage from your opinion, but there has been scientific proof that animals raised for consumption are a major contributor through, amongst many other things, large scale deforestation to create pastures.
    - It takes 12 pounds of grain to produce one pound of hamburger meat.
    - Cattle consume 70% of all US grain
    - 2,500 gallons of water are used to produce one pound of hamburger meat
    - 50% of all water consumed in the US is used to grow feed and provide water for cattle and livestock.
    So the solution is obvious: EAT CHICKEN

  4. #64

    Chickens feed on the soya that is the main factor in the deforestation of the Amazon and other similar places.

    So what other meats are left?


  5. #65
    deleteduser

    Damn nothing. Guess we'll all have to be physically weak, weak minded, emotionally drained vegans from now on


  6. #66

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484
    Quote Originally Posted by PDLM:
    Allthough I would at first glance recognise this survey of The Welsh Language Board as being a viable source of quotation. It can be seen to be very subjective.

    the survey , allthough claiming to be the " most comprehensive " states ---
    The survey, called the Welsh Language Use Survey, was organised in conjunction with the ?Living in Wales? Survey commissioned by the Welsh Assembly Government. The Welsh Language Use Survey is based on the responses of 2,500 individuals who could speak Welsh.

    A much more comprehensive survey was carried out in 2006 by S4C. This states 750,000 speakers with another 133,000 " expats " in England and also 1.5 million having " knowledge to understand the Welsh Language "

    Researching reveals that all school children under legislation of the Welsh Language Act from 5 - 16 ( that is all primary and seconday schools ) teach all pupils the language as first or second language. This I can personally atest too, having put my son at age 5 into a welsh school and having him take lessons. He is now 26yrs old.

    Looking at the Welsh assembly data for pupils in school for the last 12 yrs. This has a figure just for this group of around a total of 820,000. that is if they entered in the system and then left at the end with those remaining in the system to continue through. all of which would be able to speak or understand.

    In the 2006 national office of statistics data for people living in Wales the figure is 2.952 million give or take.

    So I feel that my figure is by no means inaccurate. I think people should look at how data is collected in surveys before trying to appear clever in the eyes of others.

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong.
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Newbie100:
    Human beings are NOT, as Lammarite said, physiologically designed to eat meat. Unless you believe god made the world in 7 days, primate and promo primate evolution took place over millions of years. For tens of millions of years up to about the Ice Age a million years ago, scientific evidence measuring microscopic teethwear point to that we ate exclusively fruit. Our deft hands with opposable thumbs were evolved to pick fruit, as opposed to having sharp claws or talons or teeth to rip animal flesh. Our intestines are long, designed to slowly extract nutrients from food. Carnivores have short intestines because flesh quickly putrefies and becomes toxic, and carnivores have hydrochloric acid 10 times more powerful than ours to neutralise that. Nor do humans delight in ripping animals to pieces and revelling in blood, guts and all that gore. Most people would have a natural aversion to killing animals for their own food in the wild. The cooking of food became widespread a mere several thousand years ago. In evolutionary terms, that?s a blink of the eye. And eating meat actually only become a regular thing a mere hundred or so years ago with the introduction of factory farming. Before that, it was an expensive luxury, and still is to the vast majority of the earths? population today. As for the nutrition argument, again, evolution blows it out of the water. I don?t think our ancestors sat around devising a ?balanced diet?.
    As lowlight has pointed out, this might have been true at an earlier evolutionary stage. How long ago (whether in absolute terms or relative to the existence of mankind/the planet/whatever) does not matter - it is not true any more today. Moderate amounts of meat/fish/poultry/animal products form an important and essential component of a healthy and balanced diet (just because our ancestors did not ponder what constituted a balanced does not mean they actually had one - they were much more concerned about having enough to eat in the first place).

    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Newbie100:
    People have a perfect right to eat whatever they want.
    Absolutely! People (at least in moth developed countries) can choose what they (want to) consume. However, such freedom increases the significance and importance of correct information and facts. One such fact is that a diet free of meat (let alone free of animal products) is NOT nutrionally balanced or healthy. Sadly, neither is the diet consumed by most people in the developed world (the US being a particularly shameful example)...


    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Newbie100:
    The meat vs veg argument is a no brainer in every respect if we accept empirical evidence, but unfortunately, people start from a point of wanting to defend a privileged status quo and then build their arguments around that. And because meat eaters represent the vast majority, it has become "normal" and people don't question it. I too ate meat for most of my life without question, but when I started to ask them, it became less and less attractive.
    No-brainer indeed - a healthy and balanced diet should contain some meat/fish/poultry/animal products, based both on empirical and theoretical evidence. Various people are looking to justify of their particular dietary choices (mixed, vegetarian, vegan, whatever else) in different ways - on moral grounds, based on religious edicts, or based on other values/believes. At the end of the day it does not matter - people are free to eat whatever they want.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong.
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Newbie100:
    Chickens feed on the soya that is the main factor in the deforestation of the Amazon and other similar places.

    So what other meats are left?
    Ah yes, soybeans/products - the darlings of vegetarians. Never mind that an excessive soy intake can interfer with the uptake of proteins, zinc, and iron into the system.
    And to top if of there is this strange tendency to belnd soy with fat to create processed fake-meat products that resemble the very items that vegetarians deprive themselves of, like veggie-burgers, veggie-sausages, etc.

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484
    Quote Originally Posted by PDLM:
    Would you support Cornish as being valid for official communication in the UK? What about Geordie? Cockney?
    I don't think you are English are you?

    Wales is a soveriegn country with its own governance ( the Welsh assembly ). Its own culture and its own language kept alive over the centuries. In that respect ALL official papers and signs are dual lingual now. They are rightly proud of their history even though they have been subjugated ( an out of date term these days ) since the time of Edward 1st who imposed his first born as the first Prince of Wales.

    Cornwall is a county of England and the language of Ancient Cornish has been revived, after actually being extinct , from scholistic text. Its not by any means mainstream and never has been in modern times. Its actually a dialect that transended then disappeared from common use.

    Cornish as a English language has its own modern regional dialect. Geordie is a regional dialect as is Cockney. All areas have region specific descriptive words used in strickly local converstation. Hampshire Hog, Suffolk Flat, Norfolk Flat are some that eminate from my own family tree. Modern dialects such as " Sloane " and " Text " makes English a very vibrant fluid language set.

    FYI - I could clasify myself as a Cockney but I still can converse with people in all areas of England. The dialect is area specific under Queens English.

    Hope that clears that point up for you.

  10. #70
    deleteduser

    This is my new favourite thread at GeoExpat

    Vegetarians, conspiracy theorists, religious people, etc, are so amusing to me


Closed Thread
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast