| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2003 : 12:06:54
|
Thank you for clarifying, but if you do a little more research (ie, read the NEXT line on that seal/cod quote) you'll still find a myriad of misinformation in your sources.
I'll clarify on this later. |
 |
|
|
wasteofo2
- FB Fan -
43 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2003 : 18:50:41
|
This is what I think you mean by the seal and cod quote.
"The Canadian government portrays the hunt as both humane and necessary (to help recover collapsed cod stocks), but observers and scientists argue otherwise. A team of veterinarians say the hunt doesn't comply with Canada's animal welfare regulations, in part, because of the high number of seals killed while still conscious, and scientists have been saying for years that the hunt is unsustainable. "
The next line says that people think the hunting is inhumane and that some people think that the hunt can't be sustained. I never said clubbing baby seals to death was humane, tough obviously it is sustainable and the same website says that many more than the allowed number of seals are killed each year.
"If struck-and-lost animals were considered, the total kill each year would almost certainly exceed half a million seals. "
-http://www.hsus.org/ace/19957
Download the song mother banger by chris morris. It's a pixies parody and it's genius. |
Edited by - wasteofo2 on 12/21/2003 19:13:30 |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2003 : 19:33:57
|
Hello again,
<< The Original website posted under the picture of the seal about to be beaten stated that seals are killed "to help recover collapsed cod stocks".>>
Yes, followed by: "but observers and scientists argue otherwise."
Quite the omission there.
If you follow the link, you see how they are a scapegoat, and that if anything, seals are helping improve the number of cod.
<< As if a mouse being crushed by a wheat combine, or a rat dying over the course of weeks from pesticide excosure is any better?>>
Nope - this is not good. Which is part of the reason i buy as much organic as i can.
You don't think they use these methods in factory farms either?
<<re: 1.2 million animals killed during harvests
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm >>
I've seen this before - this is a pathetic attempt to try and make vegans look like they're causing more deaths than meat-eaters. (What an insidious attempt!)
His general theme is that plant-based foods cause a lot of deaths (ie, field mice) and so for a vegan to get his/her food, they must kill x# of animals. Which is patently absurd when you recall that almost all chickens and pigs (over 8billion killed annually in the US) and most cattle are grain-fed.
So yes, there is some death involved in eating vegan, but his numbers are quite questionable, when you consider that a good proportion of cropland is hand-picked and/or undesireable to most small mammals (like apples, oranges, lettuce and tomatoes).
So his numbers (which he admits are only estimates, there's no hard data here) are clearly elevated considerably.
His lack of information starts at the beginning of his article as well, as Tom Regan does not support or promote utilitarianism.
Finally, if everyone were to be vegan, perhaps we'd take this issue into consideration and devise less disruptive methods of agriculture.
<< http://www.jinjapan.org/trends98/honbun/ntj980623.html
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1200/1998_Nov_14/53280932/p1/article.jhtml?term= >>
Interesting methane links. I've never heard that it could have caused the last ice age.
I suppose i'd agree with you here - time to stop breeding cattle.
<< Well, I never said anything about comparing the methane produced by cows in india to those in western states, but in all likelyhood you're right. So is what you're saying that we should concentrate more on killing the cows in mexico, the USA and any other country which has more methane production due to cows than India does? >>
Killing - no. Eliminate the breeding-of - yes.
Don't forget the pigs and chickens as well. More than 10 billion will be slaughtered in the US this year.
<< Funny how you didn't seem to mind the coments about beating humans to death...>>
I take it this isn't targetted at me.
Tho i'll admit my compassion for someone who can go out and kill hundreds of baby seals every year is not very high.
<< What's so ludacris about comparing insects to seals? Do seals have more validity as an organism than insects do? What criteria do you use to determine which animals are more important than others?>>
It's 'ludicrous', as i suggested, comparing seals who are brutally slaughtered each year, for no need, and based on total lies, to insects based on our empirical knowledge of these animals.
It is very clear seals suffer tremendously. Unfortunately, this isn't as clear with insects.
<< I've cited my sources, you can no longer say my remarks have no credibility.>>
Good try. =)
<<I've cited all my sources and explained myself very thuroughly, here are some instances however where you seem to have had an ignorance of the topic you were discussing.>>
I take it you wish to see sources, no prob:
<<"* seals are note 'pests' and don't eat the same fish as humans">>
They are not pests, see the same link as above. You're correct tho, they do eat cod, but they their impact is negligible. (Again, same link.)
<<"* i would like to see where you got this 1.2 million animals killed during harvests, this sounds ABSURDLY high. I've never seen all this blood on my Wheatibix.">>
I still don't know where you got 1.2 million from...? Did you mean billion?
<<"* never heard of the underwater/ground methane global-warming theory. How did all this methane get trapped underground?">>
Qui? Why did you quote this?
<<"* think of all the hungry US folks that could be fed, since over 70% of all corn and soy grown here is fed to animals.">>
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/AGR/variables/348.htm
76% in Canada and 66% in the US for 1998, for wheat, rice (milled weight), corn, barely, sorghum, millet, rye, oats, and mixed grains. Worldwide it was 36.9%. It's on the decline in the US tho, to my surprise. (Tho perhaps the US is growing more rice, and i don't believe it's that common of a grain used in feedlots.)
I'm not going to hunt the #'s down, but i'm pretty sure that soy and corn #'s are of a considerably higher percentage. |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2003 : 19:41:13
|
What's interesting to me is that Adam and Eve were supposedly living in harmony with the animals and that they were vegans, basically. It's the healthier way to live. According to the Bible God gave us control over the earth...he just handed it over to us and let us do what we want with it. He never said "It's okay to eat animals." or anything like most people like to say against vegetarians and vegans. I'm neither, though I wish I could be. I don't have to willpower or health to start doing it right now. Maybe after I get over my Lyme disease I can try again.
 "Join the Cult of Gunn / And Then You'll Be Destined to be a Rock and Roll Star of Epical Proportions!" |
|
|
|
wasteofo2
- FB Fan -
43 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2003 : 20:11:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheCroutonFuton
What's interesting to me is that Adam and Eve were supposedly living in harmony with the animals and that they were vegans, basically. It's the healthier way to live. According to the Bible God gave us control over the earth...he just handed it over to us and let us do what we want with it. He never said "It's okay to eat animals." or anything like most people like to say against vegetarians and vegans. I'm neither, though I wish I could be. I don't have to willpower or health to start doing it right now. Maybe after I get over my Lyme disease I can try again.
There are plenty of instances of meat eating and killing animals in the new and old testament. Jesus ate fish, god told Moses to spread lamb blood on the houses of the jews in egypt so god would pass them over when killing all the first born.
Deuteronomy 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
Leviticus 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
There are also many more conditions under which you can and can't eat certain animals. The bible doesn't preach veganism.
And plus, humans are omnivores, we need meat and plants to keep us healthy.
Download the song mother banger by chris morris. It's a pixies parody and it's genius. |
|
|
|
wasteofo2
- FB Fan -
43 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2003 : 20:52:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Hello again,
Yes, followed by: "but observers and scientists argue otherwise."
Quite the omission there.
If you follow the link, you see how they are a scapegoat, and that if anything, seals are helping improve the number of cod.
I did include the "but observers and scientists argue otherwise" part in my second response to you, should you have bothered to read it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Nope - this is not good. Which is part of the reason i buy as much organic as i can.
You don't think they use these methods in factory farms either?
Organic goods are still protected with pesticides and harvested with combines.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I've seen this before - this is a pathetic attempt to try and make vegans look like they're causing more deaths than meat-eaters. (What an insidious attempt!)
His general theme is that plant-based foods cause a lot of deaths (ie, field mice) and so for a vegan to get his/her food, they must kill x# of animals. Which is patently absurd when you recall that almost all chickens and pigs (over 8billion killed annually in the US) and most cattle are grain-fed.
So yes, there is some death involved in eating vegan, but his numbers are quite questionable, when you consider that a good proportion of cropland is hand-picked and/or undesireable to most small mammals (like apples, oranges, lettuce and tomatoes).
I'm not concerned with what the overall point of his paper was, only the statistic about the animals killed in harvesting. He was only talking about corn and soy crops, neither of which are hand picked.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
So his numbers (which he admits are only estimates, there's no hard data here) are clearly elevated considerably.
His numbers, if anything, would be underestimated, since he's only accounting for corn and soy crops.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
His lack of information starts at the beginning of his article as well, as Tom Regan does not support or promote utilitarianism.
I haven't read the book, so I wouldn't know, but what does Regan support if not killing the fewest amount of animals possible?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Finally, if everyone were to be vegan, perhaps we'd take this issue into consideration and devise less disruptive methods of agriculture.
Your point? I wasn't making an argument against vegans, just pointing out instances of mass animal deaths.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Interesting methane links. I've never heard that it could have caused the last ice age.
It couldn't have caused the last ice age, it could have ended it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I suppose i'd agree with you here - time to stop breeding cattle.
Killing - no. Eliminate the breeding-of - yes.
What about in countries like india or other countries which have a large population of wild cows? No one breeds them, would you be for killing all of them?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Don't forget the pigs and chickens as well. More than 10 billion will be slaughtered in the US this year.
Where did chickens come into this? Do you have any evidence showing that chickens produce methane gas?
Pigs however, do produce alot of methane, and there are plenty of wild boards all over australia, south america and africa. You're for the elimination of these animals too? And once you move from cows to pigs, larger animals like elephants are a logical next step to eliminate in order to stop methane gas production, I assume you'd be for that as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<< Funny how you didn't seem to mind the coments about beating humans to death...>>
I take it this isn't targetted at me.
Tho i'll admit my compassion for someone who can go out and kill hundreds of baby seals every year is not very high.
It was targetted at you. Any farmers who use pesticides on their crops would kill many more insects daily than someone who clubs baby seals could kill in a lifetime. Plus all the other animals that are killed by pesticides must mount up to at least thousands in a year per farm. Do you have the same lack of compassion for farmers?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
It's 'ludicrous', as i suggested, comparing seals who are brutally slaughtered each year, for no need, and based on total lies, to insects based on our empirical knowledge of these animals.
It is very clear seals suffer tremendously. Unfortunately, this isn't as clear with insects.
Back before anyone cared about the residual effects of insecticides on other wildlife, it might have been true that insects killed by crop dusting died instantly or within seconds. However, now that people have learned what insecticides can do to other animals and forced them to become less potent, this is hardly true. Perhaps you've seen footage from right around the time people started worrying about insecticides of something like a bird or mouse having massive seizures due to insecticides and eventually dying over the course of hours or even days? If you've ever seen an insect sprayed with weak insecticides or small amounts of powerful insecticides? They have massive seizures, which can last for hours. And of course, there are still field animals, which eat insects killed by the poisons that die very slowly from being poisoned.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<< I've cited my sources, you can no longer say my remarks have no credibility.>>
Good try. =)
Whatever, you've chosen not to believe anything contradictory to what you already believe. I've shown you evidence and you refuse to accept it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I take it you wish to see sources, no prob:
Yes, I'd really like to see a source contradictory to the one about amount of animals killed in the harvesting process. Remember I'm not making a case against vegans and don't want anything expounding the vegan lifestyle.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<"* seals are note 'pests' and don't eat the same fish as humans">>
They are not pests, see the same link as above. You're correct tho, they do eat cod, but they their impact is negligible. (Again, same link.)
Your source says things like "scientists say this" or "someone thinks this" but never actually cite any governmental or scientifical sources or studies. Anyone could post a website in support of the clubbing of baby seals saying that seal are the main predator of cod and seals kill more cod than all their otehr predators combined without citing anything and be just as valid a source, since neither do anything to prove themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I still don't know where you got 1.2 million from...? Did you mean billion?
Yes, I meant billion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<"* never heard of the underwater/ground methane global-warming theory. How did all this methane get trapped underground?">>
Qui? Why did you quote this?
You said I was ignorant; I was listing instances in which you displayed ignorance. You were ignorant to the fact that methane deposits even exist under the ocean.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<"* think of all the hungry US folks that could be fed, since over 70% of all corn and soy grown here is fed to animals.">>
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/AGR/variables/348.htm
76% in Canada and 66% in the US for 1998, for wheat, rice (milled weight), corn, barely, sorghum, millet, rye, oats, and mixed grains. Worldwide it was 36.9%. It's on the decline in the US tho, to my surprise. (Tho perhaps the US is growing more rice, and i don't believe it's that common of a grain used in feedlots.)
I'm not going to hunt the #'s down, but i'm pretty sure that soy and corn #'s are of a considerably higher percentage.
Again, there are alot of crops being grown and fed to animals, but those crops are grown on inferior land and are therefore are not fit for human consumption. No one in their right mind would take a rich plot of land and grow grain for cows when selling grain to sources which make food for humans is much more lucrative.
Download the song mother banger by chris morris. It's a pixies parody and it's genius. |
Edited by - wasteofo2 on 12/21/2003 21:03:33 |
|
|
|
Dinsdale Piranha
- FB Fan -
24 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 10:47:26
|
| Baby seals are good with mustard |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 11:47:23
|
Eeek - this is becoming long.. I admire your diligence. =)
From the previous response:
<< And plus, humans are omnivores, we need meat and plants to keep us healthy.>>
Not true, we do not need meat - i've been vegan for 13+yrs, and some would consider me an athlete (race at the velodrome.)
We are omnivores, but i would argue that is a fallback mechanism, not a requirement, or recommendation even.
<<Organic goods are still protected with pesticides and harvested with combines.>>
True, but methods are employed to detract insects as well, rather than kill. It's not ideal, but it's worlds better. I'd be curious to find out how organic farms respond to mice, etc..
<<I'm not concerned with what the overall point of his paper was, only the statistic about the animals killed in harvesting. He was only talking about corn and soy crops, neither of which are hand picked.
His numbers, if anything, would be underestimated, since he's only accounting for corn and soy crops.>>
He writes: "There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US (USDA, 2000)."
He does not specify corn and soy.
And once more, he admits his numbers are just guesses based on one study of field mice. (And based on an assumption.)
A shoddy study, to say the least.
<<I haven't read the book, so I wouldn't know, but what does Regan support if not killing the fewest amount of animals possible?>>
My point is the author isn't particularly assiduous.
<<It couldn't have caused the last ice age, it could have ended it.>>
Sorry, i was getting tired, you're correct.
<<What about in countries like india or other countries which have a large population of wild cows? No one breeds them, would you be for killing all of them?>>
And what of all the great herds of animals in Africa? (Well, not-so-great herds since many have been decimated..)
I don't know what your real point is here.
<<Where did chickens come into this? Do you have any evidence showing that chickens produce methane gas?>>
No, but i'm sure it's safe to assume their digestion isn't vastly different from ours. I'm happy to retract this point if you think it's implausible.
<<Pigs however, do produce alot of methane, and there are plenty of wild boards all over australia, south america and africa. You're for the elimination of these animals too? And once you move from cows to pigs, larger animals like elephants are a logical next step to eliminate in order to stop methane gas production, I assume you'd be for that as well?>>
Your game here is not appreciated. You know what i mean.
<<It was targetted at you. Any farmers who use pesticides on their crops would kill many more insects daily than someone who clubs baby seals could kill in a lifetime. Plus all the other animals that are killed by pesticides must mount up to at least thousands in a year per farm. Do you have the same lack of compassion for farmers?>>
In some respects, yes.
<<Back before anyone cared about the residual effects of insecticides on other wildlife, it might have been true that insects killed by crop dusting died instantly or within seconds. However, now that people have learned what insecticides can do to other animals and forced them to become less potent, this is hardly true. Perhaps you've seen footage from right around the time people started worrying about insecticides of something like a bird or mouse having massive seizures due to insecticides and eventually dying over the course of hours or even days? If you've ever seen an insect sprayed with weak insecticides or small amounts of powerful insecticides? They have massive seizures, which can last for hours. And of course, there are still field animals, which eat insects killed by the poisons that die very slowly from being poisoned.>>
I agree, and by buying organic items, i'm avoiding this. Are you listening to me? Why must i repeat myself?
<<Whatever, you've chosen not to believe anything contradictory to what you already believe. I've shown you evidence and you refuse to accept it.>>
Not at all, i've agreed to some of your points, and even thanked you for enlightening me on some subjects.
You're the one twisting my logic around.
<<Yes, I'd really like to see a source contradictory to the one about amount of animals killed in the harvesting process. Remember I'm not making a case against vegans and don't want anything expounding the vegan lifestyle.>>
Sorry, i haven't the time to research this. All i can say is the paper you cited is clearly biased, and is extremely questionable in accuracy.
<<Your source says things like "scientists say this" or "someone thinks this" but never actually cite any governmental or scientifical sources or studies. Anyone could post a website in support of the clubbing of baby seals saying that seal are the main predator of cod and seals kill more cod than all their otehr predators combined without citing anything and be just as valid a source, since neither do anything to prove themselves.>>
It's pretty straight-forward. Before we arrived, the waters around Newfoundland were FULL of fish. They were also full of seals, and this had been the case for, i would assume, thousands of years.
If seals were decimating cod, there wouldn't be any when we arrived, unless in the last 40 or so years they've gone on a rampage.
As well, seals also eat the fish which eat cod - thus 'protecting' them, to some extent.
Does this sound implausible to you as well?
I would argue the reason there are so few cod is because of human interaction, not seals.
Anyway, here is a paper you can examine for more hard data, full of references:
http://www.imma.org/myth4.pdf
<<You said I was ignorant; I was listing instances in which you displayed ignorance. You were ignorant to the fact that methane deposits even exist under the ocean.>>
You are correct, i would have imagined 'some' but not so much, thank you for enlightening me.
<<Again, there are alot of crops being grown and fed to animals, but those crops are grown on inferior land and are therefore are not fit for human consumption. No one in their right mind would take a rich plot of land and grow grain for cows when selling grain to sources which make food for humans is much more lucrative.>>
If there weren't 10 billion cows, chickens and pigs to feed, this land could be left alone, n'est pas?
Can you explain to me how the quality of the land defines whether or not the crop is 'suitable for humans'? If it can grow, say, corn, why would it not be fine for us to eat? What is different with these crops?
Also it's my understanding there are subsidies for crops used to feed animals. I may be wrong tho. |
|
|
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 12:36:38
|
well, I guess none of you guys will be coming sealhunting with me and coldheart....oh well, your loss
-----------------------
MAMASAYMAMASAMAMACOOSA |
|
|
|
Coldheartofstone
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
2025 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 14:59:14
|
Tree hugging hippie freaks.
And now, your moment of zen... |
|
|
|
Thomas
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1615 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 15:35:40
|
I can't wait for Christmas dinner. Lots of fish with a side order of  
 .
Yum
 Join the Cult of Kasso / Say you love Satan |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 17:47:28
|
Oh, Thomas, you had to tweak my FB Pictionary jones, didn'tcha? What a hoot!
 Swedish Chef's "Dumpling of Wisdom":Swedish Chef's "Dumpling of Wisdom": Øder tis moodle in der noggin tu smacken der ouchey und vinger-slingers ur to smacken-backen und fix de morkin, yøobetcha! |
|
|
|
SpudBoy
= Cult of Ray =
Equatorial Guinea
649 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 18:14:02
|
Hey anything that has to do with clubbing *that* seal, I'm in!
 I looked for a cult to join, then decided to just play "Sink". Hey! I sank the LaBrea Tar Pits! |
|
|
|
wasteofo2
- FB Fan -
43 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 01:20:31
|
Sorry this response took so long, holiday events and whatnot.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Not true, we do not need meat - i've been vegan for 13+yrs, and some would consider me an athlete (race at the velodrome.)
We are omnivores, but i would argue that is a fallback mechanism, not a requirement, or recommendation even.
Many athletes live unhealthy lifestyles, so qualifying yourself as one doesn't show your diet is healthy. Many runners/ballerinas/gymnasts are anorexic and get osteoperosis in their 30's and 40s, many body builders/weight lifters etc. use harmful steroids and have sever muscle damage later in life. Simmilarly, you may have athletic aptitude now, but vegans in general don't get the things they need which can be obtained from animal products.
The vitamin b 12 is very important in synthesising amino acids (among other things), and without adequit amounts, the synthesis of DNA/RNA amino acids can be poor, thus leading to irregular cell division and incresed risk of cancer.
There are 20 different amino acids found in the human body and other animals, animals have approx the same ratio as we do, and thus by eating animals and animal products we get the proper amount of amino acids to synthesise our own. Since plants are so radically different they have far less of many of these essential amino acids and lack some alltogether.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
True, but methods are employed to detract insects as well, rather than kill. It's not ideal, but it's worlds better. I'd be curious to find out how organic farms respond to mice, etc..
Just becuase something is grown organically, it doesn't mean it's pesticides are somehow kinder to the insects.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
He writes: "There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US (USDA, 2000)."
He does not specify corn and soy.
And once more, he admits his numbers are just guesses based on one study of field mice. (And based on an assumption.)
A shoddy study, to say the least.
He didn't say his numbers are guesses, they're based on a published study, there's a big difference. And unless I missed it, a harvest area isn't given a quantitative area, so you can't really say if it's a bad estimate or not without knowing one harvest area's dimensions.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<I haven't read the book, so I wouldn't know, but what does Regan support if not killing the fewest amount of animals possible?>>
My point is the author isn't particularly assiduous.
I'm still curious as to what this book preaches, if not the killing of the least amounts of animals possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<What about in countries like india or other countries which have a large population of wild cows? No one breeds them, would you be for killing all of them?>>
And what of all the great herds of animals in Africa? (Well, not-so-great herds since many have been decimated..)
I don't know what your real point is here.
I'm trying to see if you actually want to help dampen global warming by eliminating a major source or methane gas, or if you only thought that saying you did if it entailed stopping the breeding of cows and pigs would help you in the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<Where did chickens come into this? Do you have any evidence showing that chickens produce methane gas?>>
No, but i'm sure it's safe to assume their digestion isn't vastly different from ours. I'm happy to retract this point if you think it's implausible.
There are seven levels of classifying an organism(kingdom, phylum, etc.). After the fact that birds and humans both are animals and both have spinal columns, their classifications split(birds are in the class aves while humans/pigs/cows are in the class mamalia). I'd say that our digestive systems would be radically different.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<Pigs however, do produce alot of methane, and there are plenty of wild boards all over australia, south america and africa. You're for the elimination of these animals too? And once you move from cows to pigs, larger animals like elephants are a logical next step to eliminate in order to stop methane gas production, I assume you'd be for that as well?>>
Your game here is not appreciated. You know what i mean.
You said that you were for the elimination of all the cows and pigs bred for meat since it would help the global warming problem (which you've expressed concern about), and that you saw my point about eliminating them cutting down on methane production, eliminating wild pigs is essentially the same as domseticated ones, but you don't want to eliminate them. I see this as a sign that you really don't want to do things to better the atmosphere and the life on this planet as a whole.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<Back before anyone cared about the residual effects of insecticides on other wildlife, it might have been true that insects killed by crop dusting died instantly or within seconds. However, now that people have learned what insecticides can do to other animals and forced them to become less potent, this is hardly true. Perhaps you've seen footage from right around the time people started worrying about insecticides of something like a bird or mouse having massive seizures due to insecticides and eventually dying over the course of hours or even days? If you've ever seen an insect sprayed with weak insecticides or small amounts of powerful insecticides? They have massive seizures, which can last for hours. And of course, there are still field animals, which eat insects killed by the poisons that die very slowly from being poisoned.>>
I agree, and by buying organic items, i'm avoiding this. Are you listening to me? Why must i repeat myself?
Are you really that ignorant as to think that just because something is grown organically that somehow they have some magical ability to ward off insects without using insecticides? Things which are grown organically aren't nessicarily protected organically, and if they where, there are plenty of organic poisons to use on insects.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
It's pretty straight-forward. Before we arrived, the waters around Newfoundland were FULL of fish. They were also full of seals, and this had been the case for, i would assume, thousands of years.
If seals were decimating cod, there wouldn't be any when we arrived, unless in the last 40 or so years they've gone on a rampage.
As well, seals also eat the fish which eat cod - thus 'protecting' them, to some extent.
Does this sound implausible to you as well?
I would argue the reason there are so few cod is because of human interaction, not seals.
Anyway, here is a paper you can examine for more hard data, full of references:
http://www.imma.org/myth4.pdf
Of course the cod numbers are going down due to humans overfishing them, that's obvious. The canadians are just trying to give the cod as much chance as they can to respawn as fully as possible. And yes, the canadian government is overlooking the fact that seals eat cods predators too, but they're canadaian, you gotta give them some slack.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
If there weren't 10 billion cows, chickens and pigs to feed, this land could be left alone, n'est pas?
Can you explain to me how the quality of the land defines whether or not the crop is 'suitable for humans'? If it can grow, say, corn, why would it not be fine for us to eat? What is different with these crops?
Also it's my understanding there are subsidies for crops used to feed animals. I may be wrong tho.
If there weren't the animals that needed to be fed, the land their crops are grown on could be left alone, but what would that do? And I don't speak french or whatever language that was, I assume it means "Do you understand?" or something simmilar.
Plants need minerals to grow. If soil has a deficiency of a certian kind of mineral, the plant won't grow as well, like a person who doesn't get enough vitamins. The plant will grow to a point where it can be harvested, but it will be less healthy and well developed than a plant that got all the nutrients it needed. Pigs and cows also have digestive systems much better suited for eating these less-favorable plants than humans do, so while the animals eat these plants, they might be undigestable to humans or simply taste bad.
I don't know about the subsidies.
Download the song mother banger by chris morris. It's a pixies parody and it's genius. |
Edited by - wasteofo2 on 01/03/2004 18:40:47 |
|
|
|
Thomas
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1615 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 08:10:58
|
Both sides are right, but both sides murder. I give up. Why can't they.
Join the Cult of Little Black Francis / Our Love is Rice and Beans and Horses Lard |
|
|
|
wasteofo2
- FB Fan -
43 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2004 : 18:39:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas
Both sides are right, but both sides murder. I give up. Why can't they.
I never made the claim that what I represented wasn't a side which killed animals...
I can't give up because I keep getting a lengthy response,if someone takes all the time to respond to one of my posts in as much detail it would be rude to just not respond.
Download the song mother banger by chris morris. It's a pixies parody and it's genius. |
|
|
|
Thomas
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1615 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2004 : 03:54:24
|
Ignore Dave. I do.
Fighting on web forums is gay. Now someone will yell at me for using that word and call me a homophobe. I'd just ignore 'em.
I can't say I've read half the stuff you two write back and forth about. I thought you did make you point on your very first post in this topic and it should have ended there, but Dave has his own agenda about certain things. Love ya Dave, but I learn to hit the ignore button sometimes. Who has the time anyway to read it all let alone sit there and type up a longer response. I know I don't. I'm just glad you didn't go on a rant about what I said.
Anyway, what I wrote was copied from lyrics of a band called X it was meant to be funny.
Now pass the pepper, I loves me some extra flava on my steak. Yum.
Join the Cult of Little Black Francis / Our Love is Rice and Beans and Horses Lard |
|
|
|
wasteofo2
- FB Fan -
43 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2004 : 17:37:32
|
About the long responses - practice for the debate team, and I was bored.
Download the song mother banger by chris morris. It's a pixies parody and it's genius. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2004 : 20:36:24
|
Wasteodo2 - glad to keep you on track with your boredom..
<< Many athletes live unhealthy lifestyles, so qualifying yourself as one doesn't show your diet is healthy. Many runners/ballerinas/gymnasts are anorexic and get osteoperosis in their 30's and 40s, many body builders/weight lifters etc. use harmful steroids and have sever muscle damage later in life. Simmilarly, you may have athletic aptitude now,>>
True - but it also indicates that i'm not some weak fool on the edge of death, which would be the case if i couldn't get all the nutrients i needed from a vegan diet after 13+ yrs.
<< but vegans in general don't get the things they need which can be obtained from animal products. >>
Absolutely untrue.
Typically, vegans get more nutrients than meat-eaters. A vegan typically spends considerably more time paying attention to what they're eating.
Not always the case, but the same goes for anyone - vegan or not.
<< The vitamin b 12 is very important in synthesising amino acids (among other things), and without adequit amounts, the synthesis of DNA/RNA amino acids can be poor, thus leading to irregular cell division and incresed risk of cancer>>
I agree, but this isn't hardly more common among vegan populations than meat-eating ones.
The most common result of a B12 deficiency is neural damage and blindness, not an 'increased risk of cancer'. Where'd you get that from?
<< There are 20 different amino acids..>>
22 actually.
<< ..found in the human body and other animals, animals have approx the same ratio as we do, and thus by eating animals and animal products we get the proper amount of amino acids to synthesise our own. Since plants are so radically different they have far less of many of these essential amino acids and lack some alltogether.>>
If all i ate were oranges, i might agree with you. Kwashiorkor is the main disease associated with a protein deficiency. I've NEVER heard of this with a vegan, let alone a non-vegan. Protein is not a concern in North America, unless you look into the results of EXCESS protein consumption, which is quite widespread and a serious contributor to several common ailments, such as osteoporosis and problems with kidneys.
<<I'm trying to see if you actually want to help dampen global warming by eliminating a major source or methane gas, or if you only thought that saying you did if it entailed stopping the breeding of cows and pigs would help you in the argument.>>
Obviously, as an ethical vegan, i want to see the end of capitivity and breeding.
The methane i'm concerned about is that which humans are responsible for adding to the environment. Factory farms are clearly a part of this. Critters roaming the African plains aren't.
As for chickens and methane, a quick search on Google shows that my guess wasn't too far off the marker:
http://www.google.com/search?q=chicken+methane+production
<<You said that you were for the elimination of all the cows and pigs bred for meat since it would help the global warming problem (which you've expressed concern about), and that you saw my point about eliminating them cutting down on methane production, eliminating wild pigs is essentially the same as domseticated ones, but you don't want to eliminate them. I see this as a sign that you really don't want to do things to better the atmosphere and the life on this planet as a whole.>>
If you're practicing for a 'debate club', i think your club partners would be insulted if you used such a weak attempt of twisting your opponents words.
If you're so bored that you aren't willing to debate in a semi-respectful manner, shove-off.
<< Are you really that ignorant as to think that just because something is grown organically that somehow they have some magical ability to ward off insects without using insecticides? Things which are grown organically aren't nessicarily protected organically, and if they where, there are plenty of organic poisons to use on insects.>>
No - i've worked on organic farms, and a significant portion of their work is with deterrents, in addition to pesticides.
<<If there weren't the animals that needed to be fed, the land their crops are grown on could be left alone, but what would that do?>>
Humour me and wager a guess. |
|
|
|
wasteofo2
- FB Fan -
43 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 19:19:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<< but vegans in general don't get the things they need which can be obtained from animal products. >>
Absolutely untrue.
Typically, vegans get more nutrients than meat-eaters. A vegan typically spends considerably more time paying attention to what they're eating.
Not always the case, but the same goes for anyone - vegan or not.
Yeah, most vegans get more plant nutrients than non vegans, but they also get alot less of nutrients which are largely found in animal products. Plant protein is of lesser quality to humans than animal protein. To build 100g of your own human protein, you need 100g of eggwhite protein OR around 120 grams of red meat protein OR around 170g or protein from soy.
Some of the 20 amino acids can be derived from others, but 8 of them (tryptophan, lysine, methionine, phenylalanin, threonine, valine, leucine & isoleucine), cannot, and need to be ingested. Coincidentally, the AA's that plants lack are all among these 8 vital ones. Legumes are deficient in tryptophan and methionine, grains are defficient in lysine, isoleucine and threonine, and Nuts/seeds are defficient in lysine and isoleucine. So while you may be getting enough gross protein, unless you watch what you eat very carefully, you may be getting less than you need of certain aa's, whereas someone who eats meat could just have a steak and get all these proteins.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
The most common result of a B12 deficiency is neural damage and blindness, not an 'increased risk of cancer'. Where'd you get that from?
[/b]
B12 is used in synthesising DNA and RNA, among other proteins. If you have a deficiency, it is improperly synthesised. If the genetic material of a cell is made improperly, the entire cell mutates from what it was supposed to be. These mutation can easily be a cancerous one.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<< There are 20 different amino acids..>>
22 actually.
[/br]
My sources all say 20.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/aminacid.html
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/bio/amino-acids_en.html
http://www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/PPS2/course/section2/SideChains/primary1.html
Hell, even commercial websites trying to sell you suplements say it's 20, when claiming 22 would give them more products to sell.
http://www.immune-system-supplement-4u.com/20-amino-acids.htm
http://www.findhealthproducts.com/health/20+amino+acids
http://www.herbalremedies.com/chewam151515.html
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
If all i ate were oranges, i might agree with you. Kwashiorkor is the main disease associated with a protein deficiency. I've NEVER heard of this with a vegan, let alone a non-vegan. Protein is not a concern in North America, unless you look into the results of EXCESS protein consumption, which is quite widespread and a serious contributor to several common ailments, such as osteoporosis and problems with kidneys.
[/b]
Not all protein is equal, as explained in my previous response.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<I'm trying to see if you actually want to help dampen global warming by eliminating a major source or methane gas, or if you only thought that saying you did if it entailed stopping the breeding of cows and pigs would help you in the argument.>>
Obviously, as an ethical vegan, i want to see the end of capitivity and breeding.
The methane i'm concerned about is that which humans are responsible for adding to the environment. Factory farms are clearly a part of this. Critters roaming the African plains aren't.
As for chickens and methane, a quick search on Google shows that my guess wasn't too far off the marker:
http://www.google.com/search?q=chicken+methane+production
[/b]
The methane you're concerned about is the lesser of the 2 sources of methane being discussed. As I said before, Indias cows alone make more methane than any countries industrial endeavors. It would be easy enough to kill a large precentage of the cows in india, it would be alot harder to completely end methane production by a country's industry.
You've shown that chickens, who are so radically different than mamals, still produce methane. I think it would be a logical conclusion that boars, elephants, gazelles, wildebeast, etc. which are much more closely related to cows/pigs/humans would produce methane as well. So it seems that you're still valuing animals over people.
And thanks for the info on chickens, amazing how many of the results involved fueling your car with chicken wastes...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
If you're practicing for a 'debate club', i think your club partners would be insulted if you used such a weak attempt of twisting your opponents words.
If you're so bored that you aren't willing to debate in a semi-respectful manner, shove-off.
[/b]
You recognized pigs and cows were a problem and said you wanted to eliminate the ones in the americas by stopping them from being bred because it would cut the methane going into the atmosphere directly. If industry + animals produce methane, and you propose eliminating animals which are being bred for food, it's logical that you should also be for the the elimination of animals. Simply asking your debate opponent to follow their own logic isn't a weak attempt at twisting their words.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
No - i've worked on organic farms, and a significant portion of their work is with deterrents, in addition to pesticides.
And millions, if not billions, of insects are still invariably killed by the insecticides that are used combined with the deterrets which drive them away from food sources.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<<If there weren't the animals that needed to be fed, the land their crops are grown on could be left alone, but what would that do?>>
Humour me and wager a guess.
Currently in america, I'd guess that if there was suddenly a large amount of unused, flat land it would be turned into a factory or human housing, assuming it's relatively close to other developed areas. If it were rather out of the way, I'd guess it'd be left alone until development spread closer towards it and it would later be developed upon.
|
Edited by - wasteofo2 on 01/07/2004 19:23:46 |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 19:23:06
|
About the B12 deficiency...I have a lack of it from neural damage from my Lyme Disease...so I take this nasty liquid stuff everyday..I have to put it under my tongue and let it sit for about a minute...it burns...tastes awful...but if it works, I guess..
"Join the Cult of Gunn / And Then You'll Be Destined to be a Rock and Roll Star of Epical Proportions!" |
|
|
|
IceCream
= Quote Accumulator =
USA
1850 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 19:51:05
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
<< There are 20 different amino acids..>>
22 actually.
My sources all say 20.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/aminacid.html
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/bio/amino-acids_en.html
http://www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/PPS2/course/section2/SideChains/primary1.html
Hell, even commercial websites trying to sell you suplements say it's 20, when claiming 22 would give them more products to sell.
http://www.immune-system-supplement-4u.com/20-amino-acids.htm
http://www.findhealthproducts.com/health/20+amino+acids
http://www.herbalremedies.com/chewam151515.html
First of all, be aware that the internet is not the most relaible source. Granted, there are many good sites, but I really would like to see evidence of only 20 amino acids in a book. If you know of one, please write the publishing company (example - NEW YORK: BONI AND LIVERIGHT), title of book, author, and copywright date.
Having said that, are you aware of the following sites?
http://www.mat-rx.co.za/indexMTX.asp?cat=aminos
http://www.totalskincare.com/library/totalskincare_a_amino-acids.html
The latter directly says "THERE ARE 22 AMINO ACIDS". Not to mention that I learned of 22 amino acids, not 20, in school. I'm not saying that you're wrong, wasteofo2. It's possible I could be wrong. I don't mean to call you ignorant. I don't mean to take sides. I'm just contributing to the thread because I thought I had something worth saying.
|
Edited by - IceCream on 01/07/2004 21:49:46 |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 00:18:28
|
heh..the never-ending thread! Thank you for posting more accurate and less personal and manipulative content.
<<Yeah, most vegans get more plant nutrients than non vegans, but they also get alot less of nutrients which are largely found in animal products.>>
You don't mention which...
Here's an interesting article covering this:
quote:
Vegan Diets Deficient in Three Nutrients?
Well, Meateaters are Deficient in Seven!
The latest data on the dietary intakes of vegans was just published last month.[1] The diets of about 100 vegans were recorded for a week and were found deficient in calcium, iodine and vitamin B12. Using the same standards, though, the standard American diet are deficient
in 7 nutrients! The diet of your average American is not only ALSO deficient in calcium and iodine, it's deficient in vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, and magnesium as well.[2]
Not only does the American public have over twice as many nutritional deficiencies in their diets, vegans were shown to have higher intakes of 16 out of the 19 nutrients studied, includeing calcium. The vegans were getting more than enough protein on average and three times more vitamin C, three times more vitamin E, three times more fiber. Vegans got twice the folate, twice the magnesium, twice the copper, twice the manganese.
And of course the vegans had twice the fruit and vegetable intake and half the saturated fat intake, meeting the new 2003 World Health Organization guidelines for fat intake and weight control.[3] Almost 2/3 of Americans are overweight.[4] In contrast, only 11% of the vegans were overweight. Almost one in three Americans are obese.[4] Zero of the 98 vegans in this study were obese.
So when a meateater asks you "Where you get your B12?" You can counter with "Where do YOU get your vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, and magnesium? And while you're at it, you can ask them how they keep their sodium, saturated fat, total fat and cholesterol intake under control (not to mention their weight).[5]
[1] Results from the German Vegan Study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 57(August 2003):947.
[2] USDA. Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, by Region, 1994-96.
[3] World Health Organization Technical Report Series 916. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. 2003.
[4] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/obese/obse99.htm Centers for Disease Control.
[5] Then you can finally answer their question and proudly say B12 fortified foods or B12 supplements :) Of course the fact that we're seriously deficient in B12 should not be taken lightly. Evidence suggests that our low B12 intakes make be shaving literally years off of the lives of vegetarians and vegans, so make sure you get your B12!--I recommend http://www.veganhealth.org/b12 Vitamin B12: Are You Getting It?"
<< Plant protein is of lesser quality to humans than animal protein. To build 100g of your own human protein, you need 100g of eggwhite protein OR around 120 grams of red meat protein OR around 170g or protein from soy.>>
Of course, because plant sources aren't complete. If you mix some beans, rice or vegetables with the soy (like most people who eat would) you're very likely to match the red meat.
<<Some of the 20 amino acids can be derived from others,>>
See my blurb on AA's below. Thanks to IceCream for clarifying as well.
<< ..unless you watch what you eat very carefully, you may be getting less than you need of certain aa's, whereas someone who eats meat could just have a steak and get all these proteins.>>
This is starting to sound very different from 'you can't'.
If you eat from a decent variety of food and not eat all soy, it's virtually impossible not to get the right AA's. Honestly, this is not a concern for North American vegans, and i see no point in discussing this any further.
Amino acid history - 20 until '86, and 22nd was found in 2002:
http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/researchnews/archive/aminoacd.htm
re: lesser methane - it's important to recognize how many chickens there are.
According the the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the 2003 total of 10,064 million farmed animals includes 41.2 million cattle and calves, 133 million pigs, 4.1 million sheep, 291 million turkeys, and 25.5 million ducks, 9,144 million "broiler" hens and 425 million laying hens.
The methane output of 9.5 billion chickens vs 41 million cows is not something to be taken lightly. Even if they produce 1/500th as much as a cow, it'd top them. Agreed?
As for killing all the cows in India....i think you would see more than half the portion of the country vote to end industry before killing the cows.
That said, i agree that there are too many cows there, and perhaps they should consider preventing them from breeding.
I'm not valuing non-humans - that's not my argument. I'm saying that the animals we breed cause a disproportionate amount of methane. It's *us* who have increased the amound of methane, not the wildebeest.
<<Simply asking your debate opponent to follow their own logic isn't a weak attempt at twisting their words.>>
It is when your logic is flawed and you're clearly goading your opponent.
Methane has been produced (presumably) as long as there have been animals. Humans are undoubtedly causing an imbalance, and breeding and using animals is causing a large portion of this.
The logical jump from this *isn't* typically to kill all the other species to lower the methane produced. Sheesh. I'm not going to discuss this any further as well.
<<And millions, if not billions, of insects are still invariably killed by the insecticides that are used combined with the deterrets which drive them away from food sources.>>
Which i've already stated, agreed with, and regret the occuance of, and in my daily life i have taken action to reduce this. What have you done?
<<Currently in america, I'd guess that if there was suddenly a large amount of unused, flat land it would be turned into a factory or human housing, assuming it's relatively close to other developed areas. If it were rather out of the way, I'd guess it'd be left alone until development spread closer towards it and it would later be developed upon.>>
Sounds about right. I'd also hope a large portion would be allowed to return to it's original state, and encourage some more biodiversity... |
|
|
|
bedrock_barney
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
871 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 01:56:54
|
Just read through this thread for the first time. There is a massive amount of ignorance out there regarding vegan/vegetarian diets. I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and like Dave I think carefully about what I (and the rest of my family eat). Again, like Dave, I can see no evidence of ill health due to me being a vegetarian. If anything, I have lower incidences of colds, general malaise than most of my peer group. I have maintained a steady body weight since my teens (again, unlike most of my peer group).
I accept that Vitamin B12 and others are important. I make sure that I eat Marmite (yeast extract) at least twice a week. Plenty of goodness in breakfast cereals as well. It boils down to the usual cliche - "a balanced diet".
Stating that human beings are omnivores and have to eat meat is ridiculous. There are plenty of religious cultures round the world who advocate that the eating of meat or meat products is wrong. I wouldn't want to get into a debate about that per se but cleary millions and millions of people live quite healthily without meat. I don't see any evidence of Paul McCartney falling apart due to his long term vegetarianism.
 "Join the Cult of the Theremin / It's Velouriatastic!!" |
|
|
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 08:16:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by bedrock_barney
I don't see any evidence of Paul McCartney falling apart due to his long term vegetarianism.
no, but his music sure does suck. think there might be a cause/effect relationship?
------------------------
ALL I NEED IS THE AIR THAT I BREATHE,
AND TO LOVE YOU |
|
|
|
IceCream
= Quote Accumulator =
USA
1850 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 14:31:15
|
I don't think anyone's diet affects music:
Fugazi = Vegans (as far as I know). Yet they are among the ten best music artists of the last ten years, imo.
Thom Yorke = no meat and no wheat. writes excellent songs. I don't know how much input the rest of Radiohead has but I did hear in an article that the majority of Radiohead songs begin as Thom Yorke demos.
FB = Not vegan, not vegetarian, once said in an interview that Joey Santiago's wife makes a good steak. But he did write Alec Eiffel and Los Angeles and Robert Onion and about 190 other songs that are worth mentioning in order to represent his songwriting wonders. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
