General / Off-Topic Let's Have A Debate: To Be, Or Not To Be Vegan? That Is The Question ...

Jenner

Volunteer Moderator
I'm not a vegan, but I am a vegetarian. I don't eat meat because I find it morally objectionable to have animals suffer needlessly, especially given modern factory farming methods. In addition raising animals for consumption is inefficient from a pure energy standpoint and contributes to global warning.

Using the same logic I could avoid eggs and cheese, too, of course and go full vegan. So far I have not done that, although I probably should. I do only buy cage-free eggs and such, but dairy cows are not treated well either usually so all the cheese I eat makes me something of a hypocrite.

SO yeah... My vote is veggetarian/vegan.
 
If there was a disruption in the supply chain you would be.
I'm sure becoming a self-sustained farmer would make more sense, you know, like we did 10,000 years ago when the words "supply chain" literally didn't exist.

Veganism, like many other affectations of a modern, affluent society, is simply a luxury that can be afforded because we've become so fabulously wealthy that we have little else to concern us when it comes to the question of our survival.
If you truly are concerned on our survival, you'd realize that eating meat ATM is not the way to go, worrying about something that will very likely not happen in your lifetime is a waste of time.
 
If there was a disruption in the supply chain you would be.

Veganism, like many other affectations of a modern, affluent society, is simply a luxury that can be afforded because we've become so fabulously wealthy that we have little else to concern us when it comes to the question of our survival.

So true, it's an utterly contrived position.
 
I'm sure becoming a self-sustained farmer would make more sense, you know, like we did 10,000 years ago when the words "supply chain" literally didn't exist.



If you truly are concerned on our survival, you'd realize that eating meat ATM is not the way to go, worrying about something that will very likely not happen in your lifetime is a waste of time.

Don't be silly, the population problem is not going to be solved by people giving up meat.
 
I'm not a vegan, but I am a vegetarian. I don't eat meat because I find it morally objectionable to have animals suffer needlessly, especially given modern factory farming methods. In addition raising animals for consumption is inefficient from a pure energy standpoint and contributes to global warning.

Using the same logic I could avoid eggs and cheese, too, of course and go full vegan. So far I have not done that, although I probably should. I do only buy cage-free eggs and such, but dairy cows are not treated well either usually so all the cheese I eat makes me something of a hypocrite.

SO yeah... My vote is veggetarian/vegan.

Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands
The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.
 
That case is not as clear as you'd like it to be either.
The article you linked talks only about Australia which has ideal conditions to feed cattle on pasture not to mention they didn't compare the effects of other farm animals such as chickens or pigs, at last, they did the comparison to wheat on protein, wheat is not known to have much protein in the first place so the comparison is disingenuous.

"Some of this grain is used to “finish” beef cattle in feed lots (some is food for dairy cattle, pigs and poultry), but it is still the case that many more sentient lives are sacrificed to produce useable protein from grains than from rangelands cattle. "
 
The article you linked talks only about Australia which has ideal conditions to feed cattle on pasture not to mention they didn't compare the effects of other farm animals such as chickens or pigs, at last, they did the comparison to wheat on protein, wheat is not known to have much protein in the first place so the comparison is disingenuous.

"Some of this grain is used to “finish” beef cattle in feed lots (some is food for dairy cattle, pigs and poultry), but it is still the case that many more sentient lives are sacrificed to produce useable protein from grains than from rangelands cattle. "

Did you actually read the part you put in bold?

:D
 
Did you actually read the part you put in bold?

:D
Yes, that's the only thing the article "proves". As you may notice, it's not nearly as flashy or broad as the title of the article or your quote suggests.

And now that I noticed, that quote would be more precise if "grains" was substituted by "wheat" which is the only grain on which calculations were made.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom