Anyone Else Sick Of This World Of Hypocrisy?

[Ezzie.]

no, because the animals will die and countries will be worse off then when they started?

take africa for example, they rely on animals for touriusm income, as they cant elsewhere, land for farming is poor, and industries are unable to settle there. theres many more examples, but its a fact without ANY animals whatsoever. the world would indeed be screwed.

You're taking this EXTREMELY out of context here, I never said no animals atall in the world :S I love animals , one of the reasons for me being vegetarian :S Where the hell did you get me saying i wanted all animals wiped off the face of the Earth? I said if there was no animals (inclining to ones that will be killed such as cows/chickens etc) that their would be no hunger as the amount of grain and water used is kind of insane to say the least..

[RedStratocas]

Actually we can live without using animals :rolleyes: But thats a totally different subject.

We're really always using animals for something, directly and indirectly

[velocity]

"If we stopped eating meat we could feed every starving person in the world with the grain saved instead of using it for animals, will you give up meat?"

Animals eat the grain -> no grain = no food for animals.

giving up food for people is a bigger risk and will cause more problems, even though you are saving some - the amount of people you save will cause more problems thoughout the world, making it worse for everyone else.

basically, your risking a handfull of people for an entire population of people.

[Ezzie.]

"If we stopped eating meat we could feed every starving person in the world with the grain saved instead of using it for animals, will you give up meat?"

Animals eat the grain -> no grain = no food for animals.

giving up food for people is a bigger risk and will cause more problems, even though you are saving some - the amount of people you save will cause more problems thoughout the world, making it worse for everyone else.

basically, your risking a handfull of people for an entire population of people.

Ah yes, i'm sure people will die from fresh vegetables and non junk food compared to a drug pumped slab of meat :rolleyes:

Also your equation is messed up..

If we stopped mass producing animals for slaughter =

Animals eat grain + people eat grain= happier world

=]

We're really always using animals for something, directly and indirectly

Yeah good point but we could always stop using animals for various things, I don't really have a problem with people milking cows for milk and people having hens for the eggs but it's just the way the animals are treated through it.. kinda harsh ;/

[velocity]

Ah yes, i'm sure people will die from fresh vegetables and non junk food compared to a drug pumped slab of meat :rolleyes:

Also your equation is messed up..

If we stopped mass producing animals for slaughter =

Animals eat grain + people eat grain= happier world

=]



Yeah good point but we could always stop using animals for various things, I don't really have a problem with people milking cows for milk and people having hens for the eggs but it's just the way the animals are treated through it.. kinda harsh ;/

nah, animals dont just provide food, they provide a way of life for people, without them the world would become corrupt, they rely on them for most things..

also, you woulnt be able to harvest any vegtables if there were no animals, there wouldnt be any money to produce it [:

[Ezzie.]

nah, animals dont just provide food, they provide a way of life for people, without them the world would become corrupt, they rely on them for most things..

also, you woulnt be able to harvest any vegtables if there were no animals, there wouldnt be any money to produce it [:

:eusa_wall:eusa_wall:eusa_wall:eusa_wall:eusa_wall :eusa_wall:eusa_wall:eusa_wall

Read what I say PLEASE! I never said get rid of animals for christ sake :rolleyes:

[Blue]

say if we went back to the stop eating meat thing, we would still be feeding the animals grain (unless we want them to starve to death) and there would be more of them without us killing them for meat, so we would eventually take more food off the animals and they would die and so on and so forth...

[Ezzie.]

say if we went back to the stop eating meat thing, we would still be feeding the animals grain (unless we want them to starve to death) and there would be more of them without us killing them for meat, so we would eventually take more food off the animals and they would die and so on and so forth...

Sorry but that's completely untrue, less animals needed for slaughter= less animals... :eusa_wall

[Mentor]

Also entor it was given as a stat on the leading vegetarian site... eugh let me get my memory back and i'll tell you the site :p

because a stat a vegiteran pulled out of the **** is posted on a vegiteran site doesnt make it true. It just means every other stat that website gives probably shouldn't be trusted as they obviously dont check there facts have no problem publishing misinformation and outright lies.

imagine meat was banned and you get a caution then a prizon sentace for eating/handling it, it would become like drugs. people would smuggle it, people would make farms just to get the "best type" of meat and maybe people would turn to cannibalism

More likely the population would just impeach any government that tryed to press such a stupid agender, it wouldn't get threw the house of commons and no government that stupid would ever get in to power. So its just not plausible.
Plus if your considering cannibalism just because someones could ban meat products im going to suggest seeking phyceatric help.

If we stopped mass producing animals for slaughter =

Animals eat grain + people eat grain= happier world

=]

Unluckly the problem is.
Animals eat grass. We eat animals and are healthy.
Humans eat grass, human ends up in hospital.
Hence animals mean more food is available to the population.

The primary food for the west is potatoes. The primary for the east is rice. No where has the primary food of grain.
If you want to go back to nature you really shouldn't eat grain anyway, its only becuse of humans the present form of grain even exists, its basically a GM food, exsept useing the slower less accurate method of selective germination (breeding is normaly used, but that doesnt make sense with plants)

Yeah good point but we could always stop using animals for various things, I don't really have a problem with people milking cows for milk and people having hens for the eggs but it's just the way the animals are treated through it.. kinda harsh ;/

Those animals still need to eat you know?

Sorry but that's completely untrue, less animals needed for slaughter= less animals... :eusa_wall

So your just going to let the current animal stock starve to death, as its obviously nicer to let something have a slow painful death than a quick painless one, which would also have the benefit of feeding people instead of just being pointless "/

[Ezzie.]

because a stat a vegiteran pulled out of the **** is posted on a vegiteran site doesnt make it true. It just means every other stat that website gives probably shouldn't be trusted as they obviously dont check there facts have no problem publishing misinformation and outright lies.

Right ok then... :rolleyes: Don't believe a reliable source

Unluckly the problem is.
Animals eat grass. We eat animals and are healthy.
Humans eat grass, human ends up in hospital.
Hence animals mean more food is available to the population.

That is a stupid argument. I believe many vegetarians don't eat grass

Those animals still need to eat you know?
So your just going to let the current animal stock starve to death, as its obviously nicer to let something have a slow painful death than a quick painless one, which would also have the benefit of feeding people instead of just being pointless "/

Where is your logic? come on man... let the current population of animals live but control the next population or *shock* let it occur naturally instead of mass producing animals for the slaughter, you seem to be giving pointless arguments that can be easily answered by logic.