Whats that got to do with me calling your source untrustworthy and bias. How does that make my assertion that your source (a pro vegateran website) is bias, a bias one itself?
The bias of a particular source is completely irrelevant to mine or your beliefs on the ethics of it, so stop changing the subject.
The claim getting rid of animals would free up enough grain to feed the world is still an outright lie.
What I meant was, if we stopped mass producing cows/chickens etc, then we would free up alot of water/grain/soy bean that could be converted to food, but as you said (i think you said) that alot of the 3rd world countries wont accept food, which kind of makes my point obscelete as I didn't know the 3rd worlders were denying food, but it's still quite a thought.
GM foods use alot less herbiseds, pestisides etc as the plants are stronger and more resistant to the pests and weeds themselves. Organic is still grown in animal poo, as nature intended.
Hmm whilst that may be true I heard that some of the chemicals they use in GM foods can be more harmful?
Again, yea, its associated with heard problems because alot of pro people keep makeing these association's.
The fact remains there is NO proof, evidence that shows a link between eating meat and increased risk of heart disease.
From what I've read up on the subject they have some quite significant evidence? Though one solution could be to eat more "white meat" than red, thus solving the heart problem.
Statistically though it should be noted, the people with the lowest rates of heart deasese are those with high fish diets (fish = meat)
Doesn't surprise me but one of the reasons I don't eat fish is because alot of the species of common supermarket fish (such as salmon) are on the endangered list from over fishing =/ I think the only non endangered salmon in the world is from Alaska, I believe there was a report saying that the next generation probably wont be eating fish (as in farmed from other areas of the world) but it could be proporganda.
So your just not going to feed the sheep and let it starve instead?
After all if you feed the sheep your still useing all your grain.
Of course I wouldn't let the sheep starve, use the food for the sheep for 1st generation, control population of next generation which would therefore free up food to be sent elsewhere (but as I said if 3rd world countries aren't accepting food then it doesn't exactly matter)
Theres not, they have the fur becuse humans selectively bred them to grow it, we pretty much made modern day sheep.
Which is kind of a big problem, if mankind suddenly lost the need for sheep; what would happen?
It would, cows again are a constrcution of humans via selective breeding, they produce much more milk than is needed to feed there young. Theres no way these animals could survive without humans.
Again, another big problem =/ it's a shame that they can't be reintroduced back into the wild because as you said, the amount of milk they can hold is too much for even their calves.
There are alot more cows than bulls, the bulls will breed all day and every day, reguadless of weather a cow is already pregnant. its part of pretty much all lifes defult programming (its an exspression, not litral)
Of course, but I don't see how this matters?
This is on topic, its part of the worlds hypocrisy that alot of people are sick of.
If that's a kind snide comment at me, i'm disregarding it ^_^






Reply With Quote

