General Discussion - 2

Aceedwin · Jun 07, 2009 6:45 PM

Global warming: But many more are bred for captivity. May I also point out a point I've been making for the entire time. The food we get out of a cow is worth 10% the food it eats. Respiration and excretion, dontcha know. Also, the only reason I'm insulting you is because you seem to be reading things and not looking deep at all, merely skimming over my posts not making the links at all. Tut tut.

Rainforest: No! Again with the above post. By the above 10% input output principle I just described, that means that we would need less fields in fact! In other words, we wouldn't use up as much land, because we wouldn't be growing food for animals, and using up grazing land. I'm going to have to force-feed you these ideas aren't I?

Famine: Okay, the water clause is just rubbish, the water consumed by the animals, and the crops required to feed them is much more. But you have a point with the corruption, but regardless, if a farmer in Africa has more to sell locally, corrupt governors don't come into the equation.

A Guy · Jun 07, 2009 6:51 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Global warming: But many more are bred for captivity. May I also point out a point I've been making for the entire time. The food we get out of a cow is worth 10% the food it eats. Respiration and excretion, dontcha know. Also, the only reason I'm insulting you is because you seem to be reading things and not looking deep at all, merely skimming over my posts not making the links at all. Tut tut.

Insulting is never a good thing to do in an argument. It is only an attempt to make the opposition angry and thus to make their arguments degenerate to counter-insults. I know about the 10% thing, I take bio. I'm saying that it's not going to just solve all the problems of the world by switching to plants. Also, livestock is grown LOCALLY. If they weren't controlled, they would have much more potential breeding grounds.

Rainforest: No! Again with the above post. By the above 10% input output principle I just described, that means that we would need less fields in fact! In other words, we wouldn't use up as much land, because we wouldn't be growing food for animals, and using up grazing land. I'm going to have to force-feed you these ideas aren't I?

We would have to grow more food and wood for the growing population. Also, many animals in the rain forest may be interested in the food grown may be killed.

Famine: Okay, the water clause is just rubbish, the water consumed by the animals, and the crops required to feed them is much more. But you have a point with the corruption, but regardless, if a farmer in Africa has more to sell locally, corrupt governors don't come into the equation.

We would be growing a lot of plants to replace animals, and with more of a human population to feed, we would still need more water. The problem with corruption still stands - an African leader/warlord that wants to be the only source for food can still take control of the farm or just burn it down without intervention from other govenrments.

EDIT: Also, more humans = more global warming and more environmental problems. See why VHEMT opposes global warming.

Aceedwin · Jun 07, 2009 7:00 PM

Global warming: No. Just no. That's just wrong. How long do you think a cow would last in the wild? Farm animals would probably die out if farms didn't exist.

Rainforest: We'd actually have to grow LESS food.

Famine: 10% law. We'd be growing LESS plants. And meat eating has little impact on population growth. Not a huge impact.

POPULATION GROWTH ISN'T PART OF IT! Sure, less people will die of famine I guess, but as a result, there will probably be less of a birth rate in Africa.

A Guy · Jun 07, 2009 7:03 PM

Cows would actually last pretty long if they find a place without any natural predators. Which isn't as impossible as it seems.

No, we would have to grow more, for the exploding population. What do you think about killing animals that may want to eat the food?

We will be growing more plants to compensate for the population.

You don't think population growth is part of it? I'm shocked. And the cheap food won't get to Africa if the warlords keep control of it.

RedDragonX · Jun 08, 2009 1:26 AM

By all means continue I'm really getting a kick out of this debate.

ratchet · Jun 08, 2009 8:44 AM

Hello Everyone, I want to join in on this discussion, I just want to point Out I dont believe in man made global warming, I'm sorry, I just dont.
But What I think the real problem is pollution and somewhat deforestation.

As for the Debate between the two of you, as much as it will help, Everyone going Veg would not be my first choice, as I like meat, And Some animals, like us, were MEANT to eat meat. it is our nature. we CAN adapt and change, But That will take longer than a few years. Meat Has much Stuffs that Veg cant provide when it comes to humans. While there are Veg alternatives to meat, It is healthier for us to just eat meat.

The whole Idea that it would be not allowed to eat meat is a Bill I think Would be terrible to enforce anyway. Who would listen, or want it?
I Respect vegetarians, I think that it is mean to Kill a large amount of Animals just to eat them. But As i've said, I'm naturally SUPPOSED to eat meat, So i will eat it, and People shouldn't tell me i shouldnt

I dunno, I'm not taht experienced on this debate.

Aceedwin · Jun 08, 2009 3:50 PM

All right. AG countersargumentsohlookIcantypewithoutanyspaces:

Cows might survive, unlikely as that is, but they are unlikely to have populations that they do know because of our breeding and rearing of them. As I've said over and over and over again, yet you skim over every time.

Well yeah, but we'd also have to grow more food if we didn't go veggie, and the requirements would rise faster. Due to the 10% rule. And the animals that may want to eat the food? They tend to get shot by farmers. how many leopards do you think survive on a lifestock diet? It wouldn't be long before it would be garnished with lead, if you know what I mean.

As above.

Population growth is a seperate entity. Explain how the connection is a match for all the reasons I've given so far. And finally, warlords exist whether we eat meat or not. The point is, the warlords can only eat so much. Also, "warlords" sounds a little medievil. They're not like that as much nowadays.

And finally, to ratchet. I'm merely saying that these problems would be solved IF we became veggies. Of course it would be hard to enforce.

Also, my keyboard's playing up.

ontels · Jun 08, 2009 4:36 PM

I agree with pretty much all the points Aceedwin is making here, however A guy has a point with the population growth thing, but that’s one point out of five.

A Guy · Jun 09, 2009 2:16 AM

Aceedwin wrote:

All right. AG countersargumentsohlookIcantypewithoutanyspaces:
Cows might survive, unlikely as that is, but they are unlikely to have populations that they do know because of our breeding and rearing of them. As I've said over and over and over again, yet you skim over every time.
Well yeah, but we'd also have to grow more food if we didn't go veggie, and the requirements would rise faster. Due to the 10% rule. And the animals that may want to eat the food? They tend to get shot by farmers. how many leopards do you think survive on a lifestock diet? It wouldn't be long before it would be garnished with lead, if you know what I mean.
As above.
Population growth is a seperate entity. Explain how the connection is a match for all the reasons I've given so far. And finally, warlords exist whether we eat meat or not. The point is, the warlords can only eat so much. Also, "warlords" sounds a little medievil. They're not like that as much nowadays.
And finally, to ratchet. I'm merely saying that these problems would be solved IF we became veggies. Of course it would be hard to enforce.
Also, my keyboard's playing up.

Human population growth = more resource consumption. It also equals more sewage. Please figure out why that is bad.

The definition of warlord is still accurate here. And I am saying that the warlords may screw up the4 attempt to feed Africa.

Spyro Master · Jun 09, 2009 1:33 PM

Human population growth also means more places for people to live which cuts down on arable land, which would then further lead to food shortages and the costs of food further going up if that happened.

ratchet · Jun 09, 2009 2:00 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

And finally, to ratchet. I'm merely saying that these problems would be solved IF we became veggies. Of course it would be hard to enforce.
Also, my keyboard's playing up.

Yeah Well I know alot of the world's problems WOULD be sold, there will be a lot of problems too. And there's NO WAY we can enforce it.

But I understand what you are saying, it will mean less deorestation as Veggies are easier to grow. Less methane in the atmosphore which we might have trouble with in the future. And Less Mean breeding and killing. And Yeah, Veggies are Alive too, But they dont have brains or feel pain, So they dont even know they are alive or growing. And Its pretty obvious Veggies were MADE to be eaten.

TornWings · Jun 09, 2009 3:40 PM

Some are meant to be eaten to aid in seed dispersal... but fruits and stuff aren't trying to be eaten, they're trying to propogate their species like everything else on this earth. It just happens that creating something edible for other species benefits them occasionaly.

Aceedwin · Jun 09, 2009 3:54 PM

Please figure out why meat-eating is just as bad when it comes to population growth as vegetarianism. Unless you're refering to the lack of famine.

In other words, you don't want famine to end, because there is a possibility it will make population grow faster. Note that it might also slow birth rates as life expectancy increases, and people don't need to have as many children. Especially since people will start to have better lives because of the new amounts of excess food.

Anyway, there may well be a population crash sometime in the near future, in which case that problem will sort out itself.

And just to make sure you get this point, because you seem to ignore most of my good ones:

POPULATION GROWTH IS AS BAD WITH MEAT-EATERS AND VEGGIES

So let's see, I've won fast food, you've got one point which you have to fight for, and I have three other points, which you don't seem to be fighting anymore. Huh. You got anything left, or have I pretty much won this thing?

ratchet · Jun 09, 2009 5:02 PM

We have to ask ourselves this: "why do people in poverty usually have more children?"
A.Africans are typically more Fertile
B.Western Distractions And Culture Limits the number of children people want to have
C.Western Distractions And Culture Limits the amount of ahhhhh, you know what, people want to have
D.The Culture of Africans typically wants more children (encouraged to have more children)

If the answer is B and C, Western Lifestyles would have a double wammy effect. People will not have as many children AND less people would die. But If the answer is A or D, then We will see a great rise of Population if we release these people of famine.
Would Vegetables only rule make less famine? I dont know, But Personally, I dont think So. Sure they are esaier to grow and we might have more left over but its not like its going to REACH the people in africa. WE already HAVE alot of food left over that just goes to the tip, what would make anyone think taht just because We have MORE food left over that MORE is going to go to africa.
Also, Saying to an african "sorry, you cant eat that meat, go look for a vegetable" Would defiently not help. Thats just limmiting what food they can eat. Even if Vegetables WERE more accesible to them, I'm sure they wouldn't get all the nutrients that meat gives them. Sure, Some nuts can give you the stuff meat can give you but meat can do it much quicker, Not to mention meat tastes better. ( I KNOW what you are thinking, They are starving so they will eat anything..... but my point still stands....does it?)

Anyway, i've probably gpt something wrong here, feel free to debate me out, lol.
Really, You'll give me lots of Info that is the whole reason I came to this topic

Aceedwin · Jun 09, 2009 6:50 PM

It's D, but only because many children die in Africa. Overcompensation, if you will.

And once again you bring in the difficulty of enforcing the rule. What I'm saying is if every went veggie willingly... The entire point is that vegetarians are morally superior to meat-eaters, and they are socially superior.

bmah · Jun 09, 2009 8:08 PM

Whoa, I've missed a lot since I last came here. Ok, so how does veggie-eaters correlate to their social behavior? I don't get how feeding habits relate to that.

A Guy · Jun 09, 2009 9:18 PM

You JUST SAID that plants are more efficient energy-wise. Now you're saying that meat can make population grow just as well as plants? Contradiction.

And as I said before, even if everyone in Africa went vegan willingly, that does not mean that they can actually get the food. And as you said, people will have longer lifespans. Anyways, more people = more global warming. We need at least some degree of population control.

Swaffy · Jun 10, 2009 1:20 AM

Wow, it's been about 2.8 pages since I have posted.

Well, I can see that all of you are still talking about vegetarians and
vegetables. I sure hope that you all are eating your veggies.

Are you? [Hints towards Ratchet]

ratchet · Jun 10, 2009 1:13 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

It's D, but only because many children die in Africa. Overcompensation, if you will.
And once again you bring in the difficulty of enforcing the rule. What I'm saying is if every went veggie willingly... The entire point is that vegetarians are morally superior to meat-eaters, and they are socially superior.

Are you sure? Because Certain culture, such as The Lebanese, like To have children just because they do, not because they lose them.

And yes, I know I'm bringing up that point again. But That is all part of it.

And I dont agree, Just beacuse i eat meat doesn't meen I'm "less of a person". I was made to eat meat, so I will eat it. What is your definition of "moral"? Does it meen going against nature so less animals die? Or To Go with Nature but the cocequences of more deaths? Nature has shown us this world is a dog eat dog world. it is the battle of the fittest. and certain species come on top.

No Doubt that in before 1000 years, if we continue how we are, Humans will be near extinction. We Will Die And The Earth will slowly recover. ( It will, promise me) Today is simply the day humans "shine". We will get our comapance, dont worry.

And a Guy, I Agree. We have to limit the population SOMEHOW. Now i dont believe Man makes global warming, but i do know that overpopulation means more deforestation, And More Resources being used quicker or a possible global warming problem in the future (Ok, I believe that Green House Gasses including CO2 warm the planet, But I dont think it is warming at the moment. you need ALOT more CO2 before you start warming).

I say we have something like a 5 child limit. How will that help? Well it will mean that WE wont have all these families having 15 children. It might seem "xtreme" but Its better than just letting Africans Die just to "balance out the population".

And as I've said, I dont think going veg will increase the population, But Decrease it. And i dont think it would be moral to go "Ok, people are living too long, more people are stayinga livfe, lets make them go veg so they live shorter and there are less people". Sorry. that just wrong.

Oh and excuse my Spelling, Spelling is not one of my best points.

Well, I can see that all of you are still talking about vegetarians and
vegetables. I sure hope that you all are eating your veggies.
Are you? [Hints towards Ratchet]

Yes Swaffy, I am an omnivore. :*bleep*in:

Aceedwin · Jun 10, 2009 4:16 PM

Bmah: I am SO not explaining that point AGAIN. A guy made me explain it about fifteen times, pick one of them.

A guy: The lack of methane from farm animals will outweigh the increased population of humans. Global warming point tick.

I said: "Unless you are talking about the famine.", then did an ENTIRE paragraph on that point. Would you rather thousands died of starvation. I've been on that side of the moral river, and let me tell you, people round here don' like it.

And finally, what makes you think meat is easier to get in Africa than wheat or corn? I'd be willing to bet many Africans have about as much meat as can fit in a thimble every day, or less. They're practically vegetarians already.

And ratchet *clicks fingers*: Well, vegetarianism can hardly change that sort of thing can it?

When I say socially superior, I mean they do more on average for the human race. Note the ON AVERAGE. Don't waste my time adressing that.

My definition of moral is whatever's best for me. But for the purposes of this debate (not much of a debate, it's me against everyone else) I'm using moral as, the thing that helps the sapiens species the most (humans to all the dullards out there).

And to finish, we don't have to die out. If we all lived like they do in, say, Ghana, the earth would slowly but surely replenish itself. Did you know, that if everyone lived like they do in New York, we'd need more than four planets to support ourselves. People in Leicstershire would need a little more than three, and people in Zimbabwe would need less than a half.

Oh, a point. Turning veggie will solve the problem of famine, increasing population. I've made strong points for that about, pfffmmm, seven times now. Talking to you, A guy, is like punching down a brick wall. Barehanded. Obviously.

A Guy · Jun 10, 2009 8:40 PM

I've never said that meat was easier to get. I said that vegetables wouldn't be easy to get either. Many Africans would still die of starvation regardless of our diet.

And I doubt that less farm animals will completely outweigh the problem of too many humans. We will be using up more space and more resources, and we will dump more wastes.

I read Collapse. You see, the problem with your argument is that you assume that the food will be able to get to the Africans. And there's a very, very low likelihood of that. Farmers will plant more cash crops to compensate for less money from meat, and since demand for those increase, prices increase, and farmers only have to plant staple crops when they need to restore mineral balance to the soil. This drives up the price of everything, and it is very doubtful that taxpayers will want their own money to be spent subsidizing farmers to give food to Africa. Oh, yeah, and for the 1,000th time, some guy with access to troops in Africa is very likely to just control everything. Corruption is a huge problem in Africa. Please give me a counter-argument to how this would end famine.

Once again, you continue with insults. Did you know that they're not a good way to argue? They are ad hominem, and do not back up your arguments at all - instead, they're an attempt to get away from the main point of it..

Hurricos_McBreixo · Jun 11, 2009 5:49 AM

With a quick break from this debate I present to you all, this:

http://www.simondale.net/house/index.htm

That'll be mah clubhouse someday big_smile

Aceedwin · Jun 11, 2009 6:20 AM

And you ignore my most important critisicm of all? The moral dilemma of, should we stop famine?

ratchet · Jun 11, 2009 10:44 AM

A Guy wrote:

I've never said that meat was easier to get. I said that vegetables wouldn't be easy to get either. Many Africans would still die of starvation regardless of our diet.
And I doubt that less farm animals will completely outweigh the problem of too many humans. We will be using up more space and more resources, and we will dump more wastes.
I read Collapse. You see, the problem with your argument is that you assume that the food will be able to get to the Africans. And there's a very, very low likelihood of that. Farmers will plant more cash crops to compensate for less money from meat, and since demand for those increase, prices increase, and farmers only have to plant staple crops when they need to restore mineral balance to the soil. This drives up the price of everything, and it is very doubtful that taxpayers will want their own money to be spent subsidizing farmers to give food to Africa. Oh, yeah, and for the 1,000th time, some guy with access to troops in Africa is very likely to just control everything. Corruption is a huge problem in Africa. Please give me a counter-argument to how this would end famine.
Once again, you continue with insults. Did you know that they're not a good way to argue? They are ad hominem, and do not back up your arguments at all - instead, they're an attempt to get away from the main point of it..

Yes I agree.
While Veggies are easier to grow, It doesn't meen the stuff we left over will get to the africans. And, No doubt that Farmers will just grow less food, as demand would be less, so We wont have any more left over anyway

And you ignore my most important critisicm of all? The moral dilemma of, should we stop famine?

YES WE SHOULD. But we should have more strict rules on how many children people can have

Aceedwin · Jun 11, 2009 4:06 PM

But the Africans can grow food for themselves. That's another point you've been ignoring.

#926 Jun 07, 2009 6:45 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#927 Jun 07, 2009 6:51 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#928 Jun 07, 2009 7:00 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#929 Jun 07, 2009 7:03 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#930 Jun 08, 2009 1:26 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#931 Jun 08, 2009 8:44 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#932 Jun 08, 2009 3:50 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#933 Jun 08, 2009 4:36 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#934 Jun 09, 2009 2:16 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#935 Jun 09, 2009 1:33 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#936 Jun 09, 2009 2:00 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#937 Jun 09, 2009 3:40 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#938 Jun 09, 2009 3:54 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#939 Jun 09, 2009 5:02 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#940 Jun 09, 2009 6:50 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#941 Jun 09, 2009 8:08 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#942 Jun 09, 2009 9:18 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#943 Jun 10, 2009 1:20 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#944 Jun 10, 2009 1:13 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#945 Jun 10, 2009 4:16 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#946 Jun 10, 2009 8:40 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#947 Jun 11, 2009 5:49 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#948 Jun 11, 2009 6:20 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#949 Jun 11, 2009 10:44 AM

Re: General Discussion - 2

#950 Jun 11, 2009 4:06 PM

Re: General Discussion - 2

Board footer