Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Meat eaters, defend your position Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xDave-)
    I Googled that and it took all of two seconds to realise that this is a total myth. You should probably educate yourself before you assertively spread misinformation.
    No, it is not a myth. Its a leading cause - not the total cause of the majority, but a leading cause. Judging by the percentages you've presented below its quite obvious you interpreted that as being the majority cause when I never said that.

    http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resear...ase-dont-gloat

    "60-70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon results from cattle ranches while the rest mostly results from small-scale subsistence agriculture. Despite the widespread press attention, large-scale farming (i.e. soybeans) currently contributes relatively little to total deforestation in the Amazon. Most soybean cultivation takes place outside the rainforest in the neighboring cerrado grassland ecosystem and in areas that have already been cleared."
    http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

    And here is where most of the soy goes.

    Here's some more reading for you, you should probably do it:
    http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0306-soy_moratorium.html
    http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2012/01/11...deforestation/
    Not disputing that. Majority and leading cause are two different arguments entirely.

    People can read that if they like which is actually a pro green website:

    http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resear...ase-dont-gloat
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xDave-)
    Quoting you to say ignore this guy's post to you, as he's wrong.
    Yeah, totally wrong.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/1...zilian-amazon/

    http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/foot...soy/consumers/

    http://www.theecologist.org/green_gr...t_its_way.html

    http://www.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=4962

    Also, don't tell others to ignore a point just because you're ignorant yourself. Let them come to their own opinion.

    In fact, even your own source says and I quote:

    Commercial agriculture

    Soy production in the Amazon exploded in the early 1990s following the development of a new variety of soybean suitable to the soils and climate of the region. Most expansion occurred in the cerrado, a wooded grassland ecosystem, and the transition forests in the southern fringes in the Amazon basin, especially in states of Mato Grosso and Pará — direct conversion of rainforests for soy has been relatively limited. Instead, the impact of soy on rainforests is generally seen to be indirect. Soy expansion has driven up land prices, created impetus for infrastructure improvements that promote forest clearing, and displaced cattle ranchers to frontier areas, spurring deforestation.

    In recent years soy growers, crushers, and traders have taken steps to reduce the environmental impact of their crop in the Amazon biome. After a damaging Greenpeace campaign in 2006, leading players in the industry agreed to a moratorium on soy grown on newly deforested lands. Independent analysis has shown that growers are mostly abiding by the ban: only 12 of 630 sample areas (1,389 of 157,896 hectares) deforested since July 2006 — the date the moratorium took effect — were planted with soy.


    I am laffin' :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Survival of the fittest?
    Its either that piece of meat or me
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mickey O'Neil)
    No, it is not a myth. Its a leading cause - not the total cause of the majority, but a leading cause. Judging by the percentages you've presented below its quite obvious you interpreted that as being the majority cause when I never said that.

    http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resear...ase-dont-gloat
    The percentages, if you read them, show that large-scale agriculture, of which soy is a part of, represent 5-10% of the total deforestation. Calling that a "leading cause" when there are two other factors that represent significantly more of the total percentage is a very strange choice. Yeah, it's the third biggest cause, but another factor causes between 10 and 14 times as much deforestation, depending on the estimate.

    (Original post by Mickey O'Neil)
    Not disputing that. Majority and leading cause are two different arguments entirely.
    Your whole argument was that vegetarians and vegans shouldn't profess to be more environmentally friendly as soy is destroying rainforests. But now you're "not disputing" that the soy growing that is causing deforestation has little to do with vegetarian food. So why did you make that argument in the first place then?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because chicken is simply the best
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xDave-)
    The percentages, if you read them, show that large-scale agriculture, of which soy is a part of, represent 5-10% of the total deforestation. Calling that a "leading cause" when there are two other factors that represent significantly more of the total percentage is a very strange choice. Yeah, it's the third biggest cause, but another factor causes between 10 and 14 times as much deforestation, depending on the estimate.
    Its a leading cause. There are multiple other minimal causes that make up minute percentages. Its not weird at all. Its one of the most significant factors, even your own source suggest so.

    Your whole argument was that vegetarians and vegans shouldn't profess to be more environmentally friendly as soy is destroying rainforests. But now you're "not disputing" that the soy growing that is causing deforestation has little to do with vegetarian food. So why did you make that argument in the first place then?
    It is. No, im not disputing the fact that its smaller in comparison to other factor. It is a factor when it comes to vegetarian food because its used in vegetarian food. You can try and dress it up however you like to suit your argument but its still a leading cause in terms of deforestation. Only cause? No and I didn't suggest otherwise. My initial argument was they cant claim to be more environment friendly when this is happening. Nevermind the argument that soy cultivation is linked to slavery in Southern American countries too and those that buy soy products are indirectly supporting that in the same way those who sleep with prostitutes who've been trafficked support trafficking. Its all to do with supply and demand and whilst vegetarians continue to eat food that is made using soybeans they will continue indirectly supporting it. There's no doubt about it. You can claim its minimal all you like but that still doesn't mean its not happening.

    http://www.theecologist.org/green_gr...t_its_way.html
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by bramley)
    Because I love bacon and steak.
    I love you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keromedic)
    On why you eat meat.
    It's natural. Same reason why I masturbate.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No one *****es out other omnivores. Eating meat is natural and as much as I love animals, some just happen to taste good. I respect people who can stick to their guns for what they believe as vegetarian do. As long as they don't preach to me when I can't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "To feed a larger, more urban and richer population in the future, food production must increase by 70%.

    The major increase in soybean cultivation is a direct response to this growing demand. Soybean meal is the largest source of protein feed in the world, and is generally used in animal feed.

    Therefore, most of the world’s soybeans are consumed indirectly by humans through products like meat (chicken, pork and beef), dairy, eggs and farmed fish. People also directly consume soybeans in tofu, soy sauce, meat substitutes and other soy products."

    Now you're defeating yourself, need I even bother posting? To put it simply, the need to breed more meat requires more animal feed, which in turn requires more deforestation. So maybe eating meat is the problem?

    (Original post by Mickey O'Neil)
    Its a leading cause. There are multiple other minimal causes that make up minute percentages. Its not weird at all. Its one of the most significant factors, even your own source suggest so.

    It is. No, im not disputing the fact that its smaller in comparison to other factor. It is a factor when it comes to vegetarian food because its used in vegetarian food. You can try and dress it up however you like to suit your argument but its still a leading cause in terms of deforestation. Only cause? No and I didn't suggest otherwise. My initial argument was they cant claim to be more environment friendly when this is happening. Nevermind the argument that soy cultivation is linked to slavery in Southern American countries too and those that buy soy products are indirectly supporting that in the same way those who sleep with prostitutes who've been trafficked support trafficking. Its all to do with supply and demand and whilst vegetarians continue to eat food that is made using soybeans they will continue indirectly supporting it. There's no doubt about it. You can claim its minimal all you like but that still doesn't mean its not happening.

    http://www.theecologist.org/green_gr...t_its_way.html
    RE the bold bit, you can indeed. That's pretty much what your whole argument is based on. See that bit you've just posted?

    "the argument that soy cultivation is linked to slavery in Southern American countries"

    So you're indirectly trying to suggest that eating soy causes slavery? Fo' real? You don't think there'd be slavery soy or no soy? And, as you said, the argument can be dressed up however you want: we've established up above that much soy is needed because so many people eat meat, therefore eating meat causes slavery. See how easy that is?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Ethically, I'm afraid I can't defend it. I admit that I prioritise my own preferences over my scruples, at least when it comes to animals. That said, I try to minimise my impact on animal cruelty: I eat free range where I can and often have vegetarian meals. I don't feel that a person should have to be able to 'defend' everything he does. If that were the case, you would constantly be trying to justify every choice you make because someone in the world would no doubt take issue with it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes Yes I got it all wrong!

    The great Chaotic Butterfly has fallen from grace. I flew to close to the sun (tried to talk about plants) and my wings have turned to ash.
    OK, I didn't notice the other replies before giving mine
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xDave-)
    "To feed a larger, more urban and richer population in the future, food production must increase by 70%.

    The major increase in soybean cultivation is a direct response to this growing demand. Soybean meal is the largest source of protein feed in the world, and is generally used in animal feed.

    Therefore, most of the world’s soybeans are consumed indirectly by humans through products like meat (chicken, pork and beef), dairy, eggs and farmed fish. People also directly consume soybeans in tofu, soy sauce, meat substitutes and other soy products."

    Now you're defeating yourself, need I even bother posting? To put it simply, the need to breed more meat requires more animal feed, which in turn requires more deforestation. So maybe eating meat is the problem?
    Both contribute and I have not said otherwise. I've not said that the meat industry doesn't do such. However, many vegetarians claim they're more environmentally friendly which isn't true when Tofu and so on is linked to these.

    Find me a quote where I've said meat isn't involved in such. You can't because I haven't. So my initial argument stands just fine.

    You've assumed that because I've said vegetarians cant claim to be more environmentally friendly that meat eaters can. Well, I didn't suggest that so you should really stop making assumptions tbh.
    "the argument that soy cultivation is linked to slavery in Southern American countries"

    So indirectly trying to suggest that eating soy causes slavery? Fo' real? You don't think there'd be slavery soy or no soy? And, as you said, the argument can be dressed up however you want: we've established up above that so much soy is needed as so many people eat meat, therefore eating meat causes slavery. See how easy that is?
    That makes it okay then doesn't it? There'd be slavery anyway so lets not worry. Terrible attitude. The human race would be as backward as hell if we had that attitude throughout history. What if MLK and Malcolm X had that attitude? There's a simple picture and soybean farming is massively involved so please don't pretend they aren't.

    Yeah, the thing is, I'm not denying it. A lot of meat eaters accept these things happen and aware of them but the problem is vegetarians claiming they are holier than thou when they're not because they also still have an indirect part to play in both deforestation and slavery.

    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    There is no logical reason not to eat meat, only emotional ones. I try to make logical decisions, and therefore eat meat. Plus, meat is delicious.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I recently became a pescetarian.

    Yes, meat is delicious. But I think vegetarianism is not natural to all of us, it's certainly not natural to me. Some people are, or become more morally, or psychological OCD in their diets. I have. Some people have a quality of empathy extending beyond humans, others do not. Nothing wrong with that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I respect anyone who chooses to be a vegetarian or a vegan, but I don't respect anyone who tries to make me feel guilty to not being a vegetarian or vegan, we're omnivores for christ's sake, meat has always been a huge part of our diet in order to get those vital nutrients, so why should we stop now and of course it should go without saying that the vast majority of the best meals include meat in them (and every one of my favourite meals includes meat), whenever I'm in a restaurant looking at the menu, the vegetarian option just looks so bland in comparison, not an argument in defence of eating meat I admit, but still nevertheless a good reason for why I'd never stop eating meat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because it has been done for what... a couple thousand years? Our bodies are used to eating meat. If you don't want to - fine by me, though I really cannot understand what drives a person to stop.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mickey O'Neil)
    x
    I don't know what you're even talking about tbh. You quoted a girl - who was talking about something completely unrelated - and gave her a list of reasons of why being a vegan is (apparently) bad. You can claim you haven't said these things you mentioned in your most recent post, but that's quite obviously what you've been indirectly saying. You even finished that other post off by saying "The holier than thou attitude of some vegetarians and vegans annoys the hell out of me tbh". What exactly was that supposed to be?

    And now, Jesus Christ, people go on about vegetarians preaching, but you're outdoing the lot of them. Obviously I didn't say let's not care about slavery. If you want to eradicate slavery, you're talking politics, not farming less soy. I mean, wtf. My whole post was about how you can use something to make up some other bs fact, and now you're telling me about slavery and prostitution. Are you just venting randomly? Are you actually replying to me?

    Anyway, this is just pointless now, so I cba replying anymore. The stats are clear; you're just twisting them to be in favour of your very obvious agenda.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xDave-)
    I don't know what you're even talking about tbh. You quoted a girl - who was talking about something completely unrelated - and gave her a list of reasons of why being a vegan is (apparently) bad. You can claim you haven't said these things you mentioned in your most recent post, but that's quite obviously what it is indirectly saying. You even finished that other post off by saying "The holier than thou attitude of some vegetarians and vegans annoys the hell out of me tbh". What exactly was that supposed to be?
    A lot of them claim to be more environmentally friendly than us meat eaters when it isn't true hence my argument and initial point.

    And now, Jesus Christ, people go on about vegetarians preaching, but you're outdoing the lot of them.
    Not really. I think you should read the OP. I was asked to defend my position. I did that. Part of my defence is based on the premise that if I become a vegetarian I'd still actually be contributing to the same bad things, deforestation and slavery, as meat eaters. Sadly, you don't seem to have grasped that.

    Obviously I didn't say let's not care about slavery. If you want to eradicate slavery, you're talking politics, not farming less soy. I mean, wtf.
    Well of course you are talking about politics but politics works on actions and doing things. Politics may identify the cause but the cause needs to be dealt with.

    My whole post was about how you can use something to make up some other bs fact, and now you're telling me about slavery and prostitution. Are you just venting randomly? Are you actually replying to me?
    No. I responded to the OP and to a poster who claimed that meat eaters are cruel to animals when by the same logic I see veggies just as cruel to the environment and the slaves they indirectly support. No different from people who buy certain clothes contributing indirectly to poor working conditions in Asian countries.

    Anyway, this is just pointless now, so I cba replying anymore. The stats are clear; you're just twisting them to be in favour of your very obvious agenda.
    The OP asked for meat eaters to defend their choice and I did. I did what was asked of me so to claim I have an agenda is hilarious. I've got nothing against veggies who get on like normal people but I do if they claim to be more environmentally friendly and start acting like they're morally better when in fact they're not. They're still contributing to the same industries. I have no agenda. Im a meat eater and I've been pescetarian too but I won't take the holier than thou stance. I just let people live and eat what they wish because whether we're meat eaters or vegetarians we're still harming the environment and contributing to horrible things like slavery indirectly because of the trickle down effect of supply and demand.

    If you cant handle someone answering the OP as asked then fair enough. I posted numerous links to support my point, from arguably better sources than yourself. Your own sources clearly state that soy farming contributes to deforestation and slavery too.

    I'm done too because I'm busy working on my dissertation.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Because I have canines.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.