Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    I'm fairly sure that 9.5% was including all cows slaughtered from dairy farms. And even if not, that's still not the point.
    The amount of methane production in a calf's lifetime is much smaller and the whole idea of massive areas of rainforest chopped down for cattle (etc.) has nothing to with dairy cattle.
    Furthermore, a calf cannot be slaughtered to produce beef, it is veal, and I had a conversation with someone once and apparently the calves from the dairy industry are usually not grown and slaughtered for human consumption but are slaughtered very young and wasted or used for things like dog food, not steaks.
    Come on - The dairy industry is huge as a percentage of the cattle industry. The dead cows are the 9.5% (clearly) - the male calves are at least another 20% (as its all of them (which is a lot). That is 30% of all beef we eat, is directly linked to the dairy industry.

    Do the MATHS if dairy herd is bigger than beef herd, and we kill 100% of the male calves for beef that equates to 50% (at least) of all calve beef eaten.


    From UK government:
    The UK’s dairy herd has increased by 3.7% to almost 1.9 million. In contrast the UK’s beef herdcontinues to decrease, falling by 1.2% to 1.5 million, reflecting concerns over profitability
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emxily)
    Do you think the whole world should stop the consumption of animal products?
    I've decided upon vegetarianism just over a week ago (lol I feel like such a failure). It was actually two weeks, but then I ordered a veggie lasagne from Slug & Lettuce, took a bite and had realised it was meat. They obviously replaced it, but I was so upset.

    The reason why I've done it is because of the pollution created is more than that of planes, cars and all other transport together. (I actually learnt this in Thailand but if you want to know more, I thoroguhly recommend watching Cowspiracy on Netflix). I gradually cut meat out of my diet, actually totally subconciously, but because I'm on my YA and the Germans are huuuge on vegetarianism and veganism. It's great how much veggie options there are in restaurants.

    Negative though is that, despite the huge amount of substitutes, some of them aren't great. Like the vegan steak I had a few days ago

    I also recommend eating tofu and Paneer cheese instead of quorn
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Come on - The dairy industry is huge as a percentage of the cattle industry. The dead cows are the 9.5% (clearly) - the male calves are at least another 20% (as its all of them (which is a lot). That is 30% of all beef we eat, is directly linked to the dairy industry.

    Do the MATHS if dairy herd is bigger than beef herd, and we kill 100% of the male calves for beef that equates to 50% (at least) of all calve beef eaten.


    From UK government:
    The UK’s dairy herd has increased by 3.7% to almost 1.9 million. In contrast the UK’s beef herdcontinues to decrease, falling by 1.2% to 1.5 million, reflecting concerns over profitability
    Did you actually read my post?
    We don't use the dead calves to produce beef.

    Also, where did this 20% come from, and what's this about the dairy herd being bigger than the beef herd (globally).
    Using the UK as an example is not an accurate representation of the global production. Do you have statistics on how much beef is imported to the UK? Certainly places like Brazil and Australia export a lot of beef.
    US statistics: http://www.beefusa.org/beefindustrystatistics.aspx " 30.3 million beef cows, 9.32 million milk cows" so there are more than 3x as many beef cows than milk cows.

    Here's another statistic to prove my point: http://vegetarian.procon.org/view.re...ourceID=004716
    Beef consumption (lbs/per person) in the US is 37.8 beef and 0.2 veal. Even if 100% of that veal is from the dairy industry, that's still a tiny fraction.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    If it comes up in casual conversation, or even as a starting point for direct conversation, then fair enough. But if someone's actively trying to convince me* then I'm either too apathetic to care or they're trying to hard, and I find myself tuning out of the conversation.

    I have no problem with people explaining to me their way of thinking, but if someone's trying to get me to take the same outlook on life as them then it comes across as a disregard for my own beliefs. Why should I share someone else's beliefs when they're so dismissive of my own?

    *There's a difference between helping people to understand your mindset and trying to get them to have the same mindset.
    We'll probably just have to agree to disagree here. I don't think it's sensible to think somebody is dismissive of your views just because they disagree with you and try to make you see things their way. The key factor is of course how they go about doing that! Disagreement and honest, open discussion and persuasion can occur without disrespect (case in point - our discussion [I hope!]).


    As soon as I typed it I realised that communism was a reasonably bad analogy due to the lack of direct morality, Christianity was a better one.

    I'd argue that both have measurable results: if the aim of vegetarians is to have less meat on the market, then surely the aim of Christians is to increase their numbers and have more people contributing both morally and financially to the faith?

    However, in both instances you have the convincer trying to get the message across that their lifestyle, and the moral compass that goes with it, is better than that of the convincee.
    Perhaps you're correct and there isn't much of a difference. As above though, I don't think that's necessarily a problem. I object to Christians trying to bully or force their worldview on people, but I don't have any problem with them trying to convince other people in principle.


    I think we should. You could say that, objectively speaking, there are certain things that are quite obviously immoral, such a rape, theft, and murder. Even the people who perpetrate those actions must realise that they are immoral actions, and as such they most likely ignore the morality factor because it benefits them to do so.

    However, there are things that are a massive grey area, such as religion: those who partake think that they are morally benevolent compared to their atheist counterparts (or even people from other religious beliefs, such is the tribalist nature of organised religion), whereas those who do not believe have a different way of looking at things. Hence, subjectivity.
    Some things can be objective without being obvious. I agree that there are a lot of grey areas when trying to determine what is the best thing to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an objectively moral thing (or some objectively moral things) to do.


    As per the rapists, thieves, and murderers mentioned above, I think that most people, even at a base level, realise that killing another living thing is immoral. Most just disregard it because it doesn't benefit them to be worried about the morality of every given action.
    Perhaps. I'd be interested to see survey results if we asked people the question 'is it immoral to squash mosquitos?', for example. I don't think all people have principle-based systems of morality where certain classes of actions are deemed immoral a priori. Certainly some do, but for example anybody who subscribes to a consequentialist view of morality must concede (by definition) that whether or not killing another living thing is immoral depends fully upon the consequences.


    Indeed it doesn't. And yet, if there were no options left, I'd sooner eat meat than starve. The survival instinct of the individual transcends man-made concepts at a base level. And yet, I do realise that's not entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.
    Indeed, but that doesn't make it/them moral!


    I do. I don't mean they go full psycho and think that taking a magnifier to an ants next is a fun way to pass a few hours, merely that they ignore their moral stance because it benefits them to do so. They might not be happy to do it, but they'll do it nonetheless.
    Human are fickle like that.
    Interesting. I've not polled all my vegetarian friends or anything like that, but this has come up in conversation a number of time with some of them and they've all said they wouldn't. I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised that some vegetarians are hypocrites though


    Unfortunately, even with all our scientific progress, we have no definite way to know how animals experience suffering. We could study them for years and years and figure out where the pain receptors and all that jazz like within their brains, but they operate on a different biology setting to us, therefore we'll never objectively know whether or not certain animals experience suffering or not.
    If you think about it carefully, the same argument applies to other humans though. Measuring and quantifying suffering isn't straightforward, no matter the species.


    Let's look at it another way: I would imagine that an insect would be quite displeased if you started pulling its legs off, no?
    Well, would an insect be displeased if you started pulling its legs off? Certainly it would make an effort to avoid the things it 'thinks' is pulling its leg off, but there's more to suffering than that. For example, humans withdraw from harmful stimuli before we've even had the chance to feel the pain. I think that process is called nociception and as far as I know appears in everything considered 'animal'. A rigorous definition of suffering should probably include these biological reflexes AND the emotional response to the stimulus. If an organism has the capacity for nociception but has no capacity for emotion whatsoever, can it really suffer? I'm not particularly familiar with the academic literature, but I think the consensus in the field is 'no, it can't'.


    And you could say that dropping a heavy book on it would be instant, therefore minimising the suffering... but so would be dropping a 10 ton concrete block on a human. So what makes one acceptable but one murder? In my eyes that's a prime example of speciesism, which seems like a strange path for someone to take if they're trying to connect the human notion of suffering to the suffering of an animal.
    Indeed, there does seem to be a double standard here. But what happens if we think about the consequences? First, there's the fact that humans tend to be social creatures and instantaneously killing one human will likely cause suffering of others. But that's perhaps academic, as we could set up a thought experiment where this isn't the case and most would probably still agree that the murder is still not okay.

    Perhaps the prolem with killing someone is not just the suffering they do or do not experience during death, but the loss of positive experience they would have had if they hadn't been killed. Killing someone isn't wrong because killing is wrong; it's wrong because it reduces the net wellbeing of the universe by removing an individual who would otherwise have lived a happy life. You might think that we could again set up a thought experiment where the human being killed would have lived on awful life (or even a neutral one), and claim that it's still obvious we shouldn't kill them. One solution is to simply bite the bullet here and insist that no, it's perfectly okay to kill someone if you are certain that they would have spent the rest of their life in suffering.

    Of course, the same argument should apply to insects too. What if that insect you killed was going to have an awesome life? Well, one other thing to consider is the argument that humans have a much larger capacity for suffering than insects, and so perhaps it is not unreasonable to attribute more importance to the suffering of humans. In fact, from the little bit of research I've done, it seems unlikely to me that insects can suffer at all - in which case this whole line of argument is academic!


    Considering that vegetarianism is largely a moral thing it's strange that the morality would extend only as far as those animals which are edible, and not right across the board.
    Indeed. Drawing the line at 'edible' does seem like a unjustifiable double standard. The line is arbitrary. I would propose instead drawing the line at suffering.


    Cannabalism's an interesting one. I find it more morally acceptable for it to happen between two consenting adults than if it happened at a plane crash site and no-one wanted to be the one who got eaten. Because assuming they've got enough supplies bar food to stay alive, that means that someone's not only going to be food for the rest of the group against their will, but they're going to be killed as a precursor.
    What about farming other humans for our consumption? Why is it okay to do this with other animals but not humans? Surely this is a prime example of speciesism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    vegans and vegetarians are little gimpsss
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    Did you actually read my post?
    We don't use the dead calves to produce beef.
    A) yes
    B) We do
    http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/cows/veal-calves/

    I have no axe to grind.
    You do.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Eternalflames)
    Why did you convert to Islam?
    Cause I found it to be beautiful and it makes the world make more sense and by that I don't mean like existence and origin or things like that, I mean the smallest of things, like everything. I don't know it's just very spiritual and beautiful to me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    A) yes
    B) We do
    http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/cows/veal-calves/

    I have no axe to grind.
    You do.
    Veal is not equal to beef.
    "Unfortunately, very few calves are reared for veal in Great Britain due to low demand for this meat."
    Also, I do not have an axe to grind, I am simply refuting your incorrect claims and making my point that the dairy industry is no where near as bad as the beef industry.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UDZ)
    Full out veganism/vegetarianism for the whole world is definitely not an option. However, a great reduction in meat production would be incredibly beneficial. Not only to individual health, but also the environment and society as a whole. Whether you like the word or not, it is a genocide. To deny that is to be ignorant and weak minded.
    This fella is makin the most sense
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    White meat carries danger to the environment, the only good thing chicken, and other white meats can provide is protein which most people get enough from veg any way, so its unnecessary, just damage to the environment for nothing.
    Most vegans or vegetarians don't even have to take supplements? I don't and I am healthier then I have ever been? I believe a vegan/ vegetarian diet is much more healthy, I am living proof. I lost over 10 pounds when I went vegan, I wasn't fat but I had unnecessary fats from meat, and cheese or dairy products. I also used to have really bad acne since I went vegan my face is basically clear? I cba putting in the 100's of points and studies that show the benefits of being vegan, but you should research because you don't know a lot. Even my dad (and most meat eaters) who eats a ton of meat says he knows a vegan diet is healthier, it cuts out all the fats and stuff you do not need.
    Thank you for agreeing on the red meat, and while poultry, fish are not nearly as bad to the environment they do still cause damage. For example factory poultry manure contains heavy metals. The 5,100 tons of poultry manure produced daily in Arkansas dumps into the environment, each day, 3,100 pounds of manganese, 3,300 pounds of iron, 540 pounds of copper, 3,600 pounds of zinc, and 300 pounds of arsenic. Arsenic is "a known carcinogenic agent that when inhaled can cause cancer in humans, particularly lung cancer". Factory poultry manure exposes fish, humans, and wildlife to diseases not normally found in the environment. When earthworms ingest soil containing chicken droppings infected with the cecal worm larvae that carry blackhead disease, wild turkeys, grouse, quail and other wild birds who eat these worms get sick and die.
    Fish are not necessarily bad for the environment, however the damage it does can be seen on this website http://inhabitat.com/35-facts-that-w...at-fish-again/ .
    Lastly you say "its nature", how is "nature" animals living in crowded factory farms being abused continuously. Baby calfs get ripped away from their mothers and killed while the mother milk (thats meat to feed her baby not us, were not baby cows???) is stolen from her. Chicken get put in the tiniest cages where they have to actually crush each other to move around while they are given drugs so that they grow bigger so that humans have more to eat. While they are in these cages their eggs are taken and chickens are meant to lay 12 eggs per year but because humans just needed more for no reason (eggs literally are not healthy at all btw) they have been genetically modified to lay 300 eggs. Theres so much more I could write, but I would like to ask how is it nature? A lion for example is a carnivore has to eat animals to survive, they go out hunt their food and eat it all themselves, that is nature. Humans doing all of that is not nature its unnecessary abuse and it is cruel. Watch videos if you don't believe it, theres evidence. I bet you or many other meat eaters would go out find a cow and kill it with your bare hands and eat it raw like a lion? No because its not our 'nature'.
    And personally I actually don't kill spiders, I release them outside, same goes for any bug really. And if I step on an ant by accident which isn't that likely as they are so small they crawl through gaps and stuff that is obviously not intentional? Like if you hit an animal with your car and you didn't see it, its sad but not evil?
    And you're point about the rotting meat, things rot when they are dead, we do, so do cows, pigs, fish, etc. Its been debated whether it rots in your body or not, but its dead so it is rotting before you cook it. Also you didnt answer my point about dogs, would you eat a dog? Doubt it, neither would I (obvs) but theres no difference between a dog and a pig? Sorry if I sound angry I'm not lol, didn't realise I sounded so mad
    Meat also provides a whole host of nutrients, including but not limited to iron, magnesium, folic acid, selenium (in fact, pretty much all the metallic nutrients you require) and vitamins A, B and K. It's a lot more than just protein. Also, fat isn't inherently bad you know? You're actually meant to have some in your diet.

    I didn't say all vegetarians/vegans have deficiencies, I said that vegetarians/vegans are more prone to a lot of different deficiencies than omnivores.

    Losing weight is entirely about the number of calories you're eating compared to what you're burning. I don't care whether it's omnivorous, vegetarian, vegan, macrobiotic or any other diet, losing weight is simply down to the number of calories. Changing to a vegan didn't make you lose weight, eating less calories and/or burning more calories made you lose weight. Calories from vegetables are no different to calories from meat, so far as weight loss is concerned.

    I think you need to do your research to be honest. There are indeed a whole host of studies showing that a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier than a typical omnivorous diet. But I'd be amazed if you could show me a study showing that a vegan/vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet which sticks to white meat. I've certainly not seen one. Largely because - as you seem to be ignoring - the dangers that these studies find all relate to the overconsumption of red meat.

    But you're kind of ignoring my previous argument with regards pollution. By your logic - that we don't need to eat meat so we shouldn't, so as to curb pollution - we should also ban all cars. I mean, we don't actually need cars, we did alright before them. We also did fine before power stations, before the industrial revolution. That is why I called the pollution argument specious.

    It's natural to feed on those animals which are below you in the food chain. As humans, we're at the top. Which means it's natural for us to eat more or less whatever we fancy. You can argue the means aren't natural, but again, that same argument would mean we should ban cars. Think of all the animals killed in the construction of roads; driving isn't 'natural', so it should be banned. See what I mean? The argument is specious, because you're drawing a distinction where there isn't one.

    That's not my point. You wouldn't make so impassioned a plea for the lives of insects as you would for the lives of cows, pigs and the like. Which again means you're drawing a distinction which suits your agenda, even when there isn't one. I imagine you wouldn't debate against someone who killed a fly, yet somehow that's more acceptable than killing a cow. Why? What's the difference? It's another specious argument.

    I personally wouldn't eat a dog here, but if I was in Korea then sure. I've eaten horse and goldfish amongst other meats. Much as you said, what's the distinction? I obviously wouldn't eat my dog though!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    Veal is not equal to beef.
    "Unfortunately, very few calves are reared for veal in Great Britain due to low demand for this meat."
    Also, I do not have an axe to grind, I am simply refuting your incorrect claims and making my point that the dairy industry is no where near as bad as the beef industry.
    You quote from my link by my link also has this quote:
    "
    Due to co-operation between Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA and the industry through the Calf Stakeholder Forum, more male dairy calves are now reared humanely for beefand the number of calves being shot at birth has greatly decreased. There is more work to do - up to 99,000 are still shot every year and over 10,000 exported to the continent*.
    "
    Over 500,000 male calves are born in the UK each year (via dairy industry) - so that means 80% of these calves (deducting the 99K shot for veal) are used for BEEF (as only 99K are shot for veal)..

    Another link from RSPCA
    http://calfforum.rspca.org.uk/web/calfforum/about
    From bottom of link:

    progress the forum has made since forming in 2006. The report focuses on how male dairy calves have been brought into the domestic supply chain for beef and veal, how calf quality has been improved and on how animal welfare is being promoted. The report marks the success of past collaborations and going forward, will herald new mechanisms for continued information exchange.
    Offline

    13
    I'll echo a lot of others and say each to their own. :yep:

    I'm not someone who believes we're meant to follow a plant-based diet, but personally, I do feel wrong consuming and using animal products and really respect those who follow a vegan / vegeterian diet.

    In terms of the effects on the environment, I do think we need to think about cutting down on our animal product consumption long-term.

    (Original post by RachaelBee)
    Each to their own, I'd rather see more ethical and sustainable practises though.
    I think a big problem with this, though, is factory farming came as a result of increased demand from the population.

    While I'd like to see us go to more ethical practices, I don't think -- with the current population -- it's possible to go back to the days of traditional farming and still meet the demands of everyone (taking into account the manpower and land it would require, the time it would take and the like).

    Just my opinion, though. :lol:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    You quote from my link by my link also has this quote:
    "
    Due to co-operation between Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA and the industry through the Calf Stakeholder Forum, more male dairy calves are now reared humanely for beefand the number of calves being shot at birth has greatly decreased. There is more work to do - up to 99,000 are still shot every year and over 10,000 exported to the continent*.
    "
    Over 500,000 male calves are born in the UK each year (via dairy industry) - so that means 80% of these calves (deducting the 99K shot for veal) are used for BEEF (as only 99K are shot for veal)..

    Another link from RSPCA
    http://calfforum.rspca.org.uk/web/calfforum/about
    From bottom of link:

    progress the forum has made since forming in 2006. The report focuses on how male dairy calves have been brought into the domestic supply chain for beef and veal, how calf quality has been improved and on how animal welfare is being promoted. The report marks the success of past collaborations and going forward, will herald new mechanisms for continued information exchange.
    So that's 401,000 out of a total, according to this link: http://www.viva.org.uk/what-we-do/sl...med-animals-uk , of 2.6 million is 1.54%.
    So 1.54% of beef comes from dairy cattle. My point proven.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    So that's 401,000 out of a total, according to this link: http://www.viva.org.uk/what-we-do/sl...med-animals-uk , of 2.6 million is 1.54%.
    So 1.54% of beef comes from dairy cattle. My point proven.
    You might want to do your maths again lol... (and how much of the 2.6m are killed each year? Of the 400K all are killed).

    (ps its not near 1.54% - eg 10% of is 260K so 400K is a great deal more than 10% - nearer 20% - and perhaps a lot higher if 2.6M are not killed each year - that is the TOTAL figure of ALL cattle for ALL reasons)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Meat also provides a whole host of nutrients, including but not limited to iron, magnesium, folic acid, selenium (in fact, pretty much all the metallic nutrients you require) and vitamins A, B and K. It's a lot more than just protein. Also, fat isn't inherently bad you know? You're actually meant to have some in your diet.

    I didn't say all vegetarians/vegans have deficiencies, I said that vegetarians/vegans are more prone to a lot of different deficiencies than omnivores.

    Losing weight is entirely about the number of calories you're eating compared to what you're burning. I don't care whether it's omnivorous, vegetarian, vegan, macrobiotic or any other diet, losing weight is simply down to the number of calories. Changing to a vegan didn't make you lose weight, eating less calories and/or burning more calories made you lose weight. Calories from vegetables are no different to calories from meat, so far as weight loss is concerned.

    I think you need to do your research to be honest. There are indeed a whole host of studies showing that a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier than a typical omnivorous diet. But I'd be amazed if you could show me a study showing that a vegan/vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet which sticks to white meat. I've certainly not seen one. Largely because - as you seem to be ignoring - the dangers that these studies find all relate to the overconsumption of red meat.

    But you're kind of ignoring my previous argument with regards pollution. By your logic - that we don't need to eat meat so we shouldn't, so as to curb pollution - we should also ban all cars. I mean, we don't actually need cars, we did alright before them. We also did fine before power stations, before the industrial revolution. That is why I called the pollution argument specious.

    It's natural to feed on those animals which are below you in the food chain. As humans, we're at the top. Which means it's natural for us to eat more or less whatever we fancy. You can argue the means aren't natural, but again, that same argument would mean we should ban cars. Think of all the animals killed in the construction of roads; driving isn't 'natural', so it should be banned. See what I mean? The argument is specious, because you're drawing a distinction where there isn't one.

    That's not my point. You wouldn't make so impassioned a plea for the lives of insects as you would for the lives of cows, pigs and the like. Which again means you're drawing a distinction which suits your agenda, even when there isn't one. I imagine you wouldn't debate against someone who killed a fly, yet somehow that's more acceptable than killing a cow. Why? What's the difference? It's another specious argument.

    I personally wouldn't eat a dog here, but if I was in Korea then sure. I've eaten horse and goldfish amongst other meats. Much as you said, what's the distinction? I obviously wouldn't eat my dog though!
    Shocked that you would eat a dog tbh but I feel like we could debate this forever, so I just want to say my main point is eating meat, cheese, eggs whatever animal product isn't needed, its unnecessary pain and abuse to animals and to the planet and most people end up damaging their bodies because of it, over 74% of men and 64% of women are overweight and I highly doubt that any of them are vegan (yes I am aware there are less vegans but never have I seen an overweight vegan) I just don't see the point in it when we could all just be vegetarian/vegan and not cause the damage at all? The main argument for meat is taste and convenience.
    Also about you telling me to educate myself, I am well educated, do you really think I would cut out dairy and eggs and meat because I just decided to? No, I researched veganism for months I watched videos about it, and searched over and over. I even looked at meat eaters arguments for still eating meat because I was unsure but their arguments were always invalid compared to the real facts that I was seeing from vegans. I think maybe you should educate yourself a bit more as I am not the most educated vegan ever but the ones i have seen truly know their stuff and everything they say just makes perfect sense to me and many others. Lastly you said I was losing weight due to eating less calories which is completely inaccurate I lost weight because the foods I'm eating don't have a lot of fat in whereas foods I used to eat such as cheese, and other dairy products had a lot. I don't usually calorie count but if I had to estimate I eat around 2000 calories maybe a little more? Whereas when I wasn't vegan I used to be obsessed with my weight and used to calorie count everything I used to try and eat as little as 1000 calories a day but I still lost 10 pounds when I went vegan because I thought calories were bad and there not, the fat is what makes you gain weight and even though I had little calories the foods I were eating were not good.
    I feel like you just don't care about the animals? I may be wrong (sorry if I am) but thats how we have been conditioned, so it wouldn't be a bad thing, many people don't really care because of how we have been brought up thinking its okay. But, yeah I was meant to do like a paragraph but I talk a lot so whatever, I feel like we should end this debate soon as it could last a while?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    You might want to do your maths again lol... (and how much of the 2.6m are killed each year? Of the 400K all are killed).

    (ps its not near 1.54% - eg 10% of is 260K so 400K is a great deal more than 10% - nearer 20% - and perhaps a lot higher if 2.6M are not killed each year - that is the TOTAL figure of ALL cattle for ALL reasons)
    That statistic of 2.6 million is the total number killed. It is the number of cows that were killed in British slaughterhouses in 2013.
    My maths was right, I just put the decimal place in the wrong place! it's 15.4%
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    That statistic of 2.6 million is the total number killed. It is the number of cows that were killed in British slaughterhouses in 2013.
    My maths was right, I just put the decimal place in the wrong place! it's 15.4%
    but the 2.6 M includes the 400K. So first off you have to deduct the 400K from the 2.6M . Then you have to deduct the dairy cattle (as you say they are not used for beef).

    This will easily make the 400K 20% of the total BEEF cattle killed each year (but if you add in the Cows killed for beef you will get an even higher figure.

    As I said , the only way the dairy industry is "growing" is because its become more economic because its "waste" product (male cattle) are now used in the beef industry.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    but the 2.6 M includes the 400K. So first off you have to deduct the 400K from the 2.6M . Then you have to deduct the dairy cattle (as you say they are not used for beef).

    This will easily make the 400K 20% of the total BEEF cattle killed each year (but if you add in the Cows killed for beef you will get an even higher figure.

    As I said , the only way the dairy industry is "growing" is because its become more economic because its "waste" product (male cattle) are now used in the beef industry.
    That's not how you calculate percentage...
    I am calculating what percentage of 2.6 million 401K is so I do 401,000/2600000 x100

    "(but if you add in the Cows killed for beef you will get an even higher figure."
    What are you saying? that 2.6 million is all of the cows slaughtered in the UK in 2013.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    Shocked that you would eat a dog tbh but I feel like we could debate this forever, so I just want to say my main point is eating meat, cheese, eggs whatever animal product isn't needed, its unnecessary pain and abuse to animals and to the planet and most people end up damaging their bodies because of it, over 74% of men and 64% of women are overweight and I highly doubt that any of them are vegan (yes I am aware there are less vegans but never have I seen an overweight vegan) I just don't see the point in it when we could all just be vegetarian/vegan and not cause the damage at all? The main argument for meat is taste and convenience.
    Also about you telling me to educate myself, I am well educated, do you really think I would cut out dairy and eggs and meat because I just decided to? No, I researched veganism for months I watched videos about it, and searched over and over. I even looked at meat eaters arguments for still eating meat because I was unsure but their arguments were always invalid compared to the real facts that I was seeing from vegans. I think maybe you should educate yourself a bit more as I am not the most educated vegan ever but the ones i have seen truly know their stuff and everything they say just makes perfect sense to me and many others. Lastly you said I was losing weight due to eating less calories which is completely inaccurate I lost weight because the foods I'm eating don't have a lot of fat in whereas foods I used to eat such as cheese, and other dairy products had a lot. I don't usually calorie count but if I had to estimate I eat around 2000 calories maybe a little more? Whereas when I wasn't vegan I used to be obsessed with my weight and used to calorie count everything I used to try and eat as little as 1000 calories a day but I still lost 10 pounds when I went vegan because I thought calories were bad and there not, the fat is what makes you gain weight and even though I had little calories the foods I were eating were not good.
    I feel like you just don't care about the animals? I may be wrong (sorry if I am) but thats how we have been conditioned, so it wouldn't be a bad thing, many people don't really care because of how we have been brought up thinking its okay. But, yeah I was meant to do like a paragraph but I talk a lot so whatever, I feel like we should end this debate soon as it could last a while?
    You're right, we'll have to draw this to a close. I'm afraid I'll have to keep disagreeing on the ethical and pollution point, as you still haven't explained to me why your argument doesn't also require the abolition of cars, cities, power stations, pretty much every aspect of modern human civilisation. They all harm the planet, they all harm animals, so to argue from your standpoint requires that you also object to all the quirks of modern human civilisation, else your argument is inherently flawed as you are failing to apply it unanimously.

    You have a totally inaccurate understanding of how your body chemistry works. Weight gain/loss is determined by your calorific intake vs your calorific requirement. If you are burning more calories than you're eating, you'll lose weight. If you are eating more calories than you're burning, you'll gain weight. That's just how it is. Honestly, google it. If you started losing weight, it's because you either reduced your calorie intake or increased your calorific requirement.

    I absolutely adore animals. I have two dogs and two cats, and I love them to bits. My two cats are sat on my lap currently I just maintain that it is natural for us to domineer over the other animals, as we are at the top of the food chain. I'll call it a day there
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    That's not how you calculate percentage...
    I am calculating what percentage of 2.6 million 401K is so I do 401,000/2600000 x100

    "(but if you add in the Cows killed for beef you will get an even higher figure."
    What are you saying? that 2.6 million is all of the cows slaughtered in the UK in 2013.
    Apologies - this 2.6 million includes DAIRY COWS killed . You need to deduct those (as you said they are not used for beef) then look at the 400K male calves) as a percentage of that.

    I think you will find, I've been right all along (About 20% to 30%) but for all the wrong reasons - lol. Anyway - I thinkbeing a vegetarian is a good thing

    Cheers JohnOrFred
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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