Haha it’s literally the opposite. Plant based agriculture grows 512% more pounds of food than animal-based agriculture, with 69% of the land. Animal agriculture uses more water, emits more greenhouse gas, uses more land, and produces less of the world’s nutritional needs. You may be referring to “regenerative farming” with animal excrement fertilising soil, but crop rotation and reduced over-tilling is equally efficacious.
Almond milk uses more water
Wrong again. It takes 628 litres of water to make a litre of bovine milk, 371 for almond milk, and 28 for soy (which is what I drink, for that very reason).
It takes more labour to grow crops than animal farming
I can’t find any source either way on that, pasture.io says crop farming requires less physical labour, but they don’t seem to cite anything. What I do know is that slaughterhouse workers have severely increased risk of mental health disorders directly resulting from their work.
Follow my ancestors philosophy
Ah, the Appeal To History Fallacy, my ancestors did ritual slaughter of virgins so it’s morally okay to continue doing so!
To sum up, it really sounds like you haven’t done literally any research here. If the world swapped to veganism, global land use for agriculture would reduce by 75%. Food related emissions would reduce by 70% (that’s 15% of the ENTIRE world’s greenhouse gas emissions). And that doesn’t even mention animal welfare concerns.
Feel free to reply - I have overwhelming scientific support. I remember when I wasn’t vegan, desperately searching for ANY studies that supported my desire to continue living a destructive, immoral lifestyle. In the end, I just listened to logic and reason and turned vegan.
it’s only a fallacy if it’s bad reasoning. people fall for fallacies because they mimic good reasoning. the part you quoted is not enough to know whether what they said was actually fallacious.
I follow my ancestors philosophy, give it a long life good then slaughter it gets ya more and better quality meat.
they weren’t using the fact that their ancestors practiced this to justify it: they were pointing to them as an example of people who did it, and they also separately gave the justification: more and better quality meat.
i can see only two possibilities: you are not engaging in good faith on purpose, or you don’t have the skills to engage in a discussion in good faith. i’m open to the existence of more possibilities, but both of those i see have one thing in common: you’re not engaging in good faith.
Look the only reason I brought up my ancestors is that I was explaining my reasoning behind my actions. Admitedly I lean towards the abjectly most bloodthirsty and violent side of my ancesteral traditions, but it hasnt fucked me over yet.
As for water use of cattle, while it is quite high that has far more to do with alfalfa than anything else. Yet again an issue of factory farming, that more free range aint got a problem with.
Also I may have mistyped but I meant on the almonds to be in relation to local aquafure use and not in gross total.
But frankly speaking, I dont give a fuck. If I had to choose between growing my own food or just killing someone and eating them im gonna go with option b.
Regardless im autistic and most vegetables make me want to cut off my tongue due to their texture. There no way in hell id becoem vegan short of synthetic meats becoming cheap enough for my poor ass.
No kidding. You aren’t refuting the Appeal To History Fallacy, you’re doubling down even. Cavemen used tribalistically murder and rape, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to do now. You’re smarter than that. You don’t need to do things because cavemen once did.
Alfafa is the culprit of high water use
You originally said vegan diets are worse for water use. I refuted you. You’ve basically replied with “that’s because cattle eat food that use more water”. They still use more water. Every meat eater purports to buy their meat “from the farmer next door”. However pasture raised cattle require longer life spans before slaughter (18-30 months old instead of 13-15) due to a reduced energy-dense diet. The water reduction isn’t that much.
Local aquafure use is used more in almond production than beef
Forgetting that almonds (which I suggest people DONT eat) use 50% less water than cows, groundwater was the source of 62% of total livestock withdraws in the US. I agree that almonds are too water intensive, we should shift to soy which uses >20x less water.
I don’t give a fuck
Which is what I said at the beginning. The only valid argument against veganism is when someone says “I know a vegan diet is healthier, better for the planet and better for the animals, but I still choose to kill and eat animals”. There’s no arguing against someone who ignores reason to satisfy their tastebuds.
I’m autistic and don’t like veges
I’m sure if an autistic cannibal came along and said “I don’t like the texture of animals, I only eat human children and women” we wouldn’t accept that as an excuse.
almonds (which I suggest people DONT eat) use 50% less water than cows
the sources of the water vary greatly, where much of the water that is attributed to cows is actually rainwater that ends up in the grass they graze, almonds are actively irrigated, and then the almond milk itself requires an input of potable water.
62% of water used in animal farming is groundwater pumped from local aquifures.
ok? what’s the breakdown among fisheries, pork, chicken, turkey, lamb, goat, and cow? if 98% of that is going to fish then it’s a useless statistic in this context.
Okay it’s patently obvious I’m dealing with someone who hasn’t attended a university or college. You don’t have the mental acuity to reason just yet. There are some people out there who can understand logic and that, but sorry my friend you ain’t one of em.
Hahaha very wrong. A vegan diet decreases the risk of cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
It also sometimes has health benefits if done incorrectly, but that’s true of any diet.
How is not killing and eating animals not better for the animals.
Come on use that little noggin of yours to actually look up the data instead of going “it doesn’t”. You can do it little buddy!
A vegan diet decreases the risk of cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
that can be true while, at the same time, it has nutrient deficiency risks and is known to be a precursor to mental illness.
How is not killing and eating animals not better for the animals.
almost no one kills animals and eats them. if you just stop eating them, that doesn’t help the ones that are already dead, or stop more from being killed.
Cavemen probably had better moral barometers than tbh, what with the fact that most Eurosians have neanderthal genes. Doubt most cavemen would want to eradicate the leadership of an enemy tribe all because of a petty grudge built up over a hundred years. Doesnt stop me from wanting to inflict that apon the seventh day adventist, this isnt even family policy thats all me.
Also at best with the ground water thing and cows youve made me appreciate how fucking useful chickens are, creating constant source of nutrients and you can eat em fucking a.
Also I suspect the reason vegans are on average healthy is less cause their diet is inately better but more cause they are more focused on that in general, but I dont really care.
As fore the last one, whatever caused such a scenario its safe just go with it and make synthetic human meat for em.
Hey, look it up. Don’t be a lazy bones! Instead of going “I doubt it!” Google “how much land could we save going vegan” and see where I got my sources.
Haha it’s literally the opposite. Plant based agriculture grows 512% more pounds of food than animal-based agriculture, with 69% of the land. Animal agriculture uses more water, emits more greenhouse gas, uses more land, and produces less of the world’s nutritional needs. You may be referring to “regenerative farming” with animal excrement fertilising soil, but crop rotation and reduced over-tilling is equally efficacious.
Wrong again. It takes 628 litres of water to make a litre of bovine milk, 371 for almond milk, and 28 for soy (which is what I drink, for that very reason).
I can’t find any source either way on that, pasture.io says crop farming requires less physical labour, but they don’t seem to cite anything. What I do know is that slaughterhouse workers have severely increased risk of mental health disorders directly resulting from their work.
Ah, the Appeal To History Fallacy, my ancestors did ritual slaughter of virgins so it’s morally okay to continue doing so!
To sum up, it really sounds like you haven’t done literally any research here. If the world swapped to veganism, global land use for agriculture would reduce by 75%. Food related emissions would reduce by 70% (that’s 15% of the ENTIRE world’s greenhouse gas emissions). And that doesn’t even mention animal welfare concerns.
Feel free to reply - I have overwhelming scientific support. I remember when I wasn’t vegan, desperately searching for ANY studies that supported my desire to continue living a destructive, immoral lifestyle. In the end, I just listened to logic and reason and turned vegan.
it’s only a fallacy if it’s bad reasoning. people fall for fallacies because they mimic good reasoning. the part you quoted is not enough to know whether what they said was actually fallacious.
It’s bad reasoning because there’s no reason behind their assertion beyond “historical figures did it, so should I”.
It’s literally textbook definition Appeal To History. You’re argumentative rapacity extends only to “no it isn’t!”
what they said is
they weren’t using the fact that their ancestors practiced this to justify it: they were pointing to them as an example of people who did it, and they also separately gave the justification: more and better quality meat.
i can see only two possibilities: you are not engaging in good faith on purpose, or you don’t have the skills to engage in a discussion in good faith. i’m open to the existence of more possibilities, but both of those i see have one thing in common: you’re not engaging in good faith.
Look the only reason I brought up my ancestors is that I was explaining my reasoning behind my actions. Admitedly I lean towards the abjectly most bloodthirsty and violent side of my ancesteral traditions, but it hasnt fucked me over yet.
As for water use of cattle, while it is quite high that has far more to do with alfalfa than anything else. Yet again an issue of factory farming, that more free range aint got a problem with.
Also I may have mistyped but I meant on the almonds to be in relation to local aquafure use and not in gross total.
But frankly speaking, I dont give a fuck. If I had to choose between growing my own food or just killing someone and eating them im gonna go with option b.
Regardless im autistic and most vegetables make me want to cut off my tongue due to their texture. There no way in hell id becoem vegan short of synthetic meats becoming cheap enough for my poor ass.
No kidding. You aren’t refuting the Appeal To History Fallacy, you’re doubling down even. Cavemen used tribalistically murder and rape, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to do now. You’re smarter than that. You don’t need to do things because cavemen once did.
Forgetting that almonds (which I suggest people DONT eat) use 50% less water than cows, groundwater was the source of 62% of total livestock withdraws in the US. I agree that almonds are too water intensive, we should shift to soy which uses >20x less water.
Which is what I said at the beginning. The only valid argument against veganism is when someone says “I know a vegan diet is healthier, better for the planet and better for the animals, but I still choose to kill and eat animals”. There’s no arguing against someone who ignores reason to satisfy their tastebuds.
I’m sure if an autistic cannibal came along and said “I don’t like the texture of animals, I only eat human children and women” we wouldn’t accept that as an excuse.
the sources of the water vary greatly, where much of the water that is attributed to cows is actually rainwater that ends up in the grass they graze, almonds are actively irrigated, and then the almond milk itself requires an input of potable water.
62% of water used in animal farming is groundwater pumped from local aquifures.
You also conveniently ignore my point about soy milk. I suggest no one drink almond milk as it uses too much water.
Maybe argue against MY points instead of the ones you’ve invented. Unless… my points are too clever and compelling?
if i don’t have something to say, it doesn’t mean i’m ignoring you. don’t be petulant.
i haven’t invented anything. i’m adding nuance to your black-and-white analysis.
ok? what’s the breakdown among fisheries, pork, chicken, turkey, lamb, goat, and cow? if 98% of that is going to fish then it’s a useless statistic in this context.
Okay it’s patently obvious I’m dealing with someone who hasn’t attended a university or college. You don’t have the mental acuity to reason just yet. There are some people out there who can understand logic and that, but sorry my friend you ain’t one of em.
Good luck with your future endeavours!
an appeal to authority coupled with a personal insult isn’t evidence your statistic is relevant.
a lot of times, it’s not healthier
being vegan does nothing for the planet or animals.
Hahaha very wrong. A vegan diet decreases the risk of cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
It also sometimes has health benefits if done incorrectly, but that’s true of any diet.
How is not killing and eating animals not better for the animals.
Come on use that little noggin of yours to actually look up the data instead of going “it doesn’t”. You can do it little buddy!
that can be true while, at the same time, it has nutrient deficiency risks and is known to be a precursor to mental illness.
almost no one kills animals and eats them. if you just stop eating them, that doesn’t help the ones that are already dead, or stop more from being killed.
Cavemen probably had better moral barometers than tbh, what with the fact that most Eurosians have neanderthal genes. Doubt most cavemen would want to eradicate the leadership of an enemy tribe all because of a petty grudge built up over a hundred years. Doesnt stop me from wanting to inflict that apon the seventh day adventist, this isnt even family policy thats all me.
Also at best with the ground water thing and cows youve made me appreciate how fucking useful chickens are, creating constant source of nutrients and you can eat em fucking a.
Also I suspect the reason vegans are on average healthy is less cause their diet is inately better but more cause they are more focused on that in general, but I dont really care.
As fore the last one, whatever caused such a scenario its safe just go with it and make synthetic human meat for em.
you can’t prove this. you’re making leaps of logic.
Hey, look it up. Don’t be a lazy bones! Instead of going “I doubt it!” Google “how much land could we save going vegan” and see where I got my sources.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Here you go lazy bones.
this is basically just poore-nemecek 2018, and their methodology is dubious.
just because it could be saved doesn’t mean it would be.