• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think the government should promote vegetarianism?

C

Cristatus

Diamond Member
I don't know how good being a vegetarian is, compared to being a meat eater (even though I'm vegetarian), but on the production side, eating meat is expensive. Think about all the processing that goes on for preparing the meat.

And those cows release a lot of methane, ya know!

And don't forget, to fatten up those animals to be eaten, you have to feed them as well...what would you rather do? Spend that food on feeding animals, or feeding humans?

P.S.: this isn't limited to the US or Canada, I'm saying any government.
 
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
no

as a vegetarian, i believe vegetarians should shut the fvck up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the government doesnt need MORE control over us, they need less.
 
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
no

as a vegetarian, i believe vegetarians should shut the fvck up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the government doesnt need MORE control over us, they need less.
Click to expand...


But a high percentage of these vegetarians and vegans are ultra-liberal, meaning they like the government having more control over the people.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
no

as a vegetarian, i believe vegetarians should shut the fvck up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the government doesnt need MORE control over us, they need less.
Click to expand...


But a high percentage of these vegetarians and vegans are ultra-liberal, meaning they like the government having more control over the people.
Click to expand...

Um, I thought they were trying to 'fight the man'? They want more government services with out all of the 'oppression'. Can't have one with out the other, which IMO BOTH suck.
 
The only thing the government should be doing is promoting a bread and water diet on that segment of society that has exchanged its freedom for a life behind bars.
 
I don't know how good being a vegetarian is, compared to being a meat eater (even though I'm vegetarian), but on the production side, eating meat is expensive. Think about all the processing that goes on for preparing the meat.
Click to expand...

You are a vegetarian without having researched it first? That is not something that could be done in an offhand way. The vegetarian lifestyle is much more expensive than being carnivorous because a larger amount of food has to be eaten to get the protien that is required. Simple vegetarian diets (like living on rice) can be economical, but they are really closer to being on a starvation diet (which actually might be healthier for us, but aren't very satisfying). The animals we use for food are much more effecient at converting energy than our best processing factories.

And those cows release a lot of methane, ya know!
Click to expand...

Insignificant.

And don't forget, to fatten up those animals to be eaten, you have to feed them as well...what would you rather do? Spend that food on feeding animals, or feeding humans?
Click to expand...

Again, cows are efficient.

P.S.: this isn't limited to the US or Canada, I'm saying any government.
Click to expand...

Government should stay out of it. The problems you brought up won't be solved by forcing people to be vegetarians. The problems have come about mostly because of our gluttony, but forcing people to eat properly isn't something a government could not do in normal times (although rationing in times of shortages might be).
 
Originally posted by: Philippine Mango


Um, I thought they were trying to 'fight the man'? They want more government services with out all of the 'oppression'. Can't have one with out the other, which IMO BOTH suck.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're clueless.

They're tying to fight the man, but want socialism. They want freedom, but want to ban all the things they're not interested in.
 
Originally posted by: Mucho
NO, however, I think they should be a luxury tax on vehicles with more than four cylinders.
Click to expand...

Why? Let me guess, you drive a 4 cylinder so you'd write a law that taxes other but spares yourself.
 
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
no

as a vegetarian, i believe vegetarians should shut the fvck up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the government doesnt need MORE control over us, they need less.
Click to expand...

Stop by P&N and tell the socialists that.
 
Originally posted by: Mucho
NO, however, I think they should be a luxury tax on vehicles with more than one cylinder.
Click to expand...

Fixed, considering that if you're going to go that route, mind as well have everyone drive motorcycles.. Motorcycles would be a lot safer if no one drove cars.

Since that ain't going to happen, thats pretty stupid to expect people to drive 4 bangers, oh and btw just because you have 4 cyclinders, doesn't mean you're going to get better mileage than an 8 cylinder, as you can get similar performance with 4 cyclinder engines. i.e Mitsubishi Evo...

 
The FDA/USDA should promote sensible protein consumption. We don't have to become a nation of vegetarians but the government should encourage people not to eat more than 3 ounces of lean meat a day.
 
A fully vegetarian diet is unhealthy. Granted, so is the meat-centric diet many people eat. But I digress; no, the government should not promote an unhealthy diet.
 
There are several model greenhouses in which fish are grown alongside the plants, or rather, under the plants. It has been shown to be extremely efficient as the fish waste provides fertilization for the plants, thus two "crops" can be grown in the exact same space quite efficiently. OP, are you suggesting that we not eat that fish? Or, are you just making broad proposals without adequate knowledge to do so?

edit: there are also experimental greenhouses which are half pond, half area for growing food (i.e. tomato plants). In colder climates, the advantage is that the pond serves as a heat sink during the summer, but as a source of heat during the winter, keeping things from freezing *without* the need for additional heating. In upstate NY, where I toured such a facility, they had calculated that they could grow fresh produce for all but about 40 days a year, without the need for heating. Trout were grown in the ponds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top