Do you think the government should promote vegetarianism?

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We need cows anyway for milk, cheese etc.

Soy milk?

anyway...I support the consumption of yummy animals.

Delicious:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3513607.stm
"Soya 'link' to male infertility"


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...ubMed&list_uids=10798211&dopt=Abstract
"Inverse association of soy product intake with serum androgen and estrogen concentrations in Japanese men."

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: logic1485
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.

It would be more efficient. As a general rule, only 10% of the energy of a food source is preserved as you move up the food chain. For instance, a cow only gets usage of about 10% of the energy stored in the compounds of the grass it eats. If we then in turn eat the cow, we only get 10% of the energy stored in its compounds. So we're only using 1% of the energy bound in the molecules of the plant, and even less (the ratio from sunlight to energy in a plants molecules is not 10:1) of the sunlight it took to produce the plant.

If we can directly eat autotrophic organisms (things that make their own food, plants and some protozoa), then we can increase the efficiency of production. It takes 10 times as much food to feed cows to in turn feed people, than it does to just feed people vegetables.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: dbk

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
I wouldn't be surprised if the "meat" served at fast food joints like McDonalds and Taco Bell are in fact meat by-products, like hot dogs etc. You don't want to know what's in it.

Watch Super Size Me or Fast Food Nation.

Try Krystal/White Castle. It makes Mcdonalds and Taco Bell look great in comparison. Your gut will feel the difference, in a bad way when you eat those ****** sandwiches.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I know I am a bit late to this thread, however, what the OP is refering to reminds me of the movie "Demolition Man."
The plan where the government promotes vegetarianism is the same one as where the govenrnment bans drugs, swearing, cigarettes, salt, physical contact, and violent video games, This is also known as the Cocteau plan.

To put this into simple terms: Freedom > Death > Any Oligarchical Dystopia.




One of my favorite quotes from that movie, and sadly, I think it's relevant more and more each day.

"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"

--Dennis Leary in the movie Demolition Man.

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I know I am a bit late to this thread, however, what the OP is refering to reminds me of the movie "Demolition Man."
The plan where the government promotes vegetarianism is the same one as where the govenrnment bans drugs, swearing, cigarettes, salt, physical contact, and violent video games, This is also known as the Cocteau plan.

To put this into simple terms: Freedom > Death > Any Oligarchical Dystopia.




One of my favorite quotes from that movie, and sadly, I think it's relevant more and more each day.

"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"

--Dennis Leary in the movie Demolition Man.

I totally agree with his point, and besides the running down the street naked, he's right about him.

 

[zerocool1]

actually livestock is less efficient than growing soy

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We need cows anyway for milk, cheese etc.

Soy milk?

anyway...I support the consumption of yummy animals.

some are allergic to soy.

 

[JM Aggie08]

shut up.

 

[adairusmc]

No. Humans did not climb to the top of the food chain to eat carrots.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: zerocool1
actually livestock is less efficient than growing soy

Too bad soy protein is one of the least healthy sources of protein. Decreases male fertility, mass consumption is terrible for the thyroid, interferes with mineral absorption, lowers testosterone in men, decreases muscle composition, and its a common allergy.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: logic1485
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.

Cattle may release methane, but methane does not linger in the atmosphere for very long.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: zerocool1
actually livestock is less efficient than growing soy

Too bad soy protein is one of the least healthy sources of protein. Decreases male fertility, mass consumption is terrible for the thyroid, interferes with mineral absorption, lowers testosterone in men, decreases muscle composition, and its a common allergy.

It's totally in-efficient as a delivery system as well.

 

[BlancoNino]

Yes, we have to feed cows. We feed them hay, and then eat pounds and pounds of delicious meat. Is hay even good for humans?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mucho
NO, however, I think they should be a luxury tax on vehicles with more than four cylinders.

Why just think of the huge market for 500bhp large displacement turbocharged four cylinders engine that would create! :roll:

Meat is efficient as a food source for 3 reasons:
1. Animals eat food not fit for human consumption.
2. Animals eat from range lands not fit for farming.
3. Humans cannot process nutrition from plant matter like animals can.

If everyone on the planet went vegan, large numbers of us would starve to death.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: logic1485
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.

It would be more efficient. As a general rule, only 10% of the energy of a food source is preserved as you move up the food chain. For instance, a cow only gets usage of about 10% of the energy stored in the compounds of the grass it eats. If we then in turn eat the cow, we only get 10% of the energy stored in its compounds. So we're only using 1% of the energy bound in the molecules of the plant, and even less (the ratio from sunlight to energy in a plants molecules is not 10:1) of the sunlight it took to produce the plant.

If we can directly eat autotrophic organisms (things that make their own food, plants and some protozoa), then we can increase the efficiency of production. It takes 10 times as much food to feed cows to in turn feed people, than it does to just feed people vegetables.

Small problem with your logic: humans can't eat grass.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: zerocool1
actually livestock is less efficient than growing soy

i wonder if the same idea applies to other plants...I'd assume so, because converting plant to animal to food isn't as efficient as plant to food. and one of my doctor friends was telling me about bio-waste magnification.

 

[animalia]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

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.

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

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

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.

although similar in many aspects, ultra liberal are not the same as hippies. "fighting the man" is more hippe than liberal

 

[animalia]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Mucho
NO, however, I think they should be a luxury tax on vehicles with more than one cylinder.

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...

you're joking right? motorcycles? wtf....what if you want to move your coffee table? strap it to your back? I drive a four cylinder and its a ford escort. most people with four cylinder cars aren't driving mitsubishi lancer evolutions, they're driving things like ford escorts. although he's ranting about beg engines, he's got a good point. all you really need is four cylinders. most jeep cherokees were four cylinder, 4wd, and manual transmission. besides 18 wheelers and pickup trucks used for hauling, most regular working folk that don't need trucks would do just fine with a four cylnider engine.

edit: I want to add, on a lighter note. What makes any vegan meal complete? that's right

bacon and cheese.