ruminants can be raised entirely on grazing, and nothing is more efficient than letting an animal live until it's fat enough and slaughtering it.
Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?
No.
you have no idea what is in my local meat markets.
A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven't accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.
B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?
C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you'd still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.
Reminder that you started with 'I dont see how less workers would be exploited.' And we've arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I'm growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.
you are interested in justifying environmental damage
I've never done that
Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture?
I am not antivegan
Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture?
my identity is irrelevant to whether I am right
you are interested in justifying ... animal murder
I have never done that
you're attitude is shitty. you can't accept that you made a hyperbolic claim and go off on rants that cross the line into hostility to someone who had the temerity to disbelieve your wild claim. get help.
Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.
people absolutely do that.
you started with 'I dont see how less workers would be exploited.'
and you still haven't made a compelling case, but you have shown that it's not even a real concern for you, given that you are actually interested in pushing an ideology and are grasping at straws to support it.
I should have just went to your profile right away and saved the trouble lol
The ideology doesn't detract from the obvious. You're ignoring the laws of thermodynamics for non-grazing animals because in your head there is some fictional world where there is exclusive grazing animals that everyone exclusively eats where reality puts that at maybe 0.0001% of real human diets. Your intentions are dubious at best, and I grow tired of you. If you really wanted to have a productive conversation, you could have explained what about the methodology of the UN's FAO paper on land use you disagreed with, but I guess you can just reference some other paper and go 'well it's allegedly at least in my brain like this other one I read so therefore all goes in the trash.' I am not a data/environmental scientist so if you want to debate bro about the particulars of those papers or their methodology seek out people who may or may not be more educated than you, personally I think they'll have an even harder time taking you seriously.
You can probably even get a direct email out to those who wrote the papers you disagree with. They might laugh a little, but they may actually respond. Who knows. But I'm good dawg, I'll keep doing what is ethically sound for living conscious beings and is recommended by scientific consensus as good for the environment/climate, and you just keep on saying whatever the hell all these comments were to other people who probably also don't want the most nested back and forth dialogue possible that goes nowhere. Maybe you're not 'anti-vegan' but to engage with this content as frequently as you do, you clearly have a motive - and unlike you, Vegans will be upfront and honest about theirs. You should stop hiding your intent/background. But again, I'm good dawg. I'm interested in dialogue that can actually change people's minds to lead a more compassionate and sustainable life and it's clear you'll not change your ways and no one is reading this so it will not influence others either. You will continue paying other people to kill animals irrespective of any evidence I provide and hilariously claim it's not evidence. No interest in interacting in future, giving you the solid block. Have a nice day.
lol
appeal to ridicule
if you want to debate
i don't. i just wanted to point out that you made a claim that you can't prove.
If you really wanted to have a productive conversation, you could have explained what about the methodology of the UN’s FAO paper on land use you disagreed with
i spend my time how i like, and you don't get to dictate how i communicate.
go ‘well it’s allegedly at least in my brain like this other one I read so therefore all goes in the trash.’
did you read the sources for any of those links. they are all drawing on poore-nemecek.
Maybe you’re not ‘anti-vegan’ but to engage with this content as frequently as you do, you clearly have a motive
more poisoning of the well.
No interest in interacting in future, giving you the solid block. Have a nice day.
ah. the thought-terminating cliche and the announced block. lovely. truthfully, i love the lemmy block system.
I grow tired of you.
rhetorical posturing
it’s clear you’ll not change your ways
more unfounded claims
I should have just went to your profile right away and saved the trouble
poisoning the well
personally I think they’ll have an even harder time taking you seriously.
another appeal to ridicule
You should stop hiding your intent/background.
irony
and unlike you, Vegans will be upfront and honest about theirs
you weren't. you started off making unfounded claims about labor practices, and only revealed later that you have some other motivation.
Your intentions are dubious at best
more poisoning the well and innuendo
in your head there is some fictional world where there is exclusive grazing animals that everyone exclusively eats
i never made any such claim.
You’re ignoring the laws of thermodynamics
no i'm not
You can probably even get a direct email out to those who wrote the papers you disagree with.
poore won't write back. i can't see why.
You will continue paying other people to kill animals
i've never done that. most people haven't
I’ll keep doing what is ethically sound for living conscious beings and is recommended by scientific consensus as good for the environment/climate, and you just keep on saying whatever the hell all these comments were to other people who probably also don’t want the most nested back and forth dialogue possible that goes nowhere.
implying your interlocutor is unethical for doubting your unproven claim is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
ruminants can be raised entirely on grazing, and nothing is more efficient than letting an animal live until it's fat enough and slaughtering it.
Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?
No.
you have no idea what is in my local meat markets.
A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven't accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.
B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?
C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you'd still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.
Reminder that you started with 'I dont see how less workers would be exploited.' And we've arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I'm growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.
I've never done that
I am not antivegan
my identity is irrelevant to whether I am right
I have never done that
you're attitude is shitty. you can't accept that you made a hyperbolic claim and go off on rants that cross the line into hostility to someone who had the temerity to disbelieve your wild claim. get help.
people absolutely do that.
and you still haven't made a compelling case, but you have shown that it's not even a real concern for you, given that you are actually interested in pushing an ideology and are grasping at straws to support it.
I should have just went to your profile right away and saved the trouble lol
The ideology doesn't detract from the obvious. You're ignoring the laws of thermodynamics for non-grazing animals because in your head there is some fictional world where there is exclusive grazing animals that everyone exclusively eats where reality puts that at maybe 0.0001% of real human diets. Your intentions are dubious at best, and I grow tired of you. If you really wanted to have a productive conversation, you could have explained what about the methodology of the UN's FAO paper on land use you disagreed with, but I guess you can just reference some other paper and go 'well it's allegedly at least in my brain like this other one I read so therefore all goes in the trash.' I am not a data/environmental scientist so if you want to debate bro about the particulars of those papers or their methodology seek out people who may or may not be more educated than you, personally I think they'll have an even harder time taking you seriously.
You can probably even get a direct email out to those who wrote the papers you disagree with. They might laugh a little, but they may actually respond. Who knows. But I'm good dawg, I'll keep doing what is ethically sound for living conscious beings and is recommended by scientific consensus as good for the environment/climate, and you just keep on saying whatever the hell all these comments were to other people who probably also don't want the most nested back and forth dialogue possible that goes nowhere. Maybe you're not 'anti-vegan' but to engage with this content as frequently as you do, you clearly have a motive - and unlike you, Vegans will be upfront and honest about theirs. You should stop hiding your intent/background. But again, I'm good dawg. I'm interested in dialogue that can actually change people's minds to lead a more compassionate and sustainable life and it's clear you'll not change your ways and no one is reading this so it will not influence others either. You will continue paying other people to kill animals irrespective of any evidence I provide and hilariously claim it's not evidence. No interest in interacting in future, giving you the solid block. Have a nice day.
appeal to ridicule
i don't. i just wanted to point out that you made a claim that you can't prove.
i spend my time how i like, and you don't get to dictate how i communicate.
did you read the sources for any of those links. they are all drawing on poore-nemecek.
more poisoning of the well.
ah. the thought-terminating cliche and the announced block. lovely. truthfully, i love the lemmy block system.
rhetorical posturing
more unfounded claims
poisoning the well
another appeal to ridicule
irony
you weren't. you started off making unfounded claims about labor practices, and only revealed later that you have some other motivation.
more poisoning the well and innuendo
i never made any such claim.
no i'm not
poore won't write back. i can't see why.
i've never done that. most people haven't
implying your interlocutor is unethical for doubting your unproven claim is the height of intellectual dishonesty.