<p><a href="http://www.petaindia.com/argumentposter.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.petaindia.com/argumentposter.pdf</a></p>
<p>this one works....</p>
<p>are you doing it intentionally....playing dumb so that i get frustrated.</p>
<p>First, that link doesnt work</p>
<p>Second, PETA is a radical interest group that has been known in the past to exaggerate statistics or even make them up. Remember they are the organization that has been in trouble for terrorism. </p>
<p>I buy you biomass argument to an extent, I still think the effects are minimal on humans and that article says nothing to change my mind.</p>
<p>anyways,
read it carefully...tho there isnt anything about humans...it explains how biological magnification works...combine my post and you will understand what i mean
hafta go
brothers b'day :(
i enjoyed our debate
had fun</p>
<p>LOL so you copied and pasted all of your facts from a PETA poster on how to "win an argument with a meat eater" with no warrants, no case studies, no polls, nothing.</p>
<p>Yum. I'm about to eat a spicy chicken burrito from taco bell.</p>
<p>before i go and bore myself at a kid party...</p>
<p>here is what i wud like to say:
i am not a gullible fool. i was born in a family of meat eaters....i am veg. of my own accord. </p>
<p>"no warrants, no case studies, no polls, nothing."
google search the topic....you will get evreything. i have seen similar facts ... in newspapers...unbiased reputed science journals...i have numerous the cuttings right here with me.</p>
<p>sagar_indurkhya
*********** and*******<strong><em>and</em></strong>*******</p>
<p>that is exactly the thing that ****es me off about meat eaters....
they always resort to cheap tatics to win....hell, at least i am providing some facts...if you are so sure that "meat eating" is better why dont u give me facts to refute mine....</p>
<p>and all it requires is a little bit of logic....
for eg.
growing a tonne/kg of potatoes require less water than growing a tonne/kg of meat...</p>
<p>when you grow potatoes...all you need is water to water the fields..</p>
<p>but for producing meat:
1) you need water for producing corn or anyother intended feed
2) animals drink a lot of water...gallns and gallons
(3) you need to clean the animals and their sheds too....but that isnt significant)</p>
<p>so if someone says...growing a tonne/kg of potatoes require less water than growing a tonne/kg of meat it is RATIONAL AND LOGICAL.</p>
<p>sagar_indurkhya
another
******* and *************** and ******</p>
<p>( i feel so better)</p>
<p>The thing that I dont like is you are invasive. Who are you to criticize others personal choice? I dont have a problem with vegans and I think it is a healthy way of life if done properly, I just hate it when people have the nerve to criticize others and make generalizations about meat eaters.</p>
<p>ryan
i never criticized you....all i called you was an idiot...( and that too affectionately :) hahaha)
i was just posting random facts....when u butted in and got me all charged up.
i have nothing against meat eaters...my whole family eats meat with the exception of my great grandpa :) ....i still love them..:)
at the end of the day....turning veg. is a personal choice so...it is entirely up to you.:)</p>
<p>and also
it is hard not to be rude when peple like sagar interrupt</p>
<p>"Yum. I'm about to eat a spicy chicken burrito from taco bell."</p>
<p>wasnt that cheap???</p>
<p>I thought you said you had to go?</p>
<p>yes but my brother isnt ready yet.</p>
<p>also the point is not that there are free roaming varieties available....the point is that the majority of the animals that are kept for meat are kept in inhumane conditions....and as an animal lover...i feel it is my "self assigned" duty to promote the cause of animal welfare</p>
<p>who cares if eating meat causes cancer...??? personally i dont...
i would remain veg. even if i knew that eating veggies causes cancer....
My suffering isnt as important as that of millions of animals worldwide...they have an equal right over this world.....they belong here too. </p>
<p>our society is full of hypocrites...we watch 'CHICKEN LITTLE' while eating chicken little :(</p>
<p>(lame example....but true..:( )</p>
<p>also if sagar comes here....********** and **********. (i feel much much better)</p>
<p>
[quote]
growing a tonne/kg of potatoes require less water than growing a tonne/kg of meat...</p>
<p>when you grow potatoes...all you need is water to water the fields..</p>
<p>but for producing meat:
1) you need water for producing corn or anyother intended feed
2) animals drink a lot of water...gallns and gallons
(3) you need to clean the animals and their sheds too....but that isnt significant)</p>
<p>so if someone says...growing a tonne/kg of potatoes require less water than growing a tonne/kg of meat it is RATIONAL AND LOGICAL.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok when did i argue on this point? All I said was that people in third world countries cannot grow potatoes because the land is useless and most of the time they dont own the land. </p>
<p>Second, if you refer again to previous posts most third world countries do not have an abundance of livestock because they cannot afford it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but i guess ryan you lack both the ability to rationalize and reason logically...it is you who is acting like an A S S H O L E. trying to close your eyes to facts doent change them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Talk about a cheap shot. Im not closing my eyes to any facts because over half of the "facts" you have presented to me either dont make any sense and are warantless or really are not relevant due to the way society works. I never called you any bad names, you started it.</p>
<p>Not only is eating meat unhealthy, cruel to animals, and bad environmentally, there are also other health issues like this to consider. <a href="http://www.kfcmademesick.com/?c=st71%5B/url%5D">http://www.kfcmademesick.com/?c=st71</a></p>
<p>There is a thing that doesn't make any sense about the "survival" part of the idiotic poster that was posted above...
We have canines: The purpose of canines are to tear meat. Don't give me any BS that we are not naturally supposed to eat meat. If that was true we would not have canines and all our teeth would be flat. We are animals and that will lead me to my next point. Lions go around killing zerbas, etc. Lions = Animals; Humans = Animals. Why shouldn't we go around killing animals for our food?
shakespeare_123... Bad environmentally? Where do you get that BS? The vegetarians are actually worse for the environment because (I am making an assumption right now) many vegetarians are pro-organic people... Organic foods are horrendous for the environment. You have to continuously go to other places to plant the food since organic farming ruins the soil. Also by supporting organics you are killing other humans. Yes, you are killing other humans. Greenpeace forced an African government to not listen to Norman Borlaug (who wanted to use Bioengineering to provide food for them that would be able to withstand the weather), but instead to Greenpeace's lies and now the government is not able to provide food for its citizens and now thousands of people are dying of hunger because they did not want bioengineered food. Also if you have a population of 60 people and ratio"ize" the food to the same proportions for today's population and used organic farming, 20 people would die because organic farming is not sustainable.
Also in regards to animal protein- YOU NEED IT to live!!! "Conversely, diets that contain no animal protein... can cause a deficiency in those essential amino acids" Hmmm... who is unhealthy now?
Cruelty? Have animals gone up to you and told them that they are suffering?</p>
<p>Also by being a vegetarian you are a terrorist because you support PETA who in turn gives money (and lots of it) to organizations that are on the United States Terrorist List!!!</p>
<p>shakespeare ( i love you... :) )</p>
<p>ryan,</p>
<p>("Ok when did i argue on this point? All I said was that people in third world countries cannot grow potatoes because the land is useless and most of the time they dont own the land.") </p>
<p>oh!! the useless land can be used for growing corn for cattle....but it cant be used for growing foodgrains for man...thats strange. btw third world countries dont have useless infertile land....the banks of hwang ho, nile and ganges (my three fav. rivers) are one of the most fertile in the world....the basmati you eat is grown on the banks of indus in pakistan...jute (i doubt that you use it)...is grown in bangladesh...largest delta in the world....the finest cotton grows on the bank of nile...egypt</p>
<p>("Second, if you refer again to previous posts most third world countries do not have an abundance of livestock because they cannot afford it.")</p>
<p>ryan it is you who needs to have his facts verified....india ( a third world country) has the most livestock in the world.....cows, buffaloes everything. argentina is the largest exporter of beef (definitely not a first world country)....</p>
<p>Ravin... get his figures straight? How can we trust your information if you data is not even close to correct! Argentina is the largest exporter of beef? Try Australia (1st world) as number 1 and USA (1st world) as number 2
Also by being a vegetarian, you are hurting your brain! Just a dandy reason to be a vegetarian, right?
Ohh and since you are not a doctor, here is a doctor to disprove you ravin...</p>
<p>"Some have argued that cows and sheep require pasturage that could be better used to raise grains to feed starving millions in Third World countries. Additionally, claims are made that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods. Both arguments are illogical and simplistic. </p>
<p>The pasturage argument ignores the fact that a large portion of our Earth's dry land is unsuited to cultivation. The open range and desert and mountainous areas yield their fruits to grazing animals (1). </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the bulk of commercial livestock are not range fed, but stall fed. They do not ingest grasses and shrubs (like they should), but are fed an unnatural array of grains and soybeans. It is true that these foods could be fed to humans. The argument here, then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth's resources, but that commercial farming methods do. Such methods also subject livestock to deplorable living conditions where infections, antibiotics, steroids and synthetic hormones are common. These all lead to an unhealthy animal and, by extension, an unhealthy food product. Organically raised livestock, then, is a healthier and more humane choice (see myth #15 for more on this topic). </p>
<p>As for the claims that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods, water that livestock drink would be drunk by them anyway, even if they were not being raised for food. Additionally, the urine of grazing animals, which mostly comprises water, is rich in nitrogen which helps replenish the soil. Much of the water used in commercial livestock farming, however, is used up in growing the various grains and soybeans fed to the animals. If a concerted effort were made to return to the ecologically sound "mixed farm," (described below), then such huge expenditures of water would be unnecessary. </p>
<p>A far more serious threat to humanity, and the Earth, is the monoculture of grains and legumes, advocated by some vegetarian groups, which depletes the soil and requires the heavy use of artificial fertilisers and dangerous pesticides; pesticides that must first be tested on animals for safety (2). </p>
<p>The solution? Astute writers on this dilemma have pointed out: </p>
<p>The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient,
economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems. (3)</p>
<p>The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. British organic farmer and dairyman Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (4). Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples?</p>
<p>Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of "battery farming" by saying: </p>
<p>Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] amd salmoella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems."</p>