Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)C
Posts
4
Comments
597
Joined
3 yr. ago

i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.

  • Theres plenty of evidence that reducing meat production where possible will help everyone.

    this is a different claim than you made before

  • How would we do that without dramatically reducing the amount of meat being produced?

    maybe you can't, but it seems like you think that would be a good outcome.

  • Given that 80% of all agricultural land is used to feed and raise animals

    that's not a given, though. about 93% of all soybeans are used by humans, but about 77% of the cropweight is fed to animals. how can this be reconciled? because we press about 85% of the soybeans for oil, and the byproduct is fed to animals. so we can't say 77% of the land used to grow soybeans is used for animals. 93% is for humans. this myopic focus on distilling all facets of the industry into discrete datapoints fails to understand the system as a whole.

    edit:

    and it should come as no surprise that poore-nemecek has also infected this link as well.

  • Where’s the evidence that your idea is any better than mine anyways?

    i didn't present any other idea. i said you don't have any evidence your idea holds water.

  • Factory farms won’t get better until demand reduces

    I don't believe you have any proof of this. there is no mechanism by which reducing demand would improve factory farms.

  • the goal of veganism is to reduce animal exploitation.

  • the vegan society definition makes no mention of consent at all, only exploitation

  • Beef and dairy? Causes huge amount of greenhouse gasses and with current methods of production, it is not sustainable

    what makes you think this?

  • Eating animals and their secretions requires harming significantly more plants than eating the plants directly because animals need to be fed too,

    and they are mostly fed parts of plants that people can't or won't eat. the same field that grows soybeans for human consumption is growing animal feed, it's just different parts of the plant.

  • you are putting specific terminology in place of the words as written,and claiming it's a clear connotation, when it is not

  • federated not Facebook

  • I use a lowercase c because I'm anticapitalist

  • she already rejected it before the article was published. it's in the article

  • Jill rejected the endorsement, unlike Harris

  • for individuals who pay retail price for all their food. people who get free meat or dairy or harvest their own are not a party of that study. it applies to almost none of the poor people in the world, including the UK and Europe

  • your attack on my style does not address the substance of my objections. it is pure sophistry.

  • I've read the paper, seen absolutely nothing wrong with it

    I've read it too, and enough of it's references to understand that LCAs are not transferable between studies, and so all the LCA analysis must be disregarded.

    I also have looked at enough of the source LCA data to understand that much of the water and land use (and GHG emissions) attributed to animal agriculture is actually a conservation of those same resources, as they come from second-and- third uses of crops.

  • the only attempt I could find to debunk this paper was from, again, a disinformation outlet whose lies are explored in that AFP article

    their objection had nothing to do with mine

  • but we DO make tofu and tvp. and they have higher profits per pound than animal feed. but we produce far too much soybean oil for the amount of byproduct people want to consume. giving it to livestock makes sense