The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Not that I'm for the world wide destruction of cows, but they are in no way necessary for people to survive.
Cow's milk based formula is still the closest to breast milk, though. Not to mention being known as the best source of nutrition for babies.
I got beaten on the goat's milk part and for the record it is recommended specifically for being closer in composition to human milk. But are you really trying to say that cow milk based formula is known as the best source of nutrition for babies?
Cause I'd like to argue that the best source of nutrition for babies is actually human milk.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
0
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
Continuing a practice that has a significant negative impact on the environment because it produces something that's tasty is dumb.
However, advocating the extinction of an entire species to stop this instead of just changing the practice to be far less harmful is insane.
We've wiped out "entire species" for worse reasons and sometimes no reason at all. Suddenly when someone suggests drastically reducing numbers of one overblown species to bring balance back to the ecosystem (which we do already for some animal populations) and prevent the extinction of countless others in the process, it's insane? On what grounds? Morally, this has even more validity than "sparing" the cows just so they can be perpetually slaughtered for human consumption.
You think if the earth dies, that's not going to hurt a few species? Including cows?
I seriously can not understand why the OP of this thread would advocate the eradication of the moo cow. We'd just move onto the next animal and do the same damn thing. And even if we don't, what about the children? Would we replace their milk with the soy bean variety? Didn't an infant fucking die from drinking nothing but that?
Other animals make milk, such as goats... and about every other mammal in existence. Face it, we really don't need cows.
And no, "delicious" is not a compelling argument.
Glyph on
0
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
I seriously can not understand why the OP of this thread would advocate the eradication of the moo cow. We'd just move onto the next animal and do the same damn thing. And even if we don't, what about the children? Would we replace their milk with the soy bean variety? Didn't an infant fucking die from drinking nothing but that?
Other animals make milk, such as goats... and about every other mammal in existence. Face it, we really don't need cows. And no, "delicious" is not a compelling argument.
The point is we'd just move onto the next animal and do the same thing!
I seriously can not understand why the OP of this thread would advocate the eradication of the moo cow. We'd just move onto the next animal and do the same damn thing. And even if we don't, what about the children? Would we replace their milk with the soy bean variety? Didn't an infant fucking die from drinking nothing but that?
Other animals make milk, such as goats... and about every other mammal in existence. Face it, we really don't need cows. And no, "delicious" is not a compelling argument.
The point is we'd just move onto the next animal and do the same thing!
Except that cows are specifically the ones releasing the concentrated greenhouse gas in copious quantities.
We've wiped out "entire species" for worse reasons and sometimes no reason at all. Suddenly when someone suggests drastically reducing numbers of one overblown species to bring balance back to the ecosystem (which we do already for some animal populations) and prevent the extinction of countless others in the process, it's insane? On what grounds? Morally, this has even more validity than "sparing" the cows just so they can be perpetually slaughtered for human consumption.
You think if the earth dies, that's not going to hurt a few species? Including cows?
The way cattle is currently being raised is environmentally irresponsible.
We've wiped out "entire species" for worse reasons and sometimes no reason at all. Suddenly when someone suggests drastically reducing numbers of one overblown species to bring balance back to the ecosystem (which we do already for some animal populations) and prevent the extinction of countless others in the process, it's insane? On what grounds? Morally, this has even more validity than "sparing" the cows just so they can be perpetually slaughtered for human consumption.
You think if the earth dies, that's not going to hurt a few species? Including cows?
The way cattle is currently being raised is environmentally irresponsible.
This does not require killing them all.
It requires raising them responsibly.
Which should include reducing their numbers to a more manageable, ecologically healthy size.
I seriously can not understand why the OP of this thread would advocate the eradication of the moo cow. We'd just move onto the next animal and do the same damn thing. And even if we don't, what about the children? Would we replace their milk with the soy bean variety? Didn't an infant fucking die from drinking nothing but that?
Other animals make milk, such as goats... and about every other mammal in existence. Face it, we really don't need cows. And no, "delicious" is not a compelling argument.
The point is we'd just move onto the next animal and do the same thing!
Except that cows are specifically the ones releasing the concentrated greenhouse gas in copious quantities.
BUT YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT! If we wipe out the cows and say move on to goats, it won't be long before they're emitting the same amount of green house gases. We need to change how they are farmed rather than simply kill them off. Remember the methane digesters? How about implementing more of those instead.
I seriously can not understand why the OP of this thread would advocate the eradication of the moo cow. We'd just move onto the next animal and do the same damn thing. And even if we don't, what about the children? Would we replace their milk with the soy bean variety? Didn't an infant fucking die from drinking nothing but that?
Other animals make milk, such as goats... and about every other mammal in existence. Face it, we really don't need cows. And no, "delicious" is not a compelling argument.
The point is we'd just move onto the next animal and do the same thing!
Except that cows are specifically the ones releasing the concentrated greenhouse gas in copious quantities.
BUT YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT! If we wipe out the cows and say move on to goats, it won't be long before they're emitting the same amount of green house gases. We need to change how they are farmed rather than simply kill them off. Remember the methane digesters? Impliment more instead.
I don't think you're feeling me, chief. When I say it's the cow, I mean it's the cow.
...microbes respire in the cattle gut by an anaerobic process known as methanogenesis (producing the gas methane). Cattle emit a large volume of methane, 95% of it through eructation or burping, not flatulence. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, having a warming effect 23 to 50 times greater... "even a small increase in methane concentration in the atmosphere exerts a potentially significant contribution to global warming".
Ok chiming in here- The only reason at all that I am a vegetarian is because of the effects that conventional meat farming has on the environment (I live in the carolinas, so check this and http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=68 that second article in particular:
Hog Waste Pollution
The traditional means of disposal for hog feces and urine has been open-air lagoon pits (basically big holding ponds for waste) and sprayfields.
Which leads to:
he lagoons sometimes rupture after heavy rains, and the fields on which waste is sprayed leak polluted runoff into streams and rivers.
The worst hog-waste spill in state history sent 25 million gallons of waste gushing into the New River this week, killing fish and taking the battle over the hog industry to a new level.
FUCK.
This is because businesses are driven by the bottom dollar, and in order to provide the mass quantity of hogmeat needed each day in America at the low low prices consumers want, it is cheaper to just store pig waste in huge pits. There is a rolling stone article out there that describes how these farmers have MILES of pigs just to keep up with demand.
That is sick. Not only is this a horrible way to keep animals, but this is part of the reason we have so many meat scares. It is really easy to get contaminated meat when they live in their own excrement, and that excrement is kept nearby in HUGE PUDDLES OF SHIT AND PISS AND DEAD PIGS.
And that is just the pork industry.
I am doing my part in lowering demand for these products so that maybe they have to provide better quality meat and pay a little more attention to what they are doing.
And also to the idiots arguing that you NEED MEAT to bulk up- Every plant-based protein powder on earth says Hi.
And as the majority of us (Americans) AREN'T professional weight lifters and body builders, we definitely can get by nutritionally on alternate protein sources.
I find it interesting that most people have come in here and in some way or another argued that we need a huge meat industry without even considering that there are very accessible sources of protein in other places.
Also- meat farming is INSANELY inefficient. The amount of resources it takes to raise these animals to a consumable state is mind-boggling especially considering the amount of "usable meat" we get off of them.
Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)
Come the fuck on people, this is a terrible way to utilize fossil fuels for what is honestly not necessary.
I don't think you're feeling me, chief. When I say it's the cow, I mean it's the cow.
...microbes respire in the cattle gut by an anaerobic process known as methanogenesis (producing the gas methane). Cattle emit a large volume of methane, 95% of it through eructation or burping, not flatulence. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, having a warming effect 23 to 50 times greater... "even a small increase in methane concentration in the atmosphere exerts a potentially significant contribution to global warming".
On the other hand as opposed to CO2, methane is easy to destroy and produces clean power. All in the same step!
I say we harness that shit.
Not that I'm for the world wide destruction of cows, but they are in no way necessary for people to survive.
Cow's milk based formula is still the closest to breast milk, though. Not to mention being known as the best source of nutrition for babies.
I got beaten on the goat's milk part and for the record it is recommended specifically for being closer in composition to human milk. But are you really trying to say that cow milk based formula is known as the best source of nutrition for babies?
Cause I'd like to argue that the best source of nutrition for babies is actually human milk.
Aw, jesus, please do not start a "breast is best" argument. I have to listen to that shit too much already. The breast-feeding bridgade are worse than fundies.
Not that I'm for the world wide destruction of cows, but they are in no way necessary for people to survive.
Cow's milk based formula is still the closest to breast milk, though. Not to mention being known as the best source of nutrition for babies.
I got beaten on the goat's milk part and for the record it is recommended specifically for being closer in composition to human milk. But are you really trying to say that cow milk based formula is known as the best source of nutrition for babies?
Cause I'd like to argue that the best source of nutrition for babies is actually human milk.
Aw, jesus, please do not start a "breast is best" argument. I have to listen to that shit too much already. The breast-feeding bridgade are worse than fundies.
Breast milk IS best. What the hell are you smoking? By breast feeding your child you pass on all the antibodies you have built up until that point, as well as further fostering the pair bond between mother and child.
Also considering that breast milk is what babies were made to eat and it is packed with all the nutrition (sugars, protein, and fats) that your child needs.
Not that I'm for the world wide destruction of cows, but they are in no way necessary for people to survive.
Cow's milk based formula is still the closest to breast milk, though. Not to mention being known as the best source of nutrition for babies.
I got beaten on the goat's milk part and for the record it is recommended specifically for being closer in composition to human milk. But are you really trying to say that cow milk based formula is known as the best source of nutrition for babies?
Cause I'd like to argue that the best source of nutrition for babies is actually human milk.
Aw, jesus, please do not start a "breast is best" argument. I have to listen to that shit too much already. The breast-feeding bridgade are worse than fundies.
Breast milk IS best. What the hell are you smoking? By breast feeding your child you pass on all the antibodies you have built up until that point, as well as further fostering the pair bond between mother and child.
Also considering that breast milk is what babies were made to eat and it is packed with all the nutrition (sugars, protein, and fats) that your child needs.
Except lots of people, for one reason or another, CAN'T breast feed. And then people feel the need to not mind their own fucking business and tell those non-breastfeeding mothers what a horrible thing they are doing to their child.
Not to mention the ridiculous amount of pressure from the breast-is-besters on new moms, contributing to a lot of unneeded anxiety when breastfeeding isn't working. Nothing like being told that you're a failure because nature decided not to cooperate, right?
Yeah, breastmilk is best. But formula isn't exactly rat poison, you know? Anyways, I hear enough of this shit from my stressed out pregnant wife already, so lets just leave it be.
Except lots of people, for one reason or another, CAN'T breast feed. And then people feel the need to not mind their own fucking business and tell those non-breastfeeding mothers what a horrible thing they are doing to their child.
Are any of those people in this thread doing that?
Except lots of people, for one reason or another, CAN'T breast feed. And then people feel the need to not mind their own fucking business and tell those non-breastfeeding mothers what a horrible thing they are doing to their child.
Are any of those people in this thread doing that?
No, but my original comment was to not start the "breast is best" debate, and the next comment was a bunch of stuff about why breast milk is best.
I KNOW it's best. But for some people it's not an option. So there's not really a debate to have. It's like arguing with a man with one arm about how it's important to drive with your hands at 10 and 2.
Maybe we don't have to kill literally every single cow on Earth, but enough that we would no longer be able to use them as a staple. And of course there are other alternatives that could easily provide for both our milk and meat needs. One thing remains certain, approximately 90% of the cattle population will need to be culled off eventually
Except lots of people, for one reason or another, CAN'T breast feed. And then people feel the need to not mind their own fucking business and tell those non-breastfeeding mothers what a horrible thing they are doing to their child.
Are any of those people in this thread doing that?
No, but my original comment was to not start the "breast is best" debate, and the next comment was a bunch of stuff about why breast milk is best.
I KNOW it's best. But for some people it's not an option. So there's not really a debate to have. It's like arguing with a man with one arm about how it's important to drive with your hands at 10 and 2.
What the fuck does this have to do with cows? There are other viable alternatives to breast milk AND cow milk, such as goat milk which someone already mentioned is closer to human milk anyway.
Glyph on
0
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
Except lots of people, for one reason or another, CAN'T breast feed. And then people feel the need to not mind their own fucking business and tell those non-breastfeeding mothers what a horrible thing they are doing to their child.
Are any of those people in this thread doing that?
No, but my original comment was to not start the "breast is best" debate, and the next comment was a bunch of stuff about why breast milk is best.
I KNOW it's best. But for some people it's not an option. So there's not really a debate to have. It's like arguing with a man with one arm about how it's important to drive with your hands at 10 and 2.
No, your original comment was in fact you starting the debate by bringing it up in the first place, specifically in a manner that appeared to contend that "breast is best" isn't factually correct. What you should instead have done was just not bothered. But then you wouldn't have given yourself this golden opportunity to blame your personal stress levels on some anonymous internet peoples instead of the people who are actually bugging you/your wife about it.
Maybe we don't have to kill literally every single cow on Earth, but enough that we would no longer be able to use them as a staple. And of course there are other alternatives that could easily provide for both our milk and meat needs. One thing remains certain, approximately 90% of the cattle population will need to be culled off eventually
Live it, love it, learn it.
You also ask if they should be driven to extinction. Which is an insanely stupid question.
Maybe we don't have to kill literally every single cow on Earth, but enough that we would no longer be able to use them as a staple. And of course there are other alternatives that could easily provide for both our milk and meat needs. One thing remains certain, approximately 90% of the cattle population will need to be culled off eventually
Live it, love it, learn it.
You also ask if they should be driven to extinction. Which is an insanely stupid question.
And I'd love to see where you get the 90% number.
Yea, I guess I also didn't address this in my post- Killing them all is dumb. Dumb Dumb Dumb.
BUT we definately need to change our farming methods, standards of living for farm raised animals, and ideas about consumption of meat without a doubt, along with developing better ways to dispose of farm waste.
That is sick. Not only is this a horrible way to keep animals, but this is part of the reason we have so many meat scares. It is really easy to get contaminated meat when they live in their own excrement, and that excrement is kept nearby in HUGE PUDDLES OF SHIT AND PISS AND DEAD PIGS.
What are you on about? Our food supply is safer that at any point in history. I mean, there are good arguments against current agricultural policy, but this is just fear mongering idiocy. Oh noes, a tiny sliver of our country was maybe possibly exposed to salmonella, stop the presses.
I find it interesting that most people have come in here and in some way or another argued that we need a huge meat industry without even considering that there are very accessible sources of protein in other places.
No one wants to live in your soy-topia so discussing it like it is a possibility is just silly. You may as well as wish that a unicorn would come by and make soy taste like ambrosia. Heavy handed shifts in demand are not going to be feasible.
Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)
Come the fuck on people, this is a terrible way to utilize fossil fuels for what is honestly not necessary.
The vast majority of what we use fossil fuels for is not necessary, so using energy ratios is absurd. I mean, what is the energy ratio of your internet usage? My god, it is INFINITY.
I mean, if you want to price energy so that we are taking into account its impact on the environment, fine. If you want to add some sort of tax on heads of cattle to address their externalities and shift demand, fine as well. If you want to embrace some notion that we are all going to just go along with becoming vegetarians or massively shifting our consumption habits to goats because, well fuck cows, then you are living in crazytown.
Posts
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Not that I'm for the world wide destruction of cows, but they are in no way necessary for people to survive.
Soil bean milk isn`t true milk. It`s a fucking oil. Because of that it have that awful taste.
Hi. I'm a vegetarian, and I work out at the gym and (money permitting) train muay thai.
You dont really need to get huge to do those things.
Cow's milk based formula is still the closest to breast milk, though. Not to mention being known as the best source of nutrition for babies.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Yep. It would make more logical sense to advocate for the eradication of humans.
What's your point?
I got beaten on the goat's milk part and for the record it is recommended specifically for being closer in composition to human milk. But are you really trying to say that cow milk based formula is known as the best source of nutrition for babies?
Cause I'd like to argue that the best source of nutrition for babies is actually human milk.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
for power lifting, body building, strong man - you do. thus the meat.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
We've wiped out "entire species" for worse reasons and sometimes no reason at all. Suddenly when someone suggests drastically reducing numbers of one overblown species to bring balance back to the ecosystem (which we do already for some animal populations) and prevent the extinction of countless others in the process, it's insane? On what grounds? Morally, this has even more validity than "sparing" the cows just so they can be perpetually slaughtered for human consumption.
You think if the earth dies, that's not going to hurt a few species? Including cows?
Other animals make milk, such as goats... and about every other mammal in existence. Face it, we really don't need cows.
And no, "delicious" is not a compelling argument.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Gosh, if only there were non-meat sources of protein.
Except that cows are specifically the ones releasing the concentrated greenhouse gas in copious quantities.
This does not require killing them all.
It requires raising them responsibly.
Which should include reducing their numbers to a more manageable, ecologically healthy size.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
I don't think you're feeling me, chief. When I say it's the cow, I mean it's the cow.
Which leads to:
They are talking about this disaster which led to:
FUCK.
This is because businesses are driven by the bottom dollar, and in order to provide the mass quantity of hogmeat needed each day in America at the low low prices consumers want, it is cheaper to just store pig waste in huge pits. There is a rolling stone article out there that describes how these farmers have MILES of pigs just to keep up with demand.
That is sick. Not only is this a horrible way to keep animals, but this is part of the reason we have so many meat scares. It is really easy to get contaminated meat when they live in their own excrement, and that excrement is kept nearby in HUGE PUDDLES OF SHIT AND PISS AND DEAD PIGS.
And that is just the pork industry.
I am doing my part in lowering demand for these products so that maybe they have to provide better quality meat and pay a little more attention to what they are doing.
And also to the idiots arguing that you NEED MEAT to bulk up- Every plant-based protein powder on earth says Hi.
And as the majority of us (Americans) AREN'T professional weight lifters and body builders, we definitely can get by nutritionally on alternate protein sources.
I find it interesting that most people have come in here and in some way or another argued that we need a huge meat industry without even considering that there are very accessible sources of protein in other places.
Also- meat farming is INSANELY inefficient. The amount of resources it takes to raise these animals to a consumable state is mind-boggling especially considering the amount of "usable meat" we get off of them.
Check this shit out
Come the fuck on people, this is a terrible way to utilize fossil fuels for what is honestly not necessary.
There are alternate sources of protein if you just HAVE to farm-raise and eat something.
On the other hand as opposed to CO2, methane is easy to destroy and produces clean power. All in the same step!
I say we harness that shit.
Aw, jesus, please do not start a "breast is best" argument. I have to listen to that shit too much already. The breast-feeding bridgade are worse than fundies.
Breast milk IS best. What the hell are you smoking? By breast feeding your child you pass on all the antibodies you have built up until that point, as well as further fostering the pair bond between mother and child.
Also considering that breast milk is what babies were made to eat and it is packed with all the nutrition (sugars, protein, and fats) that your child needs.
Except lots of people, for one reason or another, CAN'T breast feed. And then people feel the need to not mind their own fucking business and tell those non-breastfeeding mothers what a horrible thing they are doing to their child.
Not to mention the ridiculous amount of pressure from the breast-is-besters on new moms, contributing to a lot of unneeded anxiety when breastfeeding isn't working. Nothing like being told that you're a failure because nature decided not to cooperate, right?
Yeah, breastmilk is best. But formula isn't exactly rat poison, you know? Anyways, I hear enough of this shit from my stressed out pregnant wife already, so lets just leave it be.
No, but my original comment was to not start the "breast is best" debate, and the next comment was a bunch of stuff about why breast milk is best.
I KNOW it's best. But for some people it's not an option. So there's not really a debate to have. It's like arguing with a man with one arm about how it's important to drive with your hands at 10 and 2.
From the OP:
Live it, love it, learn it.
What the fuck does this have to do with cows? There are other viable alternatives to breast milk AND cow milk, such as goat milk which someone already mentioned is closer to human milk anyway.
No, your original comment was in fact you starting the debate by bringing it up in the first place, specifically in a manner that appeared to contend that "breast is best" isn't factually correct. What you should instead have done was just not bothered. But then you wouldn't have given yourself this golden opportunity to blame your personal stress levels on some anonymous internet peoples instead of the people who are actually bugging you/your wife about it.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I swear to God, I'll do it!
*For the purposes of extinction.
And I'd love to see where you get the 90% number.
Yea, I guess I also didn't address this in my post- Killing them all is dumb. Dumb Dumb Dumb.
BUT we definately need to change our farming methods, standards of living for farm raised animals, and ideas about consumption of meat without a doubt, along with developing better ways to dispose of farm waste.
Seriously folks, give my post a read-over a bit.
Nitpick all you want. I don't think it's insane to want to save the world. Quite the reverse actually.
What are you on about? Our food supply is safer that at any point in history. I mean, there are good arguments against current agricultural policy, but this is just fear mongering idiocy. Oh noes, a tiny sliver of our country was maybe possibly exposed to salmonella, stop the presses.
No one wants to live in your soy-topia so discussing it like it is a possibility is just silly. You may as well as wish that a unicorn would come by and make soy taste like ambrosia. Heavy handed shifts in demand are not going to be feasible.
The vast majority of what we use fossil fuels for is not necessary, so using energy ratios is absurd. I mean, what is the energy ratio of your internet usage? My god, it is INFINITY.
I mean, if you want to price energy so that we are taking into account its impact on the environment, fine. If you want to add some sort of tax on heads of cattle to address their externalities and shift demand, fine as well. If you want to embrace some notion that we are all going to just go along with becoming vegetarians or massively shifting our consumption habits to goats because, well fuck cows, then you are living in crazytown.