Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Anyone wanna be Vegetarian, but just couldn't?

Anyone wanna be Vegetarian, but just couldn't?
 
1.Yes, but vegetarian dish hard to come by. [ 10 ] ** [11.11%]
2.Yes, but vegetarian restaurants mahal gile. [ 23 ] ** [25.56%]
3.Yes, but not enough energy. [ 9 ] ** [10.00%]
4.Yes, but vegetarian too fast hungry [ 15 ] ** [16.67%]
5.Yes, but this means animals has no reason to live. [ 33 ] ** [36.67%]
Total Votes: 90
Guests cannot vote 
views
     
bigwolf
post Jul 29 2016, 09:57 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
269 posts

Joined: Aug 2011


QUOTE(icehart85 @ Jul 29 2016, 11:32 AM)
Cant be bothered anymore, since he has the tendency to rubbish even very valid studies. LOL  yawn.gif

Your post below summarize it in a nutshell:
*
Rubbish valid studies? When did I do that? Stupid vegan don't even know he painted himself into a corner lol rclxm9.gif

1. Do you agree livestock farming accounts for only 18% - 25% worldwide GHG? Yes/No

2. Do you agree on the Netherlands study? Yes/No

Its a catch-22 situation for you vegan boy. Answer yes and you just acknowledged you talk crap about me, as well as your own 'vegan facts' are wrong. Answer no and you just disagreed with what your good friend posted, since those are his info. Your answer please icon_rolleyes.gif
ripplezone
post Aug 5 2016, 10:28 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
275 posts

Joined: Feb 2016
QUOTE(bigwolf @ Jul 29 2016, 08:04 PM)
LOL seems like ad hominen is becoming a favourite phrase of you and that vegan idiot, although I find it impressive the both of you can say it out with a straight face when you guys dish it out even better yourselves. Can't accept the fact you're a hypocritical meat eater and have to resort to crying ad hominem everywhere to paint yourself as victim?  rolleyes.gif
*
Ad hominem is when a fellow opponent or debater can't stick to, or refuses to, stick to measurable facts (and in this case good science) relating to the topic.

QUOTE(bigwolf @ Jul 29 2016, 08:04 PM)
Justification? Why should I? You are already prejudiced of my opinions. Tell you what, let me propose something even better. Make a poll and ask everybody whether you're advocating vegan diet or not. That's the best accurate indicator, with a bigger sample size instead of 1 (me). Got balls to do it?
*
You can do it. The results of a poll means shit without further justifications or quoting my particular posts, and the presence of a panel that verifies such claims.

Perhaps you're clueless in this area regarding data accuracy? wink.gif

QUOTE(bigwolf @ Jul 29 2016, 08:04 PM)
Now, had you bothered to use your brains to read properly, you'll find that I never disagreed with your info. It is your idiot vegan friend that has trouble accepting them. He's the one who challenged the GHG numbers, not me.
*
Wait, what? So you're attempting to diss me, based on another person's comments? HAHA.

Didn't you reply with contempt, my original comment which was offering a fellow forumer proper info?

QUOTE(bigwolf @ Jul 29 2016, 08:04 PM)
He's the one who can't accept any meat at all in our diet, not me (wtf are you posting the Netherlands study that still recommends meat, when vegan boy here can't even look at the word meat without puking much less eating it?). Oh but noooooooooo... anything by vegan/ icehart85 = factually and scientifically proven absolute truth. Others (especially bigwolf) = deluded, ignorant, misinformed and incorrect

So who's the one with cognitive dissonance here?  whistling.gif
*
So you're asking me, about MY reason for sharing that study with HIM?

Wow you're fairly interested in my life, aren't you? chuckles.

Simple: Because it supports the position that raising livestock and meat production is much more polluting and environmentally damaging than plant-based agriculture.
ripplezone
post Oct 13 2016, 04:46 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
275 posts

Joined: Feb 2016
QUOTE(lmunyee @ Jul 24 2016, 09:04 PM)
See? Ignore published research findings if they contradict your personal beliefs. Omg pathethic
*
Revisiting your comments. You're only "right" if you base your opinions on a media article.

However, you conclusions are entirely wrong. Judging from your posts you have not even read the paper itself.

You're cherry picking (perhaps unintentionally) whatever the media uses to spin an article worth selling / increase readership.

This is a portion of the actual content in the paper:

"Additionally, in light of the growing evidence that meat production has negative environmental implications, a number of studies including the aforementioned analyses examine the impacts of reducing meat consumption on resource use and emissions through the food supply system. The results of these studies (Heller and Keoleian 2014; Vanham et al. 2013a, b; Renault and Wallender 2000; Marlow et al. 2009) demonstrate that adopting a vegetarian diet or even reducing meat consumption by 50 % is more effective in reducing energy use, the blue water footprint, and GHG emissions through the food supply system than adopting a healthier diet based on regional dietary guidelines."

You don't see the media writing quoting that portion, do you? Why? It doesn't sell.

A more in-depth commentary by other experts (not the media) on that CMU study can be found here:

http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/upl...n_CMU_study.pdf
Einjahr
post Oct 13 2016, 04:49 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
87 posts

Joined: Dec 2010
QUOTE(hirano @ Jul 20 2016, 06:24 PM)
Chicken curry, but i didnt take the chicken. Count as veggie food laa. Curry je
*
Fail di sanaa
lel

Ask icehart85

18 Pages « < 16 17 18
Bump Topic Add ReplyOptions New Topic
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0354sec    0.33    8 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 10:09 PM