I actually agree (for the most part) with Willy Nilly on something...I'll be damned.

I love meat, and the thought of ever becoming a vegetarian seems pretty foreign to me. *However*, I know I eat too much of it, and I know the average american eats too much of it, and I believe a price increase in meat tied to a reduction of subsidies for producers, and the introduction of more sustainable/humane methods in its production, would be a very good thing for the health of our populace and for the environment. No intention of cutting it out of my diet but I'm trying to lower my consumption, particularly of red meat, and increase the percentage of it that is fish/shellfish. I keep hearing conflicting evidence about soy though, which makes me dubious of soy-based meat substitutes and soy milk. :-/

3/25/2009 12:20:42 PM

i think an even better thing for the health of our populace would be personal discretion

3/25/2009 12:22:47 PM

What was the contest? Who can be most obnoxious?

3/25/2009 12:23:19 PM

Quote :

"hah on that note, you obviously are terribly misinformed"

Nope. You are. (Refute this: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/natvart.php)

Quote :

"I actually agree (for the most part) with Willy Nilly on something...I'll be damned."

lol....
It's bound to happen to everyone at least once.

Quote :

"i think an even better thing for the health of our populace would be personal discretion"

Better than what? Is anyone proposing that people not be allowed discretion?

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:27 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 12:27:12 PM

I'm amazed some of you haven't read the story, though not surprised.

There seems to be a running theme here, we consume way too much of everything but no one gives a damn to stop it.

3/25/2009 12:27:35 PM

Quote :

"i think an even better thing for the health of our populace would be personal discretion"

We can still have promiscuous sex though, right?

3/25/2009 12:28:12 PM

Quote :

"i think an even better thing for the health of our populace would be personal discretion"

you mean people are capable of making their own decisions and, in turn, taking responsibility for their consequences?

surely you jest

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason : sadaf]

3/25/2009 12:28:20 PM

we dont need price increases in food products to get the consumers to improve their healthful living practices

especially when that increase is based on public perception of an industry rather than a reasonable level of truth

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM. Reason : f]

3/25/2009 12:28:28 PM

I have no problem with cutting back on meat for health reasons. I mean, I try to keep up with how much I'm eating and eat fish or chicken, etc when I'm not just craving some red meat. And I can somewhat go along with changing methods or whatever, although I'm actually impartial to it all. But for someone to say that I have NO RIGHT to buy meat because the government has subsidized the meat production industry is completely ridiculous. Apparently if something is subsidized by the government with taxpayer money then we have no right to participate in any of those things. Guess I'll just shut myself up in my house and curl up into a ball for fear of violating someone's "rights". I am going to exercise my right to go the the grocery store and buy a steak at a competive price point and devour that thing. I hope you choke on your fictional "rights"!

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:31 PM. Reason : spelling]

3/25/2009 12:28:39 PM

o and great, you cited an article from the United Kingdom

heavily anti-GMO and biotech

yea ill get right on that

3/25/2009 12:30:20 PM

^^the government doesn't want you to have any rights....durh....then you wouldn't depend on them


VIVA LA REGULATION!


fucking socialists

3/25/2009 12:33:52 PM

This study was only about red mat, taken over ten years, and required people to recall what they ate. Supposedly it is the most "accurate" study taken so far about meat and its effects.

White meat decreases mortality risk according to the study.

The highest causes of death for red meat eaters was cancer and heart problems. They studied people ranging from 50 to 71 years of age.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM. Reason : jn]

3/25/2009 12:34:28 PM

does the study tell you the average weight/pre-existing conditions/family medical history of the participants?

3/25/2009 12:36:21 PM

and any so-called scientific article that begins with "dear friends" is obviously addressing a contingent of like-minded individuals, possibly including those that are funding his research

3/25/2009 12:36:34 PM

Not in the article I read Livinproof.

The article;

Quote :

" Burger lovers beware: People who eat red meat every day have a higher risk of dying over a 10-year period -- mostly because of cardiovascular disease or cancer --than their peers who eat less red or processed meat, according to a new study of about half a million people. People who ate the most red meat had about a 30 percent greater risk of dying than those who ate the least. "This is the biggest and highest quality study like this," says Barry M. Popkin, Ph.D., from the University of North Carolina, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, which was published Monday in Archives of Internal Medicine. "They collected the diet data very carefully, and it's saying to people, 'You don't have to eat red meat every day.' " In the study, a research team led by Rashmi Sinha, Ph.D., from the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland, looked at more than 500,000 people who were aged 50 to 71 when they enrolled in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health study. Over a 10-year period, people who ate the most red meat every day (about 62.5 grams per 1,000 calories per day, equivalent to a quarter-pound burger or small steak per day) had about a 30 percent greater risk of dying compared with those who consumed the least amount of red meat (a median of 9.8 grams per 1,000 calories per day). The excess mortality was mostly the result of cardiovascular disease and cancer. The red meat in the study included all types of beef and pork, including bacon, cold cuts, ham, hamburgers, hot dogs, and steak, as well as meat in pizza, chili, lasagna, and stew. In addition, those who ate the largest amounts of processed meat (defined as about 22.6 grams per 1,000 calories per day of bacon, red-meat sausage, poultry sausage, cold cuts, ham, regular hot dogs, and low-fat hot dogs) also had a slightly higher mortality risk than those who consumed the least. In contrast, people who ate the most white meat seemed to have a slightly lower mortality risk during the study than those who consumed the least amount of white meat. White meat included chicken, turkey, and fish, as well as some poultry products and canned tuna. Video Watch more on the link between red meat and higher mortality » The researchers estimate that 11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent of deaths in women during the study could have been prevented by reducing consumption of red meat. Health.com: How I survived a heart attack at 43 The American Institute of Cancer Research recommends that people consume less than 18 ounces of red meat per week (the equivalent of a child-size fast-food hamburger per day) to reduce the risk for cancer, and the American Heart Association recommends limiting saturated fats to less than 7 percent of total daily calories. (Animal products, such as meat and dairy, tend to be higher in saturated fat.) The United States Department of Agriculture food pyramid recommends two to three daily servings of protein, which can include lean meat, but can also come from plant sources. Health.com: Meat and dairy: How much should you eat for heart health? "It is important that people understand that they do not need to give up eating red meat, but should pay a little closer attention to how much they eat," says Lona Sandon, R.D., a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association and an assistant professor at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. "Many people, particularly women, come up short on the nutrients that red meat has to offer." Red meat contains protein, iron, zinc, selenium, and B vitamins that are important to the body and help prevent nutrient deficiency, says Sandon. Sandon recommends that people replace high-fat red and processed meats with protein-rich foods such as poultry or fish, beans, eggs, and low-fat dairy. Also, she adds, filling half a plate with vegetables and a quarter with meat will help keep portions in control. "What we need to keep in mind about this study is that it does not prove that red meat causes increased death; it simply shows an association," she says. "The study relied on people's recall of what they typically eat, which does not always match what they actually consumed." Popkin says that consuming meat in moderation is important for our diet, as well as the health of the planet. Americans consume around four times more meat and dairy than the rest of the world, which may contribute to a number of global concerns, including an increased demand and price for meat, increased greenhouse gases, and a rise in disease, he says. "All we have to do is eat red meat more infrequently and cut out the sausages and hot dogs," he says. "If we cut ours down just a little bit, it would be all it took because we consume so much.""

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/23/healthmag.red.meat.lifespan/index.html

3/25/2009 12:40:09 PM

sorry im talkin to that jack ass willy nilly lol

3/25/2009 12:40:35 PM

i'd rather eat delicious steaks and ribs and burgers and live to be 75 than eat like a fucking rabbit and live to be 85 and hate every meal i ate

3/25/2009 12:42:24 PM

Quote :

"we dont need price increases in food products to get the consumers to improve their healthful living practices"

Um. You are way off. What you're describing is a tax -- an artificial tax. Raising the price to the real price is not a price increase in the same sense. It is a return to the real price from an artificial lower one. For example: If gasoline subsidies were ended, the price of gas would go up, right? Is that increase a tax? No. It is simply a return to the real price -- the lower price was artificial.

Quote :

"especially when that increase is based on public perception of an industry rather than a reasonable level of truth"

Again... no. It is not based on public perception of an industry, but rather the TRUTH that taxpayers are forced to subsidize meat as well as pay for cleaning up the mess that meat production facilities create.

Quote :

" But for someone to say that I have NO RIGHT to buy meat because the government has subsidized the meat production industry is completely ridiculous"

No one's said that. I said that people have no right to buy as much meat as they want at an artificial price only made possible by using tax that everyone must pay. Of course everyone has a right to buy meat per se.

Quote :

"the United Kingdom heavily anti-GMO and biotech"

That's because they are intelligent, and not sold out to corporate interests.

Quote :

"fucking socialists"

Again, there is nothing socialist about opposing irresponsible use of taxes.....

Quote :

"possibly including those that are funding his research"

Don't be mad. I know you can't refute the points raised in that article. Go ahead and continue explaining why you won't even read it... then go ahead and continue to assert that you know what you're talking about.

3/25/2009 12:43:42 PM

Quote :

"Again, there is nothing socialist about opposing irresponsible use of taxes..... "

hey..i haven't even read this thread...my post was based solely on responding to ncwolfpack and the comment of "rights"

3/25/2009 12:46:30 PM

Quote :

"The red meat in the study included all types of beef and pork, including bacon, cold cuts, ham, hamburgers, hot dogs, and steak, as well as meat in pizza, chili, lasagna, and stew. In addition, those who ate the largest amounts of processed meat (defined as about 22.6 grams per 1,000 calories per day of bacon, red-meat sausage, poultry sausage, cold cuts, ham, regular hot dogs, and low-fat hot dogs) also had a slightly higher mortality risk than those who consumed the least."

So there you have it. They've done a study of processed meat products mixed with highly refined carbohydrates and concluded that meat in general is bad. You're a nitwit for believing this garbage

3/25/2009 12:47:31 PM

i didint read it because im sure ive seen all the arguments before

the difference between me and you is that you are advocating the abandonment of research and any potential use of GM technology, while i am advocating not ruling it out

because there isnt much evidence for or against either way in all honesty interms of health risks, but there is well documented evidence of countries being lifted by the inclusion of GMO crops to combat drought, disease, loss of yield, insects, and nutrient deficiency

3/25/2009 12:48:11 PM

Quote :

"hey..i haven't even read this thread...my post was based solely on responding to ncwolfpack and the comment of "rights""

My bad.
I support ending a tax-payer funded subsidy thereby returning meat to its real price.
Others in this thread have mistakenly suggested that such a price increase amounts to a [socialist-style] tax -- when of course it's actually reducing taxation.

Quote :

"i didint read it because im sure ive seen all the arguments before"

So this is how you remain ignorant -- you assume that you already know your opponents argument. (You so fail)

Quote :

"you are advocating the abandonment of research"

No, I'm not. Such research, however, should remain secure and not applied in the real world.

Quote :

"there isnt much evidence for or against either way in all honesty interms of health risks"

Quit being a myopic fool. Genetic "pollution" is real and harmful. Fuck you. Fuck you for supporting this crap.

Quote :

"there is well documented evidence of countries being lifted by the inclusion of GMO crops to combat drought, disease, loss of yield, insects, and nutrient deficiency"

Ends don't justify means. Organic techniques can easily solve 100% of those problems. Except, intellectual property can't be used with organics like it can with GMOs, so it's less profitable. No, no, no... you fuckers have to own life before we use it to help others. If we're not getting paid, people can just suffer, right? (God fucking damn I hate you blind GMO/IP supporting bastards.)

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 12:54:40 PM

So, assuming this "real price" bs is true, by cutting the tax-funded subsidies to meat production, we could just use the money we are no longer paying in taxes to buy an equal amount of meat, correct?

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : Or we could just get our beef from Argentina]

3/25/2009 1:01:27 PM

Quote :

"No one's said that. I said that people have no right to buy as much meat as they want at an artificial price only made possible by using tax that everyone must pay. Of course everyone has a right to buy meat per se."

Yes you did say that.

Quote :

"That right. But you have to pay the real cost, otherwise you're affecting others. If you pay the real cost of meat, you have the right to eat as much as you want."

See, here you are saying that I have to pay the real cost in order to be within my rights to buy meat. Apparently anything I do that affects others is automatically a violation of their rights.

Quote :

"No, I'm not kidding you. If the inexpensive price you pay for meat is only possible because of taxpayer-funded subsidies and taxpayer-funded meat production facility pollution clean-up, then NO you do not have a right."

Once again, telling me I don't have a right to buy meat at whatever price I find it.

Quote :

"You do not have a right to force others to pay more in taxes."

I'm not forcing anyone do do anything. If I become a vegetarian tomorrow nothing changes. If you want to blame someone, blame the government, not me or any other person that buys and eats meat. According to your logic it is a violation of someone's rights if anyone takes advantage of anything that is subsidized or funded by the government with taxpayer dollars. Darn those poor people and their welfare! They are violating my rights!

3/25/2009 1:02:43 PM

^^LOL. Surely you realize that the money would be used for something else, right?

^Holy fucking overgeneralizations, Batman!

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : How did this turn into a Soap Box thread?]

3/25/2009 1:05:25 PM

This thread is awesome.

3/25/2009 1:09:28 PM

Really, my only point is that something can't become a violation of someone else's rights just because you say it is. There has to actually be a violation somewhere. You may view it as unjust or an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars but you can't just start naming what I am an am not within my rights to do based on nothing more than your opinion.

3/25/2009 1:11:09 PM

Hahaha Ronny ain't lyin

3/25/2009 1:11:21 PM

Quote :

"So, assuming this "real price" bs is true, by cutting the tax-funded subsidies to meat production, we could just use the money we are no longer paying in taxes to buy an equal amount of meat, correct?"

How is it "bs"?...And no. You couldn't just use the money we are no longer paying in taxes to buy an equal amount of meat -- that assumes that everyone pays the same amount of taxes or buys that amount of meat.
Come on... you can do better than that....
Plus, as was pointed out, do you really think such a thing could happen in the real world?

Quote :

"Yes you did say that."

No. I did not. Learn to fucking read.

Quote :

"See, here you are saying that I have to pay the real cost in order to be within my rights to buy meat"

No, I'm not. See that "as much as you want"? That changes it, you dipshit.

Quote :

"Once again, telling me I don't have a right to buy meat at whatever price I find it."

Nope. Once again you are wrong. You are unnecessarily "stealing" others' taxes by buying meat at artificially lower prices. Is is ok to buy stolen goods at whatever price you find them? Is that your right?

Quote :

"According to your logic it is a violation of someone's rights if anyone takes advantage of anything that is subsidized or funded by the government with taxpayer dollars. Darn those poor people and their welfare! They are violating my rights!"

Yes.

Quote :

"blame the government, not me"

Certainly, the government subsidy is more to blame, but everyone, including myself, are violating others' rights by buying subsidized meat. The government is stacking the deck, but we are willingly participating and therefore share the blame.

Quote :

"Really, my only point is that something can't become a violation of someone else's rights just because you say it is."

Well, that's not why it's a violation. So... what's your point?

Quote :

"There has to actually be a violation somewhere"

Here: taxes, subsidies, and irresponsible consumers.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 1:17:40 PM

Quote :

"No, I'm not. Such research, however, should remain secure and not applied in the real world."

why research it then

3/25/2009 1:23:27 PM

^
Um... for the advancement of knowledge. Duh.
Also, GMOs could be "factories" that produce non-living products... as long as that factory remains secure and not released into nature, it's ok. GMOs should not be interacting in nature with the natural organic world in ways that can affect the genes of natural organic life in nature. (uncontrollable)

3/25/2009 1:28:32 PM

^You have an opinion that says it's a violation of taxpayers rights to buy as much meat as someone wants to. My opinion is saying that it doesn't matter what you buy or how much you buy. If it's a matter of how much is bought then what is the cutoff? I'm sure you have an opinion on that too. I'm sorry, but that is nothing more than an opinion. My opinion is different. How can you claim a fact that rights are violated based on nothing more than your opinion. You are swinging on this "as much as you want" argument which is completely subjective. So, forgive me for ignoring it. Now commence to make yourself look like an idiot and spew obsenities.

3/25/2009 1:43:20 PM

Quote :

"How can you claim a fact that rights are violated based on nothing more than your opinion."

I'm not. It has nothing to do with opinion.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 1:46:56 PM

Vegetarians win at being douchebags

3/25/2009 1:46:59 PM

^^okay, you have created your own reality then. because if you weren't so opinionated about it you wouldn't be arguing about it.

Quote :

"You are unnecessarily "stealing" others' taxes by buying meat at artificially lower prices. Is is ok to buy stolen goods at whatever price you find them? Is that your right?"

Man, you can't really be serious with this comment can you? There is a law against stealing property. It is a violation of someone's rights to steal from them. I'm sorry, but taxes are not considered stealing by the letter of the law. You obviously disagree but that is just, once again, your OPINION.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 1:48:36 PM

^
Again, opinions are not at issue here. These are principles, and furthermore, they are principles that others came up with long ago. I didn't invent the idea of "taxation = theft", I just tend to agree with it...

3/25/2009 1:51:23 PM

yeah, and some other people don't agree with it...what's your point?

3/25/2009 1:56:32 PM

Quote :

"Ends don't justify means. Organic techniques can easily solve 100% of those problems. Except, intellectual property can't be used with organics like it can with GMOs, so it's less profitable. No, no, no... you fuckers have to own life before we use it to help others. If we're not getting paid, people can just suffer, right?"

Holy hell, you can't really believe this. In order for Organic to combat loss of yields it would incur staggering levels of soil erosion as more square miles of more-fragile land would need to be farmed to provide food. Expanding onto poorer quality land would increase losses of wildlife on that land. We are already using most of the world's best quality land, any more expansion would lead to poorer quality land which would be more easily prone to lower yields, prone to drought, pests etc. Speaking of pests, how does an Organic farmer defend against them? Chemical weed killers and pesticides are the so evil, However the use of biological pest controls sound promising and are the only allowed method under organic farming. However they are often slow, needing the pests to get a head start on crop. In addition these biological controls also pose a threat to the local eco-system. You organic people piss me off so much , always short-sighted and care only about themselves.

3/25/2009 5:35:43 PM

I'm curious as to how meat is unique among recipients of farm subsidies, which generally make the price of food higher. It may well be the case for meat is different, but in looking at some things I haven't figured out that it is yet, and if so, how.

3/25/2009 5:59:34 PM

lol only took 3 pages for Kiwi to provide the link.

3/25/2009 7:29:24 PM

?

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 8:23 PM. Reason : lulz]

3/25/2009 8:22:18 PM

hyuck hyuck for every animal you don't eat, i'll eat three

3/25/2009 8:59:21 PM

my parents have never ever eaten meat.
I had an omlette once. I didn't like it.

3/25/2009 9:00:01 PM

so willy nilly supports the legalization of weed but is against people buying as much meat as they want to.

i am confused

3/25/2009 9:25:38 PM

Quote :

"Holy hell, you can't really believe this."

Haha. You are truly a fool. I am 100% correct. You are sadly mistaken.

Quote :

"In order for Organic to combat loss of yields it would incur staggering levels of soil erosion as more square miles of more-fragile land would need to be farmed to provide food."

Wrong.
You really don't know how organic horticulture works, do you? Organic methods, done properly, are the BEST way to prevent soil erosion. On the contrary, poising the land with harsh chemical pesticides and herbicide worsens soil erosion, because it KILLS nearly all of the insects and microorganisms, leaving the soil without structure. Then everything, including the poison, gets washed away in the rain to go poison elsewhere. You a fucking idiot to suggest that conventional agriculture is the way to prevent soil erosion. You couldn't be more wrong. Plus, you wouldn't really need to use more land -- by combining organic horticulture (not agriculture,) and simplified organic hydroponics, (simplified meaning very very inexpensive,) not only could nearly all of the problems you named, that ARE WORSENED BY CONVENTIONAL FARMING, be solved, but they'd be solved FOR THE LONG TERM. You are the short-sighted idiot, here. You.

Quote :

"Expanding onto poorer quality land would increase losses of wildlife on that land."

First, such expansion would hardly be needed. Second, since it's organic, it works with wildlife. You are so used to the idea that everything we grow belongs to us, that you forget that the wildlife isn't incompatible with growing crops, nor is it the enemy. (Yes, bugs and herbivores are not the enemy)

Quote :

"We are already using most of the world's best quality land, any more expansion would lead to poorer quality land which would be more easily prone to lower yields, prone to drought, pests etc."

Who educated you on this? DuPont? Monsanto? You are fucking clueless. You are stuck in the mindset that farmland is incompatible with nature. Stupid. Organic horticulture ENRICHES the land, so despite any minor expansion, it would STRENGTHEN the entire ecosystem, leading to less erosion, higher quality land and soil, better water retention and less drought, and larger, heathier, and more balanced microorganism populations. (You want to kill the microorganisms, and make farmland basically an urban lab -- fuck you.) Also, believe it or not, but over the long-term, organic methods lead to LESS pests, that is, less problems with pests. You want to kill all the pests. You are fucking stupid.

Quote :

"Speaking of pests, how does an Organic farmer defend against them?"

So you admit that you don't know shit about how organic farming works. I'm not going to be your teacher -- you have the entire internet. Find a non-biased source (non-biased on either side,) and get your learn on -- you've got a LOT of learning to do.

Quote :

"Chemical weed killers and pesticides are the so evil, However the use of biological pest controls sound promising and are the only allowed method under organic farming. However they are often slow, needing the pests to get a head start on crop."

Slow isn't bad. Chemical herbicides and pesticides RUIN the fucking land. They turn healthy land into lifeless agro-labs. You are so fucking mis-educated on this that it is sad.

Quote :

"In addition these biological controls also pose a threat to the local eco-system."

Any risk you might be referring to can be avoided by simply practicing the organic farming the correct way. Sure, any bridge can collapse, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be built. Also, the long-term semi-permanent and often permanent damage, (actual damage, not just a mere threat,) that results from conventional farming, even when they practice it right, is FAR more damaging to not only the local ecosystem, but neighboring ecosystems, and ones that neighbor them, and in part, the whole fucking planet. Plus, the poisons are making people sick. Fuck you.

Quote :

"You organic people piss me off so much , always short-sighted and care only about themselves."

I was going to say the very same thing about you. Supporters of organics are nearly always going to care more about others than opponents of organics. You fuckers are the short-sighted idiots. You poison the land, killing it -- ruining it -- and yet you have the fucking nerve to act like your shit doesn't stink? Well, you sir, are a fucking monster. There are real problems in the world, BUT YOU GODDAMN GMO SUPPORTING, LAND-POISONING, MYOPIC ASSHOLES WOULD RATHER SELL A MAN A FISH THAN TEACH A MAN TO FISH. FUCK YOU. FUCK YOU.

Quote :

""

I haven't read the book, but that looks about right.
It is sad that so many people think that we can grow forever. All the time, I hear idiots saying shit like, "We've already got enough food to feed everyone, we just have to figure out how to deliver it." Fucking stupid. Never mind the fact that our very attempt to do just that are what's causing problems and systemic failures. Everywhere in the world, to as much of a degree as possible, people should eat locally-produced organic food. Period. Anyone that disagrees is just plain wrong.

Quote :

"so willy nilly supports the legalization of weed but is against people buying as much meat as they want to. i am confused"

If you are paying the real cost of meat, that is, the cost of sustainably produced meat, then you can buy as much as you want without affecting anyone's rights. Or, you could calculate how much cheaper the subsidized meat is because of taxes and mail a check for that amount to the IRS. But if you simply buy way too much meat at these unsustainable prices, you are, in part, supporting the trampling of others' rights. Now, I should point out that the word "trampling" may be a bit much. When you litter my front yard with your beer can, you are violating my rights, but not very much. The actual degree of violation of others' rights by buying unsustainably price meat is about comparable to this. It is certainly minor, but still real. I've admitted buying meat at these prices -- it's hard not to. I, however, at least feel a very small amount of guilt and responsibility -- as should everyone that takes advantage of others' tax dollars... after all, taxation is not voluntary -- it is basically theft. Get rid of the subsidies (good idea anyway,) and force meat production facilities to pay for the clean-up of the messes they make (how did they ever get away with not doing this in the first place?,) and the problem is solved. Then, you and I and everyone else can buy all the meat we want, and it won't affect others' rights. Subsidies of commonly purchased consumer goods are horrible, because they compel consumers to contribute, in a small part, to the unnecessary taxation of peoples' earnings.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 8:12 AM. Reason : ]

3/26/2009 8:06:57 AM

Quote :

"Any risk you might be referring to can be avoided by simply practicing the organic farming the correct way. Sure, any bridge can collapse, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be built. Also, the long-term semi-permanent and often permanent damage, (actual damage, not just a mere threat,) that results from conventional farming, even when they practice it right, is FAR more damaging to not only the local ecosystem, but neighboring ecosystems, and ones that neighbor them, and in part, the whole fucking planet. Plus, the poisons are making people sick. Fuck you."

"All substances are poisons. There is none which is not poison. The right dose is what differentiates a poison from a remedy"

I don't remember who came up with that saying but I believe it for everything we do in life, including your Organic beliefs. The World Health Organization estimates pesticides cause about 200,000 deaths per year (haha, that is going to be where you quit reading). However, over 91 percent of those are suicides because it a relatively cheap and painless death. 8 percent come from accidental household poisoning, (children finding rat poisons, adults drinking something that wasn't labeled. etc). The remaining less that a percentage point comes from farm workers who return to the field too soon after spraying the harsher pesticides, such as methyl parathion. Even though they were the dumbasses who went back to early, I for one would propose that those particular class of pesticides no longer be used. However if you can find me an actual victim of pesticide residues, I will leave this thread. These companies and medical researchers have spent billions in research over the last 50 years trying to find such a victim. If you can name one, please do. Otherwise continue believing everything you read/hear without actually researching for yourself.

3/26/2009 8:59:21 AM

Quote :

"However if you can find me an actual victim of pesticide residues"

Well, they kill nearly all the life in the soil, which harms the ecosystem. Then, they get washed into the river or lake, and kill most of the fish and other life in and around the water, which harms the ecosystem. Then, it goes on to killing birds, bees, other animals, and entire ecosystems. Add this all up and it is quite damaging, in a long-term way, to the overall environment as well as to biodiversity. Damage to the environmental and to biodiversity harms everyone -- so everyone is a victim. Everyone. Fuck you for not seeing that way.

Also, there is little doubt that such poisons are responsible for making humans sick. I mean, there's no shortage of talk on the subject: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=victims+of+pesticide+residue

Since, apparently, you'd be perfectly ok with destroying all organic life and then artificially engineering whatever life we need to eat or build things from, I guess all you care about are humans. Sad. But seriously, do you actually think no one has been harmed directly from artificial chemical pesticide, herbicide, or fungicide residue? Really? No, really? Okay, man. Whatever. Everything I've ever heard on the subject was all lies -- it's a conspiracy, right?

Quote :

"Even though they were the dumbasses who went back to early, I for one would propose that those particular class of pesticides no longer be used."

Well, at least you're not a total idiot.

Quote :

"All substances are poisons. There is none which is not poison. The right dose is what differentiates a poison from a remedy"

lol
If that's what you have to believe to sleep at night, go ahead. That is fucking laughable, though... Let me guess, you or someone close to you has a job that relies, perhaps indirectly, on the use of conventional agriculture, right?... or maybe you have a lot of stock in the companies that support it, right? There's no way an intelligent and good person properly educated on the issue would ever support this crap... (as anything other than a last resort. If we find ourselves in a nuclear winter, I'll be buying some miracle-gro.)

Quote :

"I believe it for everything we do in life"

Then you're hopeless.
If your allegiance to that bullshit philosophy is as strong as you suggest, then I'm not very inclined to continue responding to you -- you'll never change your mind because your beliefs are irrational.



[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 9:39 AM. Reason : ]

3/26/2009 9:37:49 AM

Wow, Willy is quite a douche. Dude, no one is reading all that bullshit. Maybe 1 out of 50 people read that.

Oh, and Vegetarians never win. Never.

3/26/2009 9:39:07 AM

In 2026 the historical "Meat Wars" became the third world war. It ended human civilization except for the vegans whose extremely low body weight allowed radiation from all the hydrogen bombs to pass by their bodies while only lodging in their dense dreadlocks

3/26/2009 9:42:25 AM

/3

3/26/2009 9:44:25 AM