That's an interesting point but I think your ovals might be a wee bit too large, seeing as how they encompass some of the most fertile soil on the planet. Here's an actual map from the USDA:

The ovals aren't really necessary, they are just highlighting the tan areas compared to green.

A common veganism ideal is the belief that you can't feed the world's growing population with animals. It's like they think meat eaters eat nothing but meat. A large percent of the land on Earth cannot be used to grow crops, but can be used to graze animals. Do we just let that land sit empty? Now consider the fact that grazing animals have a positive effect on soil health and help return carbon to soils (neutralizing or reversing climate change). Watch this TED talk with Allan Savory for more on reversing climate change with grazing animals: https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savo...climate_change

If we establish that a large % of the land is only suited for animal production, and those animals can have a positive impact on the environment if managed properly, then we are left with a moral question of whether its okay to kill and eat animals. I would argue that those grazing animals live a better life than they would find in the wild. They have food to eat, are largely protected from predators, are cared for when sick or injured, and are dealt an instantaneous/painless death. Compare that with their wild counterparts. Food can be in short supply, they might starve to death. If they get sick they will probably die, If they break a leg, they will die. And how will they die? They will get eaten alive. Animals don't just die peacefully from old age like vegans seem to think. The only downside from an agriculturally raised pastured animal and their wild counterpart, is the agriculturally raised animal is likely to live a shorter life.

This is why the vegan narrative is bogus. They should be directing their passion and resources to ending the abomination that animal feedlots are.

For what it's worth, this was the same argument advanced in favor of taking slaves from the African Congo - their lives were far better and more humane as slaves than living "nasty, brutish, short" lives in the jungle.

We deem that argument incredibly invalid now. I don't doubt that your argument above will be viewed similarly.

I think that is extremely flawed assumption. Pretty much anywhere you can graze (and feed) animals, you could also produce edible vegetables/roots/berries. Obviously the yield won't be as great as it is in good farmland.

It's complicated. My vegan sister just finished chemo and radiation, so Thanksgiving was for her. Half the people there were vegan-vegetarian and they brought the sides, but they were busy with work, so the person who made the main was trying to help out. (We had a bet that she was going to try to sneak turkey in something, but she didn't, lol. ) The main was some sort of fake fish thing that didn't quite cut it, but of course, everybody raved about how good it was.

There is such a thing as fake fish?

Thats an interesting counterpoint, but I'm not really buying it. Do you believe that a properly cared for grazing animal is going to live a worse life than its wild counterpart? Average lifespan is the only thing I can see that favors the wild animal. Granted, thats a pretty big deal, but at worst it seems the two animals will experience a comparable quality of life.

I'm speaking from a sustainability point of view. Extensive irrigation systems and fertilizers allow you to grow in many areas you otherwise wouldn't be able to. Animal waste is still needed to keep these soils healthy and productive. You can't grow and take crops year after year without returning nutrients to the soil. Before long the soil is dead and you can't grow anything on it. This is already a problem on farmland in the US.

Well, you could use human excrement or biowaste as fertilizer as well. Current sewer system might be an issue though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_..._vegetarianism

Looks like he was mostly a vegetarian by 1937 and totally one by 1942. So his transition into vegetarianism coincided with his moving from a guy who builds the autobahn to a guy who murders millions of people.

It was white, bland and smooshy, lol. They gave me a lemon wedge for flavoring, but I didn't want to cover up the flavor, so I turned it down. By the time that I realized I really needed the lemon, they were gone.

I wished she had served the usual tofurkey, I actually really like that stuff. (Depending on the brand.)

This one is for amazin:



Do you agree with the sentiments?? Are you against selective breeding as well?

Vegetarians no longer allowed to eat £5 notes

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...service=mobile

**** that monster.

Everyone knows the best lobster is around 2 pounds*

*disclaimer: my bf kenji does not agree

Do they taste any good when they're 20 pounds? Figured the vegetarian thread was the place to ask.

Is this a real question? Why would any vegan approve of humans selectively breeding animals for profit?

Can't believe you can't find someone willing to tolerate you long enough to sleep with you. Shocking stuff.
Oh btw, animals die in vegetable production as well YOU BLOODTHIRSTY ANIMAL KILLER!!

It's already been established that amazin doesn't care about rodent genocide.

What a deplorable species! Shaaaaaaaame!

Please answer these two questions...

Q1.
Do you think it's okay to needlessly prey on innocent and vulnerable individuals?

Q2.
If you answered 'YES' why?
if you answered 'NO' are you Vegan?

If the law says it's okay it's okay.

Animals don't count.

I'm guessing you would have had the same stance during American slavery