Definitely, because the idea that humans can survive and thrive eating their biologically adequate diet from ruminants that graze on grassland instead of fueling deforestation and ridiculous carbon footprints to be fed an unnatural diet that requires supplements and insane anthropogenic change in the environment is… too stupid to even argue about.
Why don’t you at the very least try? I mean, it should be much easier than just giving me a canned response, right?
You’re unfortunately deviating the argument to industrial agriculture used to (force-)feed animals, which is not what I was talking about. I literally said “graze on grassland” but you decided to respond to something else. But the fault is mine for trying. I’m not sure what I was thinking, this never leads to anything meaningful, just defensive bullshit.
If you want to educate yourself, feel free to investigate how grasslands work, how most of them cannot be used for anything else other than grazing (not arable), and maybe think about how ruminants actually lived and roamed the land before we started industrial/intensive agriculture and feedlots.
Interesting comment there at the end. English is not my first language and I’m just trying to use the words that best capture the meaning I’m trying to convey. But you do you, you must feel pretty good about yourself.
You must be joking at this point. What else can non-arable grassland be used for? What water and feed is spent on ruminants whose only dietary input is grazing? I just have no words.
Most of the times it can be fixed within a year to allow another 3 years of plant based production.
And even if it isn’t, just give it back to nature to do it by itself. It doesn’t have to be used. That’s just some weird capitalistic mindset.
What water and feed is spent on ruminants whose only dietary input is grazing?
Grazing is a joke. They are still being given tons and tons of water during their lifetime, almost all livestock is given soy based feed that’s fortified with antibiotics, B12 and other vitamins.
“Grass-fed”, “freerange” and similar terms are all moralwashing lies. “Grass-fed” still allows to force feed them vitamins, antibiotics and even hay. “Freerange” for a chicken means 1 hour of sunlight and a little bit extra space, which isn’t even what actually happens.
And people keep crying about giving a cat a nice life but using vegan pet feed which contains all the nutrients they need.
The definition of Hypocrite should have these people as an example.
Much better than sourcing animal products from the supermarker. Still worse than being vegan
They might be responsible for many less deaths than a vegan, though.
Some food for thought: https://www.carnivoreisvegan.com/carnivore-diet-is-vegan/
This argument is too stupid to even argue about.
You don’t think people would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?
Definitely, because the idea that humans can survive and thrive eating their biologically adequate diet from ruminants that graze on grassland instead of fueling deforestation and ridiculous carbon footprints to be fed an unnatural diet that requires supplements and insane anthropogenic change in the environment is… too stupid to even argue about.
Why don’t you at the very least try? I mean, it should be much easier than just giving me a canned response, right?
75% of all farm land goes to animals that only provide 10-20% of the common diet.
But feel free to continue using hard words for incorrect arguments.
You’re unfortunately deviating the argument to industrial agriculture used to (force-)feed animals, which is not what I was talking about. I literally said “graze on grassland” but you decided to respond to something else. But the fault is mine for trying. I’m not sure what I was thinking, this never leads to anything meaningful, just defensive bullshit.
If you want to educate yourself, feel free to investigate how grasslands work, how most of them cannot be used for anything else other than grazing (not arable), and maybe think about how ruminants actually lived and roamed the land before we started industrial/intensive agriculture and feedlots.
Interesting comment there at the end. English is not my first language and I’m just trying to use the words that best capture the meaning I’m trying to convey. But you do you, you must feel pretty good about yourself.
Even “graze on grassland” falls under this.
All the feed, water and land that’s required could be used for far better stuff.
And I seem to be more educated on this matter than you, but thanks.
what is a better use for grass than to feed cows?
You’re asking the wrong question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
You must be joking at this point. What else can non-arable grassland be used for? What water and feed is spent on ruminants whose only dietary input is grazing? I just have no words.
Most of the times it can be fixed within a year to allow another 3 years of plant based production.
And even if it isn’t, just give it back to nature to do it by itself. It doesn’t have to be used. That’s just some weird capitalistic mindset.
Grazing is a joke. They are still being given tons and tons of water during their lifetime, almost all livestock is given soy based feed that’s fortified with antibiotics, B12 and other vitamins.
“Grass-fed”, “freerange” and similar terms are all moralwashing lies. “Grass-fed” still allows to force feed them vitamins, antibiotics and even hay. “Freerange” for a chicken means 1 hour of sunlight and a little bit extra space, which isn’t even what actually happens.
And people keep crying about giving a cat a nice life but using vegan pet feed which contains all the nutrients they need.
The definition of Hypocrite should have these people as an example.
Lol