News & Events Vegan protests shut down Melbourne's CBD - Have protests gone too far?

[Lethality]

Wrong. A great many Google search results will be complete rubbish. THE VAST MAJORITY. People cite Wikipedia for example as if it is some undeniable reference source, when it is one of the LEAST CREDIBLE resources on the internet.

Less slaughter of animals = less violence? How, exactly? And here's a thought for you to ponder - historically, the rate of violent crime has DECREASED (see Crime and Justice, 5th edition, Palmer/de Lint/Dalton - GOOGLE THAT, I have a copy sitting on my desk next to me). At the same time as animal slaughter has increased. YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS, that's fine - but it is not fact.

Eh, I'm not comparing animal and human slaughter, I'm saying slaughter as a whole would be decreased. But on your stats, yes the rate of violent crime has decreased, but overall violent crime is up, for the same reason animal slaughter is up despite the rate of animal consumption decreasing.

Population.

Fewer cows? How? What happens to all the cows in the world? They just magically stop breeding? I'd say, WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH, that the cow population would INCREASE. And they'd still be eating and digesting food. So, still producing waste.

You'd stop with the animal husbandry, producing far less cows and other livestock.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Fewer cows? How? What happens to all the cows in the world? They just magically stop breeding? I'd say, WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH, that the cow population would INCREASE. And they'd still be eating and digesting food. So, still producing waste.

Oh no, they'd do something like this...
Complete with their well trained animal handling techniques and an understanding of how to treat animals carefully, safely and without stress or pain.
Dickheads

 

[Sausages]

Eh, I'm not comparing animal and human slaughter, I'm saying slaughter as a whole would be decreased. But on your stats, yes the rate of violent crime has decreased, but overall violent crime is up, for the same reason animal slaughter is up despite the rate of animal consumption decreasing.

Population.

You'd stop with the animal husbandry, producing far less cows and other livestock.

Hang on a sec here....

You're saying firstly that less slaughter of animals = less slaughter of animals.....and that this is somehow a big reveal?

Secondly, overall violent crime is up? Overall, where exactly? In Australia, it isn't. I can quote you the figures dating back to roughly the 1870's (when records in Australia first began to be kept) which clearly show this isn't the case. Again, you have an opinion on this and are believing it as fact. That's fine, if you want to do that, plenty of people do - but don't mistake the two, because they are different.

Finally, animal slaughter is up despite animal consumption decreasing? Do we have to go through this AGAIN? I'd say (again, without doing any research) that animal consumption has INCREASED. Given the rise of fast food outlets in the Western World since the 1950's, increasing global population, more efficient trade, new markets (especially S-E Asia)....I'd THINK (no research here, remember) that overall there'd be pretty strong data showing an increase.

But, the onus isn't on ME to change YOUR mind - you just keep spouting opinions and expect me to blindly accept them, which I will not do. I'm HAPPY to have my opinion on things changed when evidence to support that change is presented. You referred to this as a forum earlier, as if that somehow relieves people of the need to present facts to support their opinion. It doesn't - it just isn't REQUIRED. You'll simply get few people treating your position with any credibility without them.

What started all this, is a whole bunch of muppets waded in and started laying in to a farmer. I presented ONE journal article and have been here ever since. The great irony in all this is that, politically, that farmer and I are probably at different points of the spectrum. But, that's neither here nor there.

I just don't think it's right that he should be disenfranchised as a primary producer by being flamed with opinions on a topic that is sensitive, volatile and misrepresented by people who CAN and SHOULD be doing more to understand the broader issues at play in the whole debate.

So stop presenting your opinions, constantly, as facts and leaving it up to ME to provide factual rebuttal. If you wish to continue this discussion, I'm more than happy to have it. But YOU should do both you and I the courtesy of educating yourself outside of the narrow vector that you have thus far displayed.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Hang on a sec here....

You're saying firstly that less slaughter of animals = less slaughter of animals.....and that this is somehow a big reveal?

Secondly, overall violent crime is up? Overall, where exactly? In Australia, it isn't. I can quote you the figures dating back to roughly the 1870's (when records in Australia first began to be kept) which clearly show this isn't the case. Again, you have an opinion on this and are believing it as fact. That's fine, if you want to do that, plenty of people do - but don't mistake the two, because they are different.

Finally, animal slaughter is up despite animal consumption decreasing? Do we have to go through this AGAIN? I'd say (again, without doing any research) that animal consumption has INCREASED. Given the rise of fast food outlets in the Western World since the 1950's, increasing global population, more efficient trade, new markets (especially S-E Asia)....I'd THINK (no research here, remember) that overall there'd be pretty strong data showing an increase.

But, the onus isn't on ME to change YOUR mind - you just keep spouting opinions and expect me to blindly accept them, which I will not do. I'm HAPPY to have my opinion on things changed when evidence to support that change is presented. You referred to this as a forum earlier, as if that somehow relieves people of the need to present facts to support their opinion. It doesn't - it just isn't REQUIRED. You'll simply get few people treating your position with any credibility without them.

What started all this, is a whole bunch of muppets waded in and started laying in to a farmer. I presented ONE journal article and have been here ever since. The great irony in all this is that, politically, that farmer and I are probably at different points of the spectrum. But, that's neither here nor there.

I just don't think it's right that he should be disenfranchised as a primary producer by being flamed with opinions on a topic that is sensitive, volatile and misrepresented by people who CAN and SHOULD be doing more to understand the broader issues at play in the whole debate.

So stop presenting your opinions, constantly, as facts and leaving it up to ME to provide factual rebuttal. If you wish to continue this discussion, I'm more than happy to have it. But YOU should do both you and I the courtesy of educating yourself outside of the narrow vector that you have thus far displayed.

I wish I could express my opinions/facts in the way you do bud.

Here's an interesting article for those who know nothing and wish to be educated.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight...YroQV7fCc9hPb9co_P0b-x9SGbknYmxL1RLztJMqZMrrE

 

[Lethality]

Hang on a sec here....

You're saying firstly that less slaughter of animals = less slaughter of animals.....and that this is somehow a big reveal?

No, I specifically stated in the last post that I'm not comparing the two, that overall slaughter would be down. Not slaughter of any particular kind of animal.

Secondly, overall violent crime is up? Overall, where exactly?

Earth.

I'd say (again, without doing any research) that animal consumption has INCREASED. Given the rise of fast food outlets in the Western World since the 1950's, increasing global population,

Yes, yes, that's MY point. The rate of consumption is down, but gross consumption is up. Read back if you have to.

 

[Sausages]

Less slaughter of animals leading to less violence is even beyond that; it's virtually the same thing.

Eh, I'm not comparing animal and human slaughter, I'm saying slaughter as a whole would be decreased.

No, I specifically stated in the last post that I'm not comparing the two, that overall slaughter would be down. Not slaughter of any particular kind of animal.

Those are your quotes. Taken together they equal.....less slaughter = less violence (which you've now clarified as specifically against animals) = less slaughter. I'm still unsure of what grain of wisdom you are revealing here.

Earth.

And my response is....research. I can provide accepted facts for demonstrating this isn't the case in Australia. In the absence of you providing similar, I reserve the right to assess that statement as opinion.

Yes, yes, that's MY point. The rate of consumption is down, but gross consumption is up. Read back if you have to.

for the same reason animal slaughter is up despite the rate of animal consumption decreasing.

Those two statements are incongruent. Consumption is down, gross consumption is up, animal consumption is down. It makes no sense.

And finally, this pearler:

But on your stats, yes the rate of violent crime has decreased, but overall violent crime is up,

Violent crime has decreased but overall violent crime is up?

I am trying to stay with you, but it's all sort of....not making any sense. This is what happens when you start arguing about things that you have opinions on and try to pass them off as facts.

 

[Lethality]

Those are your quotes. Taken together they equal.....less slaughter = less violence (which you've now clarified as specifically against animals) = less slaughter. I'm still unsure of what grain of wisdom you are revealing here.

Less slaughter of animals leading to less violence overall. It's not that hard. I made this 'point' because WAROO suggested it was folly for vegans to suggest we'd have world peace without meat. I said at least there'd be less violence.

And my response is....research. I can provide accepted facts for demonstrating this isn't the case in Australia. In the absence of you providing similar, I reserve the right to assess that statement as opinion.

lol Australia. Here's some more populous and thus representative countries.
The population explosion began around 1970, you'll note the homicide rate hasn't moved much since then. Meaning an overall increase in homicide.

Those two statements are incongruent. Consumption is down, gross consumption is up, animal consumption is down. It makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because apparently you don't know the difference between rates and totals.

 

[Sausages]

Less slaughter of animals leading to less violence overall. It's not that hard. I made this 'point' because WAROO suggested it was folly for vegans to suggest we'd have world peace without meat. I said at least there'd be less violence.

Lol - which is it? Less violence across all spheres of life, human and animal? Or just against animal? I already presented you with clear evidence that the human violence has decreased and that decrease has nothing to do with any change in animal slaughter. Then you went back and removed that. Which I subsequently dealt with in the last post and reiterate....

Less slaughter of animals = less violence against animals = less slaughter of animals....which doesn't seem to be anything dramatic, no ripping insight.

lol Australia.

Lol, research.

It doesn't make sense to you because apparently you don't know the difference between rates and totals.

"animal slaughter is up despite the rate of animal consumption decreasing."

"Rate of consumption is down, but gross consumption is up".

So those two statements equal.....

Animal slaughter is up and gross consumption is up.
Right. So what does this mean to your argument again?

Which is where "it makes no sense" - it makes no sense to....whatever your argument is, and I have no idea what your argument is, because it hasn't been clearly stated, just a series of statements that bear no resemblance to coherency. I don't think you KNOW what your argument is, which was clear WAAAAAAY back, when we started this whole exchange and why I appealed to you to do some research.

What I THINK your argument is, based on the most recent postings, is something like this:

"If we stop killing animals, then we'll stop killing animals. This will mean we eat less meat because we will have stopped killing animals. This will mean that violence against animals will decrease, because we won't be killing them anymore."

You are just talking in circles, adding nothing of any consequence. But hey, keep going - eventually your waffling will bore even you

 

[Lethality]

Lol - which is it? Less violence across all spheres of life, human and animal? Or just against animal? I already presented you with clear evidence that the human violence has decreased

LOL, less violence against animals, which would mean less violence overall. That means less violence on the Planet Earth. That should be a good thing.

Once again, to be clear: Killing fewer animals means less killing of all creatures combined, including humans. That's my contention for how veganism does indeed reduce violence.

Lol, research.

Already provided but here it is again with two of the most populous, thus representative countries I could find. Since the population explosion in the early 70s, population homicide rates in countries like USA and India are more or less the same. Population has increased dramatically in that times, hence more homicides.

"animal slaughter is up despite the rate of animal consumption decreasing."

"Rate of consumption is down, but gross consumption is up".

So those two statements equal.....

Animal slaughter is up and gross consumption is up.
Right. So what does this mean to your argument again?

Idk, it's just a fact. We're still eating more meat in total despite the rate of consumption decreasing. Eventually, if trends continue, the rate will decrease to the point that it overrides the population increase and total meat consumption lowers. But that won't be for some time, unless meat like Beyond Burger or the Impossible Burger or lab grown meat has a massive effect on the market.

Which is where "it makes no sense" - it makes no sense to....whatever your argument is

It's more that it makes no sense to you, in a way that's becoming comical, unless you're just playing dumb.

 

[Sausages]

The population explosion began around 1970, you'll note the homicide rate hasn't moved much since then. Meaning an overall increase in homicide.

Oh boy. You REALLY need to get better at this dude.

The global population has more than doubled since 1959. So, with that in mind, you would expect global homicide rates to similarly double, yes? That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Yet, that's NOT what that graph is displaying, at all. SURELY you can see that?

I'm utterly speechless at your statement - "An overall increase in homicide"

This is the website you sourced that data from: https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

And this is what they say....

Europe: European homicide rates have dramatically decreased over the last millennium and have remained steadily low over the past 50 years.

Japan: Homicide rates in Japan have steadily decreased over the past century. It's interesting to note in the following graph that the homicide rate dropped significantly during and immediately after World War II.

USA: After a period of higher violence in the 1970s and 1980s the US experiences a marked decrease in homicides and other crime rates. Recent data is published in the US census here. From this data it can be seen that the downward trend continued in the recent economic crisis.

 

[Lethality]

Oh boy. You REALLY need to get better at this dude.

The global population has more than doubled since 1959. So, with that in mind, you would expect global homicide rates to similarly double, yes?

No, why would they? Homicide rates are just the number of homicides per 100,000 people. The overall population doesn't have anything to do with it.

Europe: European homicide rates have dramatically decreased over the last millennium

lol, reaching back 1000 years now. The definition of desperate.

Japan: Homicide rates in Japan have steadily decreased over the past century.

Yes, so? I agree that homicide RATES are down.

USA: After a period of higher violence in the 1970s and 1980s the US experiences a marked decrease in homicides and other crime rates

Again, this is about rates.

 

[Sausages]

No, why would they?

I give up - you can't even focus on the issue and get distracted by the preamble

There was a time when I would have kept on at this, but it's abundantly clear that I am wasting my time.

I'll let others peruse what has been discussed here and they can make their own minds up.

 

[Lethality]

There was a time when I would have kept on at this, but it's abundantly clear that I am wasting my time.

IDK about that, if you stick around long enough you might even learn the difference between homicide rates and total homicides.

 

[sprockets]

Fewer mouths to feed obviously.


Meat linked to all 3.



We'd be killing fewer animals.



Less deforestation for grazing and for grain



Fewer cows means less farting, means less methane.

All of this is fairly obvious.

Do you believe that as a human you're a 'higher' life-form than other animals? Animals eat animals. Always have, always will.

 

[Bigjobss]

Sausages did you change your username just for this debate? Lol I cant stop chuckling at a vegan arguing with sausages.

 

[Sausages]

Sausages did you change your username just for this debate? Lol I cant stop chuckling at a vegan arguing with sausages.

No mate - but that's an amusing thought

 

[Lethality]

Do you believe that as a human you're a 'higher' life-form than other animals? Animals eat animals. Always have, always will.

We could kill less, kill ethically, sustainably.

 

[Bostonian]

Twenty-six percent of the Planet's ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production

How much of that 26% is arable land?

Farm we'd stay at was rocky and very uneven and definitely not arable.

How about the massive cattle ranches in the NT?

That 26% figure has no context thus relevance to proving a point.

 

[Lethality]

How much of that 26% is arable land?

Farm we'd stay at was rocky and very uneven and definitely not arable.

How about the massive cattle ranches in the NT?

That 26% figure has no context thus relevance to proving a point.

It's arable enough to be used for grazing, which would mean it takes up an even greater percentage of that type of land.

 

[Bostonian]

It's arable enough to be used for grazing, which would mean it takes up an even greater percentage of that type of land.

Arable means suitable for growing crops or ploughable.

Has little relevance to grazing land.

Large tracts of grazing land is used that way because of being unsuitable for growing crops.

Thus by not staying what % of the land cattle are farmed on is arable land makes that % pointless. Especially if a part of that % is only suited to grazing.

 

[Lethality]

Arable means suitable for growing crops or ploughable.

Has little relevance to grazing land.

Large tracts of grazing land is used that way because of being unsuitable for growing crops.

Thus by not staying what % of the land cattle are farmed on is arable land makes that % pointless. Especially if a part of that % is only suited to grazing.

It would have to be arable to be suited to grazing cattle. Unless you're completely supplementing their feed.

 

[Bostonian]

It would have to be arable to be suited to grazing cattle. Unless you're completely supplementing their feed.

No it wouldn't. Rocky land unsuitable for crop farming can still be good grazing ground. Can get good feed growing around rocks

What kind of ground do you think cattle grazing in the Snowy Mountains was done on?

 

[Craven Morehead]

It would have to be arable to be suited to grazing cattle. Unless you're completely supplementing their feed.

Just stop. This is idiotic.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[sprockets]

We could kill less, kill ethically, sustainably.

That didn't answer the question. When you answer that one could you also tell us if it's ok for us to kill an animal to feed another animal, eg, kill a cow to feed a dog?

I also don't believe we could kill much less "ethically" than we do now. It's just not possible to feed the world what they want to eat and have it all done in what you'd call a 'non-cruel' way.

 

[Lebbo73]

Fewer mouths to feed obviously.


Meat linked to all 3.



We'd be killing fewer animals.



Less deforestation for grazing and for grain



Fewer cows means less farting, means less methane.

All of this is fairly obvious.

Chasing tail is linked to early death as well but we don’t ban that. If you don’t want meat, don’t eat it. You really have problems. Who are you supporting next month by the way?