Veganism

I honestly don't understand how anyone could not understand this clear of a message?

  On 3/29/2019 at 6:04 PM, manmower said:

Today I'm not even sure what the point of this discussion is anymore.

I stopped trying a long time ago. These threads generally devolve into this bullshit because some meat eaters get defensive. I can only imagine it's about their insecurities about their moral choices.

/last post

jfc

  On 3/30/2019 at 3:44 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Awesome, I agree? 

 

What's your point?

 

Again, not advocating in the slightest against it. Simple discussion on how market forces are more powerful than the vegan and vege movement and the market needs to hit a critical mass at some point where overall production and slaughter stops. The numbers aren't lying. Unfortunately at this point the movement has not decreased overall rates of meat consumption.

 

THIS is seriously very simple. 

How do you know it hasn't decreased meat consumption when you haven't run an experiment of a parallel version of Earth where every vegetarian switched back to carnism, then observed your predicted result that meat production and consumption literally stayed identical?  This is absurd to even suggest

Are you incapable of comprehending that if meat consumption is x units each year, and global meat consumption increases y% every year, but z% of people convert to vegetarianism each year, this means these conversions accounted for an absolute z% decrease in the yearly percent increase of meat consumption because without that z% of conversions then at the end of the year the yearly meat consumption would be x+y%+z% instead of x+y%?

What are you not getting?  You're repeating over and over that it has no effect but it does have an effect, a y% effect in dampening the increase in the meat consumption rate and a Y% effect from existing vegetarians from previous years, and all of this is true even if the overall rate is increasing each year, because the absolute ratio is lower each year due to each year's vegetarianism ratio despite the rate of meat consumption increase

And it's funny that you're complaining about me posting this because you're replying to every one of my posts as well, so you can end this conversation any time you choose and at this point I wish you would, because you're pissing me off with your complete lack of comprehension

  On 3/29/2019 at 9:00 PM, dumplings said:

Any good books/sites for recipes on meals worth checking out?

 

I still like meat and I don't envisage me giving it up in the short term but I'd like to be able to make a small difference to the world by introducing more veg-based meals to my weekly lunch/dinners.

  On 3/30/2019 at 5:12 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 3/30/2019 at 3:44 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Awesome, I agree? 

 

What's your point?

 

Again, not advocating in the slightest against it. Simple discussion on how market forces are more powerful than the vegan and vege movement and the market needs to hit a critical mass at some point where overall production and slaughter stops. The numbers aren't lying. Unfortunately at this point the movement has not decreased overall rates of meat consumption.

 

THIS is seriously very simple.

 

 

How do you know it hasn't decreased meat consumption when you haven't run an experiment of a parallel version of Earth where every vegetarian switched back to carnism, then observed your predicted result that meat production and consumption literally stayed identical?  This is absurd to even suggest

 

Are you incapable of comprehending that if meat consumption is x units each year, and global meat consumption increases y% every year, but z% of people convert to vegetarianism each year, this means these conversions accounted for an absolute z% decrease in the yearly percent increase of meat consumption because without that z% of conversions then at the end of the year the yearly meat consumption would be x+y%+z% instead of x+y%?

 

What are you not getting?  You're repeating over and over that it has no effect but it does have an effect, a y% effect in dampening the increase in the meat consumption rate and a Y% effect from existing vegetarians from previous years, and all of this is true even if the overall rate is increasing each year, because the absolute ratio is lower each year due to each year's vegetarianism ratio despite the rate of meat consumption increase

 

And it's funny that you're complaining about me posting this because you're replying to every one of my posts as well, so you can end this conversation any time you choose and at this point I wish you would, because you're pissing me off with your complete lack of comprehension

Again, uhhh what? All I’ve said is other factors are outpacing veganism and vegetarianism?

You can keep misquoting or misrepresenting what Ive said all you want. But all I’ve said is market forces have exceeded the vegan and vegetarian impact on the meat market lol.

Which is clearly evidenced by the actual statistics.

There is literally thousands of publications that support what I’m saying?

I went hunting a few times when I was younger and it was really enjoyable. I shot a turkey and ended up eating that fucking thing. I also saw a deer get gutted in the snow after it died. Tons of intestines, stomach, and weird organs spilling out and steaming up as the hide rrrrips open. Good times. Little kids probably did that in the 1800’s or some shit like alll the time. I also eat kale.

I haven’t said once that it hasn’t had an impact on meat consumption? I said a tangible, statistically significant impact. :/

  On 3/30/2019 at 5:28 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

You can keep misquoting or misrepresenting what Ive said all you want. But all I’ve said is market forces have exceeded the vegan and vegetarian impact on the meat market lol.

Which is clearly evidenced by the actual statistics.

There is literally thousands of publications that support what I’m saying?

No, that's not all you've said, because I have no issues with that statement because it's true.  You also said that vegetarianism has no impact on meat consumption and production.  You haven't only stated that its impact is being outpaced by carnism increases.  If you intended to say only that vegetarianism's effects are outpaced by carnism increases despite vegetarianism still having an overall n% decrease on meat consumption, then I would have no issues with that since it's true.  But it's not all you said.  You're probably just not being precise with your wording, instead speaking ambiguously and using the phrase "vegetarianism has no effect" (literally untrue) to, in an informal way, claim that "vegetarianism's effects are outpaced by the effects of carnism rate increases" which is true.  The claim that vegetarianism has no effect on overall meat production and consumption is untrue because it's equivalent to the claim that if every vegetarian converted to carnism there would be no increase in meat consumption or production, which is very plainly not true.  In the US, if 5% of the population (the rate of vegetarianism) converted to carnism overnight, this would require a 5% increase in meat production to maintain the same wastage level as beforehand while still meeting their new demand.

Which is why you would see I corrected my wording to manmower earlier today, if you would actually see what I was trying to say without your anti Stephen bias. That’s why I changed it from tangible impact to statistically significant.

You even quoted me using that change of words

  On 3/30/2019 at 5:54 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Which is why you would see I corrected my wording to manwower earlier today, if you would actually see what I was trying to say without your anti Stephen bias. That’s why I changed it from tangible impact to statistically significant.

5% is statistically significant, in the US it's 16m people, double the population of NYC, which is very significant.  And in other countries like India with about a 30% vegetarianism rate and a population of 1.34b people, that is 400m vegetarians, greater than the population of the entire US

If you want to claim that you softened your view from "no effect" to "no statistically significant effect" that's great and you are approaching closer to the truth, but still not at the truth, which is that vegetarianism worldwide does indeed prevent billions of animal deaths per year based on the US + Indian vegetarian population alone, not counting other countries.

Would you mind quoting me where I said there was no effect? My drunken posts for which I’ve apologized numerous times aside of course?

  On 3/30/2019 at 5:54 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

if you would actually see what I was trying to say without your anti Stephen bias. 

And don't be insecure and solipsistic, I have no biases against people including you, only a bias towards reality, or at least that is my perpetual aim

  On 3/30/2019 at 6:02 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Would you mind quoting me where I said there was no effect? My drunken posts for which I’ve apologized numerous times aside of course?

Even pretending that you didn't say "no effect", the claim that there is "no statistically significant effect" which you made just a minute ago is still false for the reasons I just provided above

We don’t need to pretend I didn’t say “no effect” if you’d quote me on it? And I and millions of others would disagree with your definition of statistically insignificant, as again, production and slaughter rates are exponentially increasing. That’s literally the only

thing Ive been trying to communicate. Statistically significant implies changing a trend.

You can google statistical significance if you don’t agree with my interpretation of it.

Really not sure why you want to disagree with me so much other than it being me? We’re agreeing on 99% of the points but rather than engage me in a pm or something for clarification you appear to want to make some to-do about it. Mind boggling really. Admittedly I could do the same. But since you’re infinitely more intelligent than I, I’d expect you to take the initiative.

  On 3/30/2019 at 6:19 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Really not sure why you want to disagree with me so much other than it being me?

It's because you're replying.  If someone says something incorrect I have a deep compulsion to point it out as long as they continue replying until I'm either convinced that they actually are correct (in which case I change my mind) or they realize that what they're saying is incorrect.  It normally ends up just being a waste of time though on both ends.

And the rest of what I said? Anyone can paraphrase selectively but you know the rest of what I said lends credence to my points.

  On 3/30/2019 at 6:24 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

And the rest of what I said? Anyone can paraphrase selectively but you know the rest of what I said lends credence to my points.

I don't know what else you're talking about that I've expressed disagreement with.  I think I addressed all of your points on this specific topic in this post:

https://forum.watmm.com/topic/96761-veganism/page-9?do=findComment&comment=2707602

Here is the rest of that post you selectively quoted from.

“My point is only that if the philosophy is rooted in preventing harm to animals, it's not having any tangible impact because a reduction in demand through people going vegan is hugely offset by growing middle class and population in countries like China and India. The only thing you can pat yourself on the back about is that you personally didn't contribute to the butcher of an animal. It hasn't had an impact on production or slaughter. This is why (like both you and I have pointed out) production in many countries remains static while overall increasing worldwide.”

Can you at least agree even for a second than this pointless online confrontation was a result of, on both sides, either selective perception or semantics?

  On 3/30/2019 at 6:26 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

Here is the rest of that post you selectively quoted from.

 

“My point is only that if the philosophy is rooted in preventing harm to animals, it's not having any tangible impact because a reduction in demand through people going vegan is hugely offset by growing middle class and population in countries like China and India. The only thing you can pat yourself on the back about is that you personally didn't contribute to the butcher of an animal. It hasn't had an impact on production or slaughter. This is why (like both you and I have pointed out) production in many countries remains static while overall increasing worldwide.”