Models. Ladies. Naked. Bathtubs. PETA - Need I say more?

[Zeke129]

Generally the people who might be sympathetic to PETA's goals are the same kinds of people who don't look too favourably on the objectification of women so I don't know what they think they'll accomplish with this kind of thing.

[Elecbullet]

[QUOTE=Jays2Kings;44301868]Steak may take 50 baths, but living steak takes at least 100 baths.[/QUOTE]

terrible logic. if people stop creating a demand for meat, slaughterhouses won't pointlessly raise cattle and give them long healthy lives...

[added]1395347299[/added]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44301544][QUOTE=Elecbullet;44299588]What shitty logic. If your sexy women demonstration induces someone to stop eating steak, then that is a net gain of 29 "baths" of water, plus 30 for every additional steak not consumed[/QUOTE]

Nope, because some nitwit quits eating steak over that bathtub stunt doesn't mean that the slaughter houses are going to stop producing steak for one less person.[/QUOTE]

terrible logic, because the goal is not one less person but many; if successful slaughterhouses WILL turn it down. 'one more won't make a difference' never works as logic

[Krinkels]

[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;44301572]Isn't any water that's consumed in the process of raising cattle just going to end up in the water supply again anyway?

lake -> (Drinking water) cow -> piss/shit/moisture-from-breath -> dirt -> evaporation/soaking-into-the-dirt -> Clouds/ground -> lake[/QUOTE]

The water cycle doesn't work quite like that.

The amount of accessible, potable water represents a very small fraction of the total amount of water on Earth. When we take water, it all eventually becomes rainfall, but it's not like it all rains back into the water source we took it from. No, some of it goes out into the ocean or into the ground next to a factory or into a sewer or onto a road. There, it becomes useless to us and has thus exhausted some of our supply of accessible, potable water.

Sometime in the next few decades we'll have used most of the fresh water sources available. Then, most of the world's water will have to come from desalination, but desalination is way too expensive to be used to sate the whole world. It's a big deal.

Is the solution to stop eating meat? Perhaps not. The heart of the matter is that current farming practices are unsustainable, and it takes so much food and water to raise livestock on such a massive scale. If synthetic/cloned meat can be mass produced we might have an easier time of dealing with upcoming food and water shortages.

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44301958]Generally the people who might be sympathetic to PETA's goals are the same kinds of people who don't look too favourably on the objectification of women so I don't know what they think they'll accomplish with this kind of thing.[/QUOTE]

PETA does this kind of thing all the time and there's not too much of a fuss about it:

[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/2/2f/20100630142751!Christy_Turlington_I'd_rather_go_naked_than_wear_fur.jpg[/t]
[img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01496/protest-peta-reute_1496741c.jpg[/img]

[Jays2Kings]

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;44302003]terrible logic. if people stop creating a demand for meat, slaughterhouses won't pointlessly raise cattle and give them long healthy lives...

[added]1395347299[/added]

terrible logic, because the goal is not one less person but many; if successful slaughterhouses WILL turn it down. 'one more won't make a difference' never works as logic[/QUOTE]

I'm not really following your point, really because I'm not following PETA's. Once slaughtered, Does it take 15,500 liters of water to produce the kilogram of beef, or does raising the cow take 15,500 liters of water? And are you saying "slaughterhouses won't pointlessly raise cattle and also won't give them long healthy lives" or "slaughterhouses won't pointlessly raise cattle and instead give them long healthy lives (and let them die of natural causes)"

I can't really explain my terrible logic without understanding what you just said (because I'm not sure sure if you're joking too), but I'll just say a terrible joke on my end.

[avon43]

I love it how peta always relies on either nudity, or scare tactics for their advertisements and demonstrations.

[Lizzrd]

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44298654]I'm allergic to soy, wheat, almonds, and peanuts.

It's one of the only ways I can really gain protein without my bodies immune system shutting down. So no. I'll continue to eat meat.[/QUOTE]At least you're not missing out on the awesome that is a good steak.

[Elecbullet]

[QUOTE=Jays2Kings;44302212]I'm not really following your point, really because I'm not following PETA's. Once slaughtered, Does it take 15,500 liters of water to produce the kilogram of beef, or does raising the cow take 15,500 liters of water? And are you saying "slaughterhouses won't pointlessly raise cattle and also won't give them long healthy lives" or "slaughterhouses won't pointlessly raise cattle and instead give them long healthy lives (and let them die of natural causes)"

I can't really explain my terrible logic without understanding what you just said (because I'm not sure sure if you're joking too), but I'll just say a terrible joke on my end.[/QUOTE]

I am interpreting your message as "killing a cow stops the consumption of water by that cow, so a living cow uses more water than a dead one".

This is true, but if meat consumption falls, meat production (that is, cow production) falls as well, and there are less living cows to consume water.

The same argument you made has been made with regards to methane: killing a cow stops its production of digestive methane gas (cow methane is a serious greenhouse gas), so some will say that we need to kill cows to save the planet. This logic doesn't work, because again, the cows will not exist in the first place without demand. It might hold true if cows were primarily hunted from the wild rather than farmed and slaughtered.

[Trunk Monkay]

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;44302003]terrible logic. if people stop creating a demand for meat, slaughterhouses won't pointlessly raise cattle and give them long healthy lives...
[/QUOTE]

lmao and why would they do that? There is literally no substitute for meat. Protein pills and tofu don't cut it. I'd rather have beef on my plate than have a marginal increase to pollution.

[pgr2gamer]

anyone else thought you pay 1 steak to take 50 baths with them?

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;44299367]Isn't this.. like.. indecent exposure?[/QUOTE]
it seems pretty decent to me.

[Elecbullet]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44301544]Nope, because some nitwit quits eating steak over that bathtub stunt doesn't mean that the slaughter houses are going to stop producing steak for one less person.[/QUOTE]

These threads are chock full of terrible logic.

If there is a large reduction in the demand for meat, there will be a reduction in supply. If I go vegetarian it may not have such a profound effect, but one person's decision is part of the process of a thousand people's decision, which will have an effect. It does help. "One more won't hurt/help" is bad logic in all instances.

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44303677]lmao and why would they do that? There is literally no substitute for meat. Protein pills and tofu don't cut it. I'd rather have beef on my plate than have a marginal increase to pollution.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it is a pipe dream that meat production will be eliminated before any major scientific advances. But cutting back or finding alternatives is just straight-up good.

Please know that I'm not a vegetarian, but I just hate to see bad logic in any debate.

[lapsus_]

Jokes on you, I shower.

[Jays2Kings]

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;44303676]I am interpreting your message as "killing a cow stops the consumption of water by that cow, so a living cow uses more water than a dead one".

This is true, but if meat consumption falls, meat production (that is, cow production) falls as well, and there are less living cows to consume water.

The same argument you made has been made with regards to methane: killing a cow stops its production of digestive methane gas (cow methane is a serious greenhouse gas), so some will say that we need to kill cows to save the planet. This logic doesn't work, because again, the cows will not exist in the first place without demand. It might hold true if cows were primarily hunted from the wild rather than farmed and slaughtered.[/QUOTE]

Well yeah it was a bad joke but I still explain in serious logic now: Cows aren't just used for beef though, we also milk cows (I'm sure PETA probably against that too, but bear with me). Even if meat/beef produce went down there's still dairy. Granted that could fall as well it could corolate to the fall of meat produce if the PETA actually had that kind of impact, but in many cases it doesn't cows are not utterly useless if not slaughtered for meat.

[KennyAwsum]

[QUOTE=whatthe;44298646]Peta is a such a joke. Even people that I knew supported them once have now figured they are no good.[/QUOTE]

I think they fucked it up for me after the Pokemon thing.

[IMG]http://content.animalnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/socute-peta-pokemon.jpg[/IMG]

[lavacano]

[QUOTE=avon43;44302307]I love it how peta always relies on either nudity, or scare tactics for their advertisements and demonstrations.[/QUOTE]

It's the only way anyone even acknowledges they exist anymore.

[ASIC]

How is nudity supposed to help get their message across, I would say it would distract people from their message, and if people notice them they would think of them as crazy(Which people already do).

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44298654]I'm allergic to soy, wheat, almonds, and peanuts.

It's one of the only ways I can really gain protein without my bodies immune system shutting down. So no. I'll continue to eat meat.[/QUOTE]

I think beans are a good source of protein, but I don't really know if you will be allergic to other beans if you are allergic to soy(beans).

But yeah it must suck not being able to eat a lot of types of food.

[GeeOhDee]

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44298654]I'm allergic to soy, wheat, almonds, and peanuts.

It's one of the only ways I can really gain protein without my bodies immune system shutting down. So no. I'll continue to eat meat.[/QUOTE]

What about shit like lentils? That's really shitty man.

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44301544]Nope, because some nitwit quits eating steak over that bathtub stunt doesn't mean that the slaughter houses are going to stop producing steak for one less person.[/QUOTE]

Yeah they are going to stop making steak for one less person. You know how much meat a person can eat in their life? It all adds up.
You're saving a lot of animals from suffering if you don't buy meat.

[joes33431]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44301958]Generally the people who might be sympathetic to PETA's goals are the same kinds of people who don't look too favourably on the objectification of women so I don't know what they think they'll accomplish with this kind of thing.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44300875]mmm i love objectifying women to prove a point sure is great[/QUOTE]

as a counterpoint, they chose to act the whole thing out for a purpose, it's not like some sweaty neckbeard coerced them into doing it.

it's counter-productive to women's rights to tell them that they can't do what they want with their bodies on the basis that it might be construed as objectifying.

[Zombini]

[QUOTE=GeeOhDee;44305706]What about shit like lentils? That's really shitty man.

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

Yeah they are going to stop making steak for one less person. You know how much meat a person can eat in their life? It all adds up.
You're saving a lot of animals from suffering if you don't buy meat.[/QUOTE]

If a million people just quit eating steak forever, the price would drop and the people that still eat steak would buy it more often. Basic law of supply and demand. It would put steak within budget of a poorer group, which increases demand.(economics is a really odd concept) It really won't make much of a difference unless a huge amount(~30%) of the entire country stopped eating meat for it to have a real impact.

[Mbbird]

[QUOTE=avon43;44302307]I love it how peta always relies on either nudity, or scare tactics for their advertisements and demonstrations.[/QUOTE]

It got our damn attention now didn't it?

[Rangergxi]

[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;44298663]How does livestock cause more water pollution
[/QUOTE]

It does cause pollution because of what cows generally eat but fertilizers from agriculture really cause the most pollution.
That doesn't really mean much though since you need agriculture to support most our level of meat consumption.

[GarrettFox]

[QUOTE=Mbbird;44306946]It got our damn attention now didn't it?[/QUOTE]

And then pick apart their entire argument and call them morons.

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44306963]It does cause pollution because of what cows generally eat but fertilizers from agriculture really cause the most pollution.
That doesn't really mean much though since you need agriculture to support most our level of meat consumption.[/QUOTE]

You need livestock to support our agriculture too.

Huge percentages of crops are not fit for human consumption. Huge swaths of land are worthless without livestock to consume their low grade crops.

It is, and always has been, a measure of solar efficiency. You need to take sunlight and make calories out of it that are in a form that are safe to consume. Livestock can consume plants that have calories, but are not fit for human consumption, and in doing so make them fit for humans to eat. This includes surplus crops, or crops that are grown in areas that aren't suitable for much else (Hay).

Livestock make worthless land into productive land and allow us to maintain high standards for food safety.

[Zero-Point]

[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;44298663]How does livestock cause more water pollution

One of the lakes around here is a borderline disgusting cesspool because of [I]agricultural farms[/I] around it...[/QUOTE]

Here, the local dairies, on top of consuming shit-loads of water, are also fouling what little we have left because of all the alfalfa fields that have sprung up to supply them. It's indirect, sure, but it's still worsening the situation.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to farm in a place as flat and dead as this deserves to be shot, anyway.*

*Disclaimer: It didn't use to be dry and dead, this place was once lush and green before people started farming it. 150 years ago you could dig a well in just 15-20 feet. Now people are digging 350 feet and hoping to strike water.

[Sgt. Napalm]

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;44303698]
Perhaps it is a pipe dream that meat production will be eliminated before any major scientific advances. But cutting back or finding alternatives is just straight-up good.

Please know that I'm not a vegetarian, but I just hate to see bad logic in any debate.[/QUOTE]

I love meat as much as the next guy. Hell, I'm practically made of the stuff. But I'm inclined to agree. I think there will always be need for farming seeing as allergies exist as someone earlier mentioned and also because we get a lot of non-food products from animals, but the more we can cut out meat the better off our environment is. People can live fully healthy lives by being fully or mostly vegetarian. (Veganism is another story, though.)
[url]http://scoobysworkshop.com/vegetarianism/[/url]

[wulfe8857]

[QUOTE=Mbbird;44306946]It got our damn attention now didn't it?[/QUOTE]

And accomplished nothing further than that.

[Blazedol]

[QUOTE=wulfe8857;44307230]And accomplished nothing further than that.[/QUOTE]

And PETA still got what they wanted.

[Prez]

Sorry to stray from the conversation, but I can't believe I missed this today - my bus goes right through that intersection and I didn't see it!

[joes33431]

[QUOTE=GunFox;44307040]And then pick apart their entire argument and call them morons.[/quote]

the only 'picking apart' i've really seen is people drastically misunderstanding how the water cycle and farming work.

[quote]You need livestock to support our agriculture too.

Huge percentages of crops are not fit for human consumption. Huge swaths of land are worthless without livestock to consume their low grade crops.[/quote]

makes sense, but some statistics would be nice.

[quote]It is, and always has been, a measure of solar efficiency. You need to take sunlight and make calories out of it that are in a form that are safe to consume. Livestock can consume plants that have calories, but are not fit for human consumption, and in doing so make them fit for humans to eat. This includes surplus crops, or crops that are grown in areas that aren't suitable for much else (Hay).

Livestock make worthless land into productive land and allow us to maintain high standards for food safety.[/QUOTE]

there comes a point where the benefits of having some livestock are outweighed by the environmental costs - in other words, we're still eating too much meat.

the creation of ranchland (in response to growing demand) has led to a massive amount of deforestation and habitat destruction/fragmentation (particularly in the Amazon in Brazil) and the rendering useless of land by the slash-and-burn agriculture that props up these expansions.

furthermore, a very large portion of the world's meat production is in, essentially, factories, which create ridiculous amounts of pollution:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming[/url]

[QUOTE]According to the Worldwatch Institute, as of 2006 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, 50 percent of pork, and 68 percent of eggs were produced this way.[/QUOTE]

[AntonioR]

[QUOTE=joes33431;44307432]the creation of ranchland (in response to growing demand) has led to a massive amount of deforestation and habitat destruction/fragmentation (particularly in the Amazon in Brazil) and the rendering useless of land by the slash-and-burn agriculture that props up these expansions.[/QUOTE]

Even if we all became vegetarians we wouldn't grow plants in air, would we* ? And plants are not very nutritious, so people would have to eat a lot more vegetables and stuff to compensate for the lack of meat, meaning a lot more land would be required to grow crops. Ditching meat solves nothing.

*Actually we already do it with some vegetable... but it wouldn't work on a larger scale with crops.

[nalyD]

I love me some steaks but I also like arguing.

I don't remember the term for it but back in high school Biology we had a lesson on food chains that basically explained that only 10%(? Some really low number) of energy consumed by a previous level in the food chain is successfully absorbed into the next. It seems a lot of the pro-steak side of this argument is assuming a much higher ratio of absorption

[Elecbullet]

[QUOTE=AntonioR;44308723]Even if we all became vegetarians we wouldn't grow plants in air, would we* ? And plants are not very nutritious, so people would have to eat a lot more vegetables and stuff to compensate for the lack of meat, meaning a lot more land would be required to grow crops. Ditching meat solves nothing.

*Actually we already do it with some vegetable... but it wouldn't work on a larger scale with crops.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's correct to say "plants are not very nutritious", what's more correct is that a proper diet must be varied, and excluding meat adds difficulties to that.

I also don't think that ditching meat would increase the use of land for agriculture, considering how much agricultural land is used for meat in the first place.