Does veganism actually save animals?

@BlueVeins How many animals, including little tiny ones are killed or denied habitat but growing one acre of soybeans versus letting one steer graze free range?

@redredred Probably quite a few, which is why you shouldn't eat meat. Most of that soy is fed to cows and other livestock; cutting out the meat could save even more lives.

@BlueVeins Ahh, so where do vegans get their protein? And youll note in my example i asked about free range, grass-fed beef, not feed lot beef.

@redredred [quote]Ahh, so where do vegans get their protein?[/quote]

Beans, lentils, squash, potatoes, etcetera.

[quote]And youll note in my example i asked about free range, grass-fed beef, not feed lot beef.[/quote]

There's only so much rangin' land on Earth, my dude. Why do you think they do all these feed operations? It's to keep up with demand. If everyone tried to stick with only free range, the price would just skyrocket and only the rich would be able to afford it. Livestock uses 30% of the land's surface area as it is.

@BlueVeins There is enormous grazing area in the US and potatoes and squash have about zero protein. Feedlots are used not because of a shortage of grazing land but because its a cheaper and quicker way to fatten cattle.

In any case since you consume more plant calories than meat eaters, your purchases drive more plant farming. Given that, the essence of my original question still applies. Plant raising destroys countless animals either directly or by destruction of habitat. Perhaps the lives of these little animals dont mean anything to you but, at the very least, plant eaters are responsible for as many animal deaths as meat eaters; likely even more.

@redredred [quote]There is enormous grazing area in the US and potatoes and squash have about zero protein.[/quote]

Actually, potatoes have 3g of protein each and squash have about 1g. The more you know, right? And more importantly, beans can easily have like 16 g/cup, so you're more than set there.

And the US is a big-ass place, sure, but it has 330 [b]million[/b] people, the third most populous country on the face of the Earth. And again, livestock already uses up 30% of land on Earth as it is. Imagine how much that number would have to swell for all that to become free-range.

[quote]In any case since you consume more plant calories than meat eaters, your purchases drive more plant farming. Given that, the essence of my original question still applies. Plant raising destroys countless animals either directly or by destruction of habitat. Perhaps the lives of these little animals dont mean anything to you but, at the very least, plant eaters are responsible for as many animal deaths as meat eaters; likely even more.[/quote]

It actually doesn't because the vast, vast majority of animals in the US markets are not grown free-range. This point you're trying to push does not apply in the real world at all.

@BlueVeins Certainly it does but youre too stuck in your vegan virtue signalling to accept youre as responsible for animal deaths as meat eaters are. And you need 65 gm of protein every day so potatoes and squash may be a bit of a burden if youre sourcing your protein needs from those.

Hey, heres a surprising fact. The entire world population would fit in three-bedroom houses inside Texas.

@redredred [quote]Certainly it does but youre too stuck in your vegan virtue signalling to accept youre as responsible for animal deaths as meat eaters are.[/quote]

Meat accounts for 17% of global caloric intake, but requires 34% of global farmland. It's really not rocket science.

[quote]And you need 65 gm of protein every day so potatoes and squash may be a bit of a burden if youre sourcing your protein needs from those.[/quote]

which is why nobody does that

[quote]Hey, heres a surprising fact. The entire world population would fit in three-bedroom houses inside Texas.[/quote]

Another fun fact -- your entire neighborhood could fit in your home.

@BlueVeins So you choose not to address my central point that you vegans kill as many animals as meat eaters. I understand why. You cant deny it.

@redredred That "point" is just objectively false. I was addressing that.

@BlueVeins It is objectively true but it shatters the entire basis for your virtue signalling so l understand why you find yourself floundering.

@redredred I've already beaten you over the head with more statistics that prove my point than you can wave an eggplant at. Do you have anything substantial to say?

@BlueVeins Yeah, protein insufficiency obviously affects what passes for your intelligence. You do however serve well as the vegan spokesperson, insufferable, self-important and wrong.

@redredred Soybeans have more protein per calorie than beef does.

@BlueVeins Yes and lots of phytoestrogen plant sterols. Just the thing for feminizing guys and spuring breast cancer in women.

Im sure you knew that, right?

@redredred Phytoestrogens are many times weaker than the estrogens you'll find in meat, which are the same as the ones you'll find in humans. Cases of phytoestrogens affecting men at all are few and far between, and the effect is entirely reversible. Also, meat is linked to colon cancer.

@BlueVeins Now youre arguing with the oncologist who not only treated my first wife's breast cancer but also served as an adjunct professor at Harvard Medical school. Soy protein is nowhere near as healthful as meat. But go ahead, suicide by soy is probably preferable to dying of boredom from veganism.

@redredred I've read Harvard's report on soy -- they say it's fine for the vast majority of men and in a study on Asian women, has been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer. And learn to cook for God's sake.

I know how to cook, you should learn to how to eat. Start with a simple examination of your own teeth. the third one over, top or bottom is for tearing meat. Omnivores are much more successful in nature.

BTW, "Harvard" doesnt speak with one voice. Any academic can publish any study for peer review @BlueVeins

@redredred LOL, find me a carnivore with molars and I'll try to take you seriously. The fact that we have both ripping teeth and mashing teeth means we have a choice. Well, really the chemicals and bacteria in our stomachs determine that, but whatever.

[quote]BTW, "Harvard" doesnt speak with one voice. Any academic can publish any study for peer review[/quote]

Well, published work beats hearsay, my dude. Hate to break it to ya.

@BlueVeins Published error beats nothing and, l know you find this confusing, but im speaking in favor of an omnivorous diet, not carnivores. Try to keep up.

@redredred It's not an error, and being omnivores means we have the choice to not eat meat. Well, in our case, anyway.

@BlueVeins Yes, you have the choice to subvert several thousand generations of evolution and consume a substandard diet deficient in protein, iron and lots of other valuable nutrients. Go ahead. Starvebyourself so you can continue your virtue signalling but dont forget the first point in this conversation;

Vegans, consuming a plant based diet cause the deaths of thousands of small animals. The silly slogan, "Meat is Murder" ignores the undeniable truth that plant cultivation causes as many deaths or more of small animals. Vegans are just as guilty of animal deaths are are omnivores if not more so.

@redredred [quote]Yes, you have the choice to subvert several thousand generations of evolution[/quote]

appeal to nature fallacy

[quote] deficient in protein[/quote]

Soybeans have more protein per calorie than meat

[quote]iron[/quote]

which you can get from oats, nuts, beans, and regular old supplements

[quote]lots of other valuable nutrients.[/quote]

😆

[quote]The silly slogan, "Meat is Murder" ignores the undeniable truth that plant cultivation causes as many deaths or more of small animals.[/quote]

Veganism reduces the amount of plant cultivation that must be done in the first place by cutting out the middle man.

You're living in the 16th century, dude.