this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22056 readers
82 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
85% of global soy is pressed for oil. the vast majority of the soy that's fed to animals is the industrial waste from that process.
Wheree do you get your numbers from?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254608/soy-production-end-uses-worldwide/
They seem off my guy.
Weird to not provide real numbers for someone calling me a liar
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png
i can't click your paywalled link
here's what the UN's FAO says
oil is 17.2%. since a soybean is only about 20% oil to begin with, you need to crush 85% of all soybeans to get that much oil. do you see how the vast majority of what is fed to animals is called "soy meal" or "soy cake"? that's the industrial waste from processing soybeans to oil.
Its statista, they limit traffic. Try a different browser.
Btw funny you link OWID, you should read their article. It doesn't mention the feed as a side product of oil production, and I'm having trouble finding your quote.
Even if its 100% true and just not mentioned in any articles on the matter, then I guess large scale veganism still only removes loads of industrial processes/co2 production, unspeakable animal abuse and insane amounts - and i mean ludicrous amounts - of wasted drinking water.
that has never happened.
Exactly. Thats the problem.
Global consumption and production are increasing
Do. You. Follow?
you can make any excuse you want. the fact is that being vegan has not helped the environment at all.
You seem to have a very tough time matching what people say/write and what you feel like they mean with it.
Let me rephrase the original claim so you may understand what the actual topic is you're so furiously debating: Reducing global meat production would be a net benefit to the planet and every being living on it in the long term.
Reducing demand for said production at a large scale WOULD (this is in conjunctive because it's still a small movement so IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET - we all know that) over time force said production to scale down.
Literally no human i have ever interacted with before you thought not buying a steak for a few months instantly fixes the world. We are painfully aware. Which is why we chose not to participate in that insane bullshit which causes all kinds of issues and harm anymore.
Thank you for your time and energy, this has been awfully unproductive.
i never said that.
Funny how that works isn't it
strawmen? not really. it's exhausting dealing with intellectual dishonesty.
I wholeheartedly agree.
when someone takes you at your word, and then you need to walk back your position to a much weaker claim because they point out that you are writing checks the facts don't support, it's you who is practicing intellectual dishonesty. compounding it with strawmen, and then rhetorically implying it is, in fact, the person who called you out who is being dishonest is the height of intellectual dishonesty. you should be ashamed, and you should edit the comments where you lied so as not to continue to mislead other users.
You still talking about the comment that I didn't write? Still implying causality you never proved? Cool.
you keep waffling about whether you lied, but I assure you, you did. you've even owned up to it earlier in the thread, but now you're backsliding.
You're hilarious. Nice try.
this is deflection
that's not causal.
that's true. what you said before was not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUjeR01wnU