Ban Meat? Never!!!!!

[dellinger63]

Guns or meat? Meat wins!

Got to give props to Chuck, whether it came to him in a dream or on the backstretch he seems to be have been right in more ways than one...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6891362.ece

PS had a wonderful 3/4 lb ground sirloin burger stuffed w/blue cheese and topped w/merkts cheddar ( Must be Merkts) , bacon and Famous Daves Rich and Sassy B-BQ sauce on a toasted gonella bun on a traditional Webber CHARCOAL grill. MMMMMMMMM and no fries needed.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Guns or meat? Meat wins!

Got to give props to Chuck, whether it came to him in a dream or on the backstretch he seems to be have been right in more ways than one...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6891362.ece

PS had a wonderful 3/4 lb ground sirloin burger stuffed w/blue cheese and topped w/merkts cheddar ( Must be Merkts) , bacon and Famous Daves Rich and Sassy B-BQ sauce on a toasted gonella bun on a traditional Webber CHARCOAL grill. MMMMMMMMM and no fries needed.

To be fair, there's absolutely nothing in this article about "banning" meat.

It's basically a statement of fact that we all already know -- the amount of water and energy that goes into producing meat for mass consumption. Whether you feel that contributes to climate change is totally an individual call, but it's not like he's just making up this stuff about meat production being somewhat wasteful in the big picture.

And unless I missed something, he seemed to suggest that societal pressure and peer pressure would lead to a significant decrease in meat consumption, without ever coming close to insinuating that it would be "banned" or even that he thinks it should be "banned."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And unless I missed something, he seemed to suggest that societal pressure and peer pressure would lead to a significant decrease in meat consumption, without ever coming close to insinuating that it would be "banned" or even that he thinks it should be "banned."

when he was quoted, "Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

This is no 'deal' as he puts it, but yet another tax that will be solely paid by meat consumers and providers. Indirectly it acts as a ban if meat is taxed enough. IMO

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

when he was quoted, "Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

This is no 'deal' as he puts it, but yet another tax that will be solely paid by meat consumers and providers. Indirectly it acts as a ban if meat is taxed enough. IMO

Well they tax the crap out of other things like cigarettes and alcohol and gas, yet those are not "banned."

It's not that I don't completely understand the idea of high taxation as a deterrent, but it's nothing close to a "ban" and to call it one is totally misleading. Banned things are actually illegal...not just discouraged.

[dellinger63]

But discouragement is often the start in the process that eventually leads to banishment. Remember when restaurant/bar owners were assured they would be able to ultimately make the decision to smoke or not smoke?

When seat belt fastenng was a 'secondary offense' and not a sole reason to make a stop or be cited at a roadblock (safety check)?

Why not go about this meat reduction thing in a logical manner like producing dishes that are tastier than a T-Bone or a rack of baby backs etc. Not even to mention bacon

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

But discouragement is often the start in the process that eventually leads to banishment. Remember when restaurant/bar owners were assured they would be able to ultimately make the decision to smoke or not smoke?

When seat belt fastenng was a 'secondary offense' and not a sole reason to make a stop or be cited at a roadblock (safety check)?

Why not go about this meat reduction thing in a logical manner like producing dishes that are tastier than a T-Bone or a rack of baby backs etc. Not even to mention bacon

Well when they actually start trying to ban meat, then let's talk about the meat ban, okay?

In the meantime, let's talk about possible taxes, possible deterrents, and the honestly high cost of meat production from an environmental perspective, which are in fact, what this article is ACTUALLY about, Dell, not banning meat.

Meat is not something that could, or would, ever be banned barring some catastrophic worldwide disease outbreak in meat products. Seriously.

[Antitrust32]

For some reason this thread sounds strangely similar to one occuring in the paddock right now.

Just substitute meat and takeout.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

For some reason this thread sounds strangely similar to one occuring in the paddock right now.

Just substitute meat and takeout.

What, someone wants to ban takeout?

I love it!

In that case, I fully accept Dell's misreading of the article.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

What, someone wants to ban takeout?

I love it!

In that case, I fully accept Dell's misreading of the article.

that would be amazing. But it was equivalent to banning meat = raising takeout.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that would be amazing. But it was equivalent to banning meat = raising takeout.

So it's never ever in a million years going to happen is what you're saying?

I'm so confused.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

So it's never ever in a million years going to happen is what you're saying?

I'm so confused.

well its a different situation but your one post to del sounded just like a post by kasept.

Well when they actually start trying to ban meat, then let's talk about the meat ban, okay?

In the meantime, let's talk about possible taxes, possible deterrents, and the honestly high cost of meat production from an environmental perspective, which are in fact, what this article is ACTUALLY about, Dell, not banning meat.

Meat is not something that could, or would, ever be banned barring some catastrophic worldwide disease outbreak in meat products. Seriously.


and the other one was basically "no sky is falling.. when they start trying to raise takeout, then lets talk about raising takout" "in the meantime, lets talk about how raising takeout could help California"



unfortunately.. takeout will probably be raised, where of course meat will never be banned...

[Cannon Shell]

Eat more chkin

[Cannon Shell]

These environmental people are quacks. They eventually will go down as the flat earth society of our times.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

These environmental people are quacks. They eventually will go down as the flat earth society of our times.

if you believe that, you're in the modern day flat earth society chuck.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

if you believe that, you're in the modern day flat earth society chuck.

I'm sure thats what they said then too. It is 98% bs and the other 2% is misrepresented.

[Indian Charlie]

A cow that eats nothing but grass out in the field uses a tiny percentage of the resources used in producing a factory farmed cow.

People are unbelievably dumb.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

A cow that eats nothing but grass out in the field uses a tiny percentage of the resources used in producing a factory farmed cow.

True, but in the far west, one cow needs about 40 acres to get enough nutrition . In Kentucky, you can put 10 cows on a 40-acre field for the summer, but have to rotate to another field and supplement with hay for the winter.

Factory farming has a big upside - it produces inexpensive food, in high volume. As a hugely overpopulated country, we need that. Not that most of America couldn't stand to eat noticably less And we definitely have a taste for plumped up, overfed, "not like nature makes it" meat.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

True, but in the far west, one cow needs about 40 acres to get enough nutrition..

where in the desert? On the side of a mountain? 40 acres one cow! LOL That's one expensive cow!!! And how hard is growing hay on the enviro? The diesel to run the tractor, cutter and bailer? Or do they water and fertilize their hay by air in your area of KY? Where they pay out of pocket rather than bother their health insurance companies?

Originally Posted by Riot

And we definitely have a taste for plumped up, overfed, "not like nature makes it" meat.

I've said before create a better tasting substitute w/o poisoning the consumer. Problem solved!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

where in the desert? On the side of a mountain? 40 acres one cow! LOL That's one expensive cow!!! And how hard is growing hay on the enviro? The diesel to run the tractor, cutter and bailer? Or do they water and fertilize their hay by air in your area of KY? Where they pay out of pocket rather than bother their health insurance companies?

I've said before create a better tasting substitute w/o poisoning the consumer. Problem solved!

I wish you made a bit more sense so I could follow along

Yes, out west it takes alot of land to put weight on one cow. New Mexico, western Texas, Wyoming? Not everything is lush prairie. If it weren't for federal BLM land, cattle ranchers would be screwed.

Yes, my point was that IS one expensive cow. Which is why feedlots exist. We don't have enough land to raise enough cow pounds to feed us all, at a price we can afford.

I don't follow what you are talking about regarding hay. How hard is growing hay? Pretty easy, unless you get drought. Hay takes land, too.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I wish you made a bit more sense so I could follow along

Yes, out west it takes alot of land to put weight on one cow. New Mexico, western Texas, Wyoming? Not everything is lush prairie. If it weren't for federal BLM land, cattle ranchers would be screwed.

Yes, my point was that IS one expensive cow. Which is why feedlots exist. We don't have enough land to raise enough cow pounds to feed us all, at a price we can afford.

I don't follow what you are talking about regarding hay. How hard is growing hay? Pretty easy, unless you get drought. Hay takes land, too.

a lot of land or 40 acres?