You keep referring to the first link I provided and conveniently skim over the fact that the very next link I sent to you confirms the claims I made in numbers.
Funny that you saw an "ENTIRELY different story" in the same study. Although this time, I'm not going to copy paste the data you couldn't find since you seem to have a problem with that. No worries, I will guide you to it.
You can go through the information under the subtitle "Mitigation through consumers". You'll find information that supports my claims of a 76% reduction in farm land and up to 73% reduction in GHG emissions for the United States. Published in a peer reviewed journal. (Who mentioned 78%?)
By this, it is clear that this is the first time you've gone through the article (exactly what you were accusing me of) although you claimed to have gone through it several times before. Not to mention that you ignored it when I first sent it to you when you asked for the "one peer reviewed data" you were so confident that I wouldn't be able to provide.
How did the article you sent contradict my claims? I've agreed that the global percentage is lower. Doesn't mean it can't be cut down on through dietary changes.
"I have written all the "Universities" you have sent belong to UK, from the first reply, please show me one 1 articles which is from some other "University" other than Oxford"
You've already contradicted yourself in that statement. Yes, I've sent you two articles from one university. That's exactly what I said. Here's what you said-"most universities you've sent being from UK based" which is why I questioned you on what other UK based university I referenced. Regarding SEO, I could say the exact same thing about you- as a meat eater that does not care for the ethics of vegetarianism, you're only seeing information that supports your stance as well.
Thank you for those first two links, however, I'm not here to argue that chicken and fish are detrimental to health. The point I'm making is that a well planned vegetarian and vegan diets are healthy and sufficient, which has actually been mentioned at the end in the third article you sent. And regarding the third one. Nutritional yeast (commonly used by vegans in dishes) along with fortified plant milks and breakfast cereals are sources of B12 for vegans. Sufficient exposure sunlight for Vitamin D, swapping out fish oil for Agal oil as a source of DHA and so on. Well planned vegan and vegetarian diets are healthy, that is the point I've been trying to emphasize this whole time.
Yes, every activity in our lives has environmental impact, some activities more than the others. So let me get this straight, your ideology here is that since we're making environmental impact anyway, we shouldn't try to make conscious decisions to reduce it? The only person with fake concern and pseudo intellectuality here is you- you're making pointless arguments against a diet that has relatively lower environmental impact by bringing up mobiles, laptops, phones and vehicles (all of which I'm fairly certain that you yourself own).
Let me remind you that you were the person who specifically brought up the moral, environmental and health aspects of this issue. I'm not confused or going in circles in anyway, I'm only making my stance. And oh, regarding the environment effects of chicken and fish, I thought we'd established that, my bad. The research that you sent regarding global GHG emissions mentions that chicken meat and eggs contribute to 8% and small ruminant meat milk and meat contribute to 6% of the emissions from the animal industry (although I used to consume the meat and not milk here). Therefore, my diet is more environmentally friendly than someone who also consumes chicken, mutton, eggs and a higher amount of dairy. So yes, I'm practicing what I preach.
Show me where I've called myself a vegan? I'm a vegetarian who's cutting down on dairy at the moment and moving towards a more vegan diet, clearly mentioned "cutting down" and not "cutting out". Mentioning the emissions due to cow's milk, since I'm cutting down on it, is totally relevant.
How many times are you going to compare GHG emissions of beef with that of chicken, eggs and fish? I thought you didn't want to discuss it since it had no relevance to the change in my diet?
Simply disagreeing with your analogy does not equate to mockery. Again, publishing any other article is different from publishing an article about the organization's stance on an issue, looks like you've completely missed the point. Yeah, you should try out google searches. They're pretty effective. For example, they show you that the American Dietetic Association is in fact the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and that membership means the state of being a member in an organization.
Great that you took the time to respond to my "ethical nonsense". Of course it's convenient for you to dismiss it as nonsense, shows your reluctance to listen to others people's viewpoints.
"Why do you think I must ask an animal for it's consent before taking it?" What gives you the right to take it's life? Killing animals is unnecessary when you can get all the nutrients you need from a well planned vegetarian diet. As simple as that. There's a difference between intentional killing ,where death is a certainty, and accidents. Yes, it's true that rodents are killed in agriculture. It's about eliminating , to whatever extent possible, unnecessary harm on animals. Again, the logic that since some animals die in agriculture anyway, we should go ahead and kill even more…doesn't really make sense.
First of all we're not carnivores. We're omnivores, we do not have to consume meat to survive. Are you saying that animal cruelty is okay simply because it's legal? Slavery was legal in the past, that didn't make it any less cruel.
"For several millions of years human being were carnivores you think evolution must be re-thought because now started to care for animals ?"
Again, human beings were NEVER carnivores. And let me put you in a cage with a tiger or a lion and we'll see if you're an apex predator.
Ed doesn't proclaim himself as the winner of any argument, it's not a competition. He's simply out there to get his message across and yes, street interviews get views. He does, however, go to well reputed institutions such as Yale and Brown for debates.
Yes, I did say that I consider myself to be morally superior to you. Already mentioned this, but emotions are involved in ethical decision making. Death evokes sadness in people, there isn't anything idiotic about that. So many people who eat meat can't stand to the sight of an animal's throat being slit in front of their eyes. Yet, they're okay with buying it from the supermarket because there's a strong disconnect between the food they eat and where it comes from. I didn't avoid anything, I've already responded to it. A demand for alternatives will create employment elsewhere, as simple as that. It's a gradual process. The revenue it generates is irrelevant, revenue can be generated from the growth of another industry as a result of increased demand for vegan products. Yes, we're creating change, although I don't see much hope for a stubborn person like you. Good day to you too.