Vegetarian diets produce fewer greenhouse gases and increase longevity, say new studies

Consuming a plant-based diet results in a more sustainable environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, while improving longevity, according to new research from Loma Linda University Health.

A study and an article, produced by researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health, will be published in full in the July issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and were first presented at the 6th International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition in 2013.
Based on findings that identified food systems as a significant contributor to global warming, the study focuses on the dietary patterns of vegetarians, semi-vegetarians and non-vegetarians to quantify and compare greenhouse gas emissions, as well as assess total mortality.

The mortality rate for non-vegetarians was almost 20 percent higher than that for vegetarians and semi-vegetarians. On top of lower mortality rates, switching from non-vegetarian diets to vegetarian diets or even semi-vegetarian diets also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The vegetarian diets resulted in almost a third less emissions compared to the non-vegetarian diets. Modifying the consumption of animal-based foods can therefore be a feasible and effective tool for climate change mitigation and public health improvements, the study concluded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140625145536.htm

yeah right...one can almost see the money trail behind this....

Is that a counter?


Well look at the Chinese and Japanese etc those less well off, of which many live long lives of simple diets Victor.

yeah I'm not disputing THAT part of it....

its the global warming bit...due no doubt to methane produced by cow farts.....

BUT so much digested vegetation still produces the same amount of methane be it cow farts or human farts

moreover...corp farming is a higher carbon footprint...being highly reliant upon motorised machinery at all stages of production......plus crop farming is toxic to the land with the use of herbicides and pesticides....

victorisnotamused wrote:yeah I'm not disputing THAT part of it....

its the global warming bit...due no doubt to methane produced by cow farts.....

BUT so much digested vegetation still produces the same amount of methane be it cow farts or human farts

moreover...corp farming is a higher carbon footprint...being highly reliant upon motorised machinery at all stages of production......plus crop farming is toxic to the land with the use of herbicides and pesticides....

But you are not talking into account how there would not be a need for the industrialization of so many cows or other animals we manufacture for food, where they they are only reared for milk/dairy products and not meat.
Or go one further and reduce dairy products, this would greatly reduce methane gas would it not?

so what we gonna do...survive on letteuce??

god what a boring dietry future....

victorisnotamused wrote:so what we gonna do...survive on letteuce??

god what a boring dietry future....

lol, me neither, as still love my meat, but clearly there must be benefits.

I mean if we really went all veggie....we could eat baked beans every meal......what would THAT do for green house gasses ::d&f:: 

victorisnotamused wrote:I mean if we really went all veggie....we could eat baked beans every meal......what would THAT do for green house gasses ::d&f:: 

 :asplodeas: 

 

victorisnotamused wrote: 

It takes way fewer resources to sustain a mostly vegetarian diet than it does to sustain the typical omnivorous diet. This research has been around for a while, victor, I'm surprised you haven't come across it. Money trail? Pfft.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2007/10/diet-little-meat-more-efficient-many-vegetarian-diets

victorisnotamused wrote:I mean if we really went all veggie....we could eat baked beans every meal......what would THAT do for green house gasses ::d&f:: 

A possibility..............  but the number of cans in landfill will out weight the benefits and more loo roll needed.

Bacon buttie anyone ?  

Didge wrote:
Consuming a plant-based diet results in a more sustainable environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, while improving longevity, according to new research from Loma Linda University Health.

A study and an article, produced by researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health, will be published in full in the July issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and were first presented at the 6th International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition in 2013.
Based on findings that identified food systems as a significant contributor to global warming, the study focuses on the dietary patterns of vegetarians, semi-vegetarians and non-vegetarians to quantify and compare greenhouse gas emissions, as well as assess total mortality.

The mortality rate for non-vegetarians was almost 20 percent higher than that for vegetarians and semi-vegetarians. On top of lower mortality rates, switching from non-vegetarian diets to vegetarian diets or even semi-vegetarian diets also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The vegetarian diets resulted in almost a third less emissions compared to the non-vegetarian diets. Modifying the consumption of animal-based foods can therefore be a feasible and effective tool for climate change mitigation and public health improvements, the study concluded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140625145536.htm

 

THIS story is largely bullshit...

IT is full of lies, misdirections and partial truths ~ and fake "institutes" and suspect universities..

PETA and their Vegan affiliates have been active pushing this false study through local newspapers and vege' websites over recent weeks.  THIS in and of itself is a big black mark against this flawed "study"..

AND I've seen it largely debunked on another couple of sites already over the last two weeks ==> let's just consider the impacts of livestock farming alone :     

Livestock produce roughly 30% of greenhouse gases, via both CO2 respiration and methane farts ~ that's less than a third, with the other two biggies still remaining transport and power generation (mostly fossil fuels..).

THE VEGANS, however don't see us reducing the numbers of livestock !  They simply want people to stop eating them !  HOW does that alone reduce climate change effects ???

IT DOESN'T !   "Vegans" aren't interested in healthy living nor reducing global warming, though.. They simply want to demand that other people should eat the same as them...

"Misery shared is misery halved !" should be the Vegan/PETA working mantra !  

(AND: I haven't even mentioned the millions of people cast onto the unemployment scrapheaps IF the vege's ever get their way..).

Lone Wolf wrote:

Didge wrote:
Consuming a plant-based diet results in a more sustainable environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, while improving longevity, according to new research from Loma Linda University Health.

A study and an article, produced by researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health, will be published in full in the July issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and were first presented at the 6th International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition in 2013.
Based on findings that identified food systems as a significant contributor to global warming, the study focuses on the dietary patterns of vegetarians, semi-vegetarians and non-vegetarians to quantify and compare greenhouse gas emissions, as well as assess total mortality.

The mortality rate for non-vegetarians was almost 20 percent higher than that for vegetarians and semi-vegetarians. On top of lower mortality rates, switching from non-vegetarian diets to vegetarian diets or even semi-vegetarian diets also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The vegetarian diets resulted in almost a third less emissions compared to the non-vegetarian diets. Modifying the consumption of animal-based foods can therefore be a feasible and effective tool for climate change mitigation and public health improvements, the study concluded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140625145536.htm

 

THIS story is largely bullshit...

IT is full of lies, misdirections and partial truths ~ and fake "institutes" and suspect universities..

PETA and their Vegan affiliates have been active pushing this false study through local newspapers and vege' websites over recent weeks.  THIS in and of itself is a big black mark against this flawed "study"..

AND I've already seen it largely debunked on another couple of sites already over the last two weeks ==> let's just consider the impacts of livestock farming alone :     

Livestock produce roughly 30% of greenhouse gases, via both CO2 respiration and methane farts ~ that's less than a third, with the other two biggies still remaining transport and power generation (mostly fossil fuels..).

THE VEGANS, however don't see us reducing the numbers of livestock !  They simply want people to stop eating them !  HOW does that alone reduce climate change effects ???

IT DOESN'T !   "Vegans" aren't interested in healthy living nor reducing global warming, though.. They simply want to demand that other people should eat the same as them...

"Misery shared is misery halved !" should be the Vegan/PETA working mantra !    

Claims does not mean it is debunked, it just means you disagree with the findings and as seen clearly there is much evidence to suggest a less meat diet is more beneficial to the body and the environment. I eat meat myself, but do not discount as already stated those on such diets like the Chinese and Japanese by far live longer than their western counter parts, so whether you disagree or not you have to provide evidence

victorisnotamused wrote:so what we gonna do...survive on letteuce??

god what a boring dietry future....

Almost as boring as meat and two veg nearly every day. .. Try some of these:

http://www.yummly.com/recipes/delicious-vegetarian-curry

Lone Wolf wrote:

Didge wrote:
Consuming a plant-based diet results in a more sustainable environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, while improving longevity, according to new research from Loma Linda University Health.

A study and an article, produced by researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health, will be published in full in the July issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and were first presented at the 6th International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition in 2013.
Based on findings that identified food systems as a significant contributor to global warming, the study focuses on the dietary patterns of vegetarians, semi-vegetarians and non-vegetarians to quantify and compare greenhouse gas emissions, as well as assess total mortality.

The mortality rate for non-vegetarians was almost 20 percent higher than that for vegetarians and semi-vegetarians. On top of lower mortality rates, switching from non-vegetarian diets to vegetarian diets or even semi-vegetarian diets also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The vegetarian diets resulted in almost a third less emissions compared to the non-vegetarian diets. Modifying the consumption of animal-based foods can therefore be a feasible and effective tool for climate change mitigation and public health improvements, the study concluded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140625145536.htm

 

THIS story is largely bullshit...

IT is full of lies, misdirections and partial truths ~ and fake "institutes" and suspect universities..

PETA and their Vegan affiliates have been active pushing this false study through local newspapers and vege' websites over recent weeks.  THIS in and of itself is a big black mark against this flawed "study"..

AND I've seen it largely debunked on another couple of sites already over the last two weeks ==> let's just consider the impacts of livestock farming alone :     

Livestock produce roughly 30% of greenhouse gases, via both CO2 respiration and methane farts ~ that's less than a third, with the other two biggies still remaining transport and power generation (mostly fossil fuels..).

THE VEGANS, however don't see us reducing the numbers of livestock !  They simply want people to stop eating them !  HOW does that alone reduce climate change effects ???

IT DOESN'T !   "Vegans" aren't interested in healthy living nor reducing global warming, though.. They simply want to demand that other people should eat the same as them...

"Misery shared is misery halved !" should be the Vegan/PETA working mantra !  

(AND:  I haven't even mentioned the millions of people cast onto the unemployment scrapheaps IF the vege's ever get their way..).

Well, putting aside the moral issue, the greenhouse gas issue and all other stuff, the simple fact is the world's population's ever increasing, and it takes a load of fields to feed and produce a couple of cows for enough meat to feed a few dozen - those same fields could produce enough crops to feed hundreds. In time we'll have to adjust whether you old flesh-eaters like it or not.

Didge wrote:............................

Claims does not mean it is debunked, it just means you disagree with the findings and as seen clearly there is much evidence to suggest a less meat diet is more beneficial to the body and the environment. I eat meat myself, but do not discount as already stated those on such diets like the Chinese and Japanese by far live longer than their western counter parts, so whether you disagree or not you have to provide evidence...

::D:: 

THIS study doesn't advocate the removal of livestock from the planet !!! But simply from the human diet...

AND it doesn't care about the economic, environmental or social impacts of shutting down the world's livestock industries..

Vegans also want to ban the keeping of all pets, sports such as horseriding, and any other industries and hobbies based around animals ~ such as beekeeping, aquaculture, breeding bantams !

WILL that be the topic for the next fake "study" from this previously-unheard-of "university", I have to wonder ?   

Tesstacious wrote:  
Well, putting aside the moral issue, the greenhouse gas issue and all other stuff, the simple fact is the world's population's ever increasing, and it takes a load of fields to feed and produce a couple of cows for enough meat to feed a few dozen - those same fields could produce enough crops to feed hundreds.  In time we'll have to adjust whether you old flesh-eaters like it or not.

 
  A much simpler and cheaper solution would be to reduce the world's human population back down below 5 billion people, or even less...

AS the human race is failing to do so itself just quite fast enough through its' regular wars, disease and famines, then placing a cap on humankind's breeding antics for the next generation or two could be a good start..  

Bee has made valid points, also a lot of land in the North is only capable of sustaining sheep farming and dairy herds and fodder crops silage and barley and such.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:  
Well, putting aside the moral issue, the greenhouse gas issue and all other stuff, the simple fact is the world's population's ever increasing, and it takes a load of fields to feed and produce a couple of cows for enough meat to feed a few dozen - those same fields could produce enough crops to feed hundreds.  In time we'll have to adjust whether you old flesh-eaters like it or not.

 
   A much simpler and cheaper solution would be to reduce the world's human population back down below 5 billion people, or even less...

AS the human race is failing to do so itself just quite fast enough through its' regular wars, disease and famines, then placing a cap on humankind's breeding antics for the next generation or two could be a good start..  

Couldn't agree more!

'M very surprised, I find myself agreeing with lone wolf more and more!!

Didge wrote:
Claims does not mean it is debunked, it just means you disagree with the findings and as seen clearly there is much evidence to suggest a less meat diet is more beneficial to the body and the environment. I eat meat myself, but do not discount as already stated those on such diets like the Chinese and Japanese by far live longer than their western counter parts, so whether you disagree or not you have to provide evidence

 
  ON THE "Actions speak louder than Words front..", over the past 35+ years I have :

* generally increased my fruit and vegetable intake "above averages" ~ though there's always room for more fruit;
* reduced red meat consumption to half or less the 'national average';
* still eat fish once or twice a week; poultry generally only once a week;
* added one or two days a week 'meat free';
* reduced my overall consumption of fats, processed sugars, salt, dairy, grains (I could be eating more "Low G.I." rice and pasta at this point..);
* (and, this does include recognising and allowing for the ever-present high doses of added sugars and salt and "hidden" fats, not to mention synthetic "additives", in processed and manufactured foodstuffs..).

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that I have to agree with any of the more wider and "broad brush" conclusion that this "study's" authors do ~ I still believe that they have a vegetarian or vegan agenda in there..

PERSONALLY, my downfall over recent years has been in often not getting enough physical activity, rather than any dietary problems.  

Lone Wolf wrote:

Didge wrote:............................

Claims does not mean it is debunked, it just means you disagree with the findings and as seen clearly there is much evidence to suggest a less meat diet is more beneficial to the body and the environment. I eat meat myself, but do not discount as already stated those on such diets like the Chinese and Japanese by far live longer than their western counter parts, so whether you disagree or not you have to provide evidence...

::D:: 

THIS study doesn't advocate the removal of livestock from the planet !!! But simply from the human diet...

AND it doesn't care about the economic, environmental or social  impacts of shutting down the world's livestock industries..

Vegans also want to ban the keeping of all pets, sports such as horseriding, and any other industries and hobbies based around animals ~ such as beekeeping, aquaculture, breeding bantams !

WILL that be the topic for the next fake "study" from this previously-unheard-of "university", I have to wonder ?    

No it does not, but anything is possible to remove such an already heavy burden on the environment Bee.


The fact is there is many benefits, though I myself fail to see how it would be enjoyable, since I have a meat based diet.

AS to having pets, it is a selfish past time is it not, altering the animals natural world to pleasure the human themselves?

Lone Wolf wrote:

Didge wrote:
Claims does not mean it is debunked, it just means you disagree with the findings and as seen clearly there is much evidence to suggest a less meat diet is more beneficial to the body and the environment. I eat meat myself, but do not discount as already stated those on such diets like the Chinese and Japanese by far live longer than their western counter parts, so whether you disagree or not you have to provide evidence

 
   ON THE "Actions speak louder than Words front..", over the past 35+ years I have :

* generally increased my fruit and vegetable intake "above averages" ~ though there's always room for more fruit;
* reduced red meat consumption to half or less the 'national average';
* still eat fish once or twice a week; poultry generally only once a week;
* added one or two days a week 'meat free';
* reduced my overall consumption of fats, processed sugars, salt, dairy, grains (I could be eating more "Low G.I." rice and pasta at this point..);
* (and, this does include recognising and allowing for the ever-present high doses of added sugars and salt and "hidden" fats, not to mention synthetic "additives", in processed and manufactured foodstuffs..).

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that I have to agree with any of the more wider and "broad brush" conclusion that this "study's" authors do ~ I still believe that they have a vegetarian or vegan agenda in there..

PERSONALLY, my downfall over recent years has been in often not getting enough physical activity, rather than any dietary problems.  

Whether you disagree or agree is irrelevant (not being rude either), what is relevant is whether they are stating more to the point that such a diet is better all round and the evidence does point that way Bee.

To me that is the key though is physical exercise, but I am of the opinion of actually enjoying life to the full and have no real special diet and love my food, I as stated exercise and keep in shape

Having pets is a stupid pastime,thats got to be the most the stupid post you'v ever made. Ican't believe you said that.

nicko wrote:Having pets is a stupid pastime,thats got to be the most the stupid post you'v ever made. Ican't believe you said that.

Please go to specsavers:

AS to having pets, it is a selfish past time is it not, altering the animals natural world to pleasure the human themselves?

Fuck me, your eye sight is shit mate, I said selfish, which it is, as humans have altered the natural life for the animals for their own pleasure.
I am not against people having pets, I am pointing out it is very much selfish in nature.

Fuck me you did look rather silly there

HAVING PETS ISA STUPID PASTIME,your words didge don't try to weasel out of it .it's there in black and .white.You couldn't have pets any way,you spend so much time on here you couldn't look after them.

nicko wrote:HAVING PETS ISA STUPID PASTIME,your words didge don't try to weasel out of it .it's there in black and .white.You couldn't have pets any way,you spend so much time on here you couldn't look after them.

Really then post where I stated this.

In your own time and I shall await your apology

Come on Nicko, the forum is waiting for you to apologise for making such an embarressing gaff.

While they wait this is quite interesting:



Scientists excavating an archaeological site in southern Spain have finally gotten the real poop on Neandertals, finding that the Caveman Diet for these quintessential carnivores included substantial helpings of vegetables. Using the oldest published samples of human fecal matter, archaeologists have found the first direct evidence that Neandertals in Europe cooked and ate plants about 50,000 years ago.

The extinct Neandertals, who lived from about 230,000 to 30,000 years ago, have long been portrayed as uber-carnivores—humans at the top of the food chain who ate mostly meat to fuel their revved-up metabolisms in order to survive in the frigid climes of northern Europe and Asia. This image was based on evidence from butchered meat bones and hunting tools at archaeological sites, as well as from studies of carbon, nitrogen, and other chemicals in the fossilized teeth of Neandertals, which can reveal their diets. But a recent study of starches in the plaque of Neandertal teeth indicated that Neandertals in modern-day Iraq and Belgium ate grasses, tubers, and other plants, and that they also cooked barley grains in Iraq. This view of Neandertals gathering plants and cooking barley porridge challenged the old view that our burly cousins went extinct because they depended too much on meat, whereas versatile modern humans could survive on a broader range of plant and animal foods. But it was still unclear whether vegetables made up a significant part of the European Neanderthal diet.

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/06/neandertals-ate-their-veggies-their-feces-reveal?rss=1

Didge wrote:

nicko wrote:HAVING PETS ISA STUPID PASTIME,your words didge don't try to weasel out of it .it's there in black and .white.You couldn't have pets any way,you spend so much time on here you couldn't look after them.

Really then post where I stated this.

In your own time and I shall await your apology

Unravelling your weaselly ways... no you didn't say it's a stupid pastime, you said it's a selfish pastime, which actually makes you sound like the stupid one - and the selfish one come to that. I'd go out on a limb and say that there are a lot of pets around that do more good than you. After all, what's your contribution to the world? Answers on a postcard. No, make that a postage stamp..

Selfish,stupid, a good description of you.Do you have any pets?

Tesstacious wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really then post where I stated this.

In your own time and I shall await your apology

Unravelling your weaselly ways... no you didn't say it's a stupid pastime, you said it's a selfish pastime, which actually makes you sound like the stupid one - and the selfish one come to that.  I'd go out on a limb and say that there are a lot of pets around that do more good than you.  After all, what's your contribution to the world?  Answers on a postcard.  No, make that a postage stamp..

Irrelevant, having pets is selfish in nature, it takes them away from their natural environment, I mean lets take this one step further, would you have a human as a pet?
Again I am not against people having pets, but thanks for the unwarranted abuse, I am showing that by nature it is the need of the humans, left to their own devices, or not having been tamed in the first place animals would do well enough on their own, it is only humans that screw up their populations or dramatacially change them by urbanization or even farming.

So again is having pets for your needs or the animals?
You look after pets that are rescued, which would not even be required if people did not have pets, so again by the very nature of having pets is more for the need of the human, than it is for the animal, thus by this very nature it is selfish

nicko wrote:Selfish,stupid, a good description of you.Do you have any pets?

No because i believe it is wrong to keep pets unless you can devote total undue love and care for them. Too many people keep animals and coupe them up all day in doors whilst they go to work, again very selfish, and unless you are able to spend most of your time with animals, then again it would be wrong.

So you do not have the decency to admit you fucked up.

No suprise there then

Didge wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Unravelling your weaselly ways... no you didn't say it's a stupid pastime, you said it's a selfish pastime, which actually makes you sound like the stupid one - and the selfish one come to that.  I'd go out on a limb and say that there are a lot of pets around that do more good than you.  After all, what's your contribution to the world?  Answers on a postcard.  No, make that a postage stamp..

Irrelevant, having pets is selfish in nature, it takes them away from their natural environment, I mean lets take this one step further, would you have a human as a pet?
Again I am not against people having pets, but thanks for the unwarranted abuse, I am showing that by nature it is the need of the humans, left to their own devices, or not having been tamed in the first place animals would do well enough on their own, it is only humans that screw up their populations.

So again is having pets for your needs or the animals?
You look after pets that are rescued, which would not even be required if people did not have pets, so again by the very nature of having pets is more for the need of the human, than it is for the animal, thus by this very nature it is selfish

Domesticated animals (pets) exist - have done for centuries. So have gypsies. You could say "what's the need for gypsies?" - same stupid argument - they exist! So what's your caring alternative? Leave them to roam the streets and starve, or just kill the lot of them? Fuck it why stop at pets... gypsies, birds... anything/anyone that doesn't have a useful function. What a lovely person you are Adolf.

Tesstacious wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irrelevant, having pets is selfish in nature, it takes them away from their natural environment, I mean lets take this one step further, would you have a human as a pet?
Again I am not against people having pets, but thanks for the unwarranted abuse, I am showing that by nature it is the need of the humans, left to their own devices, or not having been tamed in the first place animals would do well enough on their own, it is only humans that screw up their populations.

So again is having pets for your needs or the animals?
You look after pets that are rescued, which would not even be required if people did not have pets, so again by the very nature of having pets is more for the need of the human, than it is for the animal, thus by this very nature it is selfish

Domesticated animals (pets) exist - have done for centuries.  So have gypsies.  You could say "what's the need for gypsies?" - same stupid argument - they exist!  So what's your caring alternative?  Leave them to roam the streets and starve, or just kill the lot of them?  Fuck it why stop at pets... gypsies, birds... anything/anyone that doesn't have a useful function.  What a lovely person you are Adolf.

Absurd logic, as it is humans that have altered animals natural state, to have for their own needs, this could be altered back as is done with orphaned wild animals. So again you clearly do not even understand having pets is by its very nature a selfish need by humans, though how you equate that to now Gypsies, is hinging along the lines of the Third Reich.

Actually Adolf had pets also, selfishly, so that would make him like you

Grow the fuck up you child, if you cannot have a serious debate, as I am not having a go at people for having pets, but by its very nature it is a selfish act.

Fuck me, get a grip you child

What a selfish cold hearted person you are didge, I thought by your posts you were a caring,person but by god your true personality is is on show here.Millions and millions of people across the world keep pets,a great source of comfort for many. A cold hearted twat like you will never know the feeling of happiness a loving pet can bring,but then you'v got your computer to love haven't you?

nicko wrote:What a selfish cold hearted person you are didge, I thought by your posts you were a caring,person but by god your true personality is is on show here.Millions and millions of people across the world keep pets,a great source of comfort for many. A cold hearted twat like you will never know the feeling of happiness a loving pet can bring,but then you'v got your computer to love haven't you?

Well it actually shows I am more caring than you for animals Nicko and I will explain why, but thanks again for showing you are no more than an utter shit stirrer that does not know your arse from your elbow. For one second have you thought about how animals are manipulated and with over breeding where to the extent to satisfy the need of humans, thousands of unwanted animals are destroyed every year?
Do you ever stop to look past your own stupidity?
Animals for a start are not even free in the care of humans and are reliant on humans. Thus they are denied the basic rights you have as a human to be free yourself, but I guess you never even contemplate such a notion. The very fact many animals like I said are like for example dogs chained up all day, birds kept in small cages, is appalling to say the least. Not all owners are like this but many do not have the time or undue care to look after them.

So who really is the cold hearted one where I advocate for animals to be free, you though need to receive love from animals, I do not, as love is freely given.

Do you ever admit you got something wrong didge? a few billion people would say you a twat, but you know that all ready don't you? no point in carrying on with this,

nicko wrote:Do you ever admit you got something wrong didge? a few billion people would say you a twat, but you know that all ready don't you? no point in carrying on with this,

You mean like you saying I called having pets stupid, get real, you fuckwit, I get tired of your utter ignorance because as seen you have no answer, you know my points are true of course and that keeping pets is itself selfish by nature, as it is for your needs. The very fact breeding animals to satisfy this needs has as stated countless destroyed each year I guess is not wrong to you, how the whole system is wrong, how many people who have pets are unable to give them undue love and attention.
Thiis goes so far above that teeny tiny brain of yours it is not even worth trying to educate such a fuckwit as seen.

Please live in your own ignorance it is what you do best

jesus not more didge "animal rights idiocy"

nicko..didge is an animal rights nut job i'm afraid....
childish mawkish sentimantality....

no to pets he says....

what about assistance dogs...do we keep them?

in which case concerning "rights ", clearly then they are kept ONLY to serve a purpose...making them slaves
using Didges argument...would you have human slaves?


what about guard dogs and police dogs

again nothing but slaves..and often HIGH risk slaves too...

NO didge doesnt want anyone to have anything or any pastime except...erm....stamp collecting...perhaps...
but then thats racist isnt it...because you want stamps that re differnt from other countries...and we all know in didges world that everyone and everything must be the same....

He also doesnt realise that ALL domestic animals would be extinct within a couple of generations....

still it would leave the idiot plenty of open green land to build over...he could achieve his dream and concrete britain over from top to bottom.....

what else does he think would happen...

you only have to see what IS happening now...a farm gets sold at auction...within a month ist a housing estate.

Sorry didge , but when it comes to this subject you are a moron....

Victor,i really can't believe he thinks like that.Be interesting to know how many posters on here keep pets and how many agree with him.Come on posters who keeps pets and what are they?

victorisnotamused wrote:jesus not more didge "animal rights idiocy"

nicko..didge is an animal rights nut job i'm afraid....
childish mawkish sentimantality....
Oh fuck me more fucking stupidity from the fuckwit Nazi, so please tell me how having a pet is not a selfish act fuckwit?

no to pets he says....
Fuckwit again, never stated people should not have pets, you clearlly cannot read as swell as being a fucking Nazi fuckwit and a tud

what about assistance dogs...do we keep them?
Yes we do keep assistant dogs fuckwit, they are not pets though are they fuckwit, or do you not know the difference fuckwit?

in which case concerning "rights ", clearly then they are kept ONLY to serve a purpose...making them slaves
using Didges argument...would you have human slaves?
Yes they are still are slaves, did you ask the dog if they wanted to be free or look after the owner Mr Fuckwit?


what about guard dogs and police dogs
Not needed

again nothing but slaves..and often HIGH risk slaves too...
Yes still slaves

NO didge doesnt want anyone to have anything or any pastime except...erm....stamp collecting...perhaps...
but then thats racist isnt it...because you want stamps that re differnt from other countries...and we all know in didges world that everyone and everything must be the same....
Again if you read back fuckwit I said I do not have a problem with people keeping pets

He also doesnt realise that ALL domestic animals would be extinct within a couple of generations....
Bullshit

still it would leave the idiot plenty of open green land to build over...he could achieve his dream and concrete britain over from top to bottom.....
Achieve what dream, the reality is there would be such a problem if we had not altered the situation for them

what else does he think would happen...

you only have to see what IS happening now...a farm gets sold at auction...within a month ist a housing estate.

Sorry didge , but when it comes to this subject you are a moron....

No you are the moran as seen


You advocate animals being bred just so that millions are slaughtered because nobody wants them.

You advocate people having opets and locking them up all day

You advocate people keeping birds in cages all day

You advocate cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes

Yes please tell me how manipulating the animals via breeding and how many people who need the animals for selfish needs are in anyway helping the animals?

Please explain how the animals are free?


take your time fuckwit

nicko wrote:Victor,i really can't believe he thinks like that.Be interesting to know how many posters on here keep pets and how many agree with him.Come on posters who keeps pets and what are they?

That is because he is a clueless fuckwit like you are, animals are kept by humans for their own needs, that intself is selfish, except a fuck up has been like you has notthe first understanding of anything and watch me show up victor very easily over his claims

I stated from he start I have no problem with people keeping pets but again it is sefish you fucking idiot

Why are you swearing all the while? it shows you have lost the argument and are frightened of being found out.

nicko wrote:Why are you swearing all the while? it shows you have lost the argument and are frightened of being found out.

No, I am just going off what you started you fucked up dick, so what is the point in being pleasant, it seems this is your only way to communicate, so am using the Nicko method of stupid communication, got it fuckwit?




An unnatural existence

Stolen from your mother as a youngster, confined, controlled, surgically altered, and bored for hours on end. Imagine yourself as a "pet" dog.

You retain many of the instincts of your wild ancestors such as the desire to run free at your own will, eat fresh food as nature intended, and to have the constant company of your own family members as you explore your territory and take in the sounds and smells of the natural world.

Now place yourself in a small Manhattan apartment, enduring the intermittent company of your beloved master with your ability to see the world and even use the bathroom remaining on their terms only. You only occasionally get to meet members of your own species, many of which have been so strangely altered due to selective breeding that the natural order ceases to exist. Your range consists of wherever your owner takes you, on a leash of course. It is a confusing, distressing and unnatural existence.

Sad Animals in Zoos
Exploring the phenomenon of people thinking animals are "sad" in zoos because of the expression on their faces. Can you read an animal's mind by looking at it?
Facts about the dog trade

There are Approximately 83.3 million owned dogs in the United States.
70% of dog owners own one dog
6-8 million dogs enter shelters each year, and an estimated 3-4 million healthy cats and dogs are euthanized yearly.
Across the country, privately-held dogs held have escaped from their fenced in yards and have attacked humans and other animals — with sometimes fatal results.
Many dogs can transmit deadly diseases — including MRSA, lyme disease and salmonellosis — to humans.
The CDC states that "Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year, half of these are children.1 One in five dog bites results in injuries serious enough to require medical attention."
Puppy mills are breeding factory farms that hold dogs in cramped cages and force female dogs to breed every time they are in heat (a 5 year old dog gives birth to 10 litters).

Domestication is cruel

Many owners of dogs think that they love their “pets” and that they are members of their families, but the reality is that these animals are being denied their freedom that people mistakenly think they no longer desire because they have been “domesticated”.

All too often, people think that because a practice has been around for ages, it can't be unethical. It is true that dogs have evolved with mankind for centuries, but the relationship started as a symbiotic one where wolves would accompany humans free-ranging in a wild and natural existence. Eventually, the reciprocal relationship of humans and dogs devolved to exploitation and abuse.

Many dogs are forcibly “selectively bred” (and their puppies abducted) to have unnatural traits and suffer from health problems, shortened life spans, and impaired mental development. These once wild and magnificent animals have been altered to be entirely dependent on humans, with only a few dog breeds capable of providing for themselves in the wild.

People think that they have successfully altered nature to such an extent that this once wild wolf is now as good as a human child with stunted cognition, perfectly suited for confinement. Most dogs have no choice but to endure an existence with humans for their social, physical, and psychological needs, but these needs are on a large scale, often not met.

Dog Breeding and the Dog Trade

If a domesticated dog is lucky enough to not to be bred with numerous intentional deformities (and some breeds are even forced to go through surgery to alter their appearance), it is still yanked away from its parents at a young age to be sold to humans as a “pet” through ‘pet’ stores or breeders. Dog ownership has grown to such popularity that many ‘surplus’ dogs languish in shelters, waiting to get adopted by the species that created them, and often unsuccessfully.

The Truth About Purebred Dogs Will Absolutely Disgust You
Over the years, purebred dogs have undergone some unhealthy changes, just in the name of improving the breed. What actually happened is disgusting.
Dogs that suffer from ‘behavioral problems’ (these are often dogs that express their natural, repressed instincts) are put to death because they make less than optimal “pets”. Other dogs can even suffer the same fate simply because they are large, black, and unappealing to new families.

To combat the ‘pet overpopulation problem’, it is recommended for most dog owners to ‘spay or neuter’ their animals. These words are a nice way of saying castration, or mutilating the dog’s reproductive organs. Would you want your genitals severed in the name of human population control? Many studies show that such a procedure causes hormone imbalances and increased risk of some ailments.

After dogs go through this procedure, most are fed boring and inadequate dried kibble that is not anywhere near what their natural diet should consist of or taste like. These inferior diets lead to illness, bad breath, and life threatening dental diseases.

Psychological Welfare

What happens if you work regular 9-5 hour jobs like most Americans? Dogs must spend unnatural amounts of time waiting for their owners to return. No matter how much we selectively breed dogs to suit our lifestyles, no dogs prefer loneliness. Sometimes dogs less resilient to this mistreatment acquire mental problems that are referred to as “separation anxiety”, but owners brush it off as acceptable and may confine their dogs to a crate (barely enough room for the dog to turn around in) as a result.



Stereotypic behavior in shelter dogs


Dogs have been known to suffer from depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and other mental and emotional problems in captivity. Often under-exercised and under-stimulated, some dogs may become unnaturally lethargic, leading to weight gain.

Many dogs are so far removed from their natural behavior that they do not know how to get along with other dogs. These dogs when available for adoption are simply titled 'must be adopted to a one dog household', but often are suffering from profound anxiety disorders and neurosis

Dogs Carry and Transmit Disease

Dog ownership helps spread disease among the public. Dogs can carry and transmit to humans: brucellosis, campylobacteriosis, cryptosporidosis, giardia, MRSA, lyme disease, rabies, ringworm, salmonellosis, toxocariasis, and others.

Diseases spread by dogs are often under-reported as well, making owners of dogs more susceptible to ignoring the risk. Dogs also spread many diseases through their waste in the environment, so it is not only the owners who are at risk.

While many owners pick up after dogs, there are more than enough remnants of their fecal matter to transmit illness to children who play in the areas where they have eliminated. Not all dogs are vaccinated for rabies (and dogs love to chase and fight with animals that carry rabies) and can acquire the deadly disease and spread it unbeknownst to the owner through a bite or scratch. Recently people have even acquired diseases from commercial pet food. Raw diets for dogs are closer to their natural diet but also can transmit germs

Dogs are a dangerous public safety hazard!

Every year, Americas are reminded that their domesticated pets still retain defensive and predatory instincts. Dog attacks on people are extremely common in comparison to all other pets. In fact, around 50 percent of all homeowner insurance liability claims that are paid out are due to dog attacks. In 2011, the total cost amounted to $479 million.

Also under-reported are less severe bites that the owners and their acquaintances sustain because they do not want to report their beloved pets. Approximately 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Even bites and scratches from dogs can become infected with bacteria such as Capnocytophaga ochracea or Pasteurella multocida and become life threatening if the infection reaches the bone. Dog attacks result in approximately 20-30 fatalities each year, with most of the victims consisting of young children.



End This Cruel Practice

Simply put, breeding dogs to be "pets" is a wrong and cruel act that is detrimental for our society. Wild wolves were never meant to be the pet project of humans solely for their amusement and company. Dogs should be with members of their own species, free to make their own decisions. Humans have each other to provide companionship, and small children can have very realistic stuffed toys if they want a mammal to play with. Live animals are no substitute for good parenting.

What Can You Do?

Unfortunately, the problem of “pet” dogs is extremely prominent. We need to support laws that ban the breeding of these animals. If you must have a dog, please only adopt one, and try to give it as much freedom as possible in its confined and unnatural existence. Together, we can phase out the practice of breeding and owning dogs as “pets”.

Stop swearing child, do you do that in your house?

nicko wrote:Stop swearing child, do you do that in your house?

Then grow the fuck up yourself idiot, when you learn to be pleasant then I will be in return, it is simple, even a dumb fuck like you can work something that simple out

Right counter my points that owning an animal is not selfish, not retarded points like victor on some uses they have.

Good luck, lets see if you can act like an adult

When I learn to be pleasant WHEN I LEARN, your mental.

nicko wrote:When I learn to be pleasant WHEN I LEARN, your mental.

So you are still a pathetic child then

Hey ho, when you grow up and have something intelligent to say, then let me know, until then I suggest you go back into your playpen

please go away your a dummy.I pity you didge you have no one to love, [only your computer]When you come home have you ever felt the love when a dog comes to greet you.There is no love in you didge, only for youself I am sorry for you.