A tax on red meat?...
Discussion
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Roman Rhodes said:
One of the most hilariously stupid bits of ‘analysis’ I’ve ever seen posted! The only phenomenon is in your head. Is this where the expression Meathead comes from?
Brexit voting anti-immigration supporters of similar s
t stuff stopped evolving in the caveman days? Perhaps you are on to something.... 
I am on to something. Both you and LDN took issue with my post; he's a vegetarian and you're obviously a fellow traveller at least.Brexit voting anti-immigration supporters of similar s
t stuff stopped evolving in the caveman days? Perhaps you are on to something.... So the data supports the model.
Vegetarianism leads to left wingness.
Now, because we already know that older voters favoured Brexit it's reasonable to speculate that meat eating right wingers live longer, therefore making any correlation between red meat and cancer irrelevant because the benefits outweigh the risks compared to the left wing vegetarians who passed away earlier. As proven by a sample of 17.4 million gammons.
troll level 1! Evanivitch said:
That's very supportive parents to enable you to be a vegetarian from the age of 8. My sister tried and failed, as did my wife, to be a vegetarian in a non-veggie family. Both became pescatarians instead.
Mum and dad were OK with me not eating meat, but dad's mum was an old battle axe, that when the family visited her Anglesey home, she stood over me, with the threat that no eating meat, meant no dessert, needless to say I never had a dessert.Wings said:
Evanivitch said:
That's very supportive parents to enable you to be a vegetarian from the age of 8. My sister tried and failed, as did my wife, to be a vegetarian in a non-veggie family. Both became pescatarians instead.
Mum and dad were OK with me not eating meat, but dad's mum was an old battle axe, that when the family visited her Anglesey home, she stood over me, with the threat that no eating meat, meant no dessert, needless to say I never had a dessert.Gareth79 said:
Gecko1978 said:
Far as I can tell the Sugar tax applies to just Sofdt drinks with many places just raising the price of both drinks to align the cost.
From looking at shelf labels (Sainsburys marks when the tax is applied) many of the brands dropped their sugar levels to not be liable, and added sweeteners to replace the sugar. Coca Cola has pushed some new Zero flavours pretty heavily to fill the shelf gap where stores are stocking less full-sugar product.I have seen any reports but I *think* it will actually have caused a major reduction in sugar consumption from carbonated drinks at least.
Wings said:
Mum and dad were OK with me not eating meat, but dad's mum was an old battle axe, that when the family visited her Anglesey home, she stood over me, with the threat that no eating meat, meant no dessert, needless to say I never had a dessert.
My parents never blackmailed my sister like that, the issue they had was having to prepare a seperate meal for her, which in a large household is a considerable burden.southendpier said:
LDN said:
CzechItOut said:
I guess the question is whether the price of an item should be based on just the cost of production or more accurate reflect the true cost of the environmental and health impacts.
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
Agree with all of that; except that, a price increase will be seen to affect the poorest of society. There will be those that say; only the rich can now afford meat.As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
I think it best to educate the public on the real risks and effects of meat consumption and production; this alone will slowly turn the tide. Indeed, that is what appears to be happening.
Fact is, a balanced diet will do no harm to anyone, extremist vegan ranting is about themselves, and sod all else.Because, at the end of the day Veganism, is extremist, dietry fascism , Nobody tells them what to, or not to eat, yet they want to impose their principles on others. Nutters.
Hosenbugler said:
southendpier said:
LDN said:
CzechItOut said:
I guess the question is whether the price of an item should be based on just the cost of production or more accurate reflect the true cost of the environmental and health impacts.
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
Agree with all of that; except that, a price increase will be seen to affect the poorest of society. There will be those that say; only the rich can now afford meat.As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
I think it best to educate the public on the real risks and effects of meat consumption and production; this alone will slowly turn the tide. Indeed, that is what appears to be happening.
Fact is, a balanced diet will do no harm to anyone, extremist vegan ranting is about themselves, and sod all else.Because, at the end of the day Veganism, is extremist, dietry fascism , Nobody tells them what to, or not to eat, yet they want to impose their principles on others. Nutters.
RovingHawk said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
My sample just increased by 33.33%.
Not veggie, not left wing. Which do you think is cause & which is effect?I suspect it's both cause and effect.
An initial flirtation with leftism leads one to vegetarianism and the changes in hormones and demeanour this brings about reinforce the left leanings which in turn reinforce the vegetarianism.
I'm not necessarily saying this is a defect. It works the opposite way for meat eaters whose carnivorous diet reinforces their right wing out look which in turn reinforces meat eating tendencies.
To add, the fact that you're neither vegetarian or left wing further strengthens the picture that is emerging here.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Thursday 8th November 20:17
JuanCarlosFandango said:
RovingHawk said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
My sample just increased by 33.33%.
Not veggie, not left wing. Which do you think is cause & which is effect?I suspect it's both cause and effect.
An initial flirtation with leftism leads one to vegetarianism and the changes in hormones and demeanour this brings about reinforce the left leanings which in turn reinforce the vegetarianism.
I'm not necessarily saying this is a defect. It works the opposite way for meat eaters whose carnivorous diet reinforces their right wing out look which in turn reinforces meat eating tendencies.
LDN said:
Hosenbugler said:
southendpier said:
LDN said:
CzechItOut said:
I guess the question is whether the price of an item should be based on just the cost of production or more accurate reflect the true cost of the environmental and health impacts.
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
Agree with all of that; except that, a price increase will be seen to affect the poorest of society. There will be those that say; only the rich can now afford meat.As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
I think it best to educate the public on the real risks and effects of meat consumption and production; this alone will slowly turn the tide. Indeed, that is what appears to be happening.
Fact is, a balanced diet will do no harm to anyone, extremist vegan ranting is about themselves, and sod all else.Because, at the end of the day Veganism, is extremist, dietry fascism , Nobody tells them what to, or not to eat, yet they want to impose their principles on others. Nutters.
Hosenbugler said:
LDN said:
Hosenbugler said:
southendpier said:
LDN said:
CzechItOut said:
I guess the question is whether the price of an item should be based on just the cost of production or more accurate reflect the true cost of the environmental and health impacts.
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
Agree with all of that; except that, a price increase will be seen to affect the poorest of society. There will be those that say; only the rich can now afford meat.As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
I think it best to educate the public on the real risks and effects of meat consumption and production; this alone will slowly turn the tide. Indeed, that is what appears to be happening.
Fact is, a balanced diet will do no harm to anyone, extremist vegan ranting is about themselves, and sod all else.Because, at the end of the day Veganism, is extremist, dietry fascism , Nobody tells them what to, or not to eat, yet they want to impose their principles on others. Nutters.
LDN said:
I do agree with you that your perception of vegans is that they’re nutters, yes. Abolotionists were nutters in those days; as were the suffragettes. Funny thing about perception; most will see what they want to see; a few will see what they don’t.
Lots of eccentric minorities don't prevail in the long run as well.Even if the dodgy studies the carrot-fanciers suggest are true are actually accurate, I'll take 70 years eating steak, pork chops and other wonders of the world over 75 years of eating rabbit food and being holier than thou any day of the week.
I'll let my food take care of the vegetables then I'll eat it. Sounds FAR more appealing.
I'll let my food take care of the vegetables then I'll eat it. Sounds FAR more appealing.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
LDN said:
I do agree with you that your perception of vegans is that they’re nutters, yes. Abolotionists were nutters in those days; as were the suffragettes. Funny thing about perception; most will see what they want to see; a few will see what they don’t.
Lots of eccentric minorities don't prevail in the long run as well.LDN said:
I do agree with you that your perception of vegans is that they’re nutters, yes. Abolotionists were nutters in those days; as were the suffragettes. Funny thing about perception; most will see what they want to see; a few will see what they don’t.
You obviously see yourself as an enlightened saviour helping to lead us towards a brave new world- I think that's really sweet.Rovinghawk said:
LDN said:
I do agree with you that your perception of vegans is that they’re nutters, yes. Abolotionists were nutters in those days; as were the suffragettes. Funny thing about perception; most will see what they want to see; a few will see what they don’t.
You obviously see yourself as an enlightened saviour helping to lead us towards a brave new world- I think that's really sweet.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff