Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The global nanny state wants to take another bite out of your freedom. Its new target – your dinner plate.

The Guardian reported on June 2 that the UN was supporting a switch to a radical anti-meat agenda. “A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today,” wrote the paper.

Here’s how the group Vegan Action describes this extreme vegetarianism. “While vegetarians choose not to use flesh foods, vegans also avoid dairy and eggs, as well as fur, leather, wool, down, and cosmetics or chemical products tested on animals.

The UN report is all about the environmental impact of “consumption and production,” or pretty much what humans do – eat and make stuff. It warns: “A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."...

...Yes it’s hard to take the UN seriously, especially on climate change, where bogus statistics and claims are commonplace. But this isn’t the standard UN silliness. This is one more bite at the apple (I think that’s approved even by PETA) to get Westerners to change how they live. It’s all part of the global warming strategy to get us to give up living like civilized humans. The left wants us all to move back into caves, eat nuts and berries and live in harmony with Mother Nature.

Naturally, while the UN is having a cow about, well, you having a cow, the media are either silent or supportive.

Time magazine has already served up an article called “Tastes Like Chicken: The Quest for Fake Meat.” The magazine spent more than 1,000 words giving us a taste of the new world order. “Do we really need to kill animals to live? Today, the hunger for meat is also contributing to the climate-change catastrophe.” The article goes on to give its readers something to chew on: “So the idea of fake meat has never been more alluring.”

Author John Cloud focused on people like “the creator of Tofurky and dean of soy-meat inventors,” products like “a meat analogue” that he tried eating in three dishes. “None were very good.” Duh.

The dystopian dinner the author would have us eat isn’t quite cooked up yet. Thank God. But Time’s already marketing it as a complete substitute to our evil meat habit. The piece ends with this feel-good recipe: “Maybe one day you'll order a chicken fajita at Chili's that is made with soy. You almost certainly won't notice the difference, but the planet will.”

Predictably, The New York Times wants to play diet doctor too. On March 21, it profiled “Clueless” actress Alicia Silverstone, who has become a PETA poster child and a strident anti-meat moron (oops, vegan) ever since she had a heart-to-heart with her dog.

“At one point I looked at my dog, who was my best friend, and I thought, If I’m not going to eat you, then how can I eat these other creatures who have the same capacity for love and joy,” said the budding Doctor Doolittle. What the dog thought, we don’t know. But “The karma of turning vegan is amazing,” she told the author.

kalm wrote:I found those images while searching for an image of a bumper sticker I saw yesterday that read:

"Are you an environmentalist...or do you work for a living"

I immediately thought of tman.

∞∞∞ wrote:Even though I disagree with this and really don't like the UN, we better start getting used to this type of stuff. With the population growing at an exponential rate, future wars aren't going to be fought over things like oil. Instead, they'll be fought over things like water (btw, the future water crisis is one of the single saddest topics no one talks about anymore). I expect meat prices to shoot up in the next few years.

It really sucks to say this, but at our current rate, we really need a massive loss of human life to quell what's going on. The way we're doing stuff now is becoming antequated and unsustainable.

catamount man wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Even though I disagree with this and really don't like the UN, we better start getting used to this type of stuff. With the population growing at an exponential rate, future wars aren't going to be fought over things like oil. Instead, they'll be fought over things like water (btw, the future water crisis is one of the single saddest topics no one talks about anymore). I expect meat prices to shoot up in the next few years.

It really sucks to say this, but at our current rate, we really need a massive loss of human life to quell what's going on. The way we're doing stuff now is becoming antequated and unsustainable.

And thus folks, you now see the workings of the liberal mind. The planet is much better off if there is nobody left to inhabit it. 50 million innocent unborn cannot satisfy the liberal thirst for blood, so now we start killing the living and viable? Sheesh...............

catamount man wrote:And FWIW, do like I do, simply give up red meat. That ought to satisfy the UN agenda but I guess when I'm old and still healthy, the new world order will find some way to get me out of existence.

catamount man wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Even though I disagree with this and really don't like the UN, we better start getting used to this type of stuff. With the population growing at an exponential rate, future wars aren't going to be fought over things like oil. Instead, they'll be fought over things like water (btw, the future water crisis is one of the single saddest topics no one talks about anymore). I expect meat prices to shoot up in the next few years.

It really sucks to say this, but at our current rate, we really need a massive loss of human life to quell what's going on. The way we're doing stuff now is becoming antequated and unsustainable.

And thus folks, you now see the workings of the liberal mind. The planet is much better off if there is nobody left to inhabit it. 50 million innocent unborn cannot satisfy the liberal thirst for blood, so now we start killing the living and viable? Sheesh...............

∞∞∞ wrote:Even though I disagree with this and really don't like the UN, we better start getting used to this type of stuff. With the population growing at an exponential rate, future wars aren't going to be fought over things like oil. Instead, they'll be fought over things like water (btw, the future water crisis is one of the single saddest topics no one talks about anymore). I expect meat prices to shoot up in the next few years.

It really sucks to say this, but at our current rate, we really need a massive loss of human life to quell what's going on. The way we're doing stuff now is becoming antequated and unsustainable.

Rob Iola wrote:Reverse osmosis, my friend, reverse osmosis...

Of course, solar energy will solve our energy AND climate change problems...

The problem? Money - when oil and water get expensive enough then these solutions will become practical...

Oh, and to paraphrase Cartman, animals are friendly and intelligent - on a bun...

∞∞∞ wrote:

catamount man wrote:

And thus folks, you now see the workings of the liberal mind. The planet is much better off if there is nobody left to inhabit it. 50 million innocent unborn cannot satisfy the liberal thirst for blood, so now we start killing the living and viable? Sheesh...............

Yeah, I just read that back and it sounds bad and I didn't mean it that way. My bad.

The world CAN sustain more people, and if we're going to live at the current rate of human population growth, then we're going to have to change how we use food and water...even in the US (where population has levelled out)...because prices will rise here.

As for the massive loss of human life, I'm talking about natural events (flu, etc.) that would give us more time to figure this stuff out. I certainly don't want us to go killing hundreds of millions of people. I believe we can live with more people in the world, but we have to take a look at the way we manufacture and distribute food and water in the developed world, unless we don't want to care for the undeveloped parts at all. Because if that's the case, then all this is moot. But we should care as fellow humans.

And I'm not a liberal.

Ivytalk wrote:Just one more reason to declare Turtle Bay an independent nation, deprive it of U.S. taxpayer support, and declare war on it. The mass exodus of globaloid namby-pambys and pointy-heads down First Avenue would be hilarious!

Chizzang wrote:Um...
has ANYBODY who posted on this thread actually read the UN report that T-mans article is referencing...?
The article related to the UN report is extremely misleading
It's simply a UN report on sustainable practices in food production and consumption... and that's all it is
nothing about taking peoples steaks away

Figure 5.7: Ranked contribution of produced goods to total environmental impacts

Animal products, both meat and dairy, in general require more resources and cause higher emissions than plant-based alternatives.

Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.

catamount man wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Even though I disagree with this and really don't like the UN, we better start getting used to this type of stuff. With the population growing at an exponential rate, future wars aren't going to be fought over things like oil. Instead, they'll be fought over things like water (btw, the future water crisis is one of the single saddest topics no one talks about anymore). I expect meat prices to shoot up in the next few years.

It really sucks to say this, but at our current rate, we really need a massive loss of human life to quell what's going on. The way we're doing stuff now is becoming antequated and unsustainable.

And thus folks, you now see the workings of the liberal mind. The planet is much better off if there is nobody left to inhabit it. 50 million innocent unborn cannot satisfy the liberal thirst for blood, so now we start killing the living and viable? Sheesh...............

∞∞∞ wrote:Even though I disagree with this and really don't like the UN, we better start getting used to this type of stuff. With the population growing at an exponential rate, future wars aren't going to be fought over things like oil. Instead, they'll be fought over things like water (btw, the future water crisis is one of the single saddest topics no one talks about anymore). I expect meat prices to shoot up in the next few years.

It really sucks to say this, but at our current rate, we really need a massive loss of human life to quell what's going on. The way we're doing stuff now is becoming antequated and unsustainable.