in a competition you run around for like 15 minutes though

Don't get me wrong. I think there must be something very appealing to the sport, otherwise there wouldn't be so many watching it. But to me it isn't related to the actual sportive aspects as this - again in my opinion - lacks it. The netto game time is 5.8% of the overall time. Soccer has 62% the rest is grown up guys crying on the floor because someone looked at them angrily. This could be different if I was born and raised in the us with football equalling to having a good time with my dad.

That isn't the reason cattle is a threat to the enviroment, the space and resources needed to make the cattle industry work properly is fucking insane.

That's completely irrelevant unless you live in a socialist/communist society. The cost and value of the industry are automatically balanced. It's more important that we get the nourishment we need and want.

Also, resources don't replenish at the pace we and human population is going, just saying.

Keep believing that, i can give you all the sources you want.
bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/10/909.full
www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use/background.aspx
www.cspinet.org/EatingGreen/pdf/arguments4.pdf
pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf
www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf

Animal agriculture is the major cause of ocean deadzones and habitat destruction. Most of the sources only cover the water and space problem.

Hey i love meat, but i would rather admit i'm a sinner.

No, you don't get it. It doesn't matter that it uses resources and stresses our environment. It's more important that we continue to grow, and a well-structured economy will automatically allow us at an optimal pace. By your logic, we should stop driving cars too.

Neither is a sin. We are the stewards of the Earth, and the plants and animals are given to us for our purposes. It is a sin to place needless and excessive burdens on people by forbidding what is not forbidden.

No plants are not here for our purpose, neither are animals, This world has limits and economic meassures don't control it in any form or way, only exploit it for it's own needs. The food industry is completly destroying the planet, overfishing is putting under risk thousands of fish species and at the pace we are going we are depleating the oceans themselves of life.

Most of the space left empty because of deforestation is used for cattle production. Not to mention greenhouse gases surpass the ones caused by vehicles.

Cars don't feed people, there will be a time where cattle production WILL have to slow down, we don't have the space or the resources for the exponential growth of human population. I gave you plenty of sources, if you don't want to read them that's your decission. Also that retarded logic you use in your first statement reminds me of this shitty evriomentalist group that said that eating fish is helping keep fish population healthy, ffs.

also "let me completly ignore someone's sources, let me not give sources myself, let me use some ad hominem and make a dumb counter argument that has no base" Yeah, way ahead buddy.

"At the optimum rate" Do you seriously expect no consequences from consuming more and more resources exponentially over the years? When the human population gets closer and closer to the trillion? That meat is endless and there will be a piece for everyone? Don't be retarded, you are the one missing the point when you completly ignore that resources can be depleated and that global warming is a very fucking real issue.

"Do you seriously expect no consequences from consuming more and more resources exponentially over the years? When the human population gets closer and closer to the trillion? That meat is endless and there will be a piece for everyone?"
That is correct.

"Don't be retarded, you are the one missing the point when you completly ignore that resources can be depleated and that global warming is a very fucking real issue."
Haha. I don't time for any more of your blah blah blah. Good luck solving world hunger by starving people.

It's about changing our ways beyond anything else, but hey! Sure, we are gods little boys and we are destined to greatness, keep believing that bullshit

Implying our ways are wrong. It's funny when people call others' beliefs bullshit, when they don't even understand their own beliefs.

when you start putting beliefs as facts you might need to check your priorities.

You still refuse to put a valid counter argument to the very real issues the cattle industry causes and decide to call everything i say bullshit because you are too stubborn to read the damn sources. I'm still waiting.

I've gone over this too many times to repeat myself to someone already self-convinced of his own moral correctness. It's easier to just refute your arguments and make fun of vegans.

How the fuck does that make you look, what the fuck?

I eat meat i love meat, it's hypocritical but i admit the issue is fucking real, you are no better than the people saying global warming is fake.

How does it make me look? It doesn't matter. We're the only ones left on this page. I never said any of it was fake, just not an issue. The solution isn't to stop or even reduce consumption of meat, gasoline, or electricity; it's simply to establish a sound, liberal economic system, and the problems will resolve themselves.

You once again put a belief as a fact, don't know if you checked, things aren't getting any better, exponential consumption is making things much much worse.

the union was trying to take back the south, abolishing slavery was just a pretext

A Federal abolition of slavery was a concept started, and almost implemented by, the second continental congress back in 1776. Thanks to the southern representatives, that clause was scrapped to be revisited 100 years later. The pretext was already present and had been talked about in congress leading up to the war. It wasn't just a reason issued for war.

slavery was definitely part of the issue in the civil war, but so was the south wanting to let the states govern themselves instead of having a more centralized government
which both defeats and reinforces the purpose of the 'United States' concept
defeats in the sense that they seceded because they didn't get what they want
but reinforces in the sense that the US was a union of states and not one big nation

The union was trying to defend the preamble of the constitution (insure domestic Tranquility,..promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity). The South was trying to prevent a large portion of their population from having that.

the union was trying to take back the south, abolishing slavery was just a pretext

A Federal abolition of slavery was a concept started, and almost implemented by, the second continental congress back in 1776. Thanks to the southern representatives, that clause was scrapped to be revisited 100 years later. The pretext was already present and had been talked about in congress leading up to the war. It wasn't just a reason issued for war.

below average? dude, do you even math? 15+6 mate

Oi thanks mate. I learned something new today