Reducing our meat consumption, what consequences for French agriculture?

[Moindreffor]

moindreffort

I do not agree, because the controversy ends when we take into account the bonus / penalty ratio, as soon as a technology brings more benefits than disadvantages for me it goes in the right direction, it is the case of any medical treatment, and I know something about it, I lost certain things but I gained my life there, after indeed one can blabble for hours in an uncritical framework, and one is then in the immobility we can unfortunately make reasonable choices, or ideological choices

Except that your reasonable choice was made precisely within an ideological framework, that of official medicine, itself within a restricted, totalitarian and monopolistic framework. Good for you if you were satisfied with it, but the statistics of annual deaths hardly support this optimism and in this particular case nosocomial and iatrogenic diseases.

always this absurd speech which would tend to demonstrate that the mortality due to the drugs of classical medicine are more lethal than beneficial, and therefore if we follow this reasoning, all of our classical doctors are complicit in this mortality and complicit with the big- pharma with the blessing of the entire political class and this for decades, without forgetting the complicity of the media

you will always find negative effects that I absolutely do not deny, I paid the price, but what is incomprehensible to you is that there are acceptable effects as long as the end is better, unfortunately medicine does not cure 100% of patients, but the orientation of your words tends to suggest that other medicines could do better, which is false

you often compare two different things of ailments and diseases, an illness is often due to bad human habits, that alternative or alternative medicine can effectively relieve or even cure and a disease is something that attacks you whatever you do in your habits

so it's easy for you to juggle from one to the other, muddying the waters and creating smoke screens

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

.... mortality from conventional medicine drugs are more lethal than beneficial ...

Be careful though to make sentences that hold up ... Because there, it is the uncontrolled skidding.

[Moindreffor]

.... mortality from conventional medicine drugs are more lethal than beneficial ...

Be careful though to make sentences that hold up ... Because there, it is the uncontrolled skidding.

effectively
conventional medicine drugs are more lethal than beneficial ..., it holds the road better, but what do you want is the age, or the meds, even both, even a little alcohol who knows ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

.... mortality from conventional medicine drugs are more lethal than beneficial ...

Be careful though to make sentences that hold up ... Because there, it is the uncontrolled skidding.

effectively
conventional medicine drugs are more lethal than beneficial ..., it holds the road better, but what do you want is the age, or the meds, even both, even a little alcohol who knows ...

And if you mix alcohol (who knows) and meds, it can hurt ...

[Ahmed]

Moindreffor, I read your answer attentively and in my turn to understand nothing, since it has absolutely nothing to do with my remarks. I said we have to distinguish two plans. On the one who confronts us with a reality which is indifferent to our opinion (whether we are favorable or opposed to this reality), our decisions are content to navigate by sight, according to the positive opportunities and by trying to avoid the inconveniences. which are part of the "package".
The other plan corresponds to the analysis that we can do (if as long as we want!) Of the systemic aspect and therefore corresponds to a theoretical approach. There is one point on which I agree with you (but it is minor), and that is that understanding the mechanisms does not necessarily influence practical choices. But, do you really want to stick to a purely superficial view where phenomena are just what they claim to be? We all need to understand, beyond the how of things, their why. This is what explains the construction of multiple interpretative grids of reality and I just think that it would be better to choose a good one rather than a mediocre one. I take an example so as not to remain in abstraction: on this forum, Energy-Realistic developed his theses by relying ultimately on an ontological affirmation which consisted in maintaining that greed would be constitutive of the human essence. Only this argument could justify all of his beliefs and yet this principle is false and only constitutes a projection of the functioning of the particular society that he is trying to analyze. He is clearly the victim of a confusion bias where the analyzed object corrupts the analyst's thought ... It is the same kind of fault that was committed by anthropologists of the XNUMXth century (and until late in the XNUMXth) , who saw in the "primitive" peoples, savages and who did not take a critical look at their own society seen as an outcome (at the same time, the period was contemporary with colonization, which is anything but a coincidence ... ).

[Exnihiloest]

...
In short, as I said in my first post after your intervention: "I therefore deduce that you do not see anything to change to a model that indiscriminately exploits breeders and cattle, to provide them with a living (to both besides .. .) ...

No model exploits anything more than the others. This is your only interpretation, not an observation.
Obviously there are things to change, but if in the end your "model" is to do worse than before, in addition to depriving us of freedom, it is clearly to be rejected.
Progress did not wait for you. Contrary to the Boboesque ideology which claims our time unbearable because of pollution, meat, global warming etc etc, life is considerably better and easier in our time than it was in the 19th century when few world ate meat. Progress does not have to be decreed at a forced march when it is done naturally by correcting the course as you go. Your "model" is to be denounced, precisely because it is a "model", based on more or less radical abstractions, incapable of synthesizing the complexity of the issues at stake.

[Rajqawee]

...
In short, as I said in my first post after your intervention: "I therefore deduce that you do not see anything to change to a model that indiscriminately exploits breeders and cattle, to provide them with a living (to both besides .. .) ...

No model exploits anything more than the others. This is your only interpretation, not an observation.
Obviously there are things to change, but if in the end your "model" is to do worse than before, in addition to depriving us of freedom, it is clearly to be rejected.
Progress did not wait for you. Contrary to the Boboesque ideology which claims our time unbearable because of pollution, meat, global warming etc etc, life is considerably better and easier in our time than it was in the 19th century when few world ate meat. Progress does not have to be decreed at a forced march when it is done naturally by correcting the course as you go. Your "model" is to be denounced, precisely because it is a "model", based on more or less radical abstractions, incapable of synthesizing the complexity of the issues at stake.

Okay ! Then, how are you doing ?

[Janic]

Moindreffor »27/02/21, 15:59

always this absurd speech which would tend to demonstrate that the mortality due to the drugs of classical medicine are more lethal than beneficial, and therefore if we follow this reasoning, all of our classical doctors are complicit in this mortality and complicit with the big- pharma with the blessing of the entire political class and this for decades, without forgetting the complicity of the media

janic wrote: That's it, he starts to think! Hope it lasts.
You are not far from it with a few nuances:
a)always this absurd speech which would tend to demonstrate that the mortality due to the drugs of classical medicine are more lethal than beneficial,
The figures established by the government (whatever it is!) Speak for themselves and as far as I know, they are the ones who speak of benefit / risk, not exclusively benefit. What other medicines are at risk?
b) all of our conventional doctors are complicit in this mortality and complicit with big-pharma
another fleeting flash of lucidity.
All allopathic physicians (not classical precisely) do not prescribe than big pharma products (unless they practice more and more other non-toxic alternative medicines, they) So if a patient asks them to be treated by H, phyto, healthy food, etc ... they are unable to do so since prisoners of their academic brainwash which can only prescribe BP products! Are they complicit voluntarily or by submission to dogmas, only their conscience can respond, but generally they have no choice

you will always find negative effects that I absolutely do not deny, I paid the price, but what is incomprehensible to you is that there are acceptable effects as long as the finality is better,

Except as indicated "above! even if there are other equally effective solutions, but without dangers, these medics neither know nor can use them

unfortunately medicine does not cure 100% of patients, but the orientation of your words tends to suggest that other medicines could do better, what is wrong

You know absolutely nothing about this since as BP dominates the lucrative poisons market, there is only a tiny part of the other means implemented which are denigrated by their fakenews, (and you in your ignorance) making it difficult to make comparisons that will be automatically denied (unlike you, they know)

you often compare two different things of ailments and diseases, an illness is often due to bad human habits, that alternative or alternative medicine can effectively relieve or even cure and a disease is something that attacks you whatever you do in your habits

This is pasteurism, a dogma that has invaded the WESTERN medical system even when it has never provided evidence that there are small pathologies for alternative medicine and large pathologies for miraculous allopathic medicine. One more fantasy, typical of the fakenews you use.

so it's easy for you to juggle from one to the other, muddying the waters and creating smoke screens

Don't you have better? Not glop! I am not juggling anything. It was several times proposed to the doctors who spoke your language, to be confronted with an honorary jury and to take, with mutual agreement, patients of different pathologies and to work (with the agreement of the patients) with therapies in alternative medicine and in contrast to "classic" therapy. And all refused, even though it was every time a great MEDIATISEE opportunity to put down these alternative medicines.
What risks did they take in ridiculing them if not being ridiculed themselves, like you.
They refused to go on the field like you do too! We don't make dogs out of cats!
So who makes smoke screens?

[Christophe]

Have artificial meat gone industrially speaking!

agriculture / the-future-meat-factory-of-artificial-synthetic-just-opened-t16912.html

[Moindreffor]

Have artificial meat gone industrially speaking!

agriculture / the-future-meat-factory-of-artificial-synthetic-just-opened-t16912.html

vegans, vegetarians, vegans wanted it, science executed itself and did it as it has always been asked, don't come and complain now ...