There is nothing like good reasoned debate, and this thread is also nothing like that, so far as far as I can see every one that has posted has been of like mind I have seen no counter arguments proposed to support a ban on meat.
Maybe and this is no disparagement on vegans or veganism but may be we could see some here sometime and then we could have a proper discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed meat ban.
It could be those here may have a more live and let live attitude and are no more in favor of banning meat than any of us and don't see their WOE as a holy crusade.
So I hope they are in the majority.
John, there is no sensible debate against meat. It has the potential to be local - tick, it is the easiest to digest by the majority - tick, it is the most nutrient dense - tick. It has been said to cause diabetes, yet most Type 2's reverse on it - tick, it is said to be a major contributory to climate change, yet the Savory Institute and others prove carbon neutral - tick, it reverses much more than Type 2 (meatheals.com / Paleomedicina) - tick, historic data on human use - tick, highest living populations digesting the most meat - Hong Kong - tick. Despite billions being spent to rubbish meat and tortured data they haven't been able to get out of first gear with the allegations (...but much is believed, this has to urgently be countered).
The danger to meat in my view is dilution in supermarket "products" such as meat with sugar, I have seen minced meat with vegetables, 50 years of collective brain washing on alternative food types being healthier. Non grass feed ruminants. Big industry is desperate to replace livestock farming and the risk of direct sales with centralised multiple ingredient alternatives and or lab equivalents. They have the deepest pockets and even internet giants in their corner. To rebuff them and governments (who are keen to implement change), ordinary members of the public will need to educated as to the slight of hand taking place via Trojan horses that appear acceptable.
