Can someone be pro environment and eat meat?

[Dr Assbandit]

If God didn't intend for us to eat meat then why are they made out of food?

[Slicer299]

Other source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/how...ute-to-gw.html

In addition to that knowledge, we haven't discussed side effects like deforestation for pastures, water polution, etc. And we havent even discussed other meatproducts Just hamburgers.... let's think about that for a second.

Can someone really be pro environment / claim they care about the environment while at the same time contributing to the biggest source of carbon footprint, deforestation and water pollution / waste by eating meat?

Yes, because to date there is zero definitive proof that climate change is real and even less proof that it's caused by people. Every climate prediction that the global warming and man made climate change fear mongering crowd has peddled since the 70's has never once come true. And NOAA has been caught red handed more than once changing climate data in an attempt to try in fit those prediction models. Both lowering temps in previous years and raising temps of more recent years to try and make it appear the Earth is warming more than it is. They are taking hard data and saying "Nah! These officially recorded temps from the 90's aren't real, we have new data from just yesterday that says the temperature from almost 30 years ago was different than it really was."

And for all the push to save the planet, even Obama admitted that the climate deal he was pushing in Paris, estimated to cost the world economy a minimum of $100 Trillion dollars, would at best prevent 0.3 degrees of warming. Because, as any real scientists knows, man's impact on the global temperature means practically nothing. The Earth has been drastically warming and cooling for billions of years, man has nothing to do with it.

And I've saved the best for last, because it's my favorite catch 22 for the global warming crowd. If man made climate change is real, why isn't recycling mandatory? Any guess? Money. Money is the reason, because there is no money to be made from mandatory consumer recycling. Sure they push for things like recycling electronics, because there is money to be made from the expensive metals required to make electronics. Recycling was the big ECO push when I was a kid, but liberals gave up on it because there was no money to be made. All you have to do is look at the BS save planet initiatives the ECO terrorists are pushing today for further proof that it's all about money. Such as making companies pay a carbon tax. Tell me, how does making a company hand over a big pile of cash prevent global warming???? Little hint, it doesn't. The end goal of the climate fear mongering crowd has always been about money.

Go look at such save the planet icons as Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio. Those hypocrites have a bigger "carbon footprint" than a dozen middle class families. They heat and cool multiple multi million dollar homes, use more water to care for the lawns of their multiple mansions then the average person would use in 10 life times. They travel the world preaching gloom and doom about global warming, and fly on private jets to accept awards for their efforts to save the planet. Funny how all the people telling the rest of us to do stupid things like not eat meat or not drive normal cars never live by the same standards they claim we should live by. That's because, again, it's all a scam. ALL OF IT.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/...-year-by-2100/

[Trassk]

If God didn't intend for us to eat meat then why are they made out of food?

On a more serious notion, if we weren't meant to eat meat, why then can we safely eat meat and gain subsistence from it and survive off it.

Also, making people like vegan gains rage into his webcam over what people eat just makes me enjoy bacon even more.

[Dr Assbandit]

On a more serious notion, if we weren't meant to eat meat, why then can we safely eat meat and gain subsistence from it and survive off it.

Also, making people like vegan gains rage into his webcam over what people eat just makes me enjoy bacon even more.

Why would you make me watch something like that? . My eyes are now stuck in a state of perpetual rolling because of how cringe-worthy and psychotic that vegan lad is.

Also he is so very misinformed about our digestive process and how our body breaks down meat or food in general. While veganism is all well and good as a personal choice, I can't tell you how many pathological processes are associated with veganism and nutritional deficiencies in comparison to eating meat.

[Trassk]

Why would you make me watch something like that? . My eyes are now stuck in a state of perpetual rolling because of how cringe-worthy and psychotic that vegan lad is.

Also he is so very misinformed about our digestive process and how our body breaks down meat or food in general. While veganism is all well and good as a personal choice, I can't tell you how many pathological processes are associated with veganism and nutritional deficiencies in comparison to eating meat.

True but it did have a very good counter argument to people claiming they want global veganism, that farmed species would become overpopulated to the point of starvation, that the animal species that depend on meat would starve to death, and the best point, how veganism is an imagined global utopia only thought up by people living in a society of convenience.

Plus it's great seeing vegan lame get shot down, the pretentious little prick.

[PaladinBash]

I don't mind if people eat meat or fish or any animal products but I'm against animal cruelty and fucking up the environment in big ways. I don't like logging old growth forests and dumping waste in good places (ie my country). You can do both things. I support local growers and farmers because I like fresh produce, most notably milk. Fresh milk is fucking nice.

[Noradin]

Have I been rude to you? No I haven't.

You are jumping to all kinds of stupid conclusions. I've responded to you instead of just blindly accepting your bullshit, so you decided to lash out. It's pretty typical of people on your side.

Yes, you have, by pretending to be interested but uninformed, then turning around by dismissing my posts out of hand with an pretense of knowledge.
That is what one calls demonstrative dishonesty and it is the height of rudeness beyond even plain insults.

You have further proven my point by declaring "sides" lumping me in with the one you made up as your enemy and accusing me of trying to mislead you when all I did was patiently answering all your questions that you pretended to care for an answer to.

[Bodakane]

And if you understood the scientific and mathematical principles involved you'd understand that those numbers cancel each other out in the equation. The more CO2 a cow produces, the more CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere by the plants eaten by them.

They only cancel each other out, if the magic box you have can sustain a single cow. But again, since you don't really know the first practical thing about this, you don't know what that would mean for the size of this magic box. Since you don;'t know that AND, you know, magic boxes don;t exist, you can't keep talking about sustainaibilty like it means something. Your model of sustainability relies on magic boxes that don't exist of indeterminate size.

Look mate, clearly you're passionate about the subject, but clearly you also lack expertise in science. Which means you should probably defer to experts in science instead of trying to argue against them. Incorporating scientific facts into your argument would make it stronger (but it would mean you would need to change your narrative a bit).

The only thing I lack is the right combination of words to make you see you don't actually know what you're talking about on a practical level. There is no such thing as ) in this equation, because there's no such place that has perfect conditions year round and year to year. That means you have to truck in more food. That's no longer a zeroed out equation. This is just common practical sense that you're being too obstinate to accept.

You're correct that deforrestation is bad. I never argued otherwise.

Where do you think all this grazing land comes from?

Assuming you're correct (which you aren't), it's not even relevant. This speaks only to the number of cows that can be farmed sustainably, not to the fundamental fact that some can be farmed sustainably.

I am right.

Ok, fine....it's not relevant...sigh.
Then by all means give me the number right here and now, that is magically sustainable with a zeroed out equation. Remember, as has been explained to you, that requires no new food trucked in to feed the cattle.

I am arguing that it is possible to farm cows sustainably. I am not arguing that the number of cows that can be farmed sustainably is infinite.

I know what you're arguing. I'm telling you, you have no practical knowledge to detemrine what is and isn't possible. You're literally talking out of your ass. Or prove me wrong and give me the numbers, what's actually sustainable with a perfect zero carbon footprint. Annnnnnnd go....

The size of the magical box is not "undetermined". It is exactly the correct size to grow grass at the same rate the cow is eating it. Which would mean that the amount of CO2 being processed by the grass would be identical to CO2 produced by the cow.

That is undetermined, Sport. What if for the given region, climate, etc. that means the land needs to be 50 acres for one cow? You don't know but you're making an argument like you do. Is 50 acres a cow, what you call sustainable on a practical level? 10 acres? 5? 100?

Grass is not a CO2 filter. It's a CO2 processor. It turns CO2 (plus water + sunlight) into matter which is edible for a cow. Therefore the amount of CO2 which can be processed is not a function of the length of the grass, it's a function of the rate of growth of the grass.

Your semantics game illustrates you're getting your ass handed to you. Especially when the entirety of your argument rests on the concpet of a magical box.

Sigh.....

If you insist on growing the grain outside the magic box, recognise that outside the box there will be a CO2 deficit (created by the grain) which exactly matches the CO2 surplus inside the box.

How about this: Grow the grain in the same magic hypothetical box instead of grass. It's a hypothetical scenario to explain the principle of conservation of matter. You cannot change the laws of physics and chemistry simply by trying to think "out of the box".

Insist? Lol. One more time, in the real world, you don't snap you fingers and make things like grass or grain grow. That's why your magic box hypothetical is monumentally ridiculous. How do you suppose the food needed is brought to the cow from outside this box?

Actually I do know this and if you'd been paying attention to my argument you would probably recognise this. Your problem is that you don't understand the part of your argument that I disagree with, nor do I think you have a clue about my original point which you chose to refute.

I am explaining to you how, in a sustainable farming model, cows are carbon neutral. You're arguing that because in the practical world cows aren't farmed sustainably, they are not carbon neutral. I agree with you on that point, but I disagree vehemently that your assertion disproves mine. Just because cows are not farmed sustainably, does not mean they cannot be. Maybe not as many cows as we currently farm, but there is some level of cattle farming that can be done sustainably.

In other words, as my original post was saying, it's not eating meat which is the problem, it's the way the meat is produced.

No you don't know it. Again, you're talking out your ass. Nature set up animals to be carbon neutral on their own. We screwed that up. We did that not just by increased demand but by breeding unnatural species that eat and grow faster than nature can replenish on it's own. What's done is done, you can't unfuck that prom date. We're not able to reverse breed these livestock animals down to a more natural breed that require a natural amount of resources. This whole time, we've only been talking about CO2, we haven't even touched on water. Nor what must be done in terms of local predators in a given area to raise the livestock and what that does to native population levels.

On top of that, meat isn't a moderation food in developed countries. It's a huge dollar generator and as long as that is true, demand will be high. People didn't eat bacon on everything 20 years ago. People didn't even eat bacon for breakfast 100 years ago. It was a marketing campaign by Smithfield that changed that. Business generates the demand in this industry and has for decades.

Ho hum, more irrelevant noise that isn't on point. This isn't a discussion about how to farm sustainably or why many farmers don't practice it. Sustainable farming is possible. That is all that is relevant to my point.

Of course you think real world problems with climate, water, land size, are irrelevant....you think a magic box is the answer and acknowledging the practical issues destroys your theory.

And I never argued otherwise. In fact in my first post (the one you argued against) I even said as much "Of course there is the problem that at some point a sufficient demand for meat pushes farmers to pursue unsustainable farming practices which leads to environmental impact. So I can accept that eating too much meat is probably not compatible with being pro environment, but if kept to moderate quantities, I would argue the two can co-exist."

So why the hell are you trying to argue with me on this?

Because you don't actually know if those numbers are feasible. You don't actually know what it takes to raise a cow. You don't actually know about actual land use and feed growing. And yet, you argue with such bravado that X is possible!!!!!! It's absurd.

Or, you know, eat less meat?

You achieve that how again?

Please pay attention next time. I already spoke to this in other replies to you:

"I am not arguing that irresponsible farming methods aren't immensely damaging to the environment."
"Sure, if the cow leaves a desert in it's wake it will have a nett output of CO2"

I am not arguing against you on these issues. I am arguing against your nonsense CO2 argument and your seeming "all or nothing" approach to solving the stated problem.

I agree 100% that cattle farming, as it is practised today, is immensely harmful to the planet. What I am saying is that it doesn't need to be. I am also saying that one of the reasons people have a problem with cows is BS. I am refuting the argument that says because cows breathe out CO2 they are inherently always going to have this big carbon footprint.


Since you seem to be hung up on the practical, let me just say this: Demanding that people stop eating meat is not a practical solution to the problem. People are already going to be difficult enough to convince if you bring good science to the table, but when you bring bad science, it makes it even harder.

Address the problem by going to the root of it, which is all about farming methods. If farmers are forced to farm sustainably the rest will fall into place by means of economic forces.

Quote for me right now where I demanded for people to stop eating meat? Do it, I'll wait....

Oh what's that? You can't find it? Huh, imagine that.

I'm actually doing real work to achieve my goals (and none of that work includes me demading people stop eating meat), you're basically making shit up on the internet and pretending like you have a degree in sustainable farming when you know fuck and all about this stuff on a practical manner as I've said.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, you have, by pretending to be interested but uninformed, then turning around by dismissing my posts out of hand with an pretense of knowledge.
That is what one calls demonstrative dishonesty and it is the height of rudeness beyond even plain insults.

You have further proven my point by declaring "sides" lumping me in with the one you made up as your enemy and accusing me of trying to mislead you when all I did was patiently answering all your questions that you pretended to care for an answer to.

Pointing out that you're wrong doesn't mean I've been rude to you. It just means you're wrong.

[Ethris]

I mean if we want to go for an all-or-nothing approach like you're suggesting, we'd pretty much need to abandon civilization outright and drastically reduce our population in order to be ideologically consistent. Alternatively we can accept that this is sort of a relative thing and the goal isn't to preserve the environment above all else, but to preserve it in a way that it continues to be beneficial for us. I mean, even looking at his numbers, he's comparing annual consumption of hamburgers for 300,000,000 people to the output of just 15,000 SUVs. It's really focusing on the wrong issues because you're going to find it much easier to convince 15,000 people to use a more environmentally friendly car than 300 million to cut hamburgers out of their life entirely.

Holy fuck am I going crazy or did I just agree with you on something?

[Dr Assbandit]

True but it did have a very good counter argument to people claiming they want global veganism, that farmed species would become overpopulated to the point of starvation, that the animal species that depend on meat would starve to death, and the best point, how veganism is an imagined global utopia only thought up by people living in a society of convenience.

Plus it's great seeing vegan lame get shot down, the pretentious little prick.

Yeah, people like him and PETA seem to always want to go for the "nuclear" option without thinking of future ramifications which is just plain insanity and puts them firmly in the extremist category in my mind.

And yeah it was great seeing him get shut down. I have little to no patience for stupidity after going through med school and learning the sheer extent to which people endanger their kids or their pets due to their own absurd moral dilemmas. Interestingly it's more liberal dominated or affluent areas that have a higher concentration of these vegan fanatics.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't mind if people eat meat or fish or any animal products but I'm against animal cruelty and fucking up the environment in big ways. I don't like logging old growth forests and dumping waste in good places (ie my country). You can do both things. I support local growers and farmers because I like fresh produce, most notably milk. Fresh milk is fucking nice.

My family owns a bunch of farms in Pakistan and you're right, nothing beats hand raised properly fed cattle and their milk is amazing. Also had a chance to try colostrum a few times and it's probably one of the best things I've ever tasted.

[Trassk]

Interestingly it's more liberal dominated or affluent areas that have a higher concentration of these vegan fanatics.

tbh that doesn't surprise me, I put it down to pretentious attitudes of self grandeur. I remember a documentary once of low income families here in the uk and what they need to do just to get by, how something like a Shepard's pie (consisting of mince meat, vegetables and mash potato) once a week was a luxury to them and brought the family together, and how just getting a cheap pack of mince from the store was a struggle. When you have so little and need to support yourself and others, the idea of veganism, having a pretensions diet of overpriced alternatives to the basics, and then having cunts like vegan pains telling everyone 'GO VEGAN OR I SHOOT UR ASS' just makes me want to drown the fucker in, well, mince meat.

Can honestly say, I'm glad I had a mother who taught me how to make anything out of the most basic of things. As for vegan gains, lets send him to a third world country and see how long his resolve is.

[Sunseeker]

Sure they can. You just have to eat meat more responsibly and reduce the portion of your meal it takes up.

Plus "meat" covers a huge variety of things. Beef, pork, fowl, fish, etc...

[Bodakane]

tbh that doesn't surprise me, I put it down to pretentious attitudes of self grandeur. I remember a documentary once of low income families here in the uk and what they need to do just to get by, how something like a Shepard's pie (consisting of mince meat, vegetables and mash potato) once a week was a luxury to them and brought the family together, and how just getting a cheap pack of mince from the store was a struggle. When you have so little and need to support yourself and others, the idea of veganism, having a pretensions diet of overpriced alternatives to the basics, and then having cunts like vegan pains telling everyone 'GO VEGAN OR I SHOOT UR ASS' just makes me want to drown the fucker in, well, mince meat.

Can honestly say, I'm glad I had a mother who taught me how to make anything out of the most basic of things. As for vegan gains, lets send him to a third world country and see how long his resolve is.

On the flipside...I see cows mourn their dead. I see pigs become depressed when their children are taken from them. I've seen a rooster waste away and die because one of his hens was taken from him.

The people you speak of can bond over any food. It's not pretentiousness, it's seeing real suffering.

I don;t want people or animals to suffer, why is that so wrong in your mind?

[dvaz]

Yes

/10char

[belfpala]

On the flipside...I see cows mourn their dead. I see pigs become depressed when their children are taken from them. I've seen a rooster waste away and die because one of his hens was taken from him.

The people you speak of can bond over any food. It's not pretentiousness, it's seeing real suffering.

I don;t want people or animals to suffer, why is that so wrong in your mind?

Trees talk to each other using fungus. Or so I've read.

There are only a few completely inert things we eat. Sodium chloride, here's the salt lick.

[Bodakane]

Trees talk to each other using fungus. Or so I've read.

There are only a few completely inert things we eat. Sodium chloride, here's the salt lick.

Trees don't do that. They lack the capactiy for any of that. Animals, OTOH, do have a central nervous system. They can and do feel pain...even emotional pain. These are actual facts.

[belfpala]

Trees don't do that. They lack the capactiy for any of that. Animals, OTOH, do have a central nervous system. They can and do feel pain...even emotional pain. These are actual facts.

Multiple studies show that plants feel emotional pain.

In any case, I have to convince 0.00005 people to stop driving their SUV, and I can keep on eating 3 burgers per week. If we're staying on topic.

[Trassk]

I don;t want people or animals to suffer, why is that so wrong in your mind?

I've never said I want animals to suffer, I've said the exact opposite in fact.

Also lions kill baby elephants for food and elephant herds mourn them, should we question the lion on that too?

[Bodakane]

Multiple studies show that plants feel emotional pain.

In any case, I have to convince 0.00005 people to stop driving their SUV, and I can keep on eating 3 burgers per week. If we're staying on topic.

No they don't. that's not true.

- - - Updated - - -

I've never said I want animals to suffer, I've said the exact opposite in fact.

Also lions kill baby elephants for food and elephant herds mourn them, should we question the lion on that too?

No. We have a choice.

[belfpala]

No. We have a choice.

We also have a choice to live in dense communities that optimize energy usage, yet most "environmentalists" prefer to do otherwise.

This is about environment, right?