Can someone be pro environment and eat meat?

[Bodakane]

An arbitrary distinction you have made up.
I can equally well make the distinction that only the ones (i.e. humans) that can describe pain in words feel pain; as people did in recent history.

Let's see what Wikipedia says about pain in animals ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals ) :


No brain required; just looking at behaviour.

And I doubt that someone quoting an infographic where animal poop is listed as a problem has any knowledge about farms.
Oh, and for your information - most non-vegans don't eat a whole pig every day.

lol, ok so now animals don't feel pain? Amazing, the levels of bullshit you people will stoop to. You should probably read your whole link too. especially the section on invertebrates. Though i doubt you will.

As for animal shit...I don't think many fo you people realize how much of it there is and that there's no actual use for it all and that it does damage. If any of you had a clue about any of this stuff you wouldn't be so flippant.

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/08/manure-usa/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...a-environment/

But by all means keep talking out your collective asses.

- - - Updated - - -

You didn't point out anything, you claimed to have no clue, then turned around claiming I was wrong.
Did you think you lied when you made the first claim or when you made the second?

Really? Are you sure?

- - - Updated - - -


Nice goalpost-shifting...
Remember what you wrote to me?

You're not making any sense.

Hell the quote about valid had nothing to do with you and it wasn't even to you.

So many people just going crazy today.

- - - Updated - - -

I think its funny when vegans and environment activist are against meat consumption, then fly all over the world for vacations..

Or they buy their vegetables from greenhouses that consume a massive amount of electricity, water and will burn natural gas, bunker oil or even coal to keep them warm during the winter.

Which is still less than what eating meat produces.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since cows are creating a lot of Methane, which is one of the source of global warming, eating them helps the environment, so yes, eating meat (beef) is being pro environment.

You do know that the vast majority of beef nd dairy cows are artificially inseminated...right? Without the demand for eating meat, there wouldn't be so many cows.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem isn't the products being shipped, it has far more to do with the methods of shipment. Let's face it, 90% of those carbon emissions comes from shipping huge freight long distances. At the end of the day, you have to look at the methodology, not the supply/demand for the product.

And literally by this logic you could say -all- foods produced at farms and shipped beyond 2~miles is adding to the carbon footprint. No shit, that's why it's such a fucking gigantic problem.

There's a difference between adding to the footprint and the vast majority of the footprint. The meat/dairy industry produces the majority of environmental problems.

[Deleted]

With recent actions Trump does more damage to this planet than 50 of the biggest nuclear bombs could (well - there are theories about "better future if nukes are used to reduce mankind"). Meat should be something you can evaluate as in - raise rabbits and butcher them yourself. If you eat meat you should be able to relate to whatever meat you eat.

[Forogil]

lol, ok so now animals don't feel pain? Amazing, the levels of bullshit you people will stoop to.

No, the claim is that a few decades ago meat-producers denied that animals felt pain, similarly some fish-eating vegetarians and sport fishermen have said that fish don't feel pain, tobacco companies denied that smoking caused cancer, coal miners deny that global warming exist, vegans deny that plants can feel pain.

The common thread is persons not looking at evidence because it would threaten their livelihood, instead of looking at the evidence and then making an informed decision.

You should probably read your whole link too. especially the section on invertebrates. Though i doubt you will.

I have. Merely stating that someone haven't read a link isn't a counter-argument, similarly as "some have argued" doesn't make something a fact.

As for animal shit...I don't think many fo you people realize how much of it there is and that there's no actual use for it all and that it does damage. If any of you had a clue about any of this stuff you wouldn't be so flippant.

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/08/manure-usa/

Stating:

Fostering manure shares or composting businesses isn’t just good for the environment; it’s good for business. Shit happens and it’s time we put it to work.

Yes, particularly in the US there are challenges with getting it to the right spot, but manure is still a business opportunity - not waste.

Nothing supporting the idea that there is no use - merely that it is an underused business opportunity.

- - - Updated - - -

The meat/dairy industry produces the majority of environmental problems.

The coal industry supports that statement.

The facts do not: https://skepticalscience.com/how-muc...ute-to-gw.html

[Deleted]

If the infographics I used are wrong, I welcome proof. And since what I said is soooooooo silly to you, it shouldn;t hard for you to disprove it.

It doesn't work like that: I don't need or want to convince you. You are the one trying to persuade others, and your evidence is lackluster to put it mildly.
It is far more effective to outright dismiss your claims along with your non-scientific, clickbaity sources. And it's also convenient to devise veganism as a cult or fad incapable of producing evidence worth considering.

[Bodakane]

No, the claim is that a few decades ago meat-producers denied that animals felt pain, similarly some fish-eating vegetarians and sport fishermen have said that fish don't feel pain, tobacco companies denied that smoking caused cancer, coal miners deny that global warming exist, vegans deny that plants can feel pain.

The common thread is persons not looking at evidence because it would threaten their livelihood, instead of looking at the evidence and then making an informed decision.

Oh, I see what you're doing....

Because people stupidly thought X once I should accept Y, without proof.

I'm going to be very clear, no brain, no pain. No pain, no suffering. If new evidence comes to light one day that proves that untrue, we'll tackle the issue then. Until such time, I'm not going to disregard FACTS just because. Plants don;t feel pain and therefore can't suffer. Animals can feel pain and can suffer. None of that is arbitrary you're just wrong.

I have. Merely stating that someone haven't read a link isn't a counter-argument, similarly as "some have argued" doesn't make something a fact.

No, no you haven't. If you had, you would have read about the needing a brain to feel pain and you wouldn't be arguing against it.

Stating:

Yes, particularly in the US there are challenges with getting it to the right spot, but manure is still a business opportunity - not waste.

Nothing supporting the idea that there is no use - merely that it is an underused business opportunity.

You really have a hard time reading. No one said animal shit wasn't useful. What was explained and even shown to you is that there isn't enough demand for animal shit. Yes, more can be now, but not enough to solve the problem. In the meantime, surely you saw all the problems that extra shit causes....

The coal industry supports that statement.

The facts do not: https://skepticalscience.com/how-muc...ute-to-gw.html

This is one set of facts presented that I will look more into. I have also provided facts that I doubt you'll actually look into. I'm not saying my facts trump these, as I will have to do more research. I bet you won't however.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't work like that: I don't need or want to convince you. You are the one trying to persuade others, and your evidence is lackluster to put it mildly.
It is far more effective to outright dismiss your claims along with your non-scientific, clickbaity sources. And it's also convenient to devise veganism as a cult or fad incapable of producing evidence worth considering.

It absolutely works like that.

To out of hand disregard facts given to you, so you can cling to your already held beliefs, is what a cult does. I presented facts and numbers, not opinion. You said the equivalent of "Lalala, I can't hear you!", then have the audacity to act as if you're open minded. Which is fine, that's your right, but maybe don't bring your ignornace to a fact fight next time. K, thanx, bye

[ItachiZaku]

Really, if you want to help the environment to that extent, you'd want a full planet PVP free for all, with that one final winner killing her/himself afterwards.

Until then, ima crush a burger after work.

[Elim Garak]

I'm going to be very clear, no brain, no pain. No pain, no suffering. If new evidence comes to light one day that proves that untrue, we'll tackle the issue then. Until such time, I'm not going to disregard FACTS just because.

That's no fact. That's speculation. Scientists don't look for mental states when it comes to pain - because NO ONE knows how it works - they judge by behavioral responses. If a living being responses negatively to a stimuli - that's a negative experience for a living being. It doesn't want to experience it. That's all. That's the fact.

[Bodakane]

That's no fact. That's speculation. Scientists don't look for mental states when it comes to pain - because NO ONE knows how it works - they judge by behavioral responses. If a living being responses negatively to a stimuli - that's a negative experience for a living being. It doesn't want to experience it. That's all. That's the fact.

Who is talking about mental states? You need a nervous system and a brain to interpret the signals to experience pain. Yet another simple and basic thing that confounds you.

[GennGreymane]

Gosh darn vegans.

[Elim Garak]

Who is talking about mental states? You need a nervous system and a brain to interpret the signals to experience pain. Yet another simple and basic thing that confounds you.

A.K.A. Mental state of PAIN, how's that for simple and basic thing?

Go on give us another one

[frogger237]

The only creatures rivaling our numbers on this planet are vermin/pests or incredibly small/microscopic creatures that are consumed by other creatures at large rates.
There isn't a need for so many people on the planet adding another billion people might add another couple hundred or couple thousand advancers(people who help advance humanity/society in some way) but its also adding 999,900,000 or so people who are either detriments or are neutral. The only arguments for more people on the planet are either "Well the planet can hold more people!" or some belief that humans are somehow special and that even a rapist/murderer is somehow more important than a Venezuelan red howler even tho the average human is worth less to society/humanity than a single specimen of most other species.


My point of all this is that with less people carbon footprints become less of a problem.

So we can either get people to stop popping out kids so much and eat all the meat we want
or
Try solving global warming, poverty, food distribution/world hunger, crime rates, mental health issues, jobs/wealth distribution, waste, environmental problems, animal extinctions, and all the other problems that I couldn't think of off the top of my head.


So yeah I'll still eat meat and choose not to have kids or only have 2 kids and eat meat less often and there won't be any conflict between me being pro environment and eating meat.

[Forogil]

I'm going to be very clear, no brain, no pain. No pain, no suffering. If new evidence comes to light one day that proves that untrue, we'll tackle the issue then.

Except that the evidence is already here as presented by numerous links to reputable sources; supporting that plants experience pain - and react to it.
You have tackled that issue by ignoring it.

No, no you haven't. If you had, you would have read about the needing a brain to feel pain and you wouldn't be arguing against it.

Since I am literate I can see that some argue that, and some argue otherwise.

You really have a hard time reading. No one said animal shit wasn't useful. What was explained and even shown to you is that there isn't enough demand for animal shit.

No, the links indicated that there is demand - it's just a matter of organizing it. As stated it is a particular issue in the US due to distances involved.

This is one set of facts presented that I will look more into. I have also provided facts that I doubt you'll actually look into.

No you haven't presented facts, since linking an image isn't presenting facts.

And I let scientist in the actual fields evaluate the facts; and ignore propaganda.

It absolutely works like that.

It doesn't work like that if actually care about the environment and want to change it for the better - because you fail to convince people.
But if you want to help the coal companies by saying that they aren't the environmental problem - cows are; then your method works.

[Tack980]

Most hunters I've known are far more environmentally aware than the vegan city hippies I've known who eat organic pre peeled oranges in plastic containers. Not to mention the majority of the money they pay for hunting permits goes directly to the parts of the government that protects and maintains wilderness.

And us hunters tend to tightly maintain wild animal population levels, and tend to go after overpopulated groups to prevent environmental destruction, with the bonus of having great food to cook on seasons.

[Deleted]

Everyone caring about "environment" that much that they have to calculate how much emissions does it take to make one burger, should think about doing their part first. They produce emissions too.

[Deleted]

Some1 without childeren and eating meat is more pro environment then some1 that takes childeren and never eat meat.

So actually they need to tax ppl with childeren alot more to safe the environment and cover the costs for nature projects.

[Deleted]

Some1 without childeren and eating meat is more pro environment then some1 that takes childeren and never eat meat.

So actually they need to tax ppl with childeren alot more to safe the environment and cover the costs for nature projects.

Yes, they should tax everyone for breathing.

[Dug]

Everyone caring about "environment" that much that they have to calculate how much emissions does it take to make one burger, should think about doing their part first. They produce emissions too.

Yeah and until their carbon footprint is 0 (impossible) people like you will just keep sticking your fingers in your ear and going hurr what about you!? what about you!?

[Deleted]

Yeah and until their carbon footprint is 0 (impossible) people like you will just keep sticking your fingers in your ear and going hurr what about you!? what about you!?

Everything is possible. Everything.
There's at least one solution that I can think of.

[Dug]

Everything is possible. Everything.
There's at least one solution that I can think of.

After you.

[Deleted]

After you.

I'm fine, thank you. I don't care if there are some emissions produced because I eat some meat.