|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| You seem to have missed the point completely. |
No, I didn't. I read the article you linked to, and I quoted it correctly to show that Big Bird is wrong on her claims regarding vegetarianism and environmentalism.
Elsewhere, the article makes the same statement I did earlier in this thread, that PETA are not scientists, so we ought not expect good science from them.
Again, it's a very good article, fairly well-balanced and not prone to insults toward people on any particular side of the debate, and it backs up it's conclusions far better than the vegans in this dsiscussion have done.
I'm wondering - did YOU read the article that you linked us to? Seems like, in the past, you have accused me of nbot reading the links you provide, Bramble, and right now I'm wondering if you actually read them yourself ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, as a matter of fact I have read it, but unfortunately I was counting on the Dave's crowd to read critically and figure out that the writer was spinning the facts. Of course I disagree with her conclusions, and with her smartass treatment of the subject.
Did you really miss that?
Even in this article full of logical leaps and convoluted reasoning, certain points are pretty unambiguous:
| Quote: |
A November 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report found that livestock accounts for 18 percent of global warming emissions worldwide, more than the entire transportation sector.
...
According to the FAO, livestock production is a top cause of the world's many environmental problems: deforestation, acid rain, dead zones in the ocean, land degradation, water pollution, species extinction and, most threatening of all, global warming. "We looked at every step of the commodity chain, from feed production to consumption," says Henning Steinfeld, chief of the FAO's livestock policy branch.
To begin with, Steinfeld says, "a lot of climate change damage is associated with clearing forest land, either for pastures or for feed crops." Trees cut down to make room for cattle or soybeans no longer sequester carbon. Those trees are burned or decompose, creating carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.
Likewise, soil trampled underfoot or exposed to chemical fertilizers and pesticides retains significantly less carbon than forest soil or soil used to produce organic crops. "This is a particularly acute problem in Latin America," Steinfeld says. Over 70 percent of the Amazon's deforested land is used for pasture, and a substantial part of the remaining land is used for feed crops. Much of the world's arable land is devoted to animal feed. In the U.S., 60 percent of the agricultural output of the Missouri-Mississippi basin is used to feed livestock.
Just as significant as those impacts are the potent methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by livestock production. Livestock emit about a third of human-caused methane production and two-thirds of human-caused nitrous oxide. Cattle, bison, sheep and goats, "because of the specific features of their digestion, release methane from their mouths," Steinfeld says. In other words, they burp out a lot of methane. That gas traps 23 times more heat per ton than carbon dioxide.
Steinfeld notes that "methane is also released from manure." That's particularly true when it's stored in anaerobic conditions, such as the so-called waste lagoons common in U.S. industrial pork and dairy production, or in manure piles connected to American cattle feedlots. Feedlots are relatively unknown in other parts of the world.
In the U.S., there's currently much more manure than land to spread it on. Consequently, the slurry is often sprayed on fields at concentrations that exceed by 200 times the underlying soil's ability to incorporate the nitrogen the manure contains. The result? Nitrous oxide, a product of the manure's decomposition. As a global warming gas, the compound has a heat-trapping potential 296 times that of carbon dioxide.
...
Is grass-fed beef any better than the feedlot kind? Steinfeld says feedlot cows and grazed cattle create about the same amounts of greenhouse gases. Grazing, he says, "is not necessarily an environmentally benign form of production." Even when deforestation and overgrazing are accounted for, producing beef still requires an enormous amount of land. And, individually, cows fed on forage release more methane that the grain-fed cows of mass feedlots.
Cornell University professor of ecology and agricultural sciences David Pimental disagrees. "Feedlot beef requires twice as much fossil fuel energy to produce as grass-fed beef," Pimentel says. According to his estimates, producing 1 pound of feedlot beef results in the production of 8 pounds of carbon dioxide. That's the equivalent of a third of a gallon of gasoline. Despite more burping by cows fed on forage, Pimentel says, their overall emissions remain lower.
Pork and dairy production occupies a middle ground, greenhouse-gas-wise, Pimentel says. Both dairy cows and hogs need a lot of feed, most of which is produced using nonorganic methods. But milk cows require less grain to make their product than do their cattle cousins. And pigs don't belch methane, although the waste lagoons associated with industrial pork production do. The same goes for waste from large dairy operations.
...
|
I don�t see a whole lot here that would lead anyone to adopt a positive view of animal agriculture. Practically all the factual information in this article supports a vegan way of life, and the author acknowledges it.
| Quote: |
| Becoming a vegan is your best choice. |
The fact that she advises her readers to eat dead birds "despite all rational arguments" is beside the point. The cheese pizza line is absurd too, because people aren't forced to choose between two different kinds of animal products.
Do you get the point now, Bobster? Was it really so unclear? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| Yes, as a matter of fact I have read it, but unfortunately I was counting on the Dave's crowd to read critically and figure out that the writer was spinning the facts. |
I didn't see any facts being spun, nor any other attempt to mislead. I don't think you did either, or else you would be pointing out what you claim is untrue about an article which you yourself brought to our attention.
| Quote: |
| Of course I disagree with her conclusions, and with her smartass treatment of the subject. |
Again, the article was well-balanced and I saw no efforts made on the part of the writer to insult ot denigrate people for their dietary choices.
Casting insults, though, is exactly what PETA does when it accuses Al Gore of cowardice ("too chicken?") in their campaign. Do you, and do they, really think anyone's mind will be changed by this? Is it possible that insulting people for their opinions and acting like one knows more than people who disagree is a common trait among people who make lifestyle choices in order to feel morally superior to those around them?
| Quote: |
| Did you really miss that? |
While I'm not sure why you'd present us with an article whose conclusions you disagree with, I suppose that was your choice. I appreciate the trouble you took to do so, and I'll respectfully suggest that you'd benefit by reading it one more time.
| Quote: |
| Even in this article full of logical leaps and convoluted reasoning, |
You say this, but you do not show it - and unless you do, I'll continue to read it as I see it, as a rather thoughtful and fair-minded treatment of the issue.
| Quote: |
| I don�t see a whole lot here that would lead anyone to adopt a positive view of animal agriculture. |
There's also nothing in the article that conclusively shows, or even attempts to serioussly assert, that eliminating animal agriculture will save the planet. It might actually be so, but the science is not there.
And that is PETA's message. But PETA are not scientists, and very few scientists are willing to make the kind of baseless claims that PETA does in fact make.
PETA is trying to capitalize on a serious and actual problem which people around the world are quickly coming to see as vital to the continued existence of all forms of life on our planet. They are hijacking the honest concern that millions feel deeply enough about to change their lifestyles - but they doing so for cynical purposes of their own, with no regard for what is factual or true.
| Quote: |
Practically all the factual information in this article supports a vegan way of life, and the author acknowledges it.
| Quote: |
| Becoming a vegan is your best choice. |
|
Holy selective quotation, Batman! Just looked, and the first line of it says, "Meat is not the No. 1 cause of global warming." The last four words are, "have yourself a drumstick."
| Quote: |
| The fact that she advises her readers to eat dead birds "despite all rational arguments" is beside the point. |
Hmm, "dead birds," huh? Do I smell an intellectual gluteus, or is someone being a smartass?
| Quote: |
| The cheese pizza line is absurd too, because people aren't forced to choose between two different kinds of animal products. |
People are not FORCED to make any choices at all, but there are some who would love to see that altered, and I suspect PETA is part of that group.
How about you? If you could wave a magic wand and suddenly everyone on earth is vegan like you, even though you have removed people's ability to make their own intelligent and informed choices ... would you wave that wand? Be honest, now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bobster, you're a very boring person and I can't be bothered talking to you anymore. I think it's clear why I posted the article. It's also clear that the facts don't support your position in any way, shape or form. If you still don't understand, I suggest you put away your crack pipe and do some rereading. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| Bobster, you're a very boring person and I can't be bothered talking to you anymore. |
You've tried this before. It didn't work any of those times, either.
PETA uses bogus science to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with environmentalism, while claiming to have the moral authority to criticism people who actual know and truly DO care about the well-being of the planet.
| Quote: |
| I think it's clear why I posted the article. |
It's not all clear why you would post an article that shows clearly quite the opposite of what you wish to say. You may think so, but it's not the case.
| Quote: |
| It's also clear that the facts don't support your position in any way, shape or form. |
My position is that PETA is dishonest, and makes claims about what is good for the environment, but in fact has no ability to make any such assertions when their real purposes are clear to anyone who looks even a little carefully at their behavior.
| Quote: |
| If you still don't understand, I suggest you put away your crack pipe and do some rereading. |
Gee, what was that I said earlier about people who want to feel morally superior feeling the need to cast insults rather than engage in sincere and rational discussion? Works for PETA, why not for Bramble? Good going, both of you.
PETA calls Al Gore a coward. Bramble accuses The Bobster of illegal narcotics use. Do we see a pattern?
You have no case. PETA behaves reprehensibly, and you have not once been able to explain or describe how or why this is not so. You cannot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't have to. Do your own research. Stop wasting people's time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Speciesists make me sad.
Why does a carrot deserve to live less than a chicken?
I can kill and eat both, and do, because they are delicious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
Speciesists make me sad.
Why does a carrot deserve to live less than a chicken?
I can kill and eat both, and do, because they are delicious. |
Carrots are not delicious. You are clearly insane, and I'll try to help you out all I can. According to Bramble, I have a similar problem, as well as drug addiction and chronic stupidity.
Well, sometimes carrots taste good. If you boil them in chicken broth, they sometimes come out okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
By nature's law, one (or more) species is designated as food for another species. Many animals are vegetarians or herbivores, and many are carnivores.
The Vedic perspective is that only humans generate karma. After the individual soul takes its first human birth it predictably generates so much karma that it transmigrates throughout the entire evolutionary cycle of species, automatically progressing to the next highest lifeform (in terms of consciousness.)
Three types of animals automatically transmigrate to human births: monkeys take human births in the mode of ignorance; tigers (and other big cats) take human births in the mode of passion; and cows take human births in the mode of goodness.
A human's consciousness at the time of death determines where the soul will transmigrate to next. The material modes of nature are constantly interacting, and by association one can either elevate oneself to goodness (and qualify for heavenly existence) - or degrade oneself to abysmal ignorance (and go back to lower animal births - or hellish planets)
Many material things - including food - can readily be analyzed in terms of the modes of nature, as indicated in these Bhagavad-gita verses:
TRANSLATION
Foods in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such nourishing foods are sweet, juicy, fatty and palatable. Foods that are too bitter, too sour, salty, pungent, dry and hot, are liked by people in the modes of passion. Such foods cause pain, distress, and disease. Food cooked more than three hours before being eaten, which is tasteless, stale, putrid, decomposed and unclean, is food liked by people in the mode of ignorance.
PURPORT
The purpose of food is to increase the duration of life, purify the mind and aid bodily strength. This is its only purpose. In the past, great authorities selected those foods that best aid health and increase life's duration, such as milk products, sugar, rice, wheat, fruits and vegetables. These foods are very dear to those in the mode of goodness. Some other foods, such as baked corn and molasses, while not very palatable in themselves, can be made pleasant when mixed with milk or other foods. They are then in the mode of goodness. All these foods are pure by nature. They are quite distinct from untouchable things like meat and liquor. Fatty foods, as mentioned in the eighth verse, have no connection with animal fat obtained by slaughter. Animal fat is available in the form of milk, which is the most wonderful of all foods. Milk, butter, cheese and similar products give animal fat in a form which rules out any need for the killing of innocent creatures. It is only through brute mentality that this killing goes on. The civilized method of obtaining needed fat is by milk. Slaughter is the way of subhumans. Protein is amply available through split peas, dal, whole wheat, etc...
So, the dietary quota set aside by nature for human consumption is basically lacto-vegetarian and doesn't include animals that have been unnecessarily slaughtered. If necessary for survival, animals - even cows - may be killed without incurring bad karma.
Unnecessarily killing plantlife, trees, etc. also generates karma, which is why the materialistic idea of progress based on exploitative destruction of nature has resulted in ever more frequent and severe occurances of "natural" disasters.
Last edited by Rteacher on Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:21 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Next we will be told by the Greenies that the only thing we can do to prove our environmental credentials is to off ourselves....
but of course, our suicides must be conducted in an environmentally way...
Overdoses will not do as it entails chemicals
Self-immolation is a no go, for it creates too much carbon...
Maybe drowning oneself naked and being devoured by sea creatures might earn their stamp of approval???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, we have to throw ourselves into a woodchipper so we can become mulch that can then grow carrots for the little bunnies.
RTeacher, I hear what you're saying, and I've read the Bagavad-gita, it was almost ten years ago now though, but I don't think eating meat is a big karmic burden. When you consider that living in a modern society, which you clearly do as you're using the internet, results in the direct destruction of all manner of living creatures (ie; if the farmer who grew the vegetables you eat ate meat aren't you responsible for that death as you're supporting that farmer's livelihood, operating a vehicle or any transportation requires a massive amount of resource use, etc.) isn't eating meat kind of moot? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
