| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: How much does pet ownership contribute to global warming? |
 |
|
I don't know. But one could clearly reduce your carbon footprint if you didn't own a dog or cat. They eat a lot. They eat meat. Pet food needs to be trucked to stores. People purposely buy larger sized vehicles to accommodate their dogs. You need to take your pet to the vet and that's an unnecessary car trip.
So let me suggest if you want to do your part to fight global warming, don't get a pet. Every little bit helps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How about fostering homeless pets, and making sure they're all spayed and neutered? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| How about fostering homeless pets, and making sure they're all spayed and neutered? |
They still need to be fed. I think they should be killed and then buried at the base of a tree. Also cats might be a future source of bird flu:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0902_040902_birdflu.html
Pet ownership is irresponsible and dangerous to humanity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| How about fostering homeless pets, and making sure they're all spayed and neutered? |
They still need to be fed. I think they should be killed and then buried at the base of a tree. Also cats might be a future source of bird flu:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0902_040902_birdflu.html
Pet ownership is irresponsible and dangerous to humanity. |
You need to be fed too. Can we kill you and bury you at the base of a tree? Plus, humans are sources of all sorts of diseases. Have you been checked for all of them?
(Caveat: I'm totally in favour of spaying and neutering animals as a moral solution to this problem.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Pet ownership is irresponsible and dangerous to humanity. |
Wasn't it Caesar who wondered why individuals raised pets when they could otherwise raise a child who might grow up to become something worthwhile?
Anyway, I doubt you're going to change anyone's mind on this one. But at least you aren't advocating that people not have children to save the earth. That kind of death-enviro-fascism irks me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Pet ownership is irresponsible and dangerous to humanity. |
Wasn't it Caesar who wondered why individuals raised pets when they could otherwise raise a child who might grow up to become something worthwhile?
Anyway, I doubt you're going to change anyone's mind on this one. But at least you aren't advocating that people not have children to save the earth. That kind of death-enviro-fascism irks me. |
Who gets to decide what's "worthwhile"?
If people want human children (and have the means to take care of them), they can always adopt. What's fascistic about that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| How about fostering homeless pets, and making sure they're all spayed and neutered? |
They still need to be fed. I think they should be killed and then buried at the base of a tree. Also cats might be a future source of bird flu:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0902_040902_birdflu.html
Pet ownership is irresponsible and dangerous to humanity. |
You need to be fed too. Can we kill you and bury you at the base of a tree? Plus, humans are sources of all sorts of diseases. Have you been checked for all of them?
(Caveat: I'm totally in favour of spaying and neutering animals as a moral solution to this problem.) |
Last time I checked I was a human and had constitutional rights. I'm not aware animals are accorded human rights. Your argument is illogical. Abandoned pets are killed all the time. There appears to be no law against it. Killing them all and using them for fertilizer would do the environment good. People should not get pets in the future.
Anyway, there's a logical fallacy called inconsistency. It's silly to argue against global warming, like SUV ownership, while you're keeping a pet, which itself adds to carbon emissions and provides nothing that human companionship can't provide. Unless you're into making friends who lick their ass and then lick your face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And if you kill yourself you'll greatly reduce your carbon footprint.
The world is slowly going mad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pets reduce stress/risk of strokes. Fewer pets = more dead people = less global warming.
Pet rocks are less harmful to the environment and, with a quick blow to the head, can reduce emission sources (population) as well^^.
Last edited by captain kirk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| [Who gets to decide what's "worthwhile"? |
We get to decided collectively and individually. I'm not suggesting a law. I'm suggesting if you advocate the continued existence of unnecessary animals that do no work and contribute nothing to efficiency (pets), then you need to rethink your position on global warming and what you can do to reduce your carbon footprint.
So far we accord animals the right to die without undue pain. I can take my cat to the vet and have him put it down any time I see fit. I can't do that with my child. That's the society we have. I don't mind that society. You're free to elect politicians who can change that and compel me by the force of law to treat an animal like a human and not property. I for one like the idea animals are property.
Anyway, long story short, we need to kill all pets and plant them under a tree. That's my position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimchi_pizza
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Location: "Get back on the bus! Here it comes!"
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| How about fostering homeless pets, and making sure they're all spayed and neutered? |
They still need to be fed. I think they should be killed and then buried at the base of a tree. Also cats might be a future source of bird flu:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0902_040902_birdflu.html
Pet ownership is irresponsible and dangerous to humanity. |
I laughed when I read this. The name "Jinju" suddenly came to mind. I wonder whatever became of that guy? I know he made a good life for himself here, but I gotta wonder is he's also a part of the expat exodus. You don't have much longer either MM2? Maybe you can throw up one of those hot-look'n-lady-avatars once more before ya leave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| How about fostering homeless pets, and making sure they're all spayed and neutered? |
They still need to be fed. I think they should be killed and then buried at the base of a tree. Also cats might be a future source of bird flu:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0902_040902_birdflu.html
Pet ownership is irresponsible and dangerous to humanity. |
You need to be fed too. Can we kill you and bury you at the base of a tree? Plus, humans are sources of all sorts of diseases. Have you been checked for all of them?
(Caveat: I'm totally in favour of spaying and neutering animals as a moral solution to this problem.) |
Last time I checked I was a human and had constitutional rights. I'm not aware animals are accorded human rights. Your argument is illogical. Abandoned pets are killed all the time. There appears to be no law against it. Killing them all and using them for fertilizer would do the environment good. People should not get pets in the future.
Anyway, there's a logical fallacy called inconsistency. It's silly to argue against global warming, like SUV ownership, while you're keeping a pet, which itself adds to carbon emissions and provides nothing that human companionship can't provide. Unless you're into making friends who lick their ass and then lick your face. |
1. The law is immoral. Let's change it.
2. You're the one who is inconsistent. Killing off the human population would do the environment far more good than killing "pets." However, that would be morally repugnant. Since animals are completely innocent and completely at our mercy, killing them for our own convenience in the way you suggest is arguably even worse than killing humans and planting them all under a big tree (or grove or forest). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| [Who gets to decide what's "worthwhile"? |
We get to decided collectively and individually. I'm not suggesting a law. I'm suggesting if you advocate the continued existence of unnecessary animals that do no work and contribute nothing to efficiency (pets), then you need to rethink your position on global warming and what you can do to reduce your carbon footprint.
So far we accord animals the right to die without undue pain. I can take my cat to the vet and have him put it down any time I see fit. I can't do that with my child. That's the society we have. I don't mind that society. You're free to elect politicians who can change that and compel me by the force of law to treat an animal like a human and not property. I for one like the idea animals are property.
Anyway, long story short, we need to kill all pets and plant them under a tree. That's my position. |
Well, I don't. I think your position sucks, and you sound like a completely amoral person. My position is that we need to stop breeding animals and ensure that the ones in existence get to live out their lives in good homes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Pet ownership is irresponsible and dangerous to humanity. |
Wasn't it Caesar who wondered why individuals raised pets when they could otherwise raise a child who might grow up to become something worthwhile?
Anyway, I doubt you're going to change anyone's mind on this one. But at least you aren't advocating that people not have children to save the earth. That kind of death-enviro-fascism irks me. |
Who gets to decide what's "worthwhile"?
If people want human children (and have the means to take care of them), they can always adopt. What's fascistic about that? |
So are people to be frowned upon for having their own children? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Anyway, long story short, we need to kill all pets and plant them under a tree. That's my position. |
That's a pretty ridiculous position. As in, worthy of ridicule. But, its a chatboard, which runs on provocative statements, so I'm going to encourage such an attitude. Bravo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
