Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm glad you are so trusting that the social safety net will always be there for you. You go on depending on others; it is your right. I'll be the first to admit that we are all dependent on one another to a certain extent. But I am unwilling to extend that dependence to 100% as you are. It just seems a bit foolhardy to me, given our species' history.
Well, not quite true. Japan (Hitler's ally) attacked us and in fact occupied some Alaskan islands. Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. The British invaded in the War of 1812.
This is way off topic, but no they didn't. They attacked our military base on an island in the middle of an ocean, without (if I remember correctly) a single civilian casualty.
I have been vegetarian for 20 years, ever since I learned about the awful concentration camp conditions of factory animals. Sickening.
Plus, meat is filled with hormones and is very fattening. Beef raises your chance of getting cancer!
Yes, that's categorically true. Meaning: under certain conditions. And I agree: the conditions that cattle are subjected to is embarrassingly obscene, and should be stopped, but what about all those consumers down at McDonald's? or those grill & BBQ fans all over America? How are they gonna tailgate-party down at the ball game? I mean, c'mon, man! Where's your priorities?
The addition of foreign materials, hormones, cattle slaughter byproducts, etc. into cattle's diets at the feedlot is well documented, but if you adhere to a more natural diet (organic, ranch-raised beef or the deer and elk that I like to obtain and take personal responsiblity for) you avoid all that, and the resulting meat is quite healthy. Far more so, IMHO, than a strictly vegan diet.
Having said that, I also do not condone the conversion of wild habitat into modern mono-culture agriculture which is highly susceptible to insect invasions, blight/disease infestations and the deliberate loss of highly diverse and inherently stable natural habitat.
As we convert to grains instead of raising cattle, we'll effectively kill off much of the remaining high-quality bottom-land wildlife habitat, all in the name of veganism and saving the wild beasts.
As usual, the wack-a-loon fringe is spectacularly illiterate on the science of the issue and yet they press on.
The majority are frequently wrong. You're a German, you know Hitler had the support of the majority for a time. He was still wrong, and they who supported him were still wrong. Nonetheless, I know quite a few Germans...and they don't all share your opinions.
We're not warlike, we're just not pacifists. We saw where pacifism got France, the British, the Netherlands, etc. in the 1930's. And out Second Amendment is so we don't get a Hitler here, and if we do, we can get rid of him without another country's help. People can only be free if they are able to defend their freedom against wannabe tyrants who have no qualms about using force to hold power.
Why didn't Americans kill Bush and his lying war-mongerers then? Because just like with Hitler things are not obvious, they develop gradually and people don't realize. And once they do realize, it is too late. There were several attempts to kill Hitler, actually yesterday was the anniversary of the most famous try. And if the US got a president who turns out to be a dictator, you can have your home full of weapons, you won't even get near enough to shoot him. After all Germans had weapons back then, too, and many Germans did not want Hitler.
As far as majority, each case is individual. If your argument is that because the majority backed Hitler, all majority views are wrong, then you have to abolish democracy.
It is only through the factory farming you dislike that the world's population could even remotely become vegetarian. And one size doesn't fit all...where I live, it's quite possible for a person to supply their meat through hunting. Perhaps in Beijing, China, that is not possible. There, people are forced to rely on the "system." But I don't live in such an over-populated place, and have no desire to live in a big city. Not everyone wants to live closer to Nature like myself, obviously, but for someone to say living detached, in a city, reliant on all the various systems, is "superior" is not only ignorant but foolish and quite incorrect.
It's interesting that environmentalists both support and oppose bio-fuels...they oppose petroleum and desire green fuels, but then turn around and oppose the green fuels...bio-diesel because of the deforestation issue, ethanol likewise and because it takes factory farming, GMO's, and so forth, wind because it destroys the views of the mountains and might kill endangered birds (reasons for local environmentalists stopping a project that would have supplied much of my state's power with wind), wood because they oppose logging and think woodsmoke is dirty, hydro power because they oppose damming rivers...kind of leaves us with no options. There is in fact an environmentalist controlled political party here that wants "zero energy" use...literally a return to the stone ages only not even with woodburning allowed!
It's partly money and partly because we can't supply fresh fruits and such all winter. The horror, someone might have to eat canned, dried, or frozen fruits instead of fresh for a part of the year, as humans have always had to.
The global shipping of food is unnecessary in my view. It is a lucrative business, but North America could feed itself, South and Central America too, Africa too, Europe as well, even Asia, although Asia is the most critical continent due to its masses of people.
Zero energy building is a good concept, I have seen such homes in Hesse, very impressive.
I actually disagree. If humanity suddenly returned to hunter-gatherer existence en masse, over 90% of the humans would be done. There would be a massive die-off. Carrion birds would do extremely well in the short term and natural balance would be restored within a decade. Further, I'll bet you would start eating meat and carrying an assault rifle...
Well, being human I don't want 90% of humans to die, plus it would be the wrong ones again, anyway. I am not a Darwinist or anything like that.
This is way off topic, but no they didn't. They attacked our military base on an island in the middle of an ocean, without (if I remember correctly) a single civilian casualty.
For starters. Civilians were evacuated before they attacked or else there would have been many civilian victims. But U.S. soil was indeed attacked and we were invaded.
Why didn't Americans kill Bush and his lying war-mongerers then? Because just like with Hitler things are not obvious, they develop gradually and people don't realize. And once they do realize, it is too late. There were several attempts to kill Hitler, actually yesterday was the anniversary of the most famous try. And if the US got a president who turns out to be a dictator, you can have your home full of weapons, you won't even get near enough to shoot him. After all Germans had weapons back then, too, and many Germans did not want Hitler.
As far as majority, each case is individual. If your argument is that because the majority backed Hitler, all majority views are wrong, then you have to abolish democracy.
Bush wasn't a dictator, no comparison with Hitler. We got rid of him the last election, although the current one is taking more power than Bush did...
If Bush or any other president had refused to step down when a new one was elected, I have no doubt something would have been done, either through the courts or otherwise.
Only loyal Nazis had weapons. The German gun laws restricted weapons to persons considered trustworthy and loyal...Nazis, IOW, most were disarmed before the worst of what he did started. The U.S. is different because so many have guns that if even 10 percent of them rebelled, the government would collapse.
Basing any argument on majority views is always wrong. Not all majority held views are wrong but basing any argument on the majority is.
The global shipping of food is unnecessary in my view. It is a lucrative business, but North America could feed itself, South and Central America too, Africa too, Europe as well, even Asia, although Asia is the most critical continent due to its masses of people.
Not currently, and I don't foresee the heavily populated countries (Asian countries and in much of Western Europe) ever feeding themselves in the near future. Africa is a basketcase and until the politics are settled there, there never will be enough food grown there. South America has political problems of its own. Rather bizarre when people are starving in countries that export food to countries that don't need to import food.
Quote:
Zero energy building is a good concept, I have seen such homes in Hesse, very impressive.
Zero energy use, not zero energy building.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Grain-fed squirrel steaks anyone?
