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.
Nobody is arguing that it is possible for humans to live without impacting the environment, however what they are arguing for is reducing that impact. You seem to be saying that if you can't live without having an impact on the environment you might as well do as much damages as possible.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I commended the poster for reducing the impact. And that argument is not for reducing environmental impact. The argument was specifically for every human to stop eating meat because it has an impact on the environment. I'm saying many things have an impact on the environment and eliminating one thing, meat consumption, is not going to change that.
I could say lets make it illegal to smoke cigarettes because it has a negative effect on the environment, its not as healthy as vapor, causes pain and suffering and you don't have to do it. I could say lets go back to prohibition. Alcohol is bad for your health, it causes suffering and death and the grains produced for alcohol could be better put to use. Does advocating against that as a fix for our environmental problems mean go out and do as much damage as possible.
Nobody is arguing that it is possible for humans to live without impacting the environment, however what they are arguing for is reducing that impact. You seem to be saying that if you can't live without having an impact on the environment you might as well do as much damages as possible.
Exactly. It's like saying I probably can't avoid having a car accident at some point so why make an effort to avoid them at all?
You're the only individual in this entire thread who consistently calls people stupid and hopeless because they don't agree with you.
Animals are killed not only for consumption, but to make things you use in every day life - tires, plastic products, condiments in your pantry, lotion, etc. Animals and their byproducts are used in so many things it's mind-boggling. We all use things in our every day lives that came from animals that were killed for the benefit of the human species.
There is nothing you can say that doesn't make you a hypocrite when it comes to animals being killed for the benefit of humans - for food or otherwise (your wallet and your car seats). Now, because your argument is that no animal can be humanely killed, because killing something is in and of itself inhumane, then your argument is moot and bears no merit.. unless you refrain from using anything made with any part of any animal. There just isn't any arguing that logic (that's your choice word, right?). You don't get to tell the rest of the world to quit eating meat and then fill your home with life's conveniences made with who-knows-what from all those animals we're not supposed to eat. Making the killing of animals illegal for purposes of consumption means you must also make the killing of animals illegal for purposes of almost every convenience you, and everyone else, use every day without a second thought.
Humans will progress, not regress, so your fantasy world of making eating meat illegal is never going to happen, nor should it. Might we find ways of making our lives "healthier" and more convenient without using animals and their byproducts in the future? Sure, it's possible, and probably at the further expense of the environment because we'll end up tapping some other resource to do it.. and at that point this argument moves on to the next thing we shouldn't do because you, and like-minded individuals, don't agree with it.
You're the only individual in this entire thread who consistently calls people stupid and hopeless because they don't agree with you.
Animals are killed not only for consumption, but to make things you use in every day life - tires, plastic products, condiments in your pantry, lotion, etc. Animals and their byproducts are used in so many things it's mind-boggling. We all use things in our every day lives that came from animals that were killed for the benefit of the human species.
There is nothing you can say that doesn't make you a hypocrite when it comes to animals being killed for the benefit of humans - for food or otherwise (your wallet and your car seats). Now, because your argument is that no animal can be humanely killed, because killing something is in and of itself inhumane, then your argument is moot and bears no merit.. unless you refrain from using anything made with any part of any animal. There just isn't any arguing that logic (that's your choice word, right?). You don't get to tell the rest of the world to quit eating meat and then fill your home with life's conveniences made with who-knows-what from all those animals we're not supposed to eat. Making the killing of animals illegal for purposes of consumption means you must also make the killing of animals illegal for purposes of almost every convenience you, and everyone else, use every day without a second thought.
Humans will progress, not regress, so your fantasy world of making eating meat illegal is never going to happen, nor should it. Might we find ways of making our lives "healthier" and more convenient without using animals and their byproducts in the future? Sure, it's possible, and probably at the further expense of the environment because we'll end up tapping some other resource to do it.. and at that point this argument moves on to the next thing we shouldn't do because you, and like-minded individuals, don't agree with it.
I call people out on their BS arguments like you. Your argument is terrible. Your entire arguement is a logical fallacy. Just because nobody can be perfect doesn't mean one shouldn't try. I could be driving tomorrow and someone could run out into the middle of the road and I could hit them, that doesn't mean that I should drive around not watching for pedestrians.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I commended the poster for reducing the impact. And that argument is not for reducing environmental impact. The argument was specifically for every human to stop eating meat because it has an impact on the environment. I'm saying many things have an impact on the environment and eliminating one thing, meat consumption, is not going to change that.
I could say lets make it illegal to smoke cigarettes because it has a negative effect on the environment, its not as healthy as vapor, causes pain and suffering and you don't have to do it. I could say lets go back to prohibition. Alcohol is bad for your health, it causes suffering and death and the grains produced for alcohol could be better put to use. Does advocating against that as a fix for our environmental problems mean go out and do as much damage as possible.
No, what you are implying is more like well since vapor cigs are still bad for you why not just smoke regular ones? Why be aware of the problems with tobacco at all? And since we can't go back to prohibition why even regulate alcohol now? Why have a drinking age? And driving while under the influence, why bother to think about that?
Again, some of us are trying to be conscientious of what is going on with producing animal products because it is in OUR best interest to do so. I like knowing that my food, including meat, was processed in a way that is good for the animal because it is also good for me.
And BTW, you can eat whatever the heck you want as far as I am concerned. What you put into your body is not my problem.
The ratio is a problem because there is limited space on this planet. People are using up space and destroying environments to satisfy their tastebuds. That is a problem.
Getting rid of slavery didn't stop all human suffering but it stopped a lot of human suffering. Similarly getting rid of the meat industry wouldn't stop all animal suffering but it would go a long way.
I have taken a logic course and I was at the top of the class.
People are using space to build big homes, shopping malls, stadiums, highways, airport..........That doesn't explain why the ratio of buffalo to sheep is a problem, a huge one.
Getting rid of slavery stopped the suffering of those affected by it until they suffered lynching, discrimination and all other abuses. It appears descendants of those slave are still suffering today. I suppose after those animals were dead their suffering would cease. An suppose that which does not exist does not suffer.
People are using space to build big homes, shopping malls, stadiums, highways, airport..........That doesn't explain why the ratio of buffalo to sheep is a problem, a huge one.
Getting rid of slavery stopped the suffering of those affected by it until they suffered lynching, discrimination and all other abuses. It appears descendants of those slave are still suffering today. I suppose after those animals were dead their suffering would cease. An suppose that which does not exist does not suffer.
Could of fooled me.
So you are saying it would have just been better to kill off all the slaves? Aren't you a lovely person.
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.
