impede
Vital 1st Team Regular
Probably
Eating meat is immoral
- Thread starter impede
- Start date
Probably
John Bigbooté
Vital Reserves Team
As I have said before, eating meat is not immoral. You need to separate the act from the industry that provides the food. However, if you're going to go in this direction, the Haber-Bosch process and intensive agrarian farming has also seriously damaged the planet.
Last edited:
John Bigbooté
Vital Reserves Team
Okay, how about applying your puritanical views to your own life: You'll need to stop heating your home, you'll need to stop driving, you'll need to stop eating any veg that you cannot prove has been grown in a fully organic way, and hasn't been transported by an internal combustion engine.
I'm done here.
impede
Vital 1st Team Regular
I do have an allotment and I do ride a bike. So along with being vegan, I do a lot. Why should I do even more when others cannot be arsed to do anything?
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Two parts to that really. Firstly you are right you don't have to do even more. You can choose to do as little or much as you like - so long as you aren't telling other people what, how little or much they should be doing.
Secondly as regards being 'arsed', why should people have to do anything though. If people want to be vegan, ride cycles and grow their own produce that's great for them and I am glad it brings them happiness, health, peace of mind or any other positive vibes.
Because I eat meat, drive a car and buy stuff I haven't grown myself it's not because I can't be arsed, it is because that is what I choose to do and they all make my life more pleasurable, efficient and convenient etc.
You may have, and can gladly keep the moral high ground; you might be right in some of your opinions; but it doesn't make others wrong that disagree by making a different lifestyle choice.
I will continue to (legally) do what is best for my personal circumstances. I don't have to be 'arsed' to do anything different.
Last edited:
impede
Vital 1st Team Regular
I am not going to take issue with most of that but do you believe that climate change is human driven?
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
I'll just get the fence out and sit on it. Climate change hmmm, I'm not an expert or qualified to pick through the data with any confidence from a factual perspective.
I do know there are a load of climate change deniers that produce 'evidence' to support the stance that the changes in temperature are within the normal cyclical parameters. I also know there are a load of people with an environmental agenda (be it politically or for green energy contract awards) that produce 'evidence' to say the opposite.
Bottom line is that I don't know any suitably qualified individual or organisation I can trust to not have an agenda so I can't draw upon a confident point of view.
If I want accurate believable information that I can trust implicitly on something like the coronavirus I go to my oldest friend who is an eminent international scientist within that field. I know that he knows his stuff and God help anyone that would try and influence him about known science and pure research, for any reason short of a close family member being held captive. Unfortunately I don't have that luxury of such a source when it comes to climate change.
If you want my opinion, I am inclined to believe that it would be ridiculous to think that man's activities would have no impact on climate but I also think there are some very hysterical people out there that may be guilty of over stating the issue. As an example remind me what qualifications Thunberg holds to speak with so much perceived authority and influence. For balance, I am sure I could come up with some equally unqualified climate change deniers if I spent 5 mins. with Google.
Last edited:
Sincilbanks
Vital Football Hero
Perhaps she has a very old friend who is an eminent international scientist?
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Thunberg I assume you mean; that would make them a teenager as well then. Maybe her Mummy or Daddy know one for her though. Perhaps the unqualified climate change deniers also know some eminent international scientists.
Who knows, but I'll crack on with my life in the meantime. Too much to do and bugger all I can personally do to effect change, to waste time and energy worrying the sky might fall in.
I'll leave it to the 'experts' to out shout each other and hold lots of very, very, important meetings. No doubt they'll let us know when they've come up with a cunning plan.
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Well this is all very topical for this segment of the thread
Leaving aside (shock horror) two people having opposing views conducting a civilised discussion on that nasty GB News Channel; is anybody else any the wiser as to the extent of significant global warming; I know I'm not.
Key points I picked up, not that I wasn't already aware of them - The doom monger scientists have consistently got their predictions wrong in the past. That doesn't preclude that doom monger scientists might be right one day. It's all pretty pointless unless somebody causes China to get their shit together.
Leaving aside (shock horror) two people having opposing views conducting a civilised discussion on that nasty GB News Channel; is anybody else any the wiser as to the extent of significant global warming; I know I'm not.
Key points I picked up, not that I wasn't already aware of them - The doom monger scientists have consistently got their predictions wrong in the past. That doesn't preclude that doom monger scientists might be right one day. It's all pretty pointless unless somebody causes China to get their shit together.
Rasenimp
Vital Football Legend
I think the China point is one that people are going to have to answer a bit better than they have. I would take a little bit of an issue thoigh with the 'is anybody any the wiser' point; I think this kind of debate probably isn't the place you're going to find that but there's a lot of dense scientific literature to poke at if you really want to try. I've had the odd look and haven't greatly enjoyed it / had to find context to understand elements (I imagine there are some books that do it better) but I think I'm generally a bit higher on the severity side of the problem, albeit without really working out how that affects me and whether I just feel guilty about continuing to do a lot of the things that probably don't help!
On the doom monger point, I did have a flick through that video but I think the point about the Maldives or the Arctic is a little bit weak. Climate scientists have been right about an awful lot, so some headline chasing and ill advised comments in the eighties don't just discredit all of climate science and I don't think should be used to make us feel better.
I think the below is a slightly better interview if you're in the market for a similar conversation- someone who is a bit hotter on the science and doesn't have so many skeletons to just get hammered on, or culture war type stuff. I don't think Farage is able to land so many blows and has to change the topics quite quickly because the rebuttals are clear and explained succinctly or with good analogies. I've not heard of him before but interviews like this I think are better than the Hallam one (I'm not sure I hugely like each of the actors in that debate!)
MaineRoad_96
Vital 1st Team Regular
That’s an excellent explanation, although quite telling that he was starting to sound like a parent talking to a five year old having a tantrum. You can see why Farage is such catnip to the terminally stupid - just boil everything down to lowest common denominator bullshit and you don’t have to engage your brain or go to the effort of any critical thinking. It’s incredibly sad that in this country we seem to revel in such ignorance - it’s like we’re moving into a new Dark Age.
The time is long since gone to pretend that man made climate change isn’t having a hugely adverse impact on the planet. Standing and pointing at ‘the other’ simply isn’t going to cut it anymore. China are of course responsible but they are also responsible for huge advances in renewable technology. We’ll all have to contribute and it will involve changing the way we live and making uncomfortable choices - which is the real reason why the likes of Farage have a problem with it.
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
You clearly didn't watch it with an open mind then. Farage isn't a climate change denier, he simply doesn't know the extent of it but most definitely IS in favour of positive change and action, such as mass tree planting. He doesn't see what the approach taken by Extinction Rebellion achieves and would like them to contribute in a positive way rather than carrying out stunts that don't achieve anything tangible so far as actual climate change itself is concerned.
I agree he (Farage) was mildly patronising (possibly with justification to this particular guest) and as Rasenimp points out, it was all very facile and didn't take the subject discussion anywhere meaningful.
Even so Farage was the only one actually suggesting positive solutions to the subject of climate change whatever level it may be at. The best the guy from Extinction Rebellion could come up with is that they are wanting to set up some sort of 'people's' talking shop.
The piece kind of made my point that there are too many people shouting about the subject who aren't qualified to, and it's then even harder to sort the charlatans from the people with integrity as the subject appears to attract quite a cross section of fruit loops with their own preconceptions and agendas.
NottyImp
Vital Football Legend
https://www.theguardian.com/food/20...time-vegetarian-became-beefs-biggest-champion
Interesting article here on this subject.
Interesting article here on this subject.
impede
Vital 1st Team Regular
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Whatever, if somebody wants to be vegan good for them. If somebody wants to eat meat, good for them.
That video is designed to insult omnivores and put them on a guilt trip, therefore I don't give a shit how the actor or the people behind the propaganda within it feel about their views. They've obviously never heard of diplomacy or winning hearts and minds.
I do find that if 'you' insult a whole body of people (omnivores in this case) and try to make them feel guilty, it more often than not backfires and turns people against an argument; 'they' tend to become more entrenched in their views.
Likewise if you make the argument all about 'you' and your own feelings/beliefs people often switch off.
Some people may listen or be swayed, but usually insulting people doesn't make them want to 'vote' for you - unless of course they are easily bullied or are emotionally insecure and want to be seen as 'on message' or trending.
What works better is somebody putting forward an idea in a non confrontational, thoughtful and respectful manner, explaining the benefits and gains to be had for the recipient and others involved in the process. That would of course require compromise.
A good example of that is Fairtrade. Many years ago when Fairtrade came out I remember being bombarded by 'activist' messages telling me what a bad person I was on several levels if I didn't go out and only buy Fairtrade stuff where it was available - instant result of two fingers from me and 'I'm not even going to listen to what you have to say' if your starting point is calling me a selfish, heartless, capitalist pig for eating a Toblerone.
A little later I watched a program where some supporters of Fairtrade started their presentation on the basis that you are not a bad person for buying non Fairtrade goods but would you kindly give me a little of your time to allow us to explain how Fairtrade is an ethical and beneficial system. At the end they signed off by saying, of course nobody should tell you what you must and can only buy but next time you're looking at for example coffee or chocolate would you please consider Fairtrade as an option.
You won't be surprised to discover that is exactly what I do now and whilst I will still buy e.g. a Toblerone if that is exactly what I fancy, I will also often consciously look for and buy a Fairtrade item at other times.
Here's an offer Impede and I'm not being facetious with this. Make your starting point that eating meat doesn't make me a bad person and I am perfectly entitled to do so. Having done that, link me to (non preachy and non judgemental independent and science based sources) the benefits of eating more vegetarian options and less meat.
Accept I am still most likely going to eat some meat and if I am, how about as a compromise to be going on with, link me to some info. on meat producers/organisations that care for their animals in a more ethical way so that I can actively seek out and choose their produce over less savoury operators.
If your position is that all meat eating is evil and therefore it must be stopped for everyone (is that your view?) you will be waiting forever as that is not going to happen. If you take a more realistic approach and are prepared to compromise, provided you can persuade people with your argument you might just see people choosing to eat more vegetarian options and choose more ethical options, myself included. Surely that is realistic and preferential to the impossible idealistic dream?
The onus is on the 'vegan' community as currently I like eating meat and it's not up to me to change my choices or look into alternatives. The manner of how the vegan message is imparted to the omnivore masses, will I suggest, directly influence how many of us choose to eat less meat, or even become fully vegetarians/vegans.
