Naah - methane is a nasty greenhouse gas, and the transport does produce exhaust gasses. Plus, feed lots and slaughterhouses use their fair share of energy.
So, Zzarchov, while I usually agree with you, I'll call baloney on this post of yours.
Respectfully, of course.
Pangloss
I've heard of this one before.
Anyway, I still believe we're not supposed to have too much meat because we are designed for vegetable diet. We have incisors and molars, our canine teeth are small and dull, we have relatively long intestines.
IRBS:
Just so that I understand: are you postulating that "choice" is the same as "necessity"?
Pangloss
I can point at something and say it is bad or stupid (like tractor pull competitions) and still not have to reach the conclusion it ought to be banned.
Well, that would make you a tad judgemental in my book. You are broadcasting your moral judgements on the activities of others. Just because they have different morals, doesn't mean they are bad or stupid. I am sure some people do enjoy tractor pull competitions.
No need to apologise.Doc -
Forgive me if I don't accept the Dali Lama as an expert on nutrition.
Pangloss
IRBS -
I am not sure that a new paragraph would have changed the meaning of your post. But I do understand and welcome your declaration that choice is not the same as necessity.
I stand by my assertion that eating meat is not a necessity for urbanites; therefore eating meat is a choice; therefore urban meat eaters choose to kill when it is not necessary; therefore it is unnecessary killing.
As I repeat, unnecessary killing is unethical. Point out where in the chain my logic falls down.
Yes that is a moral judgment. We all do it all the time - we simply tend not to be methodical or vocal about it.
Pangloss
Yes, IRBS. Having attended tractor pull competitions (as a reporter, and once, as a reluctant date), I feel I am on rock solid moral ground saying that tractor pull competitions are stupid, and the people that go there are stupid.
Notice, please, that I have admitted attending said competitions.
Back to the thread, I hope.
Pangloss
IRBS -
I am not sure that a new paragraph would have changed the meaning of your post. But I do understand and welcome your declaration that choice is not the same as necessity.
I stand by my assertion that eating meat is not a necessity for urbanites; therefore eating meat is a choice; therefore urban meat eaters choose to kill when it is not necessary; therefore it is unnecessary killing.
As I repeat, unnecessary killing is unethical. Point out where in the chain my logic falls down.
Yes that is a moral judgment. We all do it all the time - we simply tend not to be methodical or vocal about it.
Pangloss
Ahh Zzarchov, the one place where your argument falls flat is that IF we weren't hell-bent on producing table-ready meat, there would be no methane emmissions from the animals- the land where the fed is grown could have been left as-is- are you suggesting that without the cows, all that land would somehow magically pump out the same amount of methane, despite the fact that left untouched, certain unnatural conditions would have to arise in order to make the conversion to gas at the same level as it happens when fed to livestock??
A second respectful call of "bunkem" on your assertion, I declare
Twila:
Aside from my childish urge to say "yuck" all I have to say is. . .well, yuck!
Pangloss