Glenn beck is right! PETA and Glenn beck on al gore/climate

[Skeptikosia]

Hey, I gave you ten pages to respond to my reply.

I've seen people trying to glom on to the libertarian meme and it's nothing but a boatload of fail.

Libertarian-socialist, libertarian-anarchist, libertarian-communist, etc...

All I've seen is a bunch of brainless, spineless e-thugs who lack the fundamental understanding of anything resembling ethics or rhetoric. Trying to sound like you believe in individual rights when all you really want is to give away authority over your life and take away the rights of others.

Man up or shut up.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you give examples? Why don't you start by defining your terms.

I did not respond to you because your reply seemed incoherent and off topic.

Wow, you win. Ron White was right.

[Natapoc]

Hey, I gave you ten pages to respond to my reply.

I've seen people trying to glom on to the libertarian meme and it's nothing but a boatload of fail.

Libertarian-socialist, libertarian-anarchist, libertarian-communist, etc...

All I've seen is a bunch of brainless, spineless e-thugs who lack the fundamental understanding of anything resembling ethics or rhetoric. Trying to sound like you believe in individual rights when all you really want is to give away authority over your life and take away the rights of others.

Man up or shut up.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you give examples? Why don't you start by defining your terms.

I did not respond to you because your reply seemed incoherent and off topic.

Wow, you win. Ron White was right.

See this is what I mean. Who is Ron White? A google search shows a texas comedian. Is that who you are talking about? If so how does it relate to anything in this topic?

[Natapoc]

Sorry if this has been addressed in the last 22 pages, but it's not the animals per se that are the problem, it's the intensive operations we use to raise them. Industrial soy plantations are an ecological disaster, too--the answer is to move to more sustainable methods, not stop eating animals.

Well if we stopped eating them the problems would be solved also.

Well, we have to eat something. Industrial agriculture is environmentally devastating, whether you're talking about ILO's or monocrop plantations. The problem isn't what we eat (well, aside from the absurdly protein-rich diet of North America and Europe), it's how we're raising/growing it.

Perhaps but becoming a vegetarian or vegan is the most easy thing you can do to greatly reduce your carbon footprint without making any sacrifices in quality of life. Other good things to do (in addition) include eating only sustainably produced foods, shopping at farmers markets, eating as local as possible, walking, biking, or taking public transport, ect.

Changing world agricultural practices is something that should be done as soon as possible I agree with you. But the most simple way as an individual to effect that change and to reduce your impact on the world is to become vegan. This is why Al Gore was called a hypocrite, he goes on and on about the importance of things that will only make minor changes or improvement while totally ignoring a simple lifestyle choice that would do far more than any other choice he could make.

[SD_Film Artists]

Ya and PETA also says that Autism is caused by drinking milk (and probably vaccines too), so of course they're just the sort of people that we should be following in this time of crisis.



Wow, I've managed to mention that point twice in one day.

[Rikker DAnconia]

Sure. Here are some introductions on libertarian-communism:
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html
http://libcom.org/
http://wiki.infoshop.org/Anarchist_communism
http://infoshop.org

Ow. My head hurts from reading those. You understand that the concept of "libertarian" and "communism" are mutually exclusive, by definition, right?

What is the basis for determining trade (which doesn't exist... you just take it?), rights (who has rights, and who can overrule those rights?) or... well... any interaction between people? Is there an objective system in ANY of that?

I WAS legitimately interested in what facts you might have to offer. Now...
Oh, man, I'm going out drinking after this.

[Natapoc]

Sure. Here are some introductions on libertarian-communism:
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html
http://libcom.org/
http://wiki.infoshop.org/Anarchist_communism
http://infoshop.org

Ow. My head hurts from reading those. You understand that the concept of "libertarian" and "communism" are mutually exclusive, by definition, right?

What is the basis for determining trade (which doesn't exist... you just take it?), rights (who has rights, and who can overrule those rights?) or... well... any interaction between people? Is there an objective system in ANY of that?

I WAS legitimately interested in what facts you might have to offer. Now...
Oh, man, I'm going out drinking after this.

Sorry to hear it is a confusion. It sounds like you mean libertarian in the way that the US libertarian party uses it.

There was a discussion on it a couple days ago. I suggest you have a look at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=23141

The OP could really use some comments on his side since the majority seems to feel that left-libertarianism is valid.

This thread is not about my politics though so I don't really want to waste space on it. I was simply mentioning it in the OP to contrast mine to Glenn becks as a way of reiterating that I don't actually agree with him on most things.

See what I mean? I'm sorry for your headache. They hurt

Edit: I am starting to think this is what Skeptikosia was trying to say above expecting me to know that is why he had a problem with me. Skeptikosia, if that is the case please let me know. And read the link above for the discussion on the topic.

[Grave_n_idle]

Your argument seems to be that you have faith in humanity destroying any species which is not of use to it and therefore "farm animals" would be destroyed.

Although there is some evidence to back up your claim: Humans have in the past caused extinctions.

It's all right there, isn't it?

We have faith in humans causing extinctions because it's what we do.

We do not necessarily do so and now we have laws in place to prevent it. Consider that out of all the animals only a few are used by humans but they still survive. Why? Why have we not annihilated sea gals for example? They are of no use to us?

Current estimates suggest 27,000 to 37,000 extinctions per year. There are far more things we're NOT safeguarding from extinction, than things we're saving from the brink.

http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html

It is your argument that is flawed on the face: Recommending we continue a negative action because other people may do negative actions of a different type later.

That's not what is being said - what is being said is that you're argument against the mistreatment of animals is flawed because your suggested solution would 'mistreat' them all to death.

Me - I'm in favour of an overall reduction of human consumption of meat products, because it's inefficient, and humane treatment of all the animal foodsources we DO keep.

In this thread I have given links to farm sanctuaries. These would seem to contradict your claim that humans would not protect "farm animals" since even today while these animals have no protection people are trying to help them live great lives. Go to farmsanctuary.org to find an example of this.

Farm sancturies are not going to suck up ALL of the world's excess 'food' animal population if we suddenly outlawed food-farming meat.

People might 'preserve' a cow or two, here and there - but the sudden cessation of farming meat animals would leave far more living entities without care, than the tiny proportion that would find homes on sanctuaries.

[WhatchaTalkinBout]

Typically I don't agree with glenn beck on anything much at all. If he was in charge I'd probably be executed for being a libertarian-communist promoter of earth, animal, and human liberation.

But a couple days ago glenn said something that was very true. Everyone who believes in human caused climate change has an obligation to become vegan today!

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of many of the top climatologists in the world, the meat industry causes more of the human caused climate change then anything else including ALL the worlds transportation put together (cars, trains, airplanes, private jets, ect.)

Glenn beck blasts al gore for not being a vegetarian:
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTUu92JhgE

Peta joins in:
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEs-PtMRooY

Don't be a hypocrite like al gore. Do as glenn beck and peta says and be vegan today It is the most easy thing you can (not) do to reduce human caused climate change.

FARM (not associated with peta or glenn beck or me) gives free vegetarian starter kits. You can order one here: http://www.vegkit.org/

What are your thoughts on this? I never thought I'd side with glenn beck on anything. Does it mean I'm turning into a conservative? Should I go read more ayn rand?

What does it mean that PETA and Glenn beck agree on something?

See this.

[The Norse Hordes]

Typically I don't agree with glenn beck on anything much at all. If he was in charge I'd probably be executed for being a libertarian-communist promoter of earth, animal, and human liberation.

But a couple days ago glenn said something that was very true. Everyone who believes in human caused climate change has an obligation to become vegan today!

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of many of the top climatologists in the world, the meat industry causes more of the human caused climate change then anything else including ALL the worlds transportation put together (cars, trains, airplanes, private jets, ect.)

Glenn beck blasts al gore for not being a vegetarian:
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTUu92JhgE

Peta joins in:
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEs-PtMRooY

Don't be a hypocrite like al gore. Do as glenn beck and peta says and be vegan today It is the most easy thing you can (not) do to reduce human caused climate change.

FARM (not associated with peta or glenn beck or me) gives free vegetarian starter kits. You can order one here: http://www.vegkit.org/

What are your thoughts on this? I never thought I'd side with glenn beck on anything. Does it mean I'm turning into a conservative? Should I go read more ayn rand?

What does it mean that PETA and Glenn beck agree on something?

See this.

Thats right! Respond to a childish tirade with a link to a childish tirade!

[Natapoc]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

[Sdaeriji]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

[Tsalland]

I concur, me eating cows reduces the amount of natural gas they put out.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Maddox is not a reliable source.

[Natapoc]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Ok but only for you. It is disrespectful to reply to a post with only a link. The main focus of this thread is the global warming aspect that peta/glenn beck humorously spoke about in reference to al gore.

But if you really want me to reply to an article that no one on NS has even cared enough to write a defense of and is hosted on a well known internet trolls site I will. Mostly because I love you so much!

The article correctly points out the unfortunate fact that animals sometimes unintentionally die as a result of grain cultivation equipment, for example, running them over. This is a sad thing and should be reduced but... if you are concerned about this you should know that:

1. Most of the grain grown goes to feed livestock meaning you would reduce the number of deaths from farming machines if you ate less meat.
2. There is a difference between intentionally killing animals and unintentionally killing them just as there is a difference between unintentionally killing humans and intentionally killing them.

Humans also die from the same things: Farm or industrial equipment has taken many human lives. We can only work to make that part safer.

The fact that humans sometimes die in the process of agriculture does not suddenly mean we should go ahead and eat humans any more then the fact that animals sometimes die from agricultural equipment malfunction means that we should eat animals.

The article has flawed logic.

I hope that made you happy

[Sdaeriji]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Maddox is not a reliable source.

Awesome. Perhaps now you could actually answer the question in my post instead of the one you made up in your head.

[Sdaeriji]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Ok but only for you. It is disrespectful to reply to a post with only a link. The main focus of this thread is the global warming aspect that peta/glenn beck humorously spoke about in reference to al gore.

But if you really want me to reply to an article that no one on NS has even cared enough to write a defense of and is hosted on a well known internet trolls site I will. Mostly because I love you so much!

The article correctly points out the unfortunate fact that animals sometimes unintentionally die as a result of grain cultivation equipment, for example, running them over. This is a sad thing and should be reduced but... if you are concerned about this you should know that:

1. Most of the grain grown goes to feed livestock meaning you would reduce the number of deaths from farming machines if you ate less meat.
2. There is a difference between intentionally killing animals and unintentionally killing them just as there is a difference between unintentionally killing humans and intentionally killing them.

Humans also die from the same things: Farm or industrial equipment has taken many human lives. We can only work to make that part safer.

The fact that humans sometimes die in the process of agriculture does not suddenly mean we should go ahead and eat humans any more then the fact that animals sometimes die from agricultural equipment malfunction means that we should eat animals.

The article has flawed logic.

I hope that made you happy

It is, however, part of the greater "you COULD do more" line of thinking that got Al Gore called a hypocrite and spawned this whole mess of a thread.

[Natapoc]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Ok but only for you. It is disrespectful to reply to a post with only a link. The main focus of this thread is the global warming aspect that peta/glenn beck humorously spoke about in reference to al gore.

But if you really want me to reply to an article that no one on NS has even cared enough to write a defense of and is hosted on a well known internet trolls site I will. Mostly because I love you so much!

The article correctly points out the unfortunate fact that animals sometimes unintentionally die as a result of grain cultivation equipment, for example, running them over. This is a sad thing and should be reduced but... if you are concerned about this you should know that:

1. Most of the grain grown goes to feed livestock meaning you would reduce the number of deaths from farming machines if you ate less meat.
2. There is a difference between intentionally killing animals and unintentionally killing them just as there is a difference between unintentionally killing humans and intentionally killing them.

Humans also die from the same things: Farm or industrial equipment has taken many human lives. We can only work to make that part safer.

The fact that humans sometimes die in the process of agriculture does not suddenly mean we should go ahead and eat humans any more then the fact that animals sometimes die from agricultural equipment malfunction means that we should eat animals.

The article has flawed logic.

I hope that made you happy

It is, however, part of the greater "you COULD do more" line of thinking that got Al Gore called a hypocrite and spawned this whole mess of a thread.

Not really. Read what I said above again not just the first 2 sentences.

[Sdaeriji]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Ok but only for you. It is disrespectful to reply to a post with only a link. The main focus of this thread is the global warming aspect that peta/glenn beck humorously spoke about in reference to al gore.

But if you really want me to reply to an article that no one on NS has even cared enough to write a defense of and is hosted on a well known internet trolls site I will. Mostly because I love you so much!

The article correctly points out the unfortunate fact that animals sometimes unintentionally die as a result of grain cultivation equipment, for example, running them over. This is a sad thing and should be reduced but... if you are concerned about this you should know that:

1. Most of the grain grown goes to feed livestock meaning you would reduce the number of deaths from farming machines if you ate less meat.
2. There is a difference between intentionally killing animals and unintentionally killing them just as there is a difference between unintentionally killing humans and intentionally killing them.

Humans also die from the same things: Farm or industrial equipment has taken many human lives. We can only work to make that part safer.

The fact that humans sometimes die in the process of agriculture does not suddenly mean we should go ahead and eat humans any more then the fact that animals sometimes die from agricultural equipment malfunction means that we should eat animals.

The article has flawed logic.

I hope that made you happy

It is, however, part of the greater "you COULD do more" line of thinking that got Al Gore called a hypocrite and spawned this whole mess of a thread.

Not really. Read what I said above again not just the first 2 sentences.

Of course. Disagreeing with you must mean I just didn't read the whole post. The fact that some animals die in industrial combines means that, if you truly wanted to do as much as you can to eliminate animal suffering, you COULD choose to grow your own crops, where you could make sure no animals were harmed. The intentional v. unintentional comparison is just a deflection from the fact that animals ARE dying to support your diet, and if you weren't a hypocrite you wouldn't eat grains farmed with industrial combines. We're back to this stupid moral absolutism crap. You're drawing a line, just the same as meat-eaters are, where doing more to limit animal suffering is just too darn inconvenient. You call anyone below your line a hypocrite, but you don't recognize that anyone who draws their line higher than yours can just as easily call you a hypocrite.

[Natapoc]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Ok but only for you. It is disrespectful to reply to a post with only a link. The main focus of this thread is the global warming aspect that peta/glenn beck humorously spoke about in reference to al gore.

But if you really want me to reply to an article that no one on NS has even cared enough to write a defense of and is hosted on a well known internet trolls site I will. Mostly because I love you so much!

The article correctly points out the unfortunate fact that animals sometimes unintentionally die as a result of grain cultivation equipment, for example, running them over. This is a sad thing and should be reduced but... if you are concerned about this you should know that:

1. Most of the grain grown goes to feed livestock meaning you would reduce the number of deaths from farming machines if you ate less meat.
2. There is a difference between intentionally killing animals and unintentionally killing them just as there is a difference between unintentionally killing humans and intentionally killing them.

Humans also die from the same things: Farm or industrial equipment has taken many human lives. We can only work to make that part safer.

The fact that humans sometimes die in the process of agriculture does not suddenly mean we should go ahead and eat humans any more then the fact that animals sometimes die from agricultural equipment malfunction means that we should eat animals.

The article has flawed logic.

I hope that made you happy

It is, however, part of the greater "you COULD do more" line of thinking that got Al Gore called a hypocrite and spawned this whole mess of a thread.

Not really. Read what I said above again not just the first 2 sentences.

Of course. Disagreeing with you must mean I just didn't read the whole post. The fact that some animals die in industrial combines means that, if you truly wanted to do as much as you can to eliminate animal suffering, you COULD choose to grow your own crops, where you could make sure no animals were harmed. The intentional v. unintentional comparison is just a deflection from the fact that animals ARE dying to support your diet, and if you weren't a hypocrite you wouldn't eat grains farmed with industrial combines. We're back to this stupid moral absolutism crap. You're drawing a line, just the same as meat-eaters are, where doing more to limit animal suffering is just too darn inconvenient. You call anyone below your line a hypocrite, but you don't recognize that anyone who draws their line higher than yours can just as easily call you a hypocrite.

The intentional v. unintentional comparison is valid. Can you explain how, if it is not valid, that you could claim to be against the killing of humans since as I said humans die from the same things?

Do you feel there are any moral standards at all? Do you feel that anyone can ever be called a hypocrite?

For example is it okay to kill someone? If not why not?

btw, maddoxes source was from alfalfa... something grown almost exclusively for animals.

Is WhatchaTalkinBout also you?

[Veblenia]

Changing world agricultural practices is something that should be done as soon as possible I agree with you. But the most simple way as an individual to effect that change and to reduce your impact on the world is to become vegan.

I can respect vegans for their choice, but if you're a vegan shopping at [insert large supermarket chain here], on a diet of industrially produced plant products, you are arguably doing more harm to the planet than someone eating a local, sustainably-produced diet that includes meat, eggs and dairy. Industrial agriculture is fuel-intensive, chemical-intensive and water-intensive, and growing plants under that regime is not much more benign than raising livestock. An individual looking to effect change and reduce their impact on the planet should be joining a CSA, shopping at farmers markets, growing a garden and/or keeping their own chickens, and generally getting to know the people who grow their food, before they consider eliminating animal products entirely.

[WhatchaTalkinBout]

Typically I don't agree with glenn beck on anything much at all. If he was in charge I'd probably be executed for being a libertarian-communist promoter of earth, animal, and human liberation.

But a couple days ago glenn said something that was very true. Everyone who believes in human caused climate change has an obligation to become vegan today!

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of many of the top climatologists in the world, the meat industry causes more of the human caused climate change then anything else including ALL the worlds transportation put together (cars, trains, airplanes, private jets, ect.)

Glenn beck blasts al gore for not being a vegetarian:
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTUu92JhgE

Peta joins in:
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEs-PtMRooY

Don't be a hypocrite like al gore. Do as glenn beck and peta says and be vegan today It is the most easy thing you can (not) do to reduce human caused climate change.

FARM (not associated with peta or glenn beck or me) gives free vegetarian starter kits. You can order one here: http://www.vegkit.org/

What are your thoughts on this? I never thought I'd side with glenn beck on anything. Does it mean I'm turning into a conservative? Should I go read more ayn rand?

What does it mean that PETA and Glenn beck agree on something?

See this.

This was posted because Al Gore probably isn't a vegan due to this.

[Free-Beings]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Maddox is not a reliable source.

And PETA is?

[Dyakovo]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Maddox is not a reliable source.

And PETA is?

Not too mention Beck...

[EvilDarkMagicians]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Maddox is not a reliable source.

And PETA is?

I didn't say PETA is, I said Maddox isn't

[Dyakovo]

See this.

1. Your link is off topic.
2. Your link to the maddox site which is pretty much just some guy trolling.
3. You offer no commentary except a link.

Please contribute to the discussion in some way or don't post at all. I look forward to your edited comment with useful commentary.

How is the link off topic? You can blow off maddox for being a has-been wannabe internet troll, but that page he linked is entirely on-topic, especially if you're throwing around the word "hypocrite" like you have been.

Maddox is not a reliable source.

And PETA is?

I didn't say PETA is, I said Maddox isn't

You didn't object to them being used as a source, so it is implied...