NationStates

The_pantless_hero wrote:I think the fact PETA and Beck agree on something means we should all raise cows in our backyard and eat them after barbecuing them outside on charcoal grills.

Char-coal? Ya ain't right in the head. The best way to cook some beef is with some good ole, clean-burning propane, I tell ya h'what! Then you can taste the flavor of the meat and not the smoke from that dirty char-coal. Taste the meat, not the heat!

Flameswroth wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:I think the fact PETA and Beck agree on something means we should all raise cows in our backyard and eat them after barbecuing them outside on charcoal grills.

Char-coal? Ya ain't right in the head. The best way to cook some beef is with some good ole, clean-burning propane, I tell ya h'what! Then you can taste the flavor of the meat and not the smoke from that dirty char-coal. Taste the meat, not the heat!

or... you just not do any of that and greatly reduce your contribution to human caused climate change and other pollution while at the same time saving money and doing something more productive with your time. Win all around

Sdaeriji wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:

Tasbikistan wrote:If they want to help prevent suffering they should plow their own fields, combine plows kill almost as many animals as sluaghterhouses.

assuming this is true (are we talking straight numbers of animals, regardless of species?), then it follows that eating meat is even worse, since all those cows are largely being fed stuff that was grown and then harvested in exactly the same destructive manner. all else being equal, reducing the amount of suffering is presumably a good thing, no?

But if we're to follow the argument that Al Gore is a hypocrite for not being a vegan because it's something more he COULD be doing to reduce his environmental impact, then so are vegetarians and vegans who do not grow their own food hypocrites, because it's something more they COULD be doing.

well, i don't buy the hypocrisy argument, as i said in the first version of this thread that got confusingly merged with a different one. but to address it in a slightly weaker form, your dietary habits are under your own immediate control to a far greater extent than the actual production of your food. i mean, it is more or less always possible to do more to advance some particular interest. but unless that interest is the only moral good, no moral theory could reasonably require us to maximize it to the exclusion of all else, with no balancing considerations.

basically, calling on people to change their eating habits to better fit their stated moral positions is far more reasonable than calling on them to buy up some land and become a farmer. this doesn't get them off the hook entirely, but it does remove the personal responsibility to some extent - their remaining obligation is to advocate that something be done policy-wise to better bring the actions of other sectors of the world beyond their personal control into better accord with how they think the world ought to be.

it seems to me that exactly how much public advocation is required of us by our principles is an interesting open question.

Flameswroth wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:I think the fact PETA and Beck agree on something means we should all raise cows in our backyard and eat them after barbecuing them outside on charcoal grills.

Char-coal? Ya ain't right in the head. The best way to cook some beef is with some good ole, clean-burning propane, I tell ya h'what! Then you can taste the flavor of the meat and not the smoke from that dirty char-coal. Taste the meat, not the heat!

That's all a bunch of jibba-jabba. It should be done over a mix of mesquite and hickory that you cut from your own field. Or maybe some old growth red wood if you're really lucky.

All the socialists here are making y'all soft in the head I tell yah.

The_pantless_hero wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:I think the fact PETA and Beck agree on something means we should all raise cows in our backyard and eat them after barbecuing them outside on charcoal grills.

Why?

Because PETA and Beck are both media hogging lunatics.

So?

Natapoc wrote:

Flameswroth wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:I think the fact PETA and Beck agree on something means we should all raise cows in our backyard and eat them after barbecuing them outside on charcoal grills.

Char-coal? Ya ain't right in the head. The best way to cook some beef is with some good ole, clean-burning propane, I tell ya h'what! Then you can taste the flavor of the meat and not the smoke from that dirty char-coal. Taste the meat, not the heat!

or... you just not do any of that and greatly reduce your contribution to human caused climate change and other pollution while at the same time saving money and doing something more productive with your time. Win all around

Natapoc, you always have a good answer for everything.
I like you.

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:

Natapoc wrote:

Flameswroth wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:I think the fact PETA and Beck agree on something means we should all raise cows in our backyard and eat them after barbecuing them outside on charcoal grills.

Char-coal? Ya ain't right in the head. The best way to cook some beef is with some good ole, clean-burning propane, I tell ya h'what! Then you can taste the flavor of the meat and not the smoke from that dirty char-coal. Taste the meat, not the heat!

or... you just not do any of that and greatly reduce your contribution to human caused climate change and other pollution while at the same time saving money and doing something more productive with your time. Win all around

Natapoc, you always have a good answer for everything.
I like you.

Get a room.

Skeptikosia wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:

Natapoc wrote:

Flameswroth wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:I think the fact PETA and Beck agree on something means we should all raise cows in our backyard and eat them after barbecuing them outside on charcoal grills.

Char-coal? Ya ain't right in the head. The best way to cook some beef is with some good ole, clean-burning propane, I tell ya h'what! Then you can taste the flavor of the meat and not the smoke from that dirty char-coal. Taste the meat, not the heat!

or... you just not do any of that and greatly reduce your contribution to human caused climate change and other pollution while at the same time saving money and doing something more productive with your time. Win all around

Natapoc, you always have a good answer for everything.
I like you.

Get a room.

And some syrup. And an old priest and a young priest.

And a really expensive hooker.

Skeptikosia wrote:That's all a bunch of jibba-jabba. It should be done over a mix of mesquite and hickory that you cut from your own field. Or maybe some old growth red wood if you're really lucky.

All the socialists here are making y'all soft in the head I tell yah.

*shoots Skeptikosia with Snicker bars*

QUIT YOUR JIBBER JABBER!!!

Free Soviets wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:

Tasbikistan wrote:If they want to help prevent suffering they should plow their own fields, combine plows kill almost as many animals as sluaghterhouses.

assuming this is true (are we talking straight numbers of animals, regardless of species?), then it follows that eating meat is even worse, since all those cows are largely being fed stuff that was grown and then harvested in exactly the same destructive manner. all else being equal, reducing the amount of suffering is presumably a good thing, no?

But if we're to follow the argument that Al Gore is a hypocrite for not being a vegan because it's something more he COULD be doing to reduce his environmental impact, then so are vegetarians and vegans who do not grow their own food hypocrites, because it's something more they COULD be doing.

well, i don't buy the hypocrisy argument, as i said in the first version of this thread that got confusingly merged with a different one. but to address it in a slightly weaker form, your dietary habits are under your own immediate control to a far greater extent than the actual production of your food. i mean, it is more or less always possible to do more to advance some particular interest. but unless that interest is the only moral good, no moral theory could reasonably require us to maximize it to the exclusion of all else, with no balancing considerations.

basically, calling on people to change their eating habits to better fit their stated moral positions is far more reasonable than calling on them to buy up some land and become a farmer. this doesn't get them off the hook entirely, but it does remove the personal responsibility to some extent - their remaining obligation is to advocate that something be done policy-wise to better bring the actions of other sectors of the world beyond their personal control into better accord with how they think the world ought to be.

it seems to me that exactly how much public advocation is required of us by our principles is an interesting open question.

This is a really good point. And technically if it is or is not hypocritical depends on the exact details of what al gore advocates so it may not be hypocritical in the technical sense that al gore is saying do this very specific thing while he himself does not do that.

But I would say it is at least very close to being hypocritical in the sense that he flys around the world giving lectures, talks, and presentations talking about the impending disasters of human caused climate change and at least strongly implying we should do everything possible to avoid that (including using different light bulbs, setting up a energy credit exchange, ect) while also (correctly) extolling the Intergovernmental panel on climate change as his major source for what he says.

But at the same time ignoring the suggestion they claim could cause the largest decrease in per cap carbon emissions by individuals.

So in this (admittedly convoluted way) he is being slightly hypocritical in a non technical sense. You can also argue that there is no such thing as a non technical sense of a word and you would have a point

A better word to describe what he is doing would probably be better. I'm not sure what word that would be right now though and hypocritical is fairly close

And yes I've always held that just limiting or eliminating meat is not nearly enough. But it is also probably the single most impactful thing an individual can do to reduce his or her contribution to human caused climate change and some other forms of environmental damage.

His comment about the plows however is not only flawed by the method you rightly pointed out but also lacks a source. When questioned another person pointed to the maddox site as a reference. In the rant by Maddox he mentions a single study done on an alfalfa field in Oregon where a scientist claims to have observed 50% of a specific species having vanished.

Considering alfalfa was probably their habitat and considering alfalfa is nearly exclusively grown for use by animals his argument breaks down before it starts.

In addition to this the maddox source did not actually claim that the rates were as high as slaughter houses so the poster just made that up unless we can find a source that says otherwise.

Of course, since the poster did not bother to defend his statement in any way we should have no obligation to develop a reasonable argument against it.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The Norse Hordes wrote:Fuck PETA. Fuck Glenn Beck.

I agree entirely. Neither have any positive value.

PETA or People for the Eating of Tasty Animals does have positive value

whoa, meta. zombie peta jokes reanimating zombie threads