By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - If you eat meat and believe in global warming you are a hypocrit.

akuma587 on 15 November 2008
thetonestarr said:

Lovely how you pick and choose what to reply to and what not. Pay attention to the rest of the post, and pretty much everything you just stated is entirely null and void.

Additionally, there is a point in probability where something becomes "statistically impossible", meaning that the chances of it happening are so ridiculously low that it can be considered impossible. I suppose that yes, it's theoretically possible. But considering the extremely low probability, it is statistically impossible.

For someone who claims to know a lot about science in general, you sure as hell know very little about scientific reasoning.

These terms all mean nothing unless you are using them in a discussion which includes an actual model and unless you present information about what the accepted deviations from that model are.  And until you do that, your claims are all completely meaningless since they you are criticizing a scientific model which you haven't even brought up in the first place.

Statistically impossible is a relative term and you haven't even related it to anything.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
thetonestarr on 15 November 2008
akuma587 said:
thetonestarr said:

Lovely how you pick and choose what to reply to and what not. Pay attention to the rest of the post, and pretty much everything you just stated is entirely null and void.

 

(1) You are simply assuming that one year's worth of data means something,

(2) and then you prove that your own claim is ridiculous by citing as authority records that go back as far as possible (based on millions of years worth of data, which you can actually draw reliable inferences from).

(3) Its just laughable that you claim to have an informed viewpoint on a scientific issue when you have the scientific reasoning skills of a middle school student.  You would look equally ridiculous if you were trying to argue for global warming.  Bad reasoning is bad reasoning, no matter what side of an argument you are on.

 

 

(1) Again, stop picking and choosing what to reply to. I did NOT list that as data proving there wasn't a trend in weather patterns. I DID list it as data proving that what scientists/global-warming activists have been saying is false.

(2) You're going to have to reword this, because you managed to make very little sense here. One thing to say, though, is that "millions of years worth of data" doesn't exist, since there is no reliable way to ensure that the data gathered from studying rock and fossil layers is accurate. We haven't been studying this sort of thing long enough to prove that the science behind it is accurate, and it can not be taken at any value. To claim that it can be is to admit ignorance.

(3) Funny, I can say the same thing about you, but does insulting each other actually get us anywhere? No, it really only incites anger and shows immaturity. Let's keep the personal blows to a minimum and act like adults, eh?



 SW-5120-1900-6153

akuma587 on 15 November 2008
thetonestarr said:
akuma587 said:
thetonestarr said:

Lovely how you pick and choose what to reply to and what not. Pay attention to the rest of the post, and pretty much everything you just stated is entirely null and void.

 

(1) You are simply assuming that one year's worth of data means something,

(2) and then you prove that your own claim is ridiculous by citing as authority records that go back as far as possible (based on millions of years worth of data, which you can actually draw reliable inferences from).

(3) Its just laughable that you claim to have an informed viewpoint on a scientific issue when you have the scientific reasoning skills of a middle school student.  You would look equally ridiculous if you were trying to argue for global warming.  Bad reasoning is bad reasoning, no matter what side of an argument you are on.

 

 

(1) Again, stop picking and choosing what to reply to. I did NOT list that as data proving there wasn't a trend in weather patterns. I DID list it as data proving that what scientists/global-warming activists have been saying is false.

(2) You're going to have to reword this, because you managed to make very little sense here. One thing to say, though, is that "millions of years worth of data" doesn't exist, since there is no reliable way to ensure that the data gathered from studying rock and fossil layers is accurate. We haven't been studying this sort of thing long enough to prove that the science behind it is accurate, and it can not be taken at any value. To claim that it can be is to admit ignorance.

(3) Funny, I can say the same thing about you, but does insulting each other actually get us anywhere? No, it really only incites anger and shows immaturity. Let's keep the personal blows to a minimum and act like adults, eh?

You never actually mentioned what scientists and global warming activists have been saying, which is one of the reasons why you hung yourself with your own logic, or lack thereof, so easily. 

You assumed that they said that every year will be hotter than the previous year, which is a false assumption.  Proponents of global warming have predicted that long-term yearly temperature trends are rising, which does not mean that if the temperature drops one year or even a few years that their claims are false.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 15 November 2008
monkeyman40210 said:
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
monkeyman40210 said:

Not necessarly, if you raise your own meat or hunt for meat how is that contributing to global warming

The amount of land, food, and water cows need is bad for the environment.  If we want to sustain 6 billion people (and counting) on the planet, we can't have that many cows.  With populations this high, either the cows or the humans gotta go.

Yep, it takes about 10 pounds of food to raise one pound of meat... of just about any kind i believe.

 

 

 

 

Yeah but there are other animal on a farm, and what about if you hunt for your meat

It's 10 to 1 for just about any animal.  Sure hunting though.  If you actually go that far to get all your meat.

 



NJ5 on 16 November 2008

There's an important thing though... Let's assume the world could carry 20 billion vegetarians, and think about what would happen if everyone in the world instantly turned into a vegetarian.

Here's my guess: we'd start procreating more and more until we hit that limit, and then a die-off would occur anyway. In absolute terms, saving food might cause more suffering, not less (it would just postpone it).

In other words... are humans smarter than yeast? So far it doesn't seem so, at least not regarding sustainability.

That's why I don't fret too much about my hypocrisy (although I do avoid using cars and try to save energy as I can). If humans as a whole aren't smarter than yeast, I might as well enjoy my meat.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 16 November 2008

@ the guys talking about killing 5 billion people.

My mate has a better solution he told us for overpopulation once. You sterilise the people who refuse to work (aka leeching chav scum) so they can't have babies. the population would drop and people would become richer and happier. I doubt it is logical, and very twisted, but it would work lol.



NJ5 on 16 November 2008
highwaystar101 said:
@ the guys talking about killing 5 billion people.

My mate has a better solution he told us for overpopulation once. You sterilise the people who refuse to work (aka leeching chav scum) so they can't have babies. the population would drop and people would become richer and happier. I doubt it is logical, and very twisted, but it would work lol.

I think most solutions to the overpopulation problem aren't nice in the eyes of most people (most of us are very short-term oriented animals). This means mother nature will decide for us and we may get the least nice solution of all (a natural die-off). I'd prefer a less messy solution, but it's not like I can decide.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

steven787 on 16 November 2008

The world has the highest known population since man has come into existence. There is less hunger proportionally then ever before. What's the problem again?



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

NJ5 on 16 November 2008
steven787 said:
The world has the highest known population since man has come into existence. There is less hunger proportionally then ever before. What's the problem again?

I never heard of that statistic, but let's assume it's true.

What's the problem? Plenty of them... We're straining the planet's resources, in large part due to over-population. Exponentially rising population + depleting resources means trouble. It's the same problem Yeast and other simple organisms typically run into. Population growth can't go on forever, neither can economic growth.

What allows so many people to exist is mostly our technology which allows us to access plentiful energy, especially fossil fuels. If you noticed, before the economic crisis hit energy was getting more and more expensive, which will probably also happen when the economy starts to recover. It could even stop the economy from ever recovering to the levels we've seen in the past few years.

This will especially be a problem if investment in renewable energy (and even non-renewable energy) isn't taken seriously during the recession.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

twesterm on 16 November 2008
Kasz216 said:

Well that global warming is man-made anyway. All the non combustion fuel won't do crap if meat production stays the same... and bad news. Meat production is on the rise as more countries get richer, because well. Meat just tastes better.

Not forcing anyone to be a vegetarian. Just saying.... if you believe global warming is man made...(and care.) and eat meat. You're a hyporcrit.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0120-20.htm

 

So you're saying that we can't cut back on other things that cause global warning then?  Food is somewhat essential, SUV's aren't.

(Note that I don't give a crap about global warning but I just think your argument is silly)