RE: Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?
February 1, 2014 at 11:47 am
(This post was last modified: February 1, 2014 at 1:16 pm by James2014.)
(February 1, 2014 at 11:07 am)là bạn điên Wrote:(February 1, 2014 at 8:43 am)enrico Wrote: Kicky, i try to understand what you mean when you say that these avengers devastate the natural world.
It is well known that to produce a KG. of meat it need over 10 KG of veg. proteins that is why the natural world is today devastated by clearing the land in order to plant veg. proteins like soia to feed the cattle.
Please tell me where i am wrong.
The above depends on what meat you are talking about-beef is the most wastefull but yes. However don;t expect any of them to acknowledge this. They are in a religious like denial of any actual facts which is why they can come up with this nonsense about us ripping down forests. Arcturus will next claim he knows a farmer and therefore he is an expert.
I agree, the harm that meat eating does to the environment is awful. Usually meat eaters respond by saying things along the line of "well if you care about the environment why don't you live in a cave etc etc", which is a very depressing line of reasoning. The fact is if we used more public transport, live healthy lives with less meat, and limited our energy expenditure we could live very comfortable and sustainable lives.

Also here is a good quote from this study...

"We calculate that potential GHG[green house gas] savings of 22% and 26% can be made by changing from the current UK-average diet to a vegetarian or vegan diet, respectively. Taking the average GHG saving from six vegetarian or vegan dietary scenarios compared with the current UK-average diet gives a potential national GHG saving of 40 Mt CO2e y−1. This is equivalent to a 50% reduction in current exhaust pipe emissions from the entire UK passenger car fleet"
(February 1, 2014 at 11:20 am)KUSA Wrote:(February 1, 2014 at 6:31 am)jg2014 Wrote: I dont think it is stupid to only apply ethics to those capable of ethical behavior. It's why very young children or the mentally disabled are not held criminally responsible for crimes, but for example merely put into care for their own and others protection, and not put in jail as a punishment.
Here's another way to think about it. If lighting were to kill a person, would you say that the lightening was wrong to kill them? Do you agree that a lightening strike could not be said to be unethical because it is not an entity to which ethics apply? We might say we should try to avoid it etc but it would not make sense it say the lightening was being unethical when it had no ability to make ethical choices or not. Its the same with animals.
The ethics you speak of are yours and not mine or for that matter most of the world's. You compare things that are absurd to be compared. Nothing you have said makes sense to me. I see the world different than you and find your arguments bizarre.
Most countries have legislation regarding mental capacity, for example when children become criminally responsible for their actions, or diminished responsibility due to mental health. I think most of the world would accept the principle that the actions of those who are unable make ethical choices is different to the actions of those who can.