Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
I couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly how things appear from my point of view, except that I have not questioned your morality as you have mine, simply because we disagree on the moral and environmental implications of being an omnivore, as we are meant to be.
|
I am open minded to the extent that people have reasonable and universal perspectives on morality. I don’t subscribe to the notion that people can choose their own morals individually, culturally, etc, so rape, slavery or murder could never be justified to me just because a person, group, society, culture, religion, etc says it is apart of their morals and practices. Either actions cause harm or they don’t. There are grey areas, but this topic isn’t a grey area. There are clear, objective facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
China and India, those "pro-active" bastions of virtue you mentioned, ARE by and large the two biggest sources of any man-made impact on our environment. China, especially, is also, perhaps not coincidentally, one of the world's biggest violators of human rights and least "free" places to live. Emulating China and India WOULD certainly hasten our path to global destruction.
|
I don’t know what you are arguing because your statements don’t seem logical or sound. The countries have huge populations, so they have huge amounts of pollution, but the US isn’t the greatest when we compare per capita (see below on CO2). Regardless, what does that have to do with the benefits of instituting population control there or here? You seem to be arguing that because they are bad at one thing then they must be bad at everything. I hope you can see that this line of reasoning is illogical. China leads the world in recycling, but is no longer importing our trash. Does that one fact mean we fail, and we should emulate them entirely? No. That would be illogical. We need to judge things on their own. Was the population control methods effective? It seems like they were. Will it be necessary to institute population control methods before we deal with wars over resources, pollution/land and famine? Yes, unless people choose to reduce their children on their own, or we colonize another planet. Do you have an argument against these inevitable possibilities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
I don't find debate enjoyable. You know very well that I have zero chance of changing your mind, regardless of how much verified data I post, so there's no point. Plus, I don't feel the need to change your mind. As I said earlier...live as you wish. Just maybe learn to respect others who don't share your views, and be open to the possibility that there is more than one way to live a good life. Your way is not the only way.
I come here for the beer. This has made the beer taste bad. I'm going back to having fun. Out.
|
You got me wrong. I have no interest in having beliefs that are incorrect. If you have data to the contrary then have at it. I haven’t actually had anyone provide data to the contrary yet, but I’ll be happy to see some. I’ve already stated that I deconverted from religion and eating meat, so I’ve lived and argued both sides. Is there a way to eat animals humanly? Yes, but the vast, vast majority of people don’t. Is there a way to eat meat at the volume the world does, but do it sustainably, so it doesn’t have an impact on the land, ecosystems, fish stocks, pollution, climate change, etc.? No.