Vacci-Nation [CLOSED DUE TO DISRESPECTFUL, INSULTING, POLITICAL POSTS

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

An echo chamber in this sense needs multiple people to repeat some sentiment. I don't think you'll be seeing many pro vegan posts. Well except for that one member.

For Spuds et al...

Mask wearing: For
Vaccinations: For
Lockdowns: For
Social distancing: For
Lambasting other for not doing the above: For
Discussing the potential roll of livestock/meat production on pandemics: Laughable
Considering reducing meat consumption to reduce/prevent future pandemics: Against

This could be the best way to prevent global pandemics, but the answer would still be no because people have a personal preference for eating meat. I find it hypocritical, when there are a number of people that have been lambasted for having a personal preference for not social distancing or wearing a mask because they want to live their life the way they want.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ce-of-pandemic

WHO Points To Wildlife Farms In Southern China As Likely Source Of Pandemic

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/animal-...plans-n1249610

Here's why Denmark culled 17 million minks and now plans to dig up their buried bodies. The Covid mink crisis, explained

Hopefully the US won't do that to its pigs or chickens someday, or you won't be able to have any bacon and chicken wings for a while.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

They do lay eggs...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by TommyW

God made animals taste good for a reason

Why did God make pandemics? If pandemics mostly originate from animal to human transmission from livestock and wildfarms then could we not infer just as feebly that God made pandemics to pushing us for eating meat, or minimally, for treating our food so poorly?

Let that one roll around for a bit.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

For Spuds et al...

Mask wearing: For
Vaccinations: For
Lockdowns: For
Social distancing: For
Lambasting other for not doing the above: For
Discussing the potential roll of livestock/meat production on pandemics: Laughable
Considering reducing meat consumption to reduce/prevent future pandemics: Against

This could be the best way to prevent global pandemics, but the answer would still be no because people have a personal preference for eating meat. I find it hypocritical, when there are a number of people that have been lambasted for having a personal preference for not social distancing or wearing a mask because they want to live their life the way they want.


https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ce-of-pandemic

WHO Points To Wildlife Farms In Southern China As Likely Source Of Pandemic

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/animal-...plans-n1249610

Here's why Denmark culled 17 million minks and now plans to dig up their buried bodies. The Covid mink crisis, explained

Hopefully the US won't do that to its pigs or chickens someday, or you won't be able to have any bacon and chicken wings for a while.

The absolute best way to prevent global pandemics is, by the measure of reducing human contact with animals, to eliminate all organisms that can host microbial life that resemble something that can infect a human. Mosquitoes, rats, chicken, etc?

Also...

So what you are saying is that if someone argues for masks and distancing, logic would dictate that they should argue for vegetarian/vegan practices?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Why did God make pandemics? If pandemics mostly originate from animal to human transmission from livestock and wildfarms then could we not infer just as feebly that God made pandemics to pushing us for eating meat, or minimally, for treating our food so poorly?

Let that one roll around for a bit.

Yah know... Nah, I'm gonna let this one go this time. Good luck with that double standard you got there.

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Why did God make pandemics? If pandemics mostly originate from animal to human transmission from livestock and wildfarms then could we not infer just as feebly that God made pandemics to pushing us for eating meat, or minimally, for treating our food so poorly?

Let that one roll around for a bit.

JFC.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

The absolute best way to prevent global pandemics is, by the measure of reducing human contact with animals, to eliminate all organisms that can host microbial life that resemble something that can infect a human. Mosquitoes, rats, chicken, etc?

Also...

So what you are saying is that if someone argues for masks and distancing, logic would dictate that they should argue for vegetarian/vegan practices?

Eliminate? No. We don't need to eliminate all humans in order to prevent the spread of the pandemic to more humans. We change the behavior in how humans interact with each other. Likewise, we need to change the behavior in how we interact with animals, and how they interact with each other. Currently, livestock is corralled in small areas in horrible conditions with terrible air quality, terrible movement ability, often surrounded by other dead animals, standing in their own feces and urine, and then they are moved to slaughter houses where they are killed in ways that often brings animals, meat and blood in proximity to humans or where it directly contaminates the end product.

I am saying that someone should consider the science, which suggests the biggest source of pandemics is the livestock/meat industry through animal to human transmission. If someone says that they don't want to consider that science then I would find that concerning. If their motives are personal because this could mean changing their behavior to eat less or no animal products then I find that line of reasoning consistent with those who say that they don't want to modify their behavior to wear a mask or to socially distance because their motives are personal. Do I think the risks are immediately equal? No, but the reasoning is consistent, even if the assessment of immediate risk is not consistent, yet it does seem clear that there was a very big global impact in loss of lives and hits to economies from our lifestyle choices, which could have been prevented. I would hope that those who are interested in preventing the spread of this pandemic would also be interest in preventing the occurrence of future pandemics. Are you interested in preventing future pandemics?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Yah know... Nah, I'm gonna let this one go this time. Good luck with that double standard you got there.

How is that letting it go if you commented? lol

I just figured I was way off based before, considering the response, and religious conjecture is what everyone here is down for. No? If we are going to keep it up then I am down to contribute too.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by TommyW

JFC.

Is this a thing? Sorry, it has been a long time since Sunday school.

[Irace86.2.0]

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Is this a thing? Sorry, it has been a long time since Sunday school.

Hahaha awesome!

[Capt Spaulding]

Anybody ever get the feeling that Thanos was on to something?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Eliminate? No. We don't need to eliminate all humans in order to prevent the spread of the pandemic to more humans. We change the behavior in how humans interact with each other. Likewise, we need to change the behavior in how we interact with animals, and how they interact with each other. Currently, livestock is corralled in small areas in horrible conditions with terrible air quality, terrible movement ability, often surrounded by other dead animals, standing in their own feces and urine, and then they are moved to slaughter houses where they are killed in ways that often brings animals, meat and blood in proximity to humans or where it directly contaminates the end product.

I am saying that someone should consider the science, which suggests the biggest source of pandemics is the livestock/meat industry through animal to human transmission. If someone says that they don't want to consider that science then I would find that concerning. If their motives are personal because this could mean changing their behavior to eat less or no animal products then I find that line of reasoning consistent with those who say that they don't want to modify their behavior to wear a mask or to socially distance because their motives are personal. Do I think the risks are immediately equal? No, but the reasoning is consistent, even if the assessment of immediate risk is not consistent, yet it does seem clear that there was a very big global impact in loss of lives and hits to economies from our lifestyle choices, which could have been prevented. I would hope that those who are interested in preventing the spread of this pandemic would also be interest in preventing the occurrence of future pandemics. Are you interested in preventing future pandemics?

You could say the biggest source of new diseases comes from animal to human transmission (and vice versa). However, a pandemic is directly caused by human travel in cases like covid-19. Additionally, animals used as food are not the only source of new diseases. As such, it seems that reducing global travel and urban living are probably more effective means of reducing the spread of disease in general.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

Anybody ever get the feeling that Thanos was on to something?

[IMG]https://media.tenor.com/images/26b50***87b2f1c44d9442f425e7d255/tenor.gif[/IMG]

Except it was a one-time, temporary solution to a permanent or reoccurring problem, so it wasn't a sustainable choice, and considering the vastness of space and the number of inhabitable worlds, they could have moved people to other planets and worked on sustaining their populations, but he is right that populations that don't check themselves will eventually exterminate themselves or the resources around them in the process. Only an infinite universe with unlimited access to its resources could prove that fact wrong.