Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Has a documentary ever influenced you to eat more plant based?

12346»

Replies

  • ExpressoLove11ExpressoLove11 Member Posts: 86 Member Member Posts: 86 Member
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

    Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.

    What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?

    I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.

    To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html

    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment

    I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?



    That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.

    So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?

    What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?

    I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.

    I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?

    I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.

    Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.

    It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.

    2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.

    Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?

    Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.

    You mean... social science isn't real?! *throws doctorate into bin*

  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 18,171 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,171 Member
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

    Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.

    What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?

    I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.

    To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html

    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment

    I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?



    That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.

    So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?

    What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?

    I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.

    I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?

    I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.

    Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.

    It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.

    2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.

    Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?

    Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.

    You mean... social science isn't real?! *throws doctorate into bin*

    The irony, in this context, that social science (generally) teaches people how to do things like construct a logically valid argument, communicate effectively (like by using words in the way they're commonly used, rather than with special personal definitions), apply careful analytic reading skills, ask questions rather than making assumptions, and that sort of thing . . . .

    🤣🤣🤣

    (In case it's not obvious, I'm not criticizing the post to which I'm responding. It's a more general comment about recent events in the thread. I was (gasp) a liberal arts major myself (not even social science, general liberal arts) . . . followed by a career in the STEM zone, BTW, where all those liberal arts skills were very, very useful.)
  • ExpressoLove11ExpressoLove11 Member Posts: 86 Member Member Posts: 86 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    NigelNi35 wrote: »
    No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.

    So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?

    Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.

    What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?

    I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.

    To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html

    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment

    I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?



    That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.

    So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?

    What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?

    I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.

    I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?

    I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.

    Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.

    It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.

    2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.

    Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?

    Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.

    You mean... social science isn't real?! *throws doctorate into bin*

    The irony, in this context, that social science (generally) teaches people how to do things like construct a logically valid argument, communicate effectively (like by using words in the way they're commonly used, rather than with special personal definitions), apply careful analytic reading skills, ask questions rather than making assumptions, and that sort of thing . . . .

    🤣🤣🤣

    (In case it's not obvious, I'm not criticizing the post to which I'm responding. It's a more general comment about recent events in the thread. I was (gasp) a liberal arts major myself (not even social science, general liberal arts) . . . followed by a career in the STEM zone, BTW, where all those liberal arts skills were very, very useful.)

    I did originally write a short synopsis of quantitative and qualitative research paradigms, and a formal definition of science... the "hard science" triggered me 😅 however, once recouped, gentle humour and inward sighing prevailed!
Sign In or Register to comment.