Jump to content

Odinson

Members
  • Posts

    5692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Odinson

  1. Milkman, the land/food security question you raised was actually addressed in the latest IPCC report. They postulate that in a vegan world with a population of ~9 billion people, adequate food production with less land than what is currently used. I’ll try and find the exact quote, but navigating that report on an iPhone is an absolute shitshow.
  2. Milkman, if I missed your question previously, apologies. I’ve got some interesting resources on this on my work laptop, but I’m on holiday right now, so no dice. Suffice to say, there’s no single answer to this and solutions will vary, particularly by region. I know that the UK Vegan Society has a group of folks that help farmers transition from animal ag to something else, usually veganic farming. That being said, solutions in the UK might not be applicable in the Karoo. As to the Karoo scenario, I don’t have a workeable solution, it’s outside my wheelhouse. If plant farming isn’t feasible, then low impact eco tourism comes to mind. Ultimately, there will be people who will have to find a new way to utilise their land as the world continues down this path. This kind of transition happened to the breeders of draft horses, manufacturers of typewriters, etc. Any good businessman/woman needs to understand what the risks are and farmers will need to be ready for what the market will look like in a decade or two.
  3. Barely legal.
  4. You still stop by to say hello, though.
  5. You clearly missed what I’m saying. Preponderance not in relation to a single study, but in relation to the collection thereof, i.e. what do various different studies tell us. FYI, that’s how the IPCC came to their conclusion. They didn’t perform primary research. They relied on the mountain of evidence telling us the same thing.
  6. Myles, just two things. If you want me to make claims that I’m posting garbage science, be specific and address the studies. General statements aren’t helpful. The IPCC report as case in point. If you feel that a council of independent scientists from different countries got it wrong, then tell me why I shouldn’t rely on it. Science has similarities with how conclusions are arrived at in a legal trial - a preponderance of evidence. There’ll always be conflicting studies, but I assess each I choose to share on the strength of my understanding of the quality thereof and how it forms part of the overall mosaic. Lastly, careful with your accusations of zealotry. Your ‘I’ll always eat meat no matter what’ can just as easily be labelled the same.
  7. DP. No, DP, not DP. Filthy bugger.
  8. Dave, I’ve never claimed that.
  9. Myles, perhaps it’s due to how I’ve framed some arguments, preconceived notions and biases, or a combination of all of them (or even none of them), but this isn’t a power struggle of who’s right and who’s wrong. I don’t want anyone to think that it is. I can just put forward what I believe and understand (based on solid evidence) to be a position of social justice that would result in the greatest net benefit for both human and non-human animals alike. That position is one of the non-exploitation of animals. I’m really saddened by never having been challenged in the way that I challenge others on this thread. Perhaps I’d have a greater sense of empathy for how persons feel when this position is presented to them. Nevertheless, I’ve been an omnivore for 27 years, so I understand the ‘other side’. As to your claims that I’m playing the man, I’ll be more sensitive to that in future. It’s not the intent. I can unfortunately not cuck to appease folks. That I won’t do. If I know there’s solid logic and factual bases for my claims, I’ll present them.
  10. I’ve ribbed on him for ages as the young one here. I’m sure he can see it for what it is. Pretty sure he’s Gen Z though.
  11. Isn’t it a school night?
  12. I initially decided to go down this path for environmental reasons. I was indifferent to the plight of animals for a long time. That came later. But we need to see the bigger picture. If we destroy the environment, we kill even more animals than just those that pass through the slaughterhouse kill floor.
  13. Myles, let’s break it down. Ethics: unnecessary exploitation of animals is unethical. Environmental: plant-based diets are lowest carbon. IPCC report latest example. Health: less animal products, more whole plant foods = better health outcomes Those points I’ve been arguing since page 1. If you wish to dispute those fundamental arguments on the basis of furious google searches, the there’s nothing I can do.
  14. I’m in bed, on my phone. Long replies are not to be expected.
  15. So, in essence, ‘vegan conspiracy agenda’?
  16. Please someone tell me on which aspect I should make a concession. Edit: where a concession would be expected.
  17. Completely missed the purpose of my question.
  18. It’s really discouraging in that there’s more outrage over who’s been triggered or ‘insulted’ than there is for the topics that are of concern now.
  19. You won’t know unless you’ve tried. ????
  20. Puerile vegan memes are all the rage across the threads, but god forbid a defensive omnivore is triggered by facts, logic and basic tenets of ethics. Myles, whether exploiting animals is as old as humanity or not is irrelevant in 2019. The planet is burning and the billions upon billions of animals are having their throats slit to satisfy our tastebuds. We can’t eat our cake and have it. If we want to save this planet and do right by our fellow earthlings, we need to leave them of our table and backs. It’s that simple.
  21. I’m interested to hear about my “unreasonable attitude”.
  22. I’d like to say that perhaps she can get Spur to consider some vegan options for the menu, but even during my carnist days I was of the opinion that no one with a modicum of self respect would go to Spur for a ‘meal’.
  23. I'm afraid we're derailing this thread. Nevertheless, please, if you will, explain to me where I should be "entertain an opposing and / or sympathetic and / or conciliatory and or / accepting a compromising position and / or compromise without going into ad hominem attacks and vitriolic, holier than thou attacks".
  24. Did you even bother to read the article? I would think it’s relevance is obvious.
  25. So, you feel compelled to make a snarky comment on my response, rather than the trolling/baiting and aggression by gbd?
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout