Saturday, September 1, 2007

Catfight On The Lunatic Left

Now PETA takes a poke at Al Gore. Head warmer's diet choices turn animal rights group green with, well, not envy.
Posted by at

6 comments:

Travis Strickland said...

At least PETA and the groups involved with this campaign are being consistent. It takes a ton of resources to produce meat. The U.S. alone produces billions and billions of animals every year and this has a huge impact on the environment, especially due to the ever increasing concentration of livestock on large commercial farms. The animal rights groups are right in this case and all who consider themself evironmentally conscious should drastically reduce their meat consumption to maintain consistency.

September 1, 2007 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...

i agree with Travis. what i don't understand is why this is a catfight. seems to me that we're just doing what humans do, which is lurch forward and backward and from side to side, hoping to reach the truth. if you don't agree that the climate is changing, does that mean that you can eat all the meat you want?

September 1, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Travis Strickland said...

There are a lot more issues with eating meat than it's pollution...the resources (grain, water, land, etc) could be used to grow crops that could feed more people and make food cheaper (though the cost of meat would go up), there are health risks with certain kind of meats, and, of course, there is the questions of the lives and lifestyles of the animals themselves. I, personally, can't justify eating meat. I find it hard to believe anyone who takes a serious look at the issues can.

September 1, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...

i still agree with you, Travis. my question was to those who are only interested in this issue when it's about climate change. and i'm not the one who used the words "catfight" and "lunatic left."

September 2, 2007 at 10:22 AM
JLW said...

We already pay farmers not to grow many grains because, even after feeding livestock and much of the world, there is still too much.
The environmental impact of animals seems silly. For millions of years before the dawn of man, animals ruled the earth. Herds of million upon millions of cows, or whatever their ancestors, as well as deer, giraffes, elephants, etc roamed the earth. Where was the impact then. When they overgrazed they died off, then populations regrew when grazing land replenished.
As for health impacts, balance is the most important thing. Eating no meat is no healthier than eating only meat. Both leave you lacking nutritionally. Besides, nothing is more deadly than carrots. Everyone that eats them dies.

September 2, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Travis Strickland said...

Jeremy, when animals ruled the earth they were kept in check by nature. You can't parallel nature and the way animals are raised now. Deforestration, poulltion from the fumes and substance of animal waste in concentrated areas, resource waste, are all serious environmental effects of meat.

It doesn't sound like you've look into the matter too much. It sounds like you came up with something that is logaical, but just untrue. You may be of the opinion that the environmental effects of raising animals is "silly" that doesn't tell us anything about the facts.

People can be completely health without eating meat. Not eating meat does not make someone inherently unhealthy.

It sounds like you should look into these things instead of just putting out half way logial arguments.

September 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)