Ban Ronald McDonald?

[sandinista]

http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/docum ... t_Full.pdf

check page 76 I believe.

[Hermit]

"Eating plants" does not come even close to the massive harm caused to the environment from factory farmed industrial meat.

Eating plants is responsible for the vast majority of deforestation that has occurred across human history. Beside agriculture, modern feedlots are a relatively minor concern.

You got that one wrong. Most deforestation in Argentina and Brazil, for instance, occurs to make space for pastures that feed the cattle which are in turn produced for human consumption.
Link. If you want more, look them up yourself.

[Warren Dew]

Sheesh guys, read the numbers. The Amazon is not the only place that's being deforested. Most deforestation these days is occuring in Africa and Asia. That's why subsistence farming and mercantile farming account for five times as much deforesting as ranching.

But sure, I understand, vegetarianism is a religion, and adherents must reject any facts that might conflict with it.

[Hermit]

Subsistence farming and mercantile farming have nothing to do with meat production?

I am not a vegetarian, and have no intention of becoming one.

[Warren Dew]

Subsistence farming and mercantile farming have nothing to do with meat production?

Ranching was broken out separately. Again, read the quote from the U.N. report in my earlier post for the specific worldwide figures.

[Hermit]

Subsistence farming and mercantile farming have nothing to do with meat production?

Ranching was broken out separately. Again, read the quote from the U.N. report in my earlier post for the specific worldwide figures.

Ah. UN report. Right. Livestock farming appears to be ranked third in terms of total environmental impacts. Only vehicle manufacturing and pig iron/crude steel products are ahead of it. In terms of organic resources used it is first by a country mile. I put it to you that most of those resources are acquired at the cost of other land uses, particularly forests. Saying that eating plants is responsible for the vast majority of deforestation is utter rubbish. It flies in the face of the facts.

[Warren Dew]

Take a look at the report I linked to, Seraph. It shows quite clearly that eating plants is #1 and #2 on the causes of deforestation - subsistence cultivation and nonsubsistence crop farming.

From the standpoint of greenhouse gases, sure, ranched animals fart more methane than do crops. But the fact is, if you replaced the ranched animals with wild animals, they'd still fart the same amount of methane into the air. That's not an environmental impact that's bad for nature - it's just bad for humans.

[Hermit]

Take a look at the report I linked to, Seraph. It shows quite clearly that eating plants is #1 and #2 on the causes of deforestation - subsistence cultivation and nonsubsistence crop farming.

I see no link anywhere, but if you are perchance referring to some data you inserted between code tags, you seem to have left out some rather telling figures from the rest of the table you cited: Deforestation/degradation of land due to large scale cattle ranching amounts to 1.6 million hectares per year. All other commercial agriculture is responsible for 2.6 million. Minor concern? I think not. Not even in comparison to subsistence farming (including wood gathering and non-timber forest products), which is responsible for 6.25 million hectares per year, especially considering how many mouths it feeds.

For those who are interested in the full report and table, here is the actual link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36921929/Inve ... ate-Change

[sandinista]

The wonderful world of internet forums, even though Warren Dew has been shown to be wrong many times over, he will never admit to it. Oh well...that's the way it goes.

anyway, the point that may have been lost by now was; coito is claiming "liberty" is the freedom to do whatever one wants...such as eating a bigshit. I questioned that...he responded that eating a mcshit burger does no harm to anyone therefore...liberty! On the contrary, it, very clearly, does harm to many.

[egbert]

Take a look at the report I linked to, Seraph. It shows quite clearly that eating plants is #1 and #2 on the causes of deforestation

It's gotten so bad around here that when you take the family out for a picnic in the woods, all you see are marauding bands of vegetarians gnawing at the tree trunks. Even the beavers have abandoned the woods, and moved into town where they can still find trees to build their dams with...

[Warren Dew]

I see no link anywhere

I guess you're not reading carefully. I provided the link in this post, right after sandinista showed he was unable to google it:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 20#p813520

Deforestation/degradation of land due to large scale cattle ranching amounts to 1.6 million hectares per year. All other commercial agriculture is responsible for 2.6 million. Minor concern? I think not. Not even in comparison to subsistence farming (including wood gathering and non-timber forest products), which is responsible for 6.25 million hectares per year, especially considering how many mouths it feeds.

6.25 million + 2.6 million >> 1.6 million. Is that math too hard for you?

[Coito ergo sum]

I am really craving a cheeseburger loaded right now.

I think McDonald's is the only place still open.

Yeah - see if the burger you ACTUALLY get looks anything like that ad agency propaganda lie.
You'll get a soggy bun with some frumpy lettuce showing, and a meat patty so small you can't even see it unless you lift off the top of the bun...

Not when I make it at home. Mine might not be a perfectly disc shaped, but they pile up as well as that one.

Regardless of what they look like, neither is much better or worse than the other, nutritionally.

[Coito ergo sum]

...and, again, you keep saying liberty is just doing whatever you want without worrying about any consequences.

I've never said that once.

What do you think liberty is? Doing what the State tells you do do?

You, wrongly, stated that eating at mcshit does no harm to anyone.

I never stated that at all. It can harm the person eating it, if they eat too much of it, for example. I love how you just ignore what people actually write and then just make stuff up.

It does.

So what? So does assisted suicide, pot, cocaine, alcohol, automobiles, airplanes, sugar, bagels, cream cheese, porn (according to some people), violent video games (according to some), motorcycles, bicycles, roller skates, in-line skates, football, soccer, baseball, basketball, hockey, and dihydromonoxide (if consumed in excessive quantities?).

Again you make a false equivalence, like you tend to do.

Again, you make stuff up and then pretend I said what I never said, like you tend to do.

Seriously, talking to you is like talking to a christian who thinks that creationism and evolution are two equal "theory's".

How so?

"Eating plants" does not come even close to the massive harm caused to the environment from factory farmed industrial meat.

False. But, even so, it does cause harm. We're just arguing to what degree.

The harm caused by huge multinational producers of cheap mass produced meat products is undeniable and catastrophic.

The harm caused by huge multinational producers of cheap mass produced corn, sugar, wheat and other agricultural products is undeniable and catastrophic. The harm caused by there being 6.5 or so billion people in the world is undeniable and catastrophic. The harm caused by auto manufacturing is undeniable and catastrophic (have you given up your automobile or motorized transportation, yet?).

So, in short, yes, eating at mchit does cause harm to animals and human animals.

I never said it didn't. The cows are killed to make burgers. That's harm to the cow. People who eat too much McDonalds food might have some health effects from it. Although, each individual ought to be free to ingest what they like - alcohol causes more health problems than McDonalds.

Pot causes health problems. I'm in favor of legalizing pot.

I mock because you make no sense. Generally I do pay attention. If attention is deserved.

You're like a lot of fanatics. You have come up with an idea that YOU think is right because YOU think it's right, and you think everyone else who doesn't agree with you is not only wrong, but evil incarnate. You argue your position from hyperbole, and once you take an opposing position to something or someone, NOTHING can be in their favor - they have NO redeeming qualities ever - and you concede nothing from your position that everything about them is just the worst thing of all time. That's how you sound.

Here - you've come up with the idea that some harmful things are o.k. (the ones you approve of) and the ones you don't approve of are just plain evil. You are dogmatic in the extreme, and it becomes very difficult to discuss anything with you because you invariably turn things into personal attacks. You make stuff up that I never said, and then you proceed to mock and scorn rather than discuss and debate.

You do the same thing with Warren Dew - you just lie and say that you've illustrated over and over again that he is wrong, when you have done nothing of the sort. You refuse to acknowledge his source or take issue with it, even after he's not only linked to it but quoted from it multiple times.

[sandinista]

You're like a lot of fanatics.

again coito attacks with the classic what a load of bollocks.

btw not going to bother with the "yes it is not it isn't" quote clipping this time around, can't be fucked. Already proved my points for this topic and you're just making yourself look like an ass, as usual.

[sandinista]

Parting explanation...I was simply responding to this, one in a long line of delirious posts, made by coito.

Not libertarian. Just a liberal republic that protects fundamental liberties in large measure, rather than an authoritarian regime that governs and nitpicks every aspect of our lives. You like the latter, I prefer the former. Got it. I must have missed the part about the "harm" eating Big Macs, speaking one's mind, and having abortions does to "others." But, I'm sure you'll provide a clear explanation of that.

You may have "missed the part about the harm caused by eating mcshit burgers". I have clearly pointed out the harm. Provided a clear explanation (which is what you asked for). Again, you are so ideologically committed, like most fanatics, that you, after seeing evidence to the contrary, still "miss the part". Big shocker there.