Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Eugene Shubert, Dec 23, 2016.
Ah. The false dichotomy fallacy.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No. Meat is only a lust-sustaining obsession. Ask any well-informed vegan. Meat isn't required for life.
Letting polluters pollute and making all restraints against pollution entirely voluntary is madness of the highest order.
It is currently a life-sustaining issue.
See, it's great to decide someting should simply cease existing, and think we will return to paradise.
Maybe we should just "get rid of" transportation too. After all, we can walk.
And clothes. We could all just live near the equator.
It's a teeny bit more complex than that.
Those polluters are currently providing you with food, shelter, a job and an internet connection.
It's one thing to say something should stop, it's entirely another to figure out how, without causing global collapse, poverty, hardship and starvation.
That would be madness of the highest order.
Society has a moral right to be informed and to decide between the Climate Apocalypse and healthy eating.
Another reference to the first demon's message. "Job creators" should be coddled and free of all moral restraints and existing monopolies are to be preferred over easily-implemented green technologies.
You would have a stronger stance of you didn't attempt to put words in your opponent's mouths.
You personally are the same as the other billions of people who want everyone else to give up what they've acquired.
What's wrong with informing society and letting them decide between subsidizing the environmentally catastrophic meat, dairy and egg industry or in slaphappily accepting the predicted Climate Apocalypse? Your claim that if all humans decided to be vegans to help save the planet in a significant measure, that it would cause "global collapse, poverty, hardship and starvation" is just plain silly.
The first demon's message is extraordinarily prevalent. And it's only to your shame for insisting to be uninformed and not recognizing it.
Yes, I suspect that there are billions of sentient beings that recognize that fairness should apply to everyone equally and that there is justice in requiring thieves to return all their ill-gotten gains with substantial penalties.
I'm all for letting society decide between a rollback of the industrial age with an end of transportation versus continuing to subsidize the environmentally catastrophic meat, dairy and egg industry.
I think there are too many humans.
Get rid of half of them and we can keep our hamburgers and sports cars. Only problem is the market economy could not cope...er unless we have a war to end all wars, you know like the last two.
I am out of ideas so what is your plan exactly?
Nothing at all. Who said anything was wrong with informing people? But informing is not what you've been advocating for in this thread.
OK, so that wasn't just a one-off remark.This is a religious battle for you.
That won't help your case either.
You are living off the avails of those you call thieves. That makes you a thief-by-proxy and a hypocrite.
They are making that decision. For the most part, they are choosing meat over rollback.
As the Cowspiracy documentary makes clear, society isn't allowed to make an informed decision since all the recognized environmental organizations only present a rollback of the industrial age as the only way to avert the Climate Apocalypse.
You don't know diddly-squat about my job.
The Cowspiracy documentary is very informative. And you have opposed the message contained therein with dishonest quibbles.
For starters, I propose that enlightened minds work together to inform society of the important information contained in the two videos I posted.
It's also a religious battle for the climate alarmists. The major difference is that my religion exalts justice and truth and their religion is deeply rooted in hypocrisy and deceit.
Try handing out pamphlets at MacDonalds that could work.
Never get between anything and its dinner.
Maybe we could keep cattle in big sheds and scrub the air.
I doubt we will change human behaviour.
Look you can inform people that drugs are bad for them but that does not change behaviour.
Personally I think working out how to survive in the changed conditions of the future is the key.
It is the creatures who adapt to change that survive preventing change I suggest won't happen.
Separate names with a comma.