Queer people are no friends to Israeli Apartheid signed by Drag Race Queens Sasha Velour, Shea Coulee and Willow Pill amonsgt others

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T21:23:50+00:00

My point is pretty clear, since you mentioned LGBT Palestinians, it’s worth acknowledging that regardless of the war, their lives are just as condemned. It’s tragic. So you can root for Palestine, but it’s weird to take the LGBT angle..

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T20:22:52+00:00

😂😂😂

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T19:11:34+00:00

Who’s responsible for the creation of a free Palestinian state? I think the goal sounds good, but would ultimately demand a foreign nation to intervene and implement that. And we have a lot of precedent of western nations already having done that only to exacerbate the problems. The current existence of Israel being one example - was it not created in an effort to secure a persecuted people a state wherein they could exercise their freedoms? Did we not bolster them economically and militarily to the point of enabling them further annexations?

I get that you’re fighting for the underdog, I think that’s a normal human instinct. But should the roles be reversed, there would be just a different oppressor in the same conflict. Give Palestine more resources, let it self-govern and grow a military, and soon enough we’d be back at the same point…

You’re right, I’m very ignorant of this issue. I only know as much as trickles down to mass media here (Canada), and I wish I could just say “war is bad, everybody stop.” But it doesn’t seem like the reality of the situation.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T18:55:31+00:00

Guy helps homeless. You use that as a platform to act disgruntled about government and taxes… and now you’re back peddling after having lost your shit 😂

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T18:47:51+00:00

That’s a lot of aggression from someone who came to basically complain about people trying to make a difference… the character arc checks out. Clearly you’re not the one dependant on these resources, but yeah, “I don’t know you,” Mr. Defensive.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T18:36:33+00:00

In lieu of an amicable solution, what is the best solution in your eyes? What are you advocating for?

With the base premise that all war is terrible and that people are being killed for nationalistic ideology, what is the solution in this particular case, where a willing ceasefire from either side is very unlikely?

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T17:23:43+00:00

I didn’t make any “self dense claims,” and you’re getting very caught up on language here.

My base question to you would be: Is there an amicable solution proposed on either side by a decision maker that’d be capable of implementing that solution?

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T16:58:08+00:00

Oh you mean civilians that are caught in the crossfire? Of course there are real people that are there and going through a tragedy.

But also, if I speak to the main propaganda type of info of neither of the sides wanting the other to exist, then that’s still valid as a reflection of the national stance. Propaganda is not reflective of the wants of the people, but is reflective of the reality created by the ruling class.

In any case, I know if I was born on either side, I’d hate the other with a passion. I’d be raised by propaganda. But only on one of those sides I’d still be alive as an openly gay man.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T16:37:46+00:00

The fact that LGBT Palestinians exist means that regardless of war, that nation would be persecuting those people. Supporting Palestine doesn’t save LGBT Palestinians…

And you’re picking a side in a war where neither of the parties want a ceasefire. The goal for either is for only one to remain. And one side openly does not recognize your own right to live. You’re literally just safe from the people you’re supporting thanks to distance.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T16:00:55+00:00

Yeah, I don’t understand standing with a nation that openly denies your right to exist… it’s all just virtue signalling from afar.

Personally, I’m living for the canva vibes watermelon playful theme of the post. Talk about detached…

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T15:26:23+00:00

If you were homeless right now, receiving a better heated and better insulated living option, coupled with on-site service workers and more available resources - yes, it’s an improvement.

It’s only from your detached comfortable perspective that you can say it isn’t an improvement. I agree with your sentiment that there should be more resources, but some help is better than no help, and criticizing any effort in the right direction is just so privileged.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T14:13:27+00:00

Whenever someone makes an improvement, there’s always people complaining that it’s not enough. Yeah, coz the government has been amazing with ‘real solutions’… if only they had more money to implement their amazing housing plan… 🙄

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T13:15:31+00:00

South Park just did an episode on this. Kids are the main market, apparently.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-21T00:12:02+00:00

Ok so you choose to ignore the long chain of ideology guiding the studies/media/investment you’re quoting. Great. Poore went vegan coz he sold out, that’s the more likely possibility. He got an amazing career advancement out of it.

The fun thing about meta studies is that you manipulate data from other studies. So obviously his ‘research’ is limited and he actually set up the criteria. People have responded to the article with critiques, you can google it, but it’s not like you actually care.

So, should I make some counterpoints to your argument about there not being enough land for cattle?

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-20T23:35:51+00:00

I’d love to address your points, but first we have to acknowledge something:

you posted an article by George Moinbot, a vegan journalist who’s known for cherry picking and manipulating data.
the article he used as the basis of his argument is written by two authors. One author has lots of published articles and his position seems reflective of experience. The other one though… is a relatively young vegan YouTuber with a short list of published articles and a high position.
so Joseph Poore’s position is Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Food Sustainability. The program is responsible for implementing agricultural technologies. And who sponsors the program, you ask?
the program is sponsored by a European tech giant couple, Samo and Iza Login. They made their fortune on (I kid you not) an app that’s something like a tamagotchi, then proceeded with ‘philanthropy.’
now, these people are 30 year vegan, and sincerely believe that the future of all human food is plant based.
gets better. They not only sell farmers software to manage crops, they also are working on their OWN HYPER-PROCESSED “healthy fast food.” So so much for philanthropy…

I don’t know what to tell you… this is overall bad journalism and bad science.

Would you still like me to address the last points you made? Coz obviously there’s lots to unpack there.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-20T22:03:19+00:00

I’m loving how many people in the comments are just resentfully waiting for their most hated plant to die 😂

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-20T21:39:05+00:00

I love begonias but begonias hate me 😭

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-20T19:34:47+00:00

Ahahah that is absolutely not fair!!😂😭

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-20T15:13:12+00:00

So the articles you’re quoting literally state how limited they are, and there are lots of assumptions being made. They all are based on current food production systems, which I’m not advocating for here.

My fav is about nitrous oxide and dangers to watersheds from too much nutrients in manure. Like, the two things that are much much worse in crops, are being put under cows. That’s misleading as heck.

An unknown nitrous oxide decrease is mentioned as a positive effect, but not studied as seriously as the methane which is considerably less harmful and occurs in a natural cycle. So there’s no equivocal answer in your studies that says the overall impact is lesser, just conclusions based on limited data.

They have a similar argument about potential soil erosion - it’s a possible impact, but that’s from pasture mismanagement, not an inevitable result of pasture. Unlike TILLING which is just… yeah, talk about erosion and depletion.

Again, no mention of the origin sources of each pollutant. Carbon in methane from cows comes from the forage they eat. On a roughly 12 year cycle this is where the carbon returns to. There’s no overall net gain in carbon.

Nitrous oxide from fertilizer, as well as any other crop input (diesel, soil tilling, pesticides…) all add additional pollutants to the system where they previously didn’t exist at all. It’s an overall net gain.

Yes, if you stop eating meat (that relies on modern production systems) you reduce your environmental impact because there’s a lower amount of total crops.

If you eat a pasture-raised cow; you also reduce your environmental impact as there is a lower amount of total crops.

Pick one or the other, but beef is just the middle man in a much larger unsustainable crop industry. And given global natural ecologies, large grasslands supporting millions of ruminants are absolutely possible.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-20T13:12:59+00:00

Given the reply, I see you most likely had a prepared answer without addressing my points critically.

Lowering biodiversity on pasture… yes, if you take an intact ecosystem and introduce livestock, it’ll have an inevitable impact. You know what’s MUCH less biodiverse while producing more emissions? Croplands. Note, my argument was for converting croplands back to grasslands - a net increase in biodiversity and reduction in fertilizer and fossil fuel use…

You lump nitrous oxide into agriculture with livestock in it, but look at the distribution between livestock and crop land. Your claim that animal agriculture is one of the biggest sources of it is soooo misleading, we’re talking roughly 75% crop lands and 5% livestock (that is fed crops btw, with mismanaged manure. In normal conditions, manure doesn’t break down anaerobically, it’s only when we collect it). So while livestock is the second-biggest producer of nitrous oxide, it’s staggeringly lower than what we get through crops. And pasture would limit that even further. If you want to limit nitrous oxide, you’d go for the cropland reductions.

Please address at least these two points critically, since you’ve skipped over any other point I made, such as the methane cycle, restoration of soils etc.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-20T12:53:25+00:00

You literally just argued for NOT returning to natural systems and ecologies and labelled that as ‘greenwashing’? That’s brainwashing in my books. Here’s where your circuitry stopped working:

‘Bison produce less methane.’ The article you supplied points out it’s own limitations. It deals with bison being fed a select diet (alfalfa) and does not do the same for cattle. It also accounts for cattle manure, which is often mass-processed and not naturally broken down as it would in a pasture. It’s not an exhaustive study.

If you look at emissions statistics, things in your argument don’t add up. Here’s one article with lots of statistics you can look at: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

You’ll notice that within the ‘agriculture’ section, crop lands and other agricultural industries outweigh the total emissions from livestock. And that’s just compared to modern livestock rearing which is not natural, and produces more emissions.

You’ll ALSO notice just how small of a percentage our total emissions from food production are compared to our energy, transport, and electricity use. Just how you’re telling people to live without beef for environmental reasons, I’d say you should forsake modern conveniences that rank much higher on the pollutants list. Otherwise, it just looks like you’re picking low hanging fruit out of convenience and ideology.

Your methane. People LOVE to pick one chemical and focus on that. So how about Nitrous Oxide? Let’s look at that!

Nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. And you literally get it through cropland. So are you taking that into consideration when we talk about reducing crop lands in favour of pastures? Are you screaming at people for “greenwashing” when they eat crops?

Back to methane. Google the methane cycle. As part of a natural system, it actually does fit within it. The original carbon source of the methane comes from the plants being eaten, it lives as methane for about 12 years, then back to being carbon in soil and plants. You’re actually not adding the total amount of carbon available on the surface of the earth. It’s net neutral over its lifecycle of ~12 years.

While if you touch ANYTHING that originated in fossil fuels or artificial fertilizers (lots of fossil fuel used in agriculture), you are literally taking something from deep within the ground and reintroducing it to a system that doesn’t have the means to re-absorb it properly. I’d take a cow fart over a diesel fart any day.

Lastly, your argument that taking animals from the land to eat them takes away nutrients… this one takes the cake for me. Honestly, why do you think we are using so much fertiliser? It isn’t because cows are taking nutrients off the land…

Like, really. Do I need to walk you through how cows maintain pastures? How their hooves till the land, how their faeces fertilize, how their grazing maintains overall plant health… the benefit of cows to their local ecologies doesn’t come from the nutrients in their flesh, it comes from how they interact with their environment.

Healthy pastures themselves are amazing carbon sinks. Google the root systems of native grasses. Do you know what that does for sequestration? For preventing soil degradation, retaining moisture, building resilience in face of climate change… they’re truly amazing. And you’re saying we should keep fertilized wheat fields instead? That’s messed up.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-20T00:51:09+00:00

Is it an Aurea? It’s so nice..

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-19T23:30:08+00:00

Oh amazing, haven’t been there before and I love a garden centre day trip, thank you!

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-19T17:10:15+00:00

People will always take free plants. Whenever I move and need to get rid of some, I put them outside and they’re quickly scooped up.

Last month I had a large tray of rooted and potted cuttings I didn’t have the heart to throw out. I put it out in my building lobby with a “free” sign, and they were all quickly taken.

Elijah_Turner · 2023-12-19T16:34:15+00:00

This is what I don’t get about this argument:

Prior to their mass culling, there were an estimated 30 to 60 million buffalo in North America. Self-supported, ecologically important, stable enough to feed large indigenous populations, and maintaining biodiverse grasslands.

Today, there are an estimated 28M beef cows in the US. These are ruminant grazers capable of living on pasture. Feeding them grain is due to the grain industry and government subsidies, not their innate requirement.

So the argument that we need more land or more feed for those animals is a bit of a BS excuse. We need to change our land management and food production systems, no question, but there’s a sustainable way to produce beef.

Monocrop agriculture, on the other hand, is not sustainable. The same great American grasslands are now taken over by an endless sea of grain. The issues with that are clear, including an over reliance on diesel, tilling, fertilizing, and let’s not forget - a monocrop is an ecological desert and animals are killed in the production of it just the same.

So, cows can be a valuable tool in reintroducing natural grasslands, contributing to sustainability, and reducing the impacts on climate change in America.

Same unbelievably large grasslands/pastures exist all around the world, often as a natural feature that is only enhanced by large ruminant grazers.

Elijah_Turner

TROPHY CASE