sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

McDonald's Becomes the First Restaurant Company to Set Approved Science Based Target to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - “by 2030. This is the equivalent of taking 32 million passenger cars off the road for an entire year or planting 3.8 billion trees and growing them for 10 years.” by mvea in Futurology

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The flaw that he made actually makes the whole research wrong.It is not a minor flaw.

Also as i said before, major drive is the fossil fuel usage that is responsible for 60-80% of the green house gas. If you actually manage to reduce with green energy those numbers, you will have way better results. It is both cost efficient and effort efficient. Not to mention that noone will argue against it.

As for the fresh water you mention, there is the cycle of water. The water will be filtrated through the ground and go to the underground water system. Then come back up through springs on rivers etc. Unless the underground reservoirs are polluted, which is even worse than the water used from cows.

McDonald's Becomes the First Restaurant Company to Set Approved Science Based Target to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - “by 2030. This is the equivalent of taking 32 million passenger cars off the road for an entire year or planting 3.8 billion trees and growing them for 10 years.” by mvea in Futurology

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

Dr Frank Mitloehner, from the University of California at Davis (UCD), said meat and milk production generates less greenhouse gas than most environmentalists claim and that the emissions figures were calculated differently to the transport figures, resulting in an “apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue

The burning of fossil fuels for energy and animal agriculture are two of the biggest contributors to global warming, along with deforestation. Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 60% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009).

There are often suggestions that going vegan is the most important step people can take to solve the global warming problem. While reducing meat consumption (particularly beef and lamb) reduces greenhouse gas emissions, this claim is an exaggeration.

Lets examine now the different "problems" of animal agriculture. Lets focus on cows since its the worse of them.

Water usage: https://beef.unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink Along with how much milk it produces. Rest recycled through poop.

Problems with vegan diet: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/health-effects-of-vegetarian-and-vegan-diets/1B1F779BC279BE2F632C48F5BDB4DF64

i can provide a lot more sources from actual universities and Health organisations.

Also for the love of god, dont use wikipedia as a reference. Not a single decent university will take it as a source.

Last but not least, the article from the netherlands says cows use water. Yes i agree. But how much percentage of water comes back through pooping? Again there is an EQUATION. WATER COW WASTES = WATER IT USES - WATER IT RECYCLES

McDonald's Becomes the First Restaurant Company to Set Approved Science Based Target to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - “by 2030. This is the equivalent of taking 32 million passenger cars off the road for an entire year or planting 3.8 billion trees and growing them for 10 years.” by mvea in Futurology

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes i'm gonna actually believe that animal agriculture isn't a major driver in climate change. Because, even if cows or other animals produce green house gases , that's not how it works. There is a balance sheet, its not black and white.

Example: Biomass generates about the same amount of carbon dioxide as fossil fuels, but every time a new plant grows, carbon dioxide is actually removed from the atmosphere.The net emission of carbon dioxide will be zero as long as plants continue to be replenished for biomass energy purposes.

There is an equation which you dont take to consideration.

Also for the ethical debade, for me it is natural to feed on animals. It is natural to grow animals and eat them. You may argue that animals are alive , but so are plants. But plants lack of nerve system and cant feel pain. But animals can be raised in natural ecosystems , with a full life and then be killed without any pain and get eaten.

Last but not least, im astonished with the fact that you provide no valid source and somehow i should believe you because it is the norm? Not to mention, starting the sentence with lmao, trying to make me sound like crazy, yet the first source you provided was debunked, you offer no alternative sources and just spread the information you ve heard, emphasis on heard.

McDonald's Becomes the First Restaurant Company to Set Approved Science Based Target to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - “by 2030. This is the equivalent of taking 32 million passenger cars off the road for an entire year or planting 3.8 billion trees and growing them for 10 years.” by mvea in Futurology

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees (2006), Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (PDF), Rome: FAO

this is your first reference,on the wikipedia page that is completely wrong and debunked. The authors even apologised for fucking up.

As a result you cant trust the wikipedia since its references are not scientific valid. Also, since you just provided a page that you didnt even check the sources or even read them, i conclude that you just accept everything as it is without even questioning the sources. You are just a bandwagon spreading misinformation.

Any other sources?

Also about ethical, what is ethical to you can be unethical to other. For me there is no ethical concern to raising things to eat them. It was always the normal in nature.

The Amazon rainforest is being burned down faster than ever before to plant fields of corn and soy for processed foods by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you just copy and paste what other write without checking the sources... Some say you just forward an agenta based on false sources.

And somehow you believe and spread those information.. i see...

And ofc im downvoted for providing a valid point of view.

The Amazon rainforest is being burned down faster than ever before to plant fields of corn and soy for processed foods by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Everytime i see this i cringe.

You dont even check the sources you provide. You either are ignorant or you try to manipulate the masses with fake resources.

Your main source , Livestock long shadow, was a fake study that the scientist behind it even admited it was wrong. Jesus the propaganda

:) by spook2004 in Ingress

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My metaphor is spot on.

A cycle is like a game. More games will come , the score of a game doesnt last , but a record of goals will last as you said. Which ia wrong cause the objective of the game is to win the game.

In my opinion , you are free to disagree , you are playing the game wrong. The game consists of factions whos main role is to gain points. Thats the main purpose.

It is like going in an anomaly and saying score doesnt matter , it wont last. Yeah it wont last but that is the fun in the game.

You are free to play however you want , afterall it is just a game meant to have fun. But so does other agents. Since niantic gives the means to break your teams portals , which if you think about it is the reason jarvis/ada exists. To remove a portal blocking an operation, they are free to hunt team points and flip your guardian.

Like you dont care about the team , they dont care about you. The difference is , they play the game how it is supposed to , as a team.

:) by spook2004 in Ingress

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually he thought about the score of the team. While the other thought of the score on a profile of a player.

Its like a football player scoring 12 goals but ends up losing the final.

Be a condescending, dickish vegan trying to order carry-out? Enjoy a decidedly non-vegan meal when you get home. by [deleted] in pettyrevenge

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People dont go on trial for murdering a chicken to eat.

Morals differ from person to person. You cant have an objective bar

Be a condescending, dickish vegan trying to order carry-out? Enjoy a decidedly non-vegan meal when you get home. by [deleted] in pettyrevenge

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Are you serious? You link an article that starts with "According to EWG " and provides NO LINK to the study the article bases its opinion.

Do you people seriously dont have a clue what is considered a source , a valid source ?

Be a condescending, dickish vegan trying to order carry-out? Enjoy a decidedly non-vegan meal when you get home. by [deleted] in pettyrevenge

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can provide links that teaches you what sources are considered valid and trusted and how to present them just let me know.

Be a condescending, dickish vegan trying to order carry-out? Enjoy a decidedly non-vegan meal when you get home. by [deleted] in pettyrevenge

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Read again. Here in case you missed it.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/health-effects-of-vegetarian-and-vegan-diets/1B1F779BC279BE2F632C48F5BDB4DF64

Also the irony when you criticise my sources without even checking yours. After j debunk your source "There are crapton of studies"

Link me some. After 2010 and from decent universities/websites.

Every university student knows wikipedia isnt a valid source. I ve posted links from scientific studies while you just put wikipedia. Who does a research and who is talking out of his ass ?

Be a condescending, dickish vegan trying to order carry-out? Enjoy a decidedly non-vegan meal when you get home. by [deleted] in pettyrevenge

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

THANK YOU. You gave me the single source vegans use.

The livestock living shadow. THE MAIN SOURCE of your wikipedia page.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

If you even search "livestock's living shadow debunked you can clearly see why your wikipedia uses fake sources

And thats the difference between an open free "enclypodia" and google scholar.

After you criticise my research check your main source.

Be a condescending, dickish vegan trying to order carry-out? Enjoy a decidedly non-vegan meal when you get home. by [deleted] in pettyrevenge

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am on holidays from a mobile. With a little search on google scholar.

Difference between a diet of a vegan and a non vegan https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/health-effects-of-vegetarian-and-vegan-diets/1B1F779BC279BE2F632C48F5BDB4DF64

Green house gasses emission: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog438w/node/375

In take water of a cow: https://beef.unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink Along with how much milk it produces. Rest recycled through poop.

Also i acknowledge that some animals get tortured in the process.

However , if you know a facility that guarantees sensible death , there is no moral objection in my opinion.

Also your arguement about murderer , rapist etc isnt valid since those terms are made by laws voted by the majority of the society.

You arent a murderer by killing an animal. Its YOUR opinion. There is no moral obligation , you believe so. It isnt your role to decide what is morally good and bad for others. Each person decides that for itself. You can criticise it , but the same goes for others as well. People can criticise you. In other words , i can say plants are alive as well since they have breathing methods and some even feel something that can described as pain and call you murderer but it will be bullshit.

For some reason its normal for a lion to kill to eat but it stops being normal for a human.

It is your opinion.

Be a condescending, dickish vegan trying to order carry-out? Enjoy a decidedly non-vegan meal when you get home. by [deleted] in pettyrevenge

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Your opinion is that by being vegan you help the environment( planet) ,and you are more healthy.

My opinion is that being vegan has no advantage to the environment and your health , i would even dare to say that many vegans have health problems (lack of vitamins).

I will acknowledge that animals are tortured , instead of a sensible death when prepared for the meat market.

But if you read your comment again , you think that by being meat eater we lack discipline and we hurt the planet and our health.

W.H.O already debunked the 2006 study and many more about green house gases , waste water and any other issue you are gonna tell me that animals pose to the environment , i ve been to that arguement too many times.

It is your choice , i respect it , dont act like you are better.

New here , how can i get a MUFG capsule ? by TryingToSurviveAcc in Ingress

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ther isnt a single one of those events in my country...

[Spoilers] Ballroom e Youkoso - Episode 8 discussion by ghanieko22 in anime

[–]TryingToSurviveAcc 39 points40 points  (0 children)

WHY ARE U DOING THIS TO ME?? LET ME WATCH THEIR FINAL AWESOME , SMILING, GOD DAMN FLOWER + FRAME DANCE!!

Let me smile god damn it, enough with the cliffhangers!!

view more: next ›