Okay what i am about to say has probally been refuted and made fun of in countless threads probally called Stupid things omnivares say or somthing. But im about to state my openion anyways and hopefully we can have a civilized conversation anyways. Ethical" vegetarians who consume ANY dairy/eggs are hypocrites
First if you are vegan/vegetarion for health reason im all for you but i think being vegetarion for ethical reasons are crazy and fanatic since ive been reasearching vegetarianism ive been seeing videos from peta and i honestly think these people think of animals as thier lord they pratically worship animals .
An Ethical pure vegetarian does not eat meat because it involves killing an animal. They do not drink milk because it comes from an animal and that is explotation. They do not eat honey because that comes from bees and it is exploiting the bees.
Blueberries and most other fruits come from bees that Pollinate them. Is it ethical to explot bees to produce blueberries? This is not a natural process, the bees are imported to an area and moved around by industrial apiaries. Thousands of bees will die in the process and the honey they produce is taken away.
Are blueberries therefore an unethical food product because animals are exploited and harmed in their production?
Also they sell organic meats at my local health food store. The owner thier said the meat hasent been injected with any growth homrones ...etc. Hasent been totured or killed they let thier animals die naturally and then do what they do to it. So if your vegetarion for ethical reasons whats wrong with organic meats
I understand the process by which fake leather and fake fur are manufactured. Fakes are far more toxic and kill far more animals in the long term than real leather, silk or wool. Indeed, wool is completely dependant of a very alive healthy and happy sheep. Sick sheep don't produce good wool, and dead sheep produce no wool.
The ironic thing is that I belong to several groups opposed to animal cruelty such as WISPA and many environmental groups. I see nothing wrong with wool, leather, . I do oppose anything that destroys animal's habitat, the oceans, rain forests or jungles. That's a far more serious problem than eating meat or wearing leather; in my opinion. However i dont belive in global warming i think its a politcal scam to make money and nothing more.
The global warming argument is based on the assertion that the earth's temperature has risen 0.6 degrees in 100 years.
2. 6/10ths of a degree is well below the difference in measurement accuracy from the instruments we had 100 years ago to the ones we have today. Not a valid scientific measurement. The inaccuracy of instruments exceeds the amount of the "observed" difference. Do you really think that in the 1860's they could measure temperatures to the tenth of a degree? or that they cared enough to take and record enough measurements, all over the world, that would statistically be accurate enough to determine the true "average" temperature ?)
3. Even "IF" the 6/10 of a degree in 100 years IS accurate, the earth is generally accepted to be about 4.5 Billion years old (that's 4,500,000,000 years) anything that happens in 100 years is WAY less than the blink of an eye, in the scope of the planet.
100 years is too short of a period to measure. The earth goes through heating and cooling cycles that last thousands, even millions, of years. 100 years is too short of a time to observe a viable "trend".
4. Even "IF" the measurement inaccuracies were not a factor, and even "IF" 100 years were enough time to observe a trend, NO ONE CAN PROVE that the 6/10 of a degree increase would NOT HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY, regardless of the activities of humans.
The logic is like saying that the sun comes up every morning because I make Coffee. Because every time I turn on my coffeemaker, the sun comes up within an hour or so.
There are volcanic eruptions (that happen naturally) which in a day or two emit more pollutants into the atmosphere than 1000 years of all the cars in the world. This has been happening for billions of years.
The estimate mass of the earth is 5.9 X 10 to the 24th Kilograms. That means 5,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg.
Now write that number down next to the estimated amount of carbon dioxide supposedly emitted by humans and automobiles etc. (the EPA estimate for all of North America is 1488 million metric tonnes in 2005 - see link below). 1488 million metric t.. 1,488,000,000 metric tonnes, or 1,488,000,000,000 Kg.
1.488,000,000,000 Kg of CO2, compared to the 5,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg of Earth's mass equals:
1 KG of CO2 per 3,965,000,000,000 kg of the earth. It's such a small proportion, it can't be expressed very well as a percentage.
It can be expressed as parts per million, it is less than one one-millionth OF a part per million.
Totally insignificant. Don't think about it in human terms (1.4 trillion Kg is a lot, 100 years is a long time).
Think in terms of the earth. 100 years is a miniscule amount of time. The amount of CO2 produced is utterly and totally insignificant.
I would write more i have the energy to write more however if i do people arent going to read.