I'm not sure I would argue that animals were "made" to be eaten, but the fact is that a lot more of an animal can be eaten than western culture chooses.
Flag as Inappropriate
Animals weren't "made" to be eaten, they were made to reproduce, however, we were "made" to eat them.
That statement pretty much holds true if you look at either from a scientific (evolution, ecology) or religious view (at least, any of the Abrahamic religions).
Comparing cucumbers to pork is silly, since people don't eat cucumbers as a substitute for bacon
Actually, it isn't. Comparing the GHG per calorie of any two foods isn't silly, it's basic research. However, drawing conclusions about different diets based on unrepresentative samples of the components of the diets is silly, and that's what a lot of the people writing the articles around this study seem to be doing. It is important, however, to always remember that it's the job of those writers to get us to click on the links and see the ads, not provide us with rational analysis.
The original study compares the USDA recommended food mix to the current American diet and finds that the USDA recommended diet would increase GHG emissions and energy usage, even if the number of calories was reduced to the recommended amount to maintain a healthy weight. It should be noted that the recommended diet is not vegetarian, and that a vegetarian diet was not considered in the study, so anything about how vegetarian diets compare to omnivorous diets is trolling for clicks.
It's been done thousands of times just here on Slashdot, yet you (among others) still pretend ignorance. So why bother? You're either not going to read it, not going to understand, or not going to acknowledge it.
Why should we waste our time explaining yet again why his sources are either deliberately deceptive or shockingly incompetent. Why bother when the people, like you, who lap it up seem incapable of understanding plain english, mathematics or science?
But because I'm an optimist, I'll throw in one reason why all three of those links are absolutely wrong. If you start a trend with an outlier, your trend will be wrong. Period. End of story. 1997-1998 was the strongest El Nino on record, anyone who starts a temperature-based trend line starting in those years is either indescribably incompetent or a manipulative asshole who's trying to trick you.
What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this?
Greed.
Seriously, you can trace this all back to Tobacco companies fighting to protect their profits. In the early 1970s they devised a strategy to manufacture anti-government propaganda and "grassroots" organizations to distribute them. These organizations provided both inspiration and support to the Koch brothers when they started their own anti-government advocacy and recruiting group in 1984, Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). As an interesting note, Ron Paul was the first director of Citizens for a Sound Economy. In the 80s and 90s, CSE was funded by Philip Morris, General Electric, Exxon and Microsoft (among others). In 2004 it split into FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.
Both of CSE's successor groups were involved in creating the Tea Party political movement, the goal of that movement was to get people who have not normally been involved in political groups involved (specifically on the far right side of the Republican). They use populism and demagoguery to motivate these people, so it should be no surprise that the end result is support for populist demagogues. However, those same attributes have been driving reasonable people out of the party, as each election cycle the people motivated by the populist rhetorical impose more stringent populist requirements on the leadership, continually pushing them to the right. At first the Republican leadership embraced the new populism because it helped them win elections they had no right to win, now it may too late for them to salvage anything from the ruins of the party. Increasingly, it seem, the only Republicans who matter are the radical Tea Party ignoratti.
So the genesis for Trump's success lies in advocacy groups created to lobby for the right to poison and kill your customers and neighbours. Caveat Emptor, America! Freedom is cheaper than responsibility!
We don't know what will happen, but we're somehow supernaturally confident it'll be too late to do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a reason for urgency to me. Instead, sounds like a huge argument for doing nothing except the status quo, which is already an extremely beneficial thing for humanity.
The fool says "We don't know it's a cliff, so I'm not going to stop until after I jump over it."
Did you ever stop to think that maybe he's right? That the regional disruptions caused by a rapidly changing environment combined with unsuccessful integration of migrants into their adoptive societies might actual fuel the despair and hatred that allows some people to turn on their neighbours and murder them for stupid ideological reasons?
Have you ever thought that it could be more complicated than "evil people do evil things, and if we just kill all the evil people, then we win"?
People, companies and investors chase dollars. There's a reason people are STILL building those large polluting pieces of shit.
Is it because they're Chinese? Because in the United States, 170 coal power plants have been cancelled over the last 15 years, with only 40 completed, and are 20 still in development and 17 whose current status is unknown. There's also 12 "abandoned" plants but I'm not sure what the difference between abandoned and cancelled is. All of this is according to SourceWatch. If those numbers are accurate it means that Americans aren't really building many new coal plants, and the even the ones they did plan to build, two thirds of them have been cancelled.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1,507 MW of new coal plants were added in 2013. However, in the same year 6,861 MW of natural gas and 2,959 of solar was added. For the math challenged that means almost twice as much new solar was added compared to new coal (and over 4 times as much natural gas). There was also 1,032 MW of new wind added. Sure it was only 2/3rd of coal in 2013 (partly because of a subsidy deadline for end of 2012 where 10x the amount of solar was completed in 2012 compared to 2013), but I would bet that new wind projects will continue growing while new coal projects continue to disappear.
There were 10 attackers according to that article, so that's 3 victims each. Do you think really think 10 attackers armed with guns and murderous intent would have only killed 3 people each?
Banning gun worked for all country that tried it. Why would it be different for the USA?
There are entrenched pro-gun interests that control too much media and too many politicians for the ban to be sensibly discussed, much less implemented. Even if by some miracle a ban was implemented, the same people would be telling people that the government was evil and it was their patriotic duty to resist them by any means possible. The pro-gun groups exists because firearms manufacturers need to protect their profits and they have enough to fund a long-term organization to protect those profits. By comparison, there isn't a real anti-gun interest group in America because there is little profit in gun control laws.
No one cared about Saddam's chemical weapons until it turned out he was never even close to having nuclear ones. The U.S. went into Iraq (for the second time) on the promise that Saddam Hussein had or would soon have a nuclear weapon and that he was likely to use it against the United States or one of it's allies. The information to justify this claim came from a single source, a drug-addicted Iraqi defector who basically said whatever his handlers wanted as long as kept him supplied with booze and drugs. This information was deliberately fed to intelligence agencies of several different countries to create the appearance of multiple sources.
The false pretences were nuclear, when the claims proved too absurdly wrong, the story changed to be chemical weapons, instead. Which Saddam didn't have either since he had long ago used the ones that the United States had provided to him.
There is a book on the subject that details how Snowden negatively impacted US intelligence.
He certainly "negatively impacted" US intelligence, though it's a lot like how a police officer "negatively impacted" the criminal he just arrested. The US intelligence agencies did all the harm to themselves, and when you were made aware of their criminal activities, you chose to blame the messenger and the not the criminals.
As a side note, It's interesting to see that Gamergate's war against "corruption in the games media" now extends to fabricating evidence to slander their critics. I guess Gamergaters really are dedicated to showing us all who the truly dishonest people are...
Its not a scientific debate unless the critics argument is science, backed by evidence.
It's also not scientific debate if one side has created an unfalsifiable hypothesis and alters any contradictory data until it supports said hypothesis.
Hmm...
Hell most of their arguments are not even coherent
Seems he was right. If the hypothesis was really unfalsifiable there wouldn't be any "contradictory data" and therefore nothing to "alter". Your arguments are not even coherent.
Indeed. The second linked article is a hit piece on Bill Nye. It uses prejudicial language and selective quoting to distort what Bill Nye actually wrote in his book about climate change. It implies he's saying NASCAR is the anti-NASA because people who like NASCAR are stupid which is severe distortion. He was actually talking about it being the anti-NASA from a climate change point of view. He even makes the somewhat amusing point that if you imposed a fuel limit (one tank, for example), a stock Toyota Prius would win the race because none of the standard cars could finish it. The point being that NASCAR could spur a lot of technical innovation by imposing a limit like that, although I think having read the comments above, Bill's may actually be wrong, the NASCAR rules seem to be pretty strict about not allowing technology to play too large a role in the race.
Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?
If you really want to know, you should probably read or watchMerchants of Doubt (or do both). The interviews with global warming deniers in the movie are particularly illuminating.
What's in it for you, specifically?
Nothing, really. Mostly, I post corrections when people write things that are ridiculously wrong.
The point is that the same people who claimed for years that 1998 was an outlier that meant nothing, seamlessly switched to claiming that 1998 was so absolutely normal that it proves there has been no warming at all in (this year - 1998) years (or, in exceptionally dishonest cases, that it has been cooling since 1998).
But interestingly enough, the supposedly rabid atheists around here who "bravely" stand up to those "totalitarian oppressor" church-ladies on here have a huge blind spot / sick fetish for the most hard-core Islamic fascim you can think of.
You are deeply ignorant of atheism and atheists. You might want to shut up before you embarrass yourself.
Some Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Government funded execution squad, no trial.
Too late.
Of course, there are two cases that I know of that kind-of-sort-of fit your description. In one, the case is ongoing although the cake maker has twice lost his case that refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple isn't discriminatory, and in the other case the bakers were fined a large amount of money for publishing the home address of the complainants, recklessly publicising it, and inciting a campaign of harassment against the couple. In both cases, the defendants were tried and found guilty of violating the law.
ISIS executes gays by throwing them off of buildings? How dare you be intolerant of other people's culture!
So you're going to stand with Infowars and claim that not enough of the people you hate denounced ISIS for executing gays so they must be explicitly supporting ISIS even though the people you hate did denounce ISIS, but not enough for you to believe that they actually meant it? Or can you find a single example of someone saying that we should tolerate ISIS's murderous rampages?
I see no reasons to be more irate with ISIS when they are killing gays, then when they are killing Christians, or Muslims who don't believe the "correct" interpretation of the Koran, or doctors, or professors or really anyone else. They are a bloody-minded, murderous, bunch of religious fanatics that's not news. The news that religious fanatics who hate gays have killed 0.04% more people in their own territory for their invented reasons, just isn't spectacular enough to get people up in arms any more. Frankly, ISIS's murderous thugs killing anonymous gay people is just sad, depressing news, it's not shocking any more because the body count is already so very high.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I would argue that animals were "made" to be eaten, but the fact is that a lot more of an animal can be eaten than western culture chooses. Flag as Inappropriate
Animals weren't "made" to be eaten, they were made to reproduce, however, we were "made" to eat them.
That statement pretty much holds true if you look at either from a scientific (evolution, ecology) or religious view (at least, any of the Abrahamic religions).
Comparing cucumbers to pork is silly, since people don't eat cucumbers as a substitute for bacon
Actually, it isn't. Comparing the GHG per calorie of any two foods isn't silly, it's basic research. However, drawing conclusions about different diets based on unrepresentative samples of the components of the diets is silly, and that's what a lot of the people writing the articles around this study seem to be doing. It is important, however, to always remember that it's the job of those writers to get us to click on the links and see the ads, not provide us with rational analysis.
The original study compares the USDA recommended food mix to the current American diet and finds that the USDA recommended diet would increase GHG emissions and energy usage, even if the number of calories was reduced to the recommended amount to maintain a healthy weight. It should be noted that the recommended diet is not vegetarian, and that a vegetarian diet was not considered in the study, so anything about how vegetarian diets compare to omnivorous diets is trolling for clicks.
It show that you know how to cherry-pick facts to deceive people.
1997 and 1998 were unusually warm starting a trend in those years produces deceptive results. Confirmation bias incompetence or malicious intent?
It's been done thousands of times just here on Slashdot, yet you (among others) still pretend ignorance. So why bother? You're either not going to read it, not going to understand, or not going to acknowledge it.
Why should we waste our time explaining yet again why his sources are either deliberately deceptive or shockingly incompetent. Why bother when the people, like you, who lap it up seem incapable of understanding plain english, mathematics or science?
But because I'm an optimist, I'll throw in one reason why all three of those links are absolutely wrong. If you start a trend with an outlier, your trend will be wrong. Period. End of story. 1997-1998 was the strongest El Nino on record, anyone who starts a temperature-based trend line starting in those years is either indescribably incompetent or a manipulative asshole who's trying to trick you.
What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this?
Greed.
Seriously, you can trace this all back to Tobacco companies fighting to protect their profits. In the early 1970s they devised a strategy to manufacture anti-government propaganda and "grassroots" organizations to distribute them. These organizations provided both inspiration and support to the Koch brothers when they started their own anti-government advocacy and recruiting group in 1984, Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). As an interesting note, Ron Paul was the first director of Citizens for a Sound Economy. In the 80s and 90s, CSE was funded by Philip Morris, General Electric, Exxon and Microsoft (among others). In 2004 it split into FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.
Both of CSE's successor groups were involved in creating the Tea Party political movement, the goal of that movement was to get people who have not normally been involved in political groups involved (specifically on the far right side of the Republican). They use populism and demagoguery to motivate these people, so it should be no surprise that the end result is support for populist demagogues. However, those same attributes have been driving reasonable people out of the party, as each election cycle the people motivated by the populist rhetorical impose more stringent populist requirements on the leadership, continually pushing them to the right. At first the Republican leadership embraced the new populism because it helped them win elections they had no right to win, now it may too late for them to salvage anything from the ruins of the party. Increasingly, it seem, the only Republicans who matter are the radical Tea Party ignoratti.
So the genesis for Trump's success lies in advocacy groups created to lobby for the right to poison and kill your customers and neighbours. Caveat Emptor, America! Freedom is cheaper than responsibility!
We don't know what will happen, but we're somehow supernaturally confident it'll be too late to do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a reason for urgency to me. Instead, sounds like a huge argument for doing nothing except the status quo, which is already an extremely beneficial thing for humanity.
The fool says "We don't know it's a cliff, so I'm not going to stop until after I jump over it."
Did you ever stop to think that maybe he's right? That the regional disruptions caused by a rapidly changing environment combined with unsuccessful integration of migrants into their adoptive societies might actual fuel the despair and hatred that allows some people to turn on their neighbours and murder them for stupid ideological reasons?
Have you ever thought that it could be more complicated than "evil people do evil things, and if we just kill all the evil people, then we win"?
People, companies and investors chase dollars. There's a reason people are STILL building those large polluting pieces of shit.
Is it because they're Chinese? Because in the United States, 170 coal power plants have been cancelled over the last 15 years, with only 40 completed, and are 20 still in development and 17 whose current status is unknown. There's also 12 "abandoned" plants but I'm not sure what the difference between abandoned and cancelled is. All of this is according to SourceWatch. If those numbers are accurate it means that Americans aren't really building many new coal plants, and the even the ones they did plan to build, two thirds of them have been cancelled.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1,507 MW of new coal plants were added in 2013. However, in the same year 6,861 MW of natural gas and 2,959 of solar was added. For the math challenged that means almost twice as much new solar was added compared to new coal (and over 4 times as much natural gas). There was also 1,032 MW of new wind added. Sure it was only 2/3rd of coal in 2013 (partly because of a subsidy deadline for end of 2012 where 10x the amount of solar was completed in 2012 compared to 2013), but I would bet that new wind projects will continue growing while new coal projects continue to disappear.
There were 10 attackers according to that article, so that's 3 victims each. Do you think really think 10 attackers armed with guns and murderous intent would have only killed 3 people each?
(and for future reference, the English language is not static, so interpretation must be done in the context of the period a piece was written)
Because unlike the English language, society and technology are static?
Banning gun worked for all country that tried it. Why would it be different for the USA?
There are entrenched pro-gun interests that control too much media and too many politicians for the ban to be sensibly discussed, much less implemented. Even if by some miracle a ban was implemented, the same people would be telling people that the government was evil and it was their patriotic duty to resist them by any means possible. The pro-gun groups exists because firearms manufacturers need to protect their profits and they have enough to fund a long-term organization to protect those profits. By comparison, there isn't a real anti-gun interest group in America because there is little profit in gun control laws.
Why, I find your post to be downright un-American. We should probably convene a committee to investigate such activities...
Don't be a fool.
Right back at you.
No one cared about Saddam's chemical weapons until it turned out he was never even close to having nuclear ones. The U.S. went into Iraq (for the second time) on the promise that Saddam Hussein had or would soon have a nuclear weapon and that he was likely to use it against the United States or one of it's allies. The information to justify this claim came from a single source, a drug-addicted Iraqi defector who basically said whatever his handlers wanted as long as kept him supplied with booze and drugs. This information was deliberately fed to intelligence agencies of several different countries to create the appearance of multiple sources.
The false pretences were nuclear, when the claims proved too absurdly wrong, the story changed to be chemical weapons, instead. Which Saddam didn't have either since he had long ago used the ones that the United States had provided to him.
There is a book on the subject that details how Snowden negatively impacted US intelligence.
He certainly "negatively impacted" US intelligence, though it's a lot like how a police officer "negatively impacted" the criminal he just arrested. The US intelligence agencies did all the harm to themselves, and when you were made aware of their criminal activities, you chose to blame the messenger and the not the criminals.
Actually, it's the lifetime of the echo of the words just spoken...
What kind of standard of living is it where you can't look at A cup porn stars?
You probably shouldn't believe everything you read...
Yes, I'm pretty sure that the correlation is the other way than the headline.
Based on what evidence?
That would-be terrorists are more likely to become engineers, in part to get the necessary skills to make the "tools of the trade".
Seems like a slow and expensive way to learn how to make a bomb.
That is true, but stupid people often think that anyone wearing a turban is Islamic. Seriously.
As a side note, It's interesting to see that Gamergate's war against "corruption in the games media" now extends to fabricating evidence to slander their critics. I guess Gamergaters really are dedicated to showing us all who the truly dishonest people are...
Its not a scientific debate unless the critics argument is science, backed by evidence.
It's also not scientific debate if one side has created an unfalsifiable hypothesis and alters any contradictory data until it supports said hypothesis.
Hmm...
Hell most of their arguments are not even coherent
Seems he was right. If the hypothesis was really unfalsifiable there wouldn't be any "contradictory data" and therefore nothing to "alter". Your arguments are not even coherent.
Why? To prevent snarky cynics from embarrassing themselves with stupid rhetorical questions? Where's the fun in that?
Indeed. The second linked article is a hit piece on Bill Nye. It uses prejudicial language and selective quoting to distort what Bill Nye actually wrote in his book about climate change. It implies he's saying NASCAR is the anti-NASA because people who like NASCAR are stupid which is severe distortion. He was actually talking about it being the anti-NASA from a climate change point of view. He even makes the somewhat amusing point that if you imposed a fuel limit (one tank, for example), a stock Toyota Prius would win the race because none of the standard cars could finish it. The point being that NASCAR could spur a lot of technical innovation by imposing a limit like that, although I think having read the comments above, Bill's may actually be wrong, the NASCAR rules seem to be pretty strict about not allowing technology to play too large a role in the race.
Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?
If you really want to know, you should probably read or watch Merchants of Doubt (or do both). The interviews with global warming deniers in the movie are particularly illuminating.
What's in it for you, specifically?
Nothing, really. Mostly, I post corrections when people write things that are ridiculously wrong.
But... it is an outlier. What is your point?
The point is that the same people who claimed for years that 1998 was an outlier that meant nothing, seamlessly switched to claiming that 1998 was so absolutely normal that it proves there has been no warming at all in (this year - 1998) years (or, in exceptionally dishonest cases, that it has been cooling since 1998).
One bad thing: you cannot learn this methodology in a $15k course. That would go against its very nature.
That's terrible, you should change that to: You can learn this methodology in my exclusive $15k per seat course!
But interestingly enough, the supposedly rabid atheists around here who "bravely" stand up to those "totalitarian oppressor" church-ladies on here have a huge blind spot / sick fetish for the most hard-core Islamic fascim you can think of.
You are deeply ignorant of atheism and atheists. You might want to shut up before you embarrass yourself.
Some Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Government funded execution squad, no trial.
Too late.
Of course, there are two cases that I know of that kind-of-sort-of fit your description. In one, the case is ongoing although the cake maker has twice lost his case that refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple isn't discriminatory, and in the other case the bakers were fined a large amount of money for publishing the home address of the complainants, recklessly publicising it, and inciting a campaign of harassment against the couple. In both cases, the defendants were tried and found guilty of violating the law.
ISIS executes gays by throwing them off of buildings? How dare you be intolerant of other people's culture!
So you're going to stand with Infowars and claim that not enough of the people you hate denounced ISIS for executing gays so they must be explicitly supporting ISIS even though the people you hate did denounce ISIS, but not enough for you to believe that they actually meant it? Or can you find a single example of someone saying that we should tolerate ISIS's murderous rampages?
I see no reasons to be more irate with ISIS when they are killing gays, then when they are killing Christians, or Muslims who don't believe the "correct" interpretation of the Koran, or doctors, or professors or really anyone else. They are a bloody-minded, murderous, bunch of religious fanatics that's not news. The news that religious fanatics who hate gays have killed 0.04% more people in their own territory for their invented reasons, just isn't spectacular enough to get people up in arms any more. Frankly, ISIS's murderous thugs killing anonymous gay people is just sad, depressing news, it's not shocking any more because the body count is already so very high.