Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Somehow I doubt legions of universities, research insititutions, independent researchers, and government agencies from around the world are all in cahoots to spread such a "conspiracy."
One of the many emotionally charged sermon rants of his that caused me to not be able to take him seriously.
They do, quiet often, rather regularly, and I don't see how you miss it or why it's relevant because scientists don't invest much time or effort into showing evidence of evolution, thermodynamics, or other things, and for the most part the pop-sci scientists are the main ones who are on talk shows, on the news, writing books for the layman, and putting energy and effort into so many things. The rest are mostly just doing research and writing/submitting articles. It can be and often is an isolated process, and it does tend to attract those who prefer working in isolation, implying that for a number of reasons getting on TV just isn't their thing or goal.
It's the "consensus of scientists" that life evolved from a single common ancestor. It's the "consent of scientists" that micro-organisms cause infections. The "consent of scientists" is pretty much the reason the process of peer-review exists and is cherished. Appeal to popularity is not really much of a debate, but we fall back on the ability to replicate results to cover for that. And with global warming, we see the same warming trends from multiple sources, we have the same satellite footage, we see the same melting of glaciers, and the same rising water levels. It is actually elementary Earth science that carbons become trapped in the atmosphere, and causes the solar rays the Earth is reflecting back out into space to be reflected back to the Earth. And we have sufficient evidence of the amount of carbons trapped in our atmosphere, and how much we are dumping into it. The only thing we don't have yet is a formula to determine how much of an increase in temperature is contributed per pound of carbon emissions.
The main stream news doesn't cover many things, and sometimes they face legal challenges in covering certain things. We don't hear of rGBH on mainstream news, even though it's a rather nasty hormone for bovines and humans, the rise in heroine addiction has went largely ignored by mainstream news, but we do hear plenty of things about different viruses that are supposed to be a major issue and are going to make a bunch of people sick and kill off legions of Americans, even though those things never happen. Reliance on mainstream news is a terrible strategy for gaining knowledge and insights about the world. Seriously, a few years back, the mainstream news ran a front-page news story about a kid celebrating his 11th birthday on November 11th, 2011, or whatever age and date for a birthday (such as 10 years old on 10/10/10) that was shared by thousands, if not millions, of other kids and isn't really news.
What you didn't answer is what the Chinese workers would feel if I told them I was no longer going to buy the product they work to produce. You ignored that point completely. I understand why. Do you?
And I can't really take you seriously either. All your "Are you sure I don't know better than you?" posts made with that ridiculous, enigmatic, cos-play hooded figure as your avatar. You seem like an intelligent guy, yet have succumbed to trying to portray yourself as some kind of character or persona.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature
I suppose this is why you didn't think humans cause massive destruction to the environment.
Actually, don't slaughterhouse workers face similar conditions?
But isn't the thread on meat-eating and the significant problem it makes? I don't see any hypocrisy- we are not trying to be saints, but minimize harm.
I'm not trying to cover anything up, in fact I said right from the beginning that the issue of factory farming is one I do not care about. You're the one trying to convince us to feel bad about it.
You tell me to "own up" to being a "coward," but you are the one slinging insults. And what makes human hunting different? Spiders ensnare their prey in a web, cats (large and small) rely on stealth and sudden attacks, wolves rely on speed and numbers, alligators ambush their prey, eagles swoop down from the sky, and some sharks approach their prey from underneath the depths below. We, as humans, conceal ourselves as many other predatory species do, and then we attack. That's pretty much how we've always done it, with the main difference being going from sticks and stones to arrows to guns (even though bows are still widely used).
How am I supposed to know how they would feel? But, nevertheless, it's still on par with "how will the slaves feel if we free them? How will they feel if we end their jobs?" The real question is, why don't we care?
It depends on what country you are looking at. America has more regulations, so our workers here, though having the potential to work in some unnecessarily unsafe work environments, are generally not exposed to the same circumstances Chinese, Indonesian, or other such workers are exposed to.
It is about meat eating, and it came up that going vegan doesn't address the real problems, and these real problems overlap and are a part of the severe exploitation we see in other nations - things that happen because we consume too much so we destroy the environment and exploit people to keep up with demand.
your complete inability to have a rational discussion on this topic with out the emotionally fueled sermons makes it impossible to take you seriously.
Again, here are the documented facts of the effects on the environment due to raising, using and slaughtering animals for human consumption. If ever come across any fact to the contrary, be sure to let us know:
If you notice, that doesn't say meat eating in general, but "diets rich in animal products:" It doesn't vegan/vegetarian, but "plant-based diets." And still it fails to mention that our farming practices, be it for plants or animals, are very wasteful and contribute excessive amounts of carbon emissions and resource consumption. Plant-based diets may be more sustainable, but it's really no different than getting rid of a car that gets 15 MPG to drive one that gets 30 MPG. It's making "less of an impact," but it does absolutely nothing to address the issue of being over dependent and reliant on fossil fuels. That is the core of the problem, and squeezing more miles out of a gallon of gas does nothing to even acknowledge it.