Going vegan to save the planet

[Resnic]

I disagree, of course.

As you note, the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Obviously, that limits sex. But it is acceptable for married couples to have sex purely for pleasure. What might be the difference between sex purely for pleasure inside and outside of marriage? Of course, when the Bible was written, there were no effective birth control methods, but now there are several. Did God not know that would come about?

Why would godless and hedonistic people pay any attention to God's wishes and commandments? Aside from that, your comment about sluts is just circular. And it's entirely possible for people to feel that sex can and should be enjoyed freely but have strong morals and values on other topics. Many devout Christians have committed murder. Morality is a complex subject, not controlled by a single knob.

At the time, most of the planet's human population were not Christians. Why did he kill only the people (including the innocent) in Sodom and Gomorrah? Why didn't he kill everyone on Earth but the faithful? Recent research has found that Sodom and Gomorrah were actually struck by a meteor and destroyed by "fire from the sky". The story was simply created to take advantage of the opportunity just as Noah's flood was inspired by the Mediterranean overflowing at what would become the Bosporus Straits into the basin that became the Black Sea.


That would seem to be a design failure, wouldn't it? Are selfishness and depravity acceptable among the married?

You realize that's a strong argument for evolution.

Many sins are not driven by desire but by anger and fear

What about the large numbers of people on Earth, raised in other religions and everyone before the rise of Judaism, who had never heard of your god's commandments about sex and marriage? Was ignorance a valid excuse?

It is not that difficult to keep yourself in check if you actually have some reason to do so. The strongest human motivation is the avoidance of pain/death. If you think having sex with a willing partner will earn you a punch in the nose, you will not have that much trouble keeping your pants on. I find it interesting that you take this solely from the male perspective. How much willpower does it take for women to not go straddle every dude with a bulge? Does the required willpower set the magnitude of the sin?

I smoked for many years. Like many smokers, I tried to quit dozens of times. I knew all along that all that was required was sufficient motivation but I didn't know how to create it. Sixteen years ago I was diagnosed with a non-Hodgkins lymphoma in my throat. The doc told me that it wasn't from smoking; that they didn't know what actually caused it. But, particularly being in my throat, it was good enough for me. I quit that moment and haven't had a single cigarette since. Unlike sex, the craving lasted about a year before vanishing. I am in my 70s now and I still crave sex. The two are not similar. Smoking is a chemical addiction. Craving sex is built into your DNA for the simple reason that genetic variants that don't crave sex go extinct. For the rest of this planet's life forms, the more effort you put into having sex, the better your chances of reproductive success.

Well you wasted a lot of time there because you ignored my primary message and thought and circumvented it to spin things your way in order to lecture me.

Like saying smoking and sex aren't the same thing while spinning me some yarn about you quitting smoking which was irrelevant. I didn't say sex and smoking was the same thing, I said they require willpower to resist the urge, that's all I said. Everything else you invented was just so you could speak to me like you're a highschool kid proud of himself for wowing a bunch of middle schoolers with a pedestrian interpretation of catcher in the rye to get a cheap sense of self satisfaction.

Reply if you wish but I won't read it, youve shown me you're incapable of engagement of conversation. Maybe it will be different next time we cross paths in another topic

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Growing crops can actually help IF it produces more photosynthetic mass than whatever existed there before. It is ranching livestock that causes the problem. Here is an explanation from Google AI

Raising livestock for food increases greenhouse gases in a few ways:

• Methane from digestion
  Ruminant animals like cows, sheep, and goats produce methane when they digest food through a process called "enteric fermentation". This methane is released into the atmosphere through burps and flatulence. A single cow can belch around 220 pounds of methane per year. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that's 28 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
  
  
  
  
• Nitrous oxide from manure and fertilizers
  Nitrous oxide is another powerful greenhouse gas that's emitted from manure and chemical fertilizers used on crops for cattle feed. Manure is often stored in open lagoons that can overflow or leak, releasing harmful substances like bacteria, antibiotics, pesticides, and heavy metals into the environment.
  
  
  
  
• Land-use change
  Meat production often requires large grasslands, which are often created by cutting down trees. This releases carbon dioxide that was previously stored in the forests.
  
  
  
  
• Shrimp farms
  Shrimp farms are often built on coastal land that was previously covered by mangrove forests. These forests absorb large amounts of carbon, and when they're cut down to create shrimp farms, the stored carbon is released into the atmosphere.

Do you have any idea how large the bison herds were? No global warming.

 

[ReinyDays]

Land-use change
Meat production often requires large grasslands, which are often created by cutting down trees. This releases carbon dioxide that was previously stored in the forests.

Plants take in CO2 and produce food, which animals eat and produce CO2 ... just not entirely ... 1.2 trillion pounds of human protoplasma all came from plants, again as much bovine protoplasma ... we either bury the remains or grind the carcasses up for dog food ... I don't have numbers ... alas ... but my guts say farmers are net zero or better in the carbon budget ... they're better off selling the food than respirating it ...

Another critical part of the climate around large tracts of forestlands is how water is transpired back into the atmosphere to be rained out again downwind within the forest ... we learned this in the Sahel fifty years ago, remember the famines? ... we replanted the forests and the rains returned ...

 

[Crick]

Plants take in CO2 and produce food, which animals eat and produce CO2 ... just not entirely ... 1.2 trillion pounds of human protoplasma all came from plants, again as much bovine protoplasma ... we either bury the remains or grind the carcasses up for dog food ... I don't have numbers ... alas ... but my guts say farmers are net zero or better in the carbon budget ... they're better off selling the food than respirating it ...

Another critical part of the climate around large tracts of forestlands is how water is transpired back into the atmosphere to be rained out again downwind within the forest ... we learned this in the Sahel fifty years ago, remember the famines? ... we replanted the forests and the rains returned ...

If you "don't have the numbers", where'd "1.2 trillion pounds of human protoplasm" come from

 

[justoffal]

MSN

Story by Andrea Scripps News
Substituting 50% of our animal-based foods with plant-based options could cut greenhouse gas emissions from farming by 31% by 2050 and help protect forests and natural land, a new study suggests.

According to a study published in Nature Communications, despite accounting for less than 20% of the global food energy supply, producing animal-based foods like meat, chicken, pork, and milk consumes extensive resources, leading to significant greenhouse gas emissions and harm to biodiversity

"Plant-based meats are not just a novel food product but a critical opportunity for achieving food security and climate goals while also achieving health and biodiversity objectives worldwide," said the study’s co-author, Eva Wollenberg, a social scientist at the University of Vermont. "Yet, such transitions are challenging and require a range of technological innovations and policy interventions."

Comment:
The Crazy Climate Change Doomsday Cult will not leave other people alone.
They want to force other people to be vegans to save the planet from the imaginary climate change boogeyman.
People need meat because it provides essential amino acids.

Animals that digest plants exclusively generate many times more methane in the digestion process than meat eaters do.