This is #5 in a continuing series.
The links form here:
-----------------------------------------------
When you dig out and isolate all the bits and pieces that have contributed to the current insanity that has taken over the wheel, you find a recurring pattern underneath.
Something starts randomly, but not necessarily negatively, but overtime is hijacked and morphs into something else, more often than not, dark and agenda driven. This is likely the most common cause of most of the missteps that lead to pain and suffering on earth. Human misinterpretation, misuse, and skewing a thing to fit a mindset or narrative results in absurdity and sometimes war, almost always contributing to the final demise of civilization.
One might conclude the pattern seems diabolically planned.
Using just one example I've done cursory research on the history of veganism, which has morphed from a lifestyle choice based on personal taste, perceived health advantages, religion, and animal rights into what is now a solution for saving the planet. Here, nearing the end of this cycle, plant based meat is gaining a type of acceptable normality, meaning more and more food processors are jumping on the band wagon and might explain why Bill Gates and George Soros are buying up thousands of acres of American farm land.
But I digress.
Fifty years ago I only knew one vegan. She was raised on a farm and had great sympathy for the pigs her dad raised specifically to become food. She was not a crusader or champion for animal rights, she just could not eat the animals she once fed and cared for. And she was not self-righteous about it. It was a personal choice.
Flash forward to forty years ago, veganism became a war cry for animal rights. I once saw a bumper sticker on a car that said it all - Eating Meat Is Murder!.
Now skip ahead to twenty years ago when not eating animals became a war cry for saving the earth from _______________ {fill in the blank - cooling/warming/change}. Apparently raising herds of animals to become food harms the environment because they pass gas... or something.
Here's my question:
If/when the vegan animal rights activists get their way, and no one is allowed to raise animals for the purpose of food for humans, what will we do with the animals? Will they be eliminated? Will that cause the animal rights activists to step in to condemn eliminating animals? Will animals then be allowed to live wild and open range, free to procreate?
Will they still pass gas?
Globally farmers and ranchers are now being required to reduce their herds because of the 'harm' done to the earth by the animals passing gas. Has anyone noticed the huge wild herds of four-legged hooved animals running amuck all over the world and especially in Africa and Alaska?
Do they pass gas?
Here in the Age of the Great Delusion - given logic and reason have been all but outlawed, absurdities just keep coming and get worse with each passing day. Like a snake eating its own tail there is no rationale that produces a good conclusion.
Apparently the 'PLAN' is working.
For Him,
Meema
I can answer a couple of those questions for you.
ReplyDeleteThose vegans wishing to reduce the numbers of domesticated cattle normally answer the question about "What will happen to the animals?" by pointing to the fact that their numbers increase by controlled selective breeding, often using artificial insemination. If people stop breeding them, the numbers will rapidly decline. Domestic cattle would naturally live for around 20 years, so presumably there would be a spiralling in the price of meat as they became scarcer.
As for the herds of wild animals in Africa and Alaska, they are dwarfed by domestic animals. 60% of all mammals currently alive are farmed, and of the remaining 40%, only 4% of the total are wild - the 36% are human mammals.
Ah! Statistics. How easy it is to toss out numbers and percentages as solid rationale and rebuttal. Those tactics do scare some off but not me. Thing is though, while I am fully on the side of live and let live, and a lover of all things natural, I also know that those who are determined to tell everyone else how they must live and be have unquenchable thirst for that power.
DeleteHistorically speaking there has never been a 'grand cause' that was achieved that then was enough. It gets taken over, repurposed and pushed forward. Classic example: Planned Parenthood began as a cause to eliminate black humans. Now it is a cause for decimating humans of all races with eugenics at its base.
And is that where this will end up then? If the climate change warriors are able to outlaw eating meat, will that be the end of their crusade? While nature is doing its thing, reducing animal population, which would take awhile, will the vegan/animal rights/climate change activists then demand that the human population needs to be reduced? Seems like that plan, that was not long ago just a conspiracy theory, is now considered a noble cause.
As usual it's a slow slide downward but hitting bottom is the goal.
The statistics were not intended to scare anyone off. As far as I can see, they are both factually correct and validly applied, and I supplied them in response to questions in your post.
DeleteThey are the type of responses that those seeking entirely to end meat production would give to your points. You may be correct regarding their ulterior motives, but I don't know enough about that to comment. I'm just answering your questions about what we will do with the animals, and about the numbers of wild animals relative to domesticated ones.
And I appreciate that you offered up the statistics that vegan activists would use to argue that their chosen eating habits should be forced on all humanity to 'save the earth'. My response was aimed toward them, not you the messenger.
DeleteAgain, the point I first attempted to make was how this topic is but one of many slow slides when a seemingly innocuous effort morphs into a totalitarian edict. Those predisposed to the desire for power over others are attracted to 'causes' such as this. Did we not recently experience the results of statistics manipulated to force the entire world into lockdowns? Was this a trial run to put in place a goal long in the making?
Societal change that does not evolve naturally can only be implemented by force. Historically speaking this never ends well. To toss out statistics as a rationale for a supposed or vaguely determined outcome is a tactic, not a solution.
Regardless the circumstances, the goal is always the same - subjugation.
Personally I believe we are at war with dark principalities and those who believe they are being noble and fighting to preserve the earth are simply minions who have been duped into serving a much darker agenda.
Darrell Huff published a well done book in 1954 titled How To Lie With Statistics and it is so on point it is still available on Amazon.
Nobody is "tossing out statistics as a rationale for a supposed or vaguely determined outcome", meema. The only statistic given is the percentage of domesticated and non-domesticated animals. This was in response to a question that you yourself asked. It also happens to be a brute fact: true, valid, and sufficiently so as to be approved by Darell Huff or any other statistician. There is no "rationale" there beyond a desire to answer the question you yourself posed in unambiguous terms.
ReplyDeletePerhaps in your war with dark principalities you might be better armed if you were to avoid asking rhetorical questions which have answers that don't help you.
As a general rule I do not trust statistics, in the same way I do not trust political polls. I've done too much research to find out who and what entities are behind printed numbers, figures and percentages in multiple matters that threaten to control us. In almost every instance there is a sinister motive beyond the pronounced reason for the statistics. If the ulterior reason is not control of humanity, it is most likely FOLLOW THE MONEY.
DeleteAs unbiased, intellectual and all knowing as statistics present themselves to be, they never, ever, take into account all the variables in the human condition because humans put those numbers together. I attribute that to the fundamental flaws inherent in the assumption that a small group of humans are all knowing and therefore should be allowed to tell everyone else what to do and how to be.
So, my question has to be - do the statistics, that count the animals both wild and domesticated, prove that animal flatulence is creating climate change? Because I could come up with some statistics that argue that the climate on earth is subject to the changes in the sun. Which seems more likely given the earth was once a snowball?
Of course the statistics don't prove anything at all about animal flatulence. They do show, however, that your rhetorical question about the "huge numbers" of wild animals is not an effective argument. Whether flatulence has an effect on climate or not, the numbers of wild animals is immaterial regarding climate. Whatever the virtues of your overall position (dark principalities, etc.) the questions you ask are easily answered, and not at all supportive of your position as rhetorical devices.
DeleteSo, let me see if I understand where you are coming from. I am not allowed to question any statistics that determine there are more domesticated animals on earth than wild in my search for rationale for vegans being determined that animal flatulence causes climate change?
DeleteOkay, how about this then:
I prefer provable facts over vague and easily manipulated numbers - for example well researched expositions of the back story, that almost every controversial topic has.
It is my observation that those who are determined to 'change the world' are actually highly motivated by the lust for power and money. What amazes me is the blatant hypocrisy that those who refuse to see are willing to overlook. Like, for example, all the climate change gurus flying in Co2 spewing private jets to their gatherings to discuss how the plebs should live.
It is well said that it is easier to fool others than to get them to admit they have been fooled.
In case you are also interested in facts as well as statistics:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-money-trail/5690209
"So, let me see if I understand where you are coming from. I am not allowed to question any statistics that determine there are more domesticated animals on earth than wild in my search for rationale for vegans being determined that animal flatulence causes climate change?"
DeleteOf course you are allowed to question them. I've given you a set of figures. If you have alternative figures which you think are more in line with reality, then feel free to provide them, along with an explanation of why they are more accurate. Now, you might claim that you are not at all interested in the relative numbers of domesticated animals, that it has no bearing on the point you made in your original post. But if that's the case, why pose a rhetorical question about "the huge wild herds of four-legged hooved animals running amuck all over the world and especially in Africa and Alaska"? Your point appeared to be that with the huge herds of wild animals still in existence, eliminating the domesticated ones would make no difference, even by the logic of those who blame bovine flatulence for global warming. But that argument fails if the wild animal numbers are small, relative to domesticated. If (and, note, only if!) your opponents are right to blame bovine flatulence for global warming, then their point stands.
You say: "It is my observation that those who are determined to 'change the world' are actually highly motivated by the lust for power and money. What amazes me is the blatant hypocrisy that those who refuse to see are willing to overlook. Like, for example, all the climate change gurus flying in Co2 spewing private jets to their gatherings to discuss how the plebs should live."
All that may well be true. I agree with it, in fact. But it has zero bearing on the number of wild animals relative to those who are domesticated. That number is a brute fact, unchanged by whether climate change advocates are hypocritical, satanic, or saintly. It's another issue. People's motives don't make facts go away.
It would be interesting to know why you think that the claims made in the paper that you link to are facts, whereas the relative numbers of wild and domesticated animals is not a fact.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. If I cannot use the argument that the statistics (the source of which I do not know) of how many wild animals vs domestic there are on the globe does not in any way prove animal flatulence causes climate change, then those who believe the statistics and, as you pointed out, use them to back their claim, cannot either.
DeleteApparently you are satisfied that the statistics you provided are irrefutable and therefore are 'fact'. I, on the other hand, accept that the 'facts' presented in the link, are indeed researchable facts that underscore my original premise that there is indeed a dark agenda underneath all the pseudo virtuous claptrap, smokescreen of Climate Change.
It seems your argument is less about the topic and more about disabling mine - which I think is called a straw man tactic. Thing is you sort of missed my bigger point, which is: what starts out as benign is often hijacked and used for nefarious purpose.
"I'm not exactly sure what your point is. If I cannot use the argument that the statistics (the source of which I do not know) of how many wild animals vs domestic there are on the globe does not in any way prove animal flatulence causes climate change, then those who believe the statistics and, as you pointed out, use them to back their claim, cannot either."
ReplyDeleteThe point is this. You wanted to use the "huge herds" of wild animals to disprove the argument of those who want to ban domestic meat production. Getting rid of flatulent domestic animals would have no effect because we would still have all the flatulent wild ones. But there are no huge herds of wild animals, at least in relative terms. Your argument therefore fails.
You go on to say: "Apparently you are satisfied that the statistics you provided are irrefutable and therefore are 'fact'. I, on the other hand, accept that the 'facts' presented in the link, are indeed researchable facts that underscore my original premise that there is indeed a dark agenda underneath all the pseudo virtuous claptrap, smokescreen of Climate Change."
I don't think that the fact that wild animals being a relatively small minority is at all irrefutable. I'm happy to see your refutation, if you have one. Like the facts presented in the link, it is researchable.
"It seems your argument is less about the topic and more about disabling mine - which I think is called a straw man tactic."
No, it's about showing how your arguments are poor, due to the falsehood of some of their premises. That's not a "straw man", as I have adequately understood, represented and addressed the point regarding wild animals; and about what vegans would say regarding the animals left after people stop eating them.
"Thing is you sort of missed my bigger point, which is: what starts out as benign is often hijacked and used for nefarious purpose."
I wouldn't disagree with that at all. I merely showed how your two rhetorical questions are easily answered, which suggests you might try something more effective in making your bigger point. Especially as you reference "logic" in the title of this post.
I do so appreciate that you are deeply concerned that I should refine my argument that the original vegan cause has been converted to a war cry for changing how humans eat to save the earth. I am open to your suggestions now - how would you argue the point I seek to make?
ReplyDeleteI would headline the difference between ethical veganism which is based on the idea of animal rights, and "ecological veganism", which is based on the desire to make some kind of change to mitigate or avoid climate change. The first is a kind of subjective moral judgement which cannot be proven wrong; but conversely it cannot be proven right, so people cannot be blamed and shamed for not falling into line. The second type of veganism can be represented as a kind of duty by those who wish to control us. "Unless you do as I say, you will be killing me and other innocents!"
ReplyDeleteAnd you could also refer to technical fixes which allow the same or increased numbers of cattle, while reducing methane.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190806-how-vaccines-could-fix-our-problem-with-cow-emissions
I would also highlight the hypocrisy of those people more. In itself it is telling. The veganism may be an effective form of virtue-signalling, but how many of them actually make other radical changes in their lifestyles, like giving up motorised transport, plastics, and power derived from fossil fuels?
DeleteYour perspective is well stated and yet still misses my point, which is, those who have pushed the narrative that methane is causing climate change are the problem. Why someone chooses to be vegan is not my business. That veganism has been usurped to further a dark agenda is where my head is. That the narrative has been planted and then perpetuated by credentialed agencies says to me that humans are too easily manipulated by the illusion of intelligence. Welcome to the Matrix.
There is a dark agenda and it has been in play for decades if not centuries. The top visible layer can be seen by following the money but the hidden layer was formed by serious evil with nefarious intent.
As for the issue of plastic destroying our planet I know the unseen layer to that too. Most people do not know that the Don't Be A Litterbug campaign was initiated in the 80s by a cartel of multimillion dollar companies, including Coca-Cola, because they could see that plastic waste was going to become a problem. So they shifted the onus onto the end user instead of being more interested in conservative plastic use than their profits.
Anyone who believes that the US is on top of the 'recycle' effort have no idea that most of our plastic waste is put in shipping containers and sent to Asia where it is sorted for usable remains and the rest ends up in dumps, streams and eventually the ocean.
As for the global warming/cooling/climate change issue - veganism was just a hook.
https://geopolitics.co/2021/04/20/club-of-rome-the-origin-of-climate-and-population-alarmism/
"Your perspective is well stated and yet still misses my point, which is, those who have pushed the narrative that methane is causing climate change are the problem."
ReplyDeleteYes, I can see what your point is. But asking what vegans think will happen to all the animals when people stop eating them, and will wild animals stop producing methane, means that you yourself have missed the point. Both of those rhetorical questions are easily and truthfully answered by those you want to criticise. "What will happen to all the animals?" - they will just become scarcer and die out. "What about all the methane from wild animals?" - it is proportionately negligible. Rhetorical questions should be designed to be unanswerable, or causing your opponent to re-evaluate their position. These don't. They are a poor form of argument, no matter how repetitive you are with regard to dark agendas, principalities, and the like. You are like a person who swears destruction upon a dark and reviled enemy, takes careful aim with a fearsome-looking gun, pulls the trigger...and squirts them with tepid water.
Well, it's a good thing no one pays any attention to what I say. Given I've been speaking out about these topics for more than ten years in this blog and more than twenty years before that in other publications.
DeleteI am just talking to myself, mostly. No harm no foul. :-)
But others, who have better known voices, can speak and hopefully be heard.
Deletehttps://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fclimate-change-dictates-are-self-destructive-also-part-bigger-agenda