rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Why is the Manosphere anti-Vegan?

Why is the Manosphere anti-Vegan?

Quote: (05-24-2016 09:54 AM)tanner Wrote:  

As long as the discussion remains respectful and interesting I may partake a bit more. I find this field interesting but I am not over passionate about it that I am going to go to battle. Right now just being masculine in society is the main battle I am enduring.

So just to say, Veganism is only a small component of a larger movement which consists of Animal Right, Environmental, Fisheries, Climate Change etc, etc activists. The whole sphere does not seem to have a name that I know of, but it is growing at a fast rate. I am not a vegan but overall I think the message of veganism is good and necessary for our times. I do not like however, how the vegan movement has become anti masculine and taken over by radical feminists, gays and other misinformed weird people. The brains behind the vegan movement is usually academic masculine men which is over shadowed.

Many arguments being made by the whole sphere of Earth survival activists which includes Vegans is quite compelling.

The argument that the number one factor above all that is destroying the planet is Animal factory Farming is also quite compelling. I certainly believe it.

The circumference of the earth is only 24,901 miles. Only 1% of earth's water is usable for human consumption. The earth is actually quite vulnerable.

Gotta stop right here, because this is just bizarre. What do you mean, only ~25000 miles? Like that's a quick day trip? And why are you talking about circumference at all? We don't live on a small strip on the equator, we live all over the planet. The earth has about 200,000,000 square miles of surface area.

You keep fixating on the 1% number as if it's meaningful. This is the kind of deceitful communication environmentalists often engage in. They attempt to make things either seem really big, or really small, by ignoring context. For example, when discussing how much ice melted in the 20th century in Greenland, they liked to cite 9 trillion tons so people would think "holy fuck, 9 trillion tons of ice?! That's like, all of it!" In context, it is actually about 0.3% of the total ice mass covering Greenland, and given the measurement error 100 years ago that's probably within the margin of error anyway. But 9 trillion tons sounds so much more impressive and worrisome.

Or let's look at this headline: "'Astonishing' Heat Wave Melts 97 Percent of Greenland Ice Sheet", story here. This was widely reported. But what actually happened? Actually, over a short period melting was observed over 97% of the surface of the ice sheet. The Greenland ice sheet is several kilometers thick! Who gives a fuck if a few inches melted off the top, or even a few dozen meters? Proportionally, I lose more skin off my dick every time I jerk off than Greenland lost in ice sheet thickness. For anyone who is ignorant of how ice sheets and glaciers work: they lose mass during the summer, and gain mass in the winter. You can't take a snapshot in time and have a clue what's going on. You have to look at ice mass over a multi-year period.

I could go on with examples all day, but I have things to do.

As to earth's vulnerability, says who? Anyone who has a basic understanding of geologic history should see that, in fact, the earth is incredibly resilient and well buffered.

Quote:Quote:

It has never had this kind of stress on it like it has today in its history. Over 7 billion individuals and increasing. In 1900, world human population was 1.6 billion. In only 100 years we have had this massive increase which has put a lot more stress on the planet. But the real increase has been in animal factory farming -- which is now estimated around 70 billion.

We really do not know how the earth is going to respond to the new and unique stresses it is enduring. But common sense say that earth resources are finite and there has to be a breaking point somewhere.

That is why the sphere of Earth survival activists which include vegans -- is growing at a fast rate and will likely continue to do so which I think is good. I would say it is important to get beyond the external issues like vegans are fat, arrogant, noisy, unhealthy, and look more into the internal issues. That is where the real debate is going on.

The bold bit is the only thing you said that I agree with. And the people stopping us from properly utilizing the resources to develop new, clean, much more efficient technology are the very people you claim are the earth's best hope.

If humanity continues to waste resources pussyfooting around trying to pull magic unicorn sunbeam farts out of thin air with "green" technology like bird cuisinarts and broilers, we will eventually run out of easy resources and then we will be completely fucked as a race. And that will be directly because environmentalists keep convincing credulous, scientifically ignorant people to support pie in the sky bullshit that anyone with the slightest familiarity with engineering principles can see will never work.

When a movement relies on deceit and the ignorance of its followers to push its agenda, those followers should probably stop and ask why that is.
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)