I’d like to again talk about cattle and my post yesterday, just so you know where I stand

20 Jul

Due to the totally unexpected and overwhelming response to yesterday’s blog, which was, in fact, just a summary of this, I’d like to take this opportunity to explain some of my opinions about the whole cattle issue. I’ve got a pretty firm stance on the whole thing, but, I also like to think I’m pretty open to other ideas and concepts. I’m not going to be the person who stands up and judges others for their personal decisions to eat or to not eat meat.

Here at questionable rationale, I’m all about choices, which might account for how shocked I was by some of the rude comments that were posted in response to my two-paragraph summary yesterday, most of which I decided not to publish. I have no issue with people disagreeing with me, in fact I welcome it, as I believe all people should be free to have their own beliefs and opinions, as I have mine; however, I see no point whatsoever in including comments that are written in unintelligible English and all caps, that attempt to lessen me as a person because of what I believe, or that promise to leave the largest footprint possible on this Earth, just to spite everyone who gives a damn about it. Comments such as those do little to stimulate conversation and discussion; therefore, they have been eliminated.

Just so we all know where I stand on this whole thing, please allow me to state my opinions about cattle, and, more importantly, the environment.

  • I, in mentioning the amount of emissions created by America’s dependence on beef, am in no way insinuating that this issue should be at the top of our “To Fix” list. Surely child warfare, the rape of women and children, and extreme poverty are bigger problems than how much energy goes into the production of one pound of beef. My point, in mentioning this article, is that this is something that’s easy to fix. Switching your beef consumption to the organic option, which, as the article states, ultimately generates fewer emissions and uses less energy, is easy, whereas solving the problem of poverty is a large scale problem that will require much greater amounts of effort from all members of human society.
  • Whether or not you agree with me that the warming of Earth is largely a result of the human footprint by way of pollution and consumption, does it really matter? What’s the harm is being better to the Earth? Will it hurt you to use fewer plastic bags, use public transportation, turn off lights when you leave a room, or eat organic food, which, in my humble opinion, tastes better anyway? Perhaps the Earth is going through a natural warming cycle that would happen with or without our vast human population, but, in the end, who cares what’s causing it? Shouldn’t we try to be good to the planet that is supposed to sustain us just because? Shouldn’t we, as humans, as the alleged elite top tier of the food chain, use our intelligence and free-will to make our living space (the Earth) clean and healthy? Do we really need a reason to be good to the Earth?
  • To the people that responded by saying that they don’t care about what’s happening to the Earth because they won’t be alive to see it anyway, I say, what about the children? I know that’s clichĂ©, I know it’s the obvious thing to say, but how can someone declare all life after this generation unimportant merely because we won’t be around to see it? I don’t understand that line of thinking, and please, if anyone does truly believe that, I would love to hear more about why. As I see it, it’s our duty to do all we can to ensure that our children, and our children’s children, can survive on this planet and live long, healthy lives. If a great deal of scientists are wrong and instead of a global warming problem prompted by the human footprint, we’re headed toward an inevitable ice age anyway, wouldn’t you like to know that you did everything you could to try and make tomorrow as pleasant as possible?
  • There were a lot of comments about money and about how concern over global warming is largely a way to boost political ideas and politician paychecks. If I choose not to use plastic bags at the grocery store, that’s not lining anyone’s pockets. Furthermore, turning off the lights in rooms I’m not using, unplugging my toaster oven when it’s not in use to cut down on wasted electricity, or walking four blocks to the grocery store instead of driving is not about me feeding into “BS” as one reader put it, but I’m instead merely doing something that I believe will help save energy. There’s no harm in that, and there’s also no profit in that for anyone, except for me and the Earth.

Lastly, I want to say thank you to all who did leave thought-provoking comments, both that agree and disagree with the article I wrote about yesterday. I appreciate and enjoy different ideas and theories for why things are the way they are, and I most certainly enjoy healthy, respectful discussion.

Advertisements

One Response to “I’d like to again talk about cattle and my post yesterday, just so you know where I stand”

  1. titus2woman July 21, 2007 at 6:02 AM #

    Your second point hits the nail on the head for me! and I’m really sorry that you were subjected to such rudeness. (((((HUGS))))) sandi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: