|
|
 Tough Patooty
Posts: 2615
  
Location: Sperry, OK | TXBO - 2013-11-26 11:47 AM Lisantwist - 2013-11-26 10:12 AM TXBO - 2013-11-21 4:41 PM I'm just wondering..... Do cattle create more greenhouse gases by standing in a field or sitting on a plate?
Are those stuffed mushrooms, Doc? Um, that was my first thought... if you kill them all to eat them, won't there be less gas emitted?!?!
I guess PETA is more worried about the welfare of the animals than us humans.. Cows emmitting methane and destroying our ozone is cruel to us humans. But they would rather us not kill them for food (as they were put here on earth for), because it is cruel to them... maybe we should start our own group: Humans Against Irrational Retards (HAIR) or something along those lines! | |
| | |
 Undercover Amish Mafia Member
Posts: 9991
 
Location: Kansas | HotbearLVR - 2013-11-21 5:48 PM .....So, I decided to eat boiled eggplant and alfalfa sprouts tonight for dinner, just to do my part.
.
.
.
.
........nah, screw it.
Can I come to your house tonight? That looks delicious!!! | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| ACEINTHEHOLE - 2013-11-26 12:02 PM TXBO - 2013-11-26 11:47 AM Lisantwist - 2013-11-26 10:12 AM TXBO - 2013-11-21 4:41 PM I'm just wondering..... Do cattle create more greenhouse gases by standing in a field or sitting on a plate?
Are those stuffed mushrooms, Doc? Um, that was my first thought... if you kill them all to eat them, won't there be less gas emitted?!?!
I believe like you do. The animals were put here for our use. We are to have dominion over them and be stewards of the land. PETA wants to remove humans from the natural food chain. When you do that, you destroy the habitat and everything dies. | |
| | |
Tough Patooty
Posts: 2615
Location: Sperry, OK | TXBO - 2013-11-26 12:13 PM ACEINTHEHOLE - 2013-11-26 12:02 PM TXBO - 2013-11-26 11:47 AM Lisantwist - 2013-11-26 10:12 AM TXBO - 2013-11-21 4:41 PM I'm just wondering..... Do cattle create more greenhouse gases by standing in a field or sitting on a plate?
Are those stuffed mushrooms, Doc? Um, that was my first thought... if you kill them all to eat them, won't there be less gas emitted?!?!
Here Here!!  | |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | As TXBO suggested, liberal logic is puzzling, to say the least.
Take smoking for example. Tobacco tax generates a lot of revenues and much of that is said to be earmarked for children's health. In other words, the tobacco tax generates much needed revenues for social programs, and healthcare. Ergo, it only stands to reason that the more people smoke, the more money for government, yet their stated reason is to have the tax as a disincentive for smokers. The reality is they WANT people to smoke. Besides, they need someone to vilify.
In the case of cow farts, then logic says they would impose a tax on cow farts as a disincentive....or so they would say. Once those cow fart dollars start rolling in, they will probably want more cow farts so they can generate more cow fart revenue. If, however, they succeed in their stated mission of lowering cow fart emissions (and thus lower methane), then numbers of cows will decline.....and farts will decline, and I will freeze my ass off even more than I am right now. Once cow numbers decline, less beef will be consumed, and more cabbage and beans will be consumed. More people will fart larger amounts of methane. That will lead to a natural extension of the fart tax on humans, so people will start investing in gas-ex. That will lead to a gas ex tax, and so forth and so on..... | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line