Conservationist wrote:2. No matter what we do, the rest of the world won't, so all of this is pretense

So we should all just embrace the defeatist attitude and eat a Big Mac everyday until the world bursts into flame?

I don't think that is the best we can do.

Conservationist wrote:
The question is what's effective.

The best we can do is irrelevant if it is not effective.

I'm politely ignoring your false dichotomy above.

Cutting your own carbon footprint through vegetarianism is plenty effective.

Very few of us were even trying to argue the idea of trying to convince non-vegetarians to go full veg, but were questioning why they are so bothered by the other people around them engaging in vegetarianism even without being preachy.

By stating you are politely ignoring it you are not ignoring it.

Your same attitude and lack of respect is creeping back into your posts. You have already been warned.

Conservationist wrote:1. Self-righteous vegetarians are even more annoying than the Mac users

Is it not true that self-righteous people are annoying? Why focus on any one group? It just feeds stereotypes.

For example, it's estimated that around 1 to 2% of the USA population is vegetarian (higher for those who consume fish or occasionally eat meat and still claim to be vegetarian). So, on average 1 out of every 100 people are vegetarian.

Some places have more vegetarians than others, but what is true is that those vocal people are more memorable than the non-vocal ones. I bet that most people go through life not realizing how many vegetarians they're interacting with. So instead of saying that self-righteous people are annoying, you paint the entire crowd of vegetarians (at least 3 million in the USA alone) as self-righteous.

Conservationist wrote:2. No matter what we do, the rest of the world won't, so all of this is pretense

A defeatist attitude. Maybe you should just say "Change is hard, I give up."

I'm really amazed by this attitude, especially on Treehugger, what's the point in focusing on any kind of change, including 'green' or conservation?

SgtMaj wrote:

Conservationist wrote:2. No matter what we do, the rest of the world won't, so all of this is pretense

Conservationist has a good point here, and I think it's one that a lot of us miss. By going full vegetarian, you are freeing up enough resources to support 1 or 2 more people. Humans being the breeding machines we are WILL keep breeding until those resources are used up, but in addition to having that food consumed anyway, now you also have the rest of those extra two lives worth of pollution and other resource depletion. So until population growth is voluntarily curbed, I'm not so sure that there really is any benefit to saving those resources.

I'm not sure how that really connects to Conservationist's point, but okay.

While some vegetarians push this as an important aspect of vegetarianism, I find the point to be moot.

In regards to your point SgtMaj, you're treading on a slippery slope. The same could be said of any conservation effort. The resources will be used, so why bother.

SgtMaj wrote:

idahogev wrote:In regards to your point SgtMaj, you're treading on a slippery slope. The same could be said of any conservation effort. The resources will be used, so why bother.

Well not really... there are specific things that enable larger populations, those being conservation or production of food primarily, and secondarily conservation or production of potable water.

Okay, so you don't think there is any benefit to conserve of food and water?

That is an interesting point of view.

Conservationist wrote:
I'm sorry, when were these warnings and for what were they issued? What, specifically?

I received a warning from a moderator who, when I asked what specific post and specific rule was involved, backed down and then deleted their reply to me before I could read it.

I'm unsure what you're trying to say here: that pointing out behavior I disagree with in a polite way is somehow bad?

Please be clearer, or I'm going to think this is a kind of "Court of Star Chamber" where the only infraction is personally disagreeing with those in power.

The official warning was sent to you Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:15 am for Flame Baiting and you were told to read the visitor agreement. A follow up explanation was given in both "forum help" and a thread that was locked in Everything Else, where you had posted your objections.

The follow ups basically explained that you (and other established members in one case) need to show some amount of respect and courtesy to other members or you can go ahead and leave, because we are not going to tolerate rudeness from a few who in turn create hostility in the whole forum.

As the care takers of the forum and people who devote a whole lot of time and energy to keep this place running smoothly, we get very little appreciation. I don't think it is really too much to be treated with at least a small amount of respect. Coming here and trying to belittle the moderators is a bit like walking into someone's house for the first time and putting your muddy boots up on the coffee table.

If you were really ignoring my "false dichotomy" you wouldn't have made any reference to it at all. In mentioning it, you were obviously not politely ignoring it at all. You may think this is clever, but no one else is laughing.

You seem to think you know better than everyone else, but you have yet to prove you will contribute much of anything to this community besides asking repetitive oppositional questions. The more you post here the more I find your claims to be interested in Environmental issues to be disingenuous, it seem you are more interested in simply acting as devil's advocate in every discussion for your own amusement.

You are the minority here, we should not be bending over backwards, holding your hand, wiping your nose, and kissing your backside to defend our point of view. You want to sit back and be the judge of everyone else and question their opinions, facts, and ideas because that is the easy way to attack our positions. You sit and watch a discussion build and then all you need to do is come along and pull a brick out here and there to undermine the entire operation. To me that seems deceptive and cowardly.

There are enough jackasses in the world fanning the flames and driving wedges. If that is the role you are determined to fill here, we don't need it.

Don't be rude. Don't be insulting. Don't rely so heavily on the "oh yeah? Prove it?" line of questioning.
^Is that clear enough?

No one but you enjoys boiling down every discussion to a reflection of a college level mock debate. When someone doesn't stay confined to the structure of formal logic and debate in their statements that does not make their comments irrelevant to the discussion, despite your opinion.

This is a community, not just a place to test your argumentative skills.