(10-02-2014, 09:54 PM)Parsons Wrote:(10-02-2014, 08:41 PM)Diana Wrote:(10-02-2014, 06:55 PM)Parsons Wrote: I was not lashing out at you by calling your behavior bigoted and my intent was to use the dictionary definition of the word bigot which was not intended to be offensive.
That doesn't scan. Why not just take responsibility for the jab?
I looked up the dictionary definition of the word and it turned out to perfectly fit the situation. You can believe what you want, but I did not intend it as a jab.
I admit it's hard to swallow that you wouldn't realize calling someone a bigot would be a jab.
(10-02-2014, 06:55 PM)Parsons Wrote: That is the only semi-valid point that does not have a counterpoint in this entire argument. That is what may ultimately get me to at least reduce the consumption of meat (which I already have done over the past few years). The only thing I can say about that is the plants are ultimately feeding on decaying animal matter as well (amongst other things), so the whole concept of 'eating meat means more plants consumed' could be considered to be circular logic due to the whole circle of life.
In this context, plants feeding on decaying animal matter has nothing to do with how much life an individual takes for sustenance. How much life you take for food is a choice. All things here die, and so far that's not a choice I'm aware of, so decaying animal matter in nature is not something I can choose or not choose. I can choose, however, how much life I take for food.
And that's great that you have reduced your meat consumption.
(10-02-2014, 10:08 PM)Monica Wrote: Gosh, everyone keeps ignoring this:
Watch both videos.
Standard Practice (1 minute)
Garden Harvest (1 minute)
Compare.
I, for one, would like to hear some responses to this, either way.