How many times am I supposed to repeat this? I feel like we're going in circles here.
Yes, I've agreed to copy pasting some of the data in my previous reply and I've also stated my reason for it, which is that you didn't bother going through the links I provided.
And if you’re talking about my article, I absolutely did not agree to copy pasting half of the content. The only thing I "copy pasted" was a quote about morality which I’ve marked as an external quote in the Medium editor. Like I said, a serious accusation to make.
Yes, I did go through the research you sent. Although the global GHG percentage is lesser than that of the US, it's still a number that can be cut down on. Doesn't change the fact that my diet is still more environmentally friendly than someone who consumes chicken, eggs and fish as well, therefore my stance of my vegetarian diet being better for the environment still holds good. Furthermore, the data clearly states that majority of the GHG emissions from the animal industry come from cattle which includes those raised for milk, so adopting a more plant based diet is also significantly decreasing my overall carbon footprint.
I've only sent you two research articles from one UK based university which is Oxford. What other UK based universities are did I reference? At this point, I'm not sure whether you're referring to the health or the environmental aspect of it but yes, I've cross checked my information with other sources. Which part are you questioning? We've already established that chicken, eggs and fish (which I've cut out) and diary (which I'm cutting down) are reducing my impact on the environment. If you're questioning the health aspect of it, I'd be happy to provide you with more data. Here you go-
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26707634/
Shows that the long term health of vegetarians is good and links vegetarian diets to lesser risks of cancer, diabetes, diverticular disease and eye cataract.
The analogy you made makes little to no sense. The authors do not reflect the views of Penguin as a publishing house in the books they release through them. Now let's say that a member of Penguin wants to publish a book about the organization's stance on an important issue. In such a case, the book would have to go through a good amount of internal screening before being put out into the world.
Just because you've memorized a phrase from Ed's Ted talk, it doesn't mean that you're more familiar with his work. The meat industry won't be "banished" in one day, that's not how the world works. As more and more people change their diets, a demand for alternatives will be created which will in turn create opportunities for employment elsewhere.
There are different areas of life one can focus on in order to cut down on their environmental impact. I'm advocating vegetarianism as a means of cutting down the damage one does to the environment through their diet. How does that make me a hypocrite? If you are truly concerned about the environment, by all means, go ahead and advocate for carpooling, using public transport and limiting the number of electronic devices one owns. I'm not going to stop you.
Previously, you said that I was immature about vegetarianism because of my moral standpoint, now you've completely jumped over my moral argument and are claiming that I'm immature because of my environmental standpoint. Your argument is all over the place man. And here I was thinking you'd be a little more interested in my moral argument, especially since you specifically insisted on hearing it.
You asked me not to talk about my personal experiences regarding the health aspect, yet you went ahead and did exactly that. Maybe practice what you preach from next time?
