Save the World! Eat meat....or not...or something.Oh, for the love of all that's holy. . . .
We now have the worthy Lord Stern, sternly telling us that we must become vegan for the good of the planet. Oooookaay... Would you greenies PLEASE get your stories straight?
While his nobleness is instructing us to go vegan for Gaia, wasn't it just a couple of days ago that some other tree-hugging enviro-whackjob was telling us to get pets we can eat, because Rover's worse than a Range Rover?
Yep. That they were.
It's hardly pushing a consistent message, is it? If both articles are true, then eating meat is both good and bad for the planet. Personally, given that you lot are clearly so utterly addled from protein deficiency you can't make any sense, I'll play it safe and carry on eating bacon sandwiches and the odd steak, thanks.
His Lordship neatly links eating meat with drink-driving. Bonus points for the emotive linking of issues, there, I thought. So, by that logic, me eating a hamburger is roughly equivalent to downing ten pints then mowing down a bus-stop's worth of pensioners? If I may hazard a guess, I'd say that the veggies Lord Stern chows down on contain rather too much THC for rational thought.
And that, dear Reader, is the problem with the environmental debate.
This debate isn't about rational science, because rational scientists are divided about causes, effects and solutions to a problem that may or may not be happening. Instead, it's become a politcal toy, a divisive issue that is more about dogma than dogs, more credo than carbon.
Lord Stern is a vegetarian, and therefore by definition mad. So he uses the climate question to further his own agenda of having the entire population subsist solely on cabbage. Robert and Brenda Vale simply don't like pets - perhaps their parents wouldn't let them have a gerbil, or something - so they use the climate question to further their own dislike of animal ownership.
Well, I've been doing my own research.
I have discovered that environmental campaigners produce gaseous emissions in proportions far greater than the average beef cow. In fact, an analysis of Lord Stern shows that he alone produces more damaging wind than the entire Virgin fleet of 747s. So, really, there's only one solution.
I am calling for environmental campaigners to become as socially-unacceptable as wife-beaters (there, do you see how easy the emotive link is?). And I think the best way to solve all the crises of the planet is to kill and eat anyone who bleats on about lowering carbon emissions, getting rid of airliners, or taxing whatever it is they don't agree with in the name of the environment.
In a stroke, we'd reduce the amount of noxious, damaging hot air being pumped into the atmosphere. We'd save the forests, because we'd get rid of the reams of paper spouting pointless, scienceless opinions about 'climate change'. We'd even make an impact into the food crisis, because getting rid of this lot would not only provide meat, but allow us all to eat the salad they'd have as a main course as a side to our sirloin.
And most importantly, it would ensure that they shut the fuck up.
I commend the idea to the House.
We now have the worthy Lord Stern, sternly telling us that we must become vegan for the good of the planet. Oooookaay... Would you greenies PLEASE get your stories straight?
While his nobleness is instructing us to go vegan for Gaia, wasn't it just a couple of days ago that some other tree-hugging enviro-whackjob was telling us to get pets we can eat, because Rover's worse than a Range Rover?
Yep. That they were.
It's hardly pushing a consistent message, is it? If both articles are true, then eating meat is both good and bad for the planet. Personally, given that you lot are clearly so utterly addled from protein deficiency you can't make any sense, I'll play it safe and carry on eating bacon sandwiches and the odd steak, thanks.
His Lordship neatly links eating meat with drink-driving. Bonus points for the emotive linking of issues, there, I thought. So, by that logic, me eating a hamburger is roughly equivalent to downing ten pints then mowing down a bus-stop's worth of pensioners? If I may hazard a guess, I'd say that the veggies Lord Stern chows down on contain rather too much THC for rational thought.
And that, dear Reader, is the problem with the environmental debate.
This debate isn't about rational science, because rational scientists are divided about causes, effects and solutions to a problem that may or may not be happening. Instead, it's become a politcal toy, a divisive issue that is more about dogma than dogs, more credo than carbon.
Lord Stern is a vegetarian, and therefore by definition mad. So he uses the climate question to further his own agenda of having the entire population subsist solely on cabbage. Robert and Brenda Vale simply don't like pets - perhaps their parents wouldn't let them have a gerbil, or something - so they use the climate question to further their own dislike of animal ownership.
Well, I've been doing my own research.
I have discovered that environmental campaigners produce gaseous emissions in proportions far greater than the average beef cow. In fact, an analysis of Lord Stern shows that he alone produces more damaging wind than the entire Virgin fleet of 747s. So, really, there's only one solution.
I am calling for environmental campaigners to become as socially-unacceptable as wife-beaters (there, do you see how easy the emotive link is?). And I think the best way to solve all the crises of the planet is to kill and eat anyone who bleats on about lowering carbon emissions, getting rid of airliners, or taxing whatever it is they don't agree with in the name of the environment.
In a stroke, we'd reduce the amount of noxious, damaging hot air being pumped into the atmosphere. We'd save the forests, because we'd get rid of the reams of paper spouting pointless, scienceless opinions about 'climate change'. We'd even make an impact into the food crisis, because getting rid of this lot would not only provide meat, but allow us all to eat the salad they'd have as a main course as a side to our sirloin.
And most importantly, it would ensure that they shut the fuck up.
I commend the idea to the House.
5 comments:
I second that (e)motion!
Perhaps the vegetable people will get the idea if we routinely point out that some of us are going to eat meat no matter what, and that we prefer to eat herbivores.
I've wondered about opening a vegetarian restaurant. I'd keep them out the back and customers could pick out the one they wanted, which would then be killed and cooked.
Halal or kosher? Yes, we can do that, sir. Would you like fries?
"Lord Stern is a vegetarian, and therefore by definition mad. "
PLEASE tell me there's medical proof for that?
Actually Stern isn't a strict vegetarian according to the Times piece. Therefore he is merely a hypocrite.
They came for the environmentalists but I did not speak up for them...I organised a street party instead.
w.v. = mingly. I kid you not.
Post a Comment