Dog lovers damage the planet - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15060918
Pants-of-dog wrote:The “no pets” side is doomed to failure.


My position isn't "no pets" as I've stated. My problem was that it seemed like a lot of the "pet defenders" seem to downplay/deny that there is in fact a significant carbon footprint (and general plastic waste problem) associated with pet ownership. If pofoers can acknowledge that undeniable fact, I'm satisfied.
#15060921
Rancid wrote:My position isn't "no pets" as I've stated. My problem was that it seemed like a lot of the "pet defenders" seem to downplay/deny that there is in fact a significant carbon footprint (and general plastic waste problem) associated with pet ownership. If pofoers can acknowledge that undeniable fact, I'm satisfied.

The poo bags we use (to collect dog waste as we should) are biodegradable. The steel for the canned food food goes in the recycle bin as do the paper bags the dry comes in.

What do think we are doing that messes up the planet? Be direct and specific if you don't mind.
#15060923
Besoeker2 wrote: Be direct and specific if you don't mind.

I've been doing just that. Seems like you are too dense to understand anything.

Everything you mentioned has a NON-ZERO impact. Especially the meat in that tin of food. What is there not to understand here?

Yes, even the production and shipment of that biodegradable bag has a non-zero footprint as well.

This is what I mean by the denial.

Can you at least acknowledge that your pet ownership has a non-zero carbon footprint? That's all I'm asking for from you guys.
#15060927
Rancid wrote:I've been doing just that. Seems like you are too dense to understand anything.

Everything you mentioned has a NON-ZERO impact.

So you resort to personal insults. Great way to advance a discussion and says more about you than me.

Do you drive a car? Use electricity? Or water? Use or consume agricultural produce?
#15060938
Besoeker2 wrote:So you resort to personal insults.

It's not an insult, you are dense.

Besoeker2 wrote:Do you drive a car? Use electricity? Or water? Use or consume agricultural produce?

Do you? What non-point are you making? You're all over the place.

Do you agree or disagree that having a pet creates a non-zero amount of waste/pollution/emissions/etc? It's a really fucking simple question. If you cannot understand this question, how are you not dense? (the last question is rhetorical, the first is not)
#15060943
Finfinder wrote:I think its fitting for anti pet owners to qualify their carbon footprint before they voice their concerns about pet owners.


I would only agree to this statement if we are comparing carbon footprints of people. That is not what I'm doing. Thus, this is irrelevant.

What I am asking is just for he acknowledgement that owning a pet has a non-zero footprint. Irrespective of whatever the fuck all else any person does outside of owning their pet. Seems like a lot of you just don't know how to think.

All of his dancing around with pseudo-logic and strawmen is fucking weird and non-sensical.

Further, I'm not anti-pet, generally speaking.

This is as fucking weird someone that drives pick-truck/prius/whatever saying "well, I recycle and compost, so it's all good." Well, it's certainly nice that this person recycles and composts, but it doesn't change the fact the pickup truck/prius/whatever has emissions associated with it.
#15060946
Rancid wrote:I would only agree to this statement if we are comparing carbon footprints of people. That is not what I'm doing. Thus, this is irrelevant.

What I am asking is just for he acknowledgement that owning a pet has a non-zero footprint. Irrespective of whatever the fuck all else any person does outside of owning their pet. Seems like a lot of you just don't know how to think.

All of his dancing around with pseudo-logic and strawmen is fucking weird and non-sensical.

Further, I'm not anti-pet, generally speaking.

This is as fucking weird someone that drives pick-truck/prius/whatever saying "well, I recycle and compost, so it's all good." Well, it's certainly nice that this person recycles and composts, but it doesn't change the fact the pickup truck/prius/whatever has emissions associated with it.


Why do you need to emasculate people? I think it's rhetorical that pet owners have some type of carbon footprint. People are not dancing around answering, they questioning why they are being singled out especially when you are asking them to admit something about their personal life when you not offering anything about yours. What is the point of it? I think its interesting this article from 2014 has found/trolled a wide group of people that are not defined by politics and have common ground in their love of pets. Politicians should jump on that "they want to take your pets away from you".

I believe you when you say you are not anti pet, however wouldn't it be logical for people to question non pet owners supporting causes/ ideas like this?
#15060948
Rancid wrote:Do you? What non-point are you making? You're all over the place.

It's a very simple - maybe too simple. We all do things that arguably damage the planet. You included. So why try to insult me over it?

A little background for you. My field of work was industrial power electronics. Design, manufacture, installation and commissioning. Let's take just one application. Water pumping. One of the main costs is the energy used for pumping and transportation. So, energy efficiency is a key factor. A contract could be won or lost over 0.5% difference in system efficiency.

These were not claims. They had to be proven in string tests. You claimed 95.8% efficiency, you had to prove it. We did.
And the improvements in efficiency directly reduced emitted pollutants. By huge amounts given the number of systems we did.

Yet you have the temerity to call me dense.
Last edited by Besoeker2 on 23 Jan 2020 13:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15060972
@Rancid

While I understand where you are coming from, I find it is difficult and often not useful to try and get people to acknowledge the harm caused by their daily lifestyle.

It is actually one of the reasons why I went into my field: I could change the world and the behaviour of people through their built surroundings, which is a lot easier than trying to change their minds.

To relate that to the conversation, we would then look at how to get rid of the harm caused by pet food production and distribution, as well as the other causes of negative environmental impacts associated with pets.
#15060979
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it is difficult and often not useful to try and get people to acknowledge the harm caused by their daily lifestyle.

Yea, you're right. This is a fact I often forget.

It's unfortunately that this doesn't work:
#15061014
Pants-of-dog wrote:It makes more sense to look at ways we can keep our pets while negating their carbon footprint. Much like we want to keep our standard of living while getting rid of the associated pollution.

Yeah, just like the fatal level of pollution that we're doing nothing about, let's just talk about what a nuisance and how cruel animal-ownership is, without actually doing anything.

Let's be like children and talk about fun stuff but never be able to change anything because adults (mafias) are in charge of everything we do.
#15061063
Finfinder wrote:Is that Al Gores chartered private jet?

I agree it is hard to convince peoples daily lives are harmful when the hypocrisy is so thick.

I have never owned a dog, and stopped "owing' cats after my first one died of old age.

And I stopped owning animals because, in retrospect, I think my cat (and all housepets) live undignified, prison-like existences.

So there's no hypocricy between my texts in this thread and my real -life.

Real hypocricy is saying 'you love animals and respect them' while eating a ham sandwich.
#15061065
People HAVE pets. most people come to care and love them, so ownership isn't as much the issue as some hipster like @QatzelOk, would like you to think. :roll: :knife:

People get pets for companionship. That you had one shows that even you have that need.
#15061074
My good dog's not going to kill billions, and destroy civilization in the next decade, no matter what kind of fear-mongering you resort to. To imply this, is ridiculous, even though I know you are referring to Climate Change, to which this "death in a decade" nonsense is simply hysteria... and I am not a Climate Change denier.

We can surely all do more, and better, but most people are trying, when we are in a position to do so, and not simply in survival mode.
#15061075
Righty-oh. Instead of planting a tree a year, i'll plant three. Do I get a tax break?

Oh ya...composed pet manure and maple leaves make awesome top soil.
#15061095
You should use the bag your bread came in to pick up after your dog instead of buying new bags.
#15061108
AFAIK wrote:You should use the bag your bread came in to pick up after your dog instead of buying new bags.

The ones we use are biodegradable. I don't know if the bread bags are but they can be recycled so we put them in the recycle bin.

As I posted above, my career was largely based on energy efficient solutions in power electronics. We also did some renewable energy projects. One such was on a 500kW water turbine that had fallen into disuse because it generated DC and mostly we use AC. So we made it produce AC and put it back into service. So another 12,000 kWh per day saved. To put in perspective that's around 1,000 households.

Yet, one poster here has the temerity to call me dense and that I don't understand anything.
Last edited by Besoeker2 on 23 Jan 2020 10:43, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 14
Too Many White People

Everyone can relax. The young woman from the OP h[…]

I look back on the education I received in my youn[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEYpOBAXuqE&fe[…]

We communists must destroy racism

In Latin America, the successful socialist revolut[…]