3 ms·

>All of these "beef is bad for the environment" articles are written by vegan activists, seventh day adventists, or other extremist groups who have a political

>All of these "beef is bad for the environment" articles are written by vegan activists, seventh day adventists, or other extremist groups who have a political agenda against meat. [Citation needed] Most soil for where nowadays cattle grace farm is not anaerobic so not sure how that could work with methane emissions. Also about 90 percent of the food that cattle eat doesn't come from there but from south America where conditions are clearly different. Animal farming is incredibly inefficiënt and the health claims are dubious at best.

wyager 3y ago
> [Citation needed] Why do you think posting something like this is a valuable use of anyone's time? What are you expecting here, an article that exactly restates my claim? If such an article existed, would you even read it or take it into account? There are only two possibilities here, neither of them good: 1. You are looking for an "authoritative" source making exactly the claim I'm making, so you can outsource your entire thought process to someone else. Besides being extremely risky, this also precludes you from ever absorbing a novel or semi-novel conclusion that isn't widely known enough to have an NYT article written about it or something. 2. You are arguing in bad faith, trying to waste my time finding a "citation" that inevitably you would find some excuse to ignore in any case. The proper response here is to say "huh, that's interesting, maybe I should check on that claim next time I see something from the USDA, or maybe I could google it for 5 seconds". Lucky for you, here is a convenient source so you can turn your brain off. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251 https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251
- dang 3y ago
  You broke the site guidelines extremely badly with this post. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, and we've already had to warn you many times. I don't want to ban you, but if you keep doing this, we'll eventually have to. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules going forward? We'd appreciate it. (Btw, the parent comment also broke the site guidelines, which ask people to omit internet tropes such as "citation needed", and I've replied to them too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300759. But they didn't get aggressive the way your comment did, and that's a big difference.)
- peterpost2 3y ago
  There if a third option: Namely, that extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. If you cannot supply it you are simply doing unsubstantiated talk. Furthermore I know a number of people who study Biogeomorphology who fall in none of the categories you listed and also have posted similar articles thereby disproving your claim. >Lucky for you, here is a convenient source so you can turn your brain off. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251 https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251 That is not proof that all beef = bad for environment articles are written by vegan activists, seventh day adventists, or other extremist groups who have a political agenda against meat. Just that the seventh-day advertist church has had influence on diet. Which is a much much smaller claim.

wyager 3y ago

> [Citation needed] Why do you think posting something like this is a valuable use of anyone's time? What are you expecting here, an article that exactly restates my claim? If such an article existed, would you even read it or take it into account? There are only two possibilities here, neither of them good: 1. You are looking for an "authoritative" source making exactly the claim I'm making, so you can outsource your entire thought process to someone else. Besides being extremely risky, this also precludes you from ever absorbing a novel or semi-novel conclusion that isn't widely known enough to have an NYT article written about it or something. 2. You are arguing in bad faith, trying to waste my time finding a "citation" that inevitably you would find some excuse to ignore in any case. The proper response here is to say "huh, that's interesting, maybe I should check on that claim next time I see something from the USDA, or maybe I could google it for 5 seconds". Lucky for you, here is a convenient source so you can turn your brain off. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251 https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251

dang 3y ago
You broke the site guidelines extremely badly with this post. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, and we've already had to warn you many times. I don't want to ban you, but if you keep doing this, we'll eventually have to. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules going forward? We'd appreciate it. (Btw, the parent comment also broke the site guidelines, which ask people to omit internet tropes such as "citation needed", and I've replied to them too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300759. But they didn't get aggressive the way your comment did, and that's a big difference.)
peterpost2 3y ago
There if a third option: Namely, that extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. If you cannot supply it you are simply doing unsubstantiated talk. Furthermore I know a number of people who study Biogeomorphology who fall in none of the categories you listed and also have posted similar articles thereby disproving your claim. >Lucky for you, here is a convenient source so you can turn your brain off. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251 https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251 That is not proof that all beef = bad for environment articles are written by vegan activists, seventh day adventists, or other extremist groups who have a political agenda against meat. Just that the seventh-day advertist church has had influence on diet. Which is a much much smaller claim.