Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

The Pub - OT posts and discussions

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
#21
Everyone's always so absolute about things. While I fully respect people who choose not to eat meat, it's not really a winning argument to convince many people. What we need is for people who eat meat to reduce the quantity of beef they consume, and the same goes for leather which is as much a reason cattle are farmed as any other (it's nonsense to suggest leather is a by product). Agriculture contributes about as much CO2 as transport, so all reductions are important.

To be honest for me I think this same approach should be applied to fossil fuels in the future, we need to reduce the use as a matter of urgency, it's not a crusade to eliminate them entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OneTinyFish
#22
We reared beef cattle for years on the farm. The hides were rarely worth much, compared to the meat, perhaps 5% on a very good day, and much of the time zero, as any hide that's scarred (anything from being fly blown to everyday scratches) wasn't usually worth much, if anything. Some farms do put extra effort into producing good hides from their cattle, but even then they are lucky if the hide contributes more than maybe 10% of the value of the animal, and for that they have to put in a lot of time and money into trying to prevent any skin injury.
 
#23
It's such a fascinating topic... why are the lives of the countless mice/rats/gophers/toads/frogs/crickets/grasshoppers/flies/fleas that die during the ploughing and spraying of any crop worth less than the lives of the cows/pigs/sheep/chickens that that crop replaces? Do you count per life? Per atom of life lost? How do you measure which life is worth more than which other life?

Vast tracts of earth's surface are grassland, and cattle/sheep are excellent and efficient at converting something useless to humans (grass) into something valuable to humans (protein and vitamins and minerals). If those animals lead a good life, I see no harm in them being eaten at the end of their lives. There is no room for cruelty in the world, so absolutely let's get rid of that.

The other idea, that I will only eat an animal that I myself have raised and slaughtered, just doesn't scale. We're all good at different things, why can't there be someone good at raising animals and someone good at slaughtering them? Again, it has to be cruelty free, but if I'm good at computery stuff, why can't I pay someone to raise and slaughter my animals for me? We could call it... a supermarket?
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Dangerous Fish
#25
Glan gluaisne said:
We reared beef cattle for years on the farm. The hides were rarely worth much, compared to the meat, perhaps 5% on a very good day, and much of the time zero, as any hide that's scarred (anything from being fly blown to everyday scratches) wasn't usually worth much, if anything. Some farms do put extra effort into producing good hides from their cattle, but even then they are lucky if the hide contributes more than maybe 10% of the value of the animal, and for that they have to put in a lot of time and money into trying to prevent any skin injury.
Click to expand...
You seem to have personal experience of everything Glan

5%, 10% whatever, neither of those are negligible, it's part of the animal that has always been used. If we need to reduce our consumption of beef we also need to reduce our use of leather at the same time. Anything else is illogical.

I personally love a good steak, a juicy burger etc. However I now have them maybe once a month and enjoy it, and eat more chicken which has a lower CO2 contribution the rest of the time. It probably will need to be taxed more in the future to reduce demand, people don't think about their actions without a financial incentive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DenkiJidousha and OneTinyFish
#27
GRiLLA said:
To be honest for me I think this same approach should be applied to fossil fuels in the future, we need to reduce the use as a matter of urgency, it's not a crusade to eliminate them entirely.
Click to expand...

I respect where you're coming from but I disagree. The damage we are continuing to do as a result of fossil fuels is almost incomprehensible. I know I'm in the minority here but unless we go the whole hog and step away from fossil fuels completely, I just don't see us saving the climate and ultimately, the planet. I really feel, things are that bad.

It wouldn't be half as bad if the ICE cars were actually able to harness the different types of energy they transition in to (sound and possibly using regen somehow) but then you're just skirting around hybrid territory.

rotor2k said:
It's such a fascinating topic... why are the lives of the countless mice/rats/gophers/toads/frogs/crickets/grasshoppers/flies/fleas that die during the ploughing and spraying of any crop worth less than the lives of the cows/pigs/sheep/chickens that that crop replaces? Do you count per life? Per atom of life lost? How do you measure which life is worth more than which other life?
Click to expand...

It's a good point - my view is that given all the current scientific investigation and exploration of space and the universe, knowing that we are currently the only form of 'intelligent' life that we know of, we should be doing anything and everything to protect all other forms of life that we know of, e.g. all other animals on the planet. No life is worth more than others and we are stupid and selfish to think otherwise.

rotor2k said:
If those animals lead a good life, I see no harm in them being eaten at the end of their lives. There is no room for cruelty in the world, so absolutely let's get rid of that.
Click to expand...

Interesting point - 'at the end of their lives'. That's just it, we don't keep them until they die, we feed them up to be slaughtered when we think they are ready. They don't get a say. Absolutely 100% agree on the cruelty. Whilst they're not perfect, if people are going to eat meat, then if you can, pay more for it. Generally, better quality meat will cost more. Easier said than done I know, but don't just go for the supermarket smart price crap.

rotor2k said:
The other idea, that I will only eat an animal that I myself have raised and slaughtered, just doesn't scale. We're all good at different things, why can't there be someone good at raising animals and someone good at slaughtering them? Again, it has to be cruelty free, but if I'm good at computery stuff, why can't I pay someone to raise and slaughter my animals for me? We could call it... a supermarket?
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that you need to raise and slaughter your own animals - the point i made was that you should have the mentality that you would be able to do it yourself, should you have needed to. I don't think the comparison quite works. On a level, yes, it's a task being completed. But when you look at it, you're still putting an animal to death because you fancy a burger.

My point is, you should be prepared to have the blood on your own hands.[/QUOTE]
 
#28
stonecoldrmw said:
I wasn't saying that you need to raise and slaughter your own animals - the point i made was that you should have the mentality that you would be able to do it yourself, should you have needed to. I don't think the comparison quite works. On a level, yes, it's a task being completed. But when you look at it, you're still putting an animal to death because you fancy a burger.

My point is, you should be prepared to have the blood on your own hands.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. We live in a world where meat is basically shrink-wrapped and we aren't aware of how it got there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stonecoldrmw
#30
kuruma said:
oh right.

Incidentally, it's not everyday in the 21st century you see someone who actually uses an apostrophe with the word phone. I'm a massive advocate for the seemingly lost art of the apostrophe but I think I have now met my match.

Do you also write 'bus as well? :)
Click to expand...
Chuckle. I'm a bit old school to be fair. I did a lot of business copywriting in a former life and it likely stems from that. My autocorrect actually inserted an inappropriate grocer's apostrophe the other day and I didn't spot it initially - mortified :)

That said, I still work with lots of young professionals such as doctors, dentists, even lawyers and the standard of written language these days is significantly worse than it used to be. No idea how they made it through Uni although arguably, as long as the communication is effective, it doesn't really matter
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy W.
#31
spon88 said:
That said, I still work with lots of young professionals such as doctors, dentists, even lawyers and the standard of written language these days is significantly worse than it used to be. No idea how they made it through Uni although arguably, as long as the communication is effective, it doesn't really matter
Click to expand...

I used to be part of an annual graduate recruitment team for a few years, when I was still working. Our cut-off grade for applicants was a "bishop" (a 2.2), so we may have hoped that applicants with such a degree could write reasonably well. The standard of written English on the applications was universally dire, and got noticeably worse during the 1990s. I believe one reason was that the education system seemed to switch away from teaching the correct use of spelling and grammar in the late 1970s and 80s.

I stopped interviewing graduate recruits around 2000, so have no idea how things have changed since then, but would hazard a guess that they probably haven't improved. Bit of a stark contrast to the time when I was recruited, where, before being accepted, and after having passed the selection and interview process, the final step was a written examination, that included essay writing. Although applying for a job as a junior scientist, I still had to pass what amounted to a general examination that included assessing my written expression ability.
 
#32
Glan gluaisne said:
I used to be part of an annual graduate recruitment team for a few years, when I was still working. Our cut-off grade for applicants was a "bishop" (a 2.2), so we may have hoped that applicants with such a degree could write reasonably well. The standard of written English on the applications was universally dire, and got noticeably worse during the 1990s. I believe one reason was that the education system seemed to switch away from teaching the correct use of spelling and grammar in the late 1970s and 80s.

I stopped interviewing graduate recruits around 2000, so have no idea how things have changed since then, but would hazard a guess that they probably haven't improved. Bit of a stark contrast to the time when I was recruited, where, before being accepted, and after having passed the selection and interview process, the final step was a written examination, that included essay writing. Although applying for a job as a junior scientist, I still had to pass what amounted to a general examination that included assessing my written expression ability.
Click to expand...
I stopped interviewing graduate recruits in 2010 but by then it had all gone a bit wrong on the literacy front! They were generally wizards with things like spreadsheeting etc but half of 'em couldn't string a few decent paragraphs together. I "desensitised" myself and realised that for most of the jobs, being super literate didn't matter too much. I remember helping my other half writing up her PhD thesis and although she's a scientist, the standard of literacy and grammar expected was draconian. My tutors at Uni (chemical engineering) were also rather rigorous with the words as well as the numbers! For sure things have changed :)
 
#37
One 13 year old that I know, thought an apostrophe was the state after you drop your uneaten dinner on the floor.
Same boy rightly said that a Comma was a butterfly. Suppose I should have explained the context.
...and don’t get me started on starting a sentence with ‘so’
 
#38
I'm certainly not great with grammar but maybe someone here can enlighten me...

My Mother taught me long ago that an apostrophe before an s is to replace a letter ie 'it is' can be it's 'she is' - she's etc therefore placing the apostrophe at the end would be the correct way (except if the word itself ends with an s). As a result I always write something like Dads', my Wifes', Teslas', not Dad's, Wife's, Tesla's etc.

However when I see almost all print these days placing the apostrophe before the s or a name like Sainsbury's (Sainsbury is?) it makes me wonder whether I have been wrong all along?

(...will this thread eventually get back on track?)
 
#39
Drew57 said:
I'm certainly not great with grammar but maybe someone here can enlighten me...

My Mother taught me long ago that an apostrophe before an s is to replace a letter ie 'it is' can be it's 'she is' - she's etc therefore placing the apostrophe at the end would be the correct way (except if the word itself ends with an s). As a result I always write something like Dads', my Wifes', Teslas', not Dad's, Wife's, Tesla's etc.

However when I see almost all print these days placing the apostrophe before the s or a name like Sainsbury's (Sainsbury is?) it makes me wonder whether I have been wrong all along?

(...will this thread eventually get back on track?)
Click to expand...

An apostrophe can be used for different purposes. The possessive apostrophe, for example, denotes that the following something belongs to, or is owned by, someone, or something. For example, Drew's Model 3, where the apostrophe denotes that the Model 3 belongs to Drew.

The other common use is to replace a missing letter, such as it's, meaning it is, or we're, meaning we are.

The one that catches everyone out at times is its, where the apostrophe is left out if the meaning is possessive, but included if the meaning is it is.
 
#40
Drew57 said:
However when I see almost all print these days placing the apostrophe before the s or a name like Sainsbury's (Sainsbury is?) it makes me wonder whether I have been wrong all along?
Click to expand...

Wrong all along ... sort of ... not that I use standard punctuation! The apostrophe can be to replace a letter but that's not its only use. It is used to denote ownership or belonging to. A pupil's pen has an apostrophe simply because it is the pen that the pupil owns or is currently using. When you need to indicate that the ownership belongs to the plural i.e. many pupils you put the apostrophe after the s. So if a group of pupils share ownership of a bunch of pens they would be the pupils' pens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu