But I think if I want to eat meat then it’s fair enough for that to be disputed and argued with, just like anything else.

True.
.
It’s the mode of discourse rather than the content that I’m concerned with.

What I do find provoking is the smug evangelical hectoring from people who believe that their diet makes them morally superior to the rest of us. It’s enough to put me off my vegies…

That’s all I was saying really. It’s based on my experience of evangelical political moralizing which produces the exact opposite effect to that (supposedly) intended. It reinforces the behaviour one is trying to amend by embedding in those so accused of nefarities a knee-jerk and entrenched resistance to any suggestion that eating meat might be wrong.
.
I don’t think it’s wrong – morally. I think it more humane not to eat meat. But that’s all besides the point. If one looks at the various facts viz the way we produce meat, the waste of resources doing so, the use of anti-biotics, hormones etc – there’s a problem. The Neo-Calvinist approach doesn’t help. It just shuts peoples’ ears down.
.
PS I eat meat but I’m very much a pro-active consumer of it. I don’t eat anything that came out an abattoir. That doesn’t make me righteous (Shoot me if I ever become righteous.) Just sensible.

…even if the context of levity were successfully established, given that it contains not one iota of wit.

Humour’s in the eye of the beholder. I do wonder Klaus how does one successfully establish levity? A crack that one finds objectionable for moral reasons isn’t witless for that reason.

It’s right up there with lesbians only needing a good f**k from the right man.

Nonsense.

For my part, I haven’t been taking any position on the morality of my diet, so you might like to think about why I’m not letting this alone, jane. And clearly you do care enough about how you’re being judged to weigh-in on the matter. If you were comfortable with the morality of your choices you wouldn’t be at all concerned with smug hectoring evangelical anything.

I really don’t care whether Laura judges my habits negatively or not and most likely the feeling is reciprocated. What I do find provoking is the smug evangelical hectoring from people who believe that their diet makes them morally superior to the rest of us. It’s enough to put me off my vegies.*

*That’s a joke, klausk.

If we consider forcing (which is what real climate scientists use) the figure
is much higher. I can’t put a number on it globally, but in Australia, the
forcing due to livestock is higher than all our coal fired
power stations. Why? 3.1 tonnes of methane has a forcing equal to 3.1 x 72 = 223.

In addition the land clearing is associated with black carbon from biomass burning
which isn’t included in the LLS report. Globally black carbon is a very
large warming forcing but is hard to measure accurately.

No, I’m not necessarily aware of your intention if you haven’t taken the trouble to establish what it is with your interlocutors. There is some ambiguity in using the written word in the way you have in a context like this. The threatening overtones weren’t appreciated, but far from being offended, I’m simply reminded of those bores who like to say unfunny, unpleasant things to themselves and follow it up with ‘Why, can’t you take a joke?’

Once again, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, so my point stands, whether I use the word ‘judgemental’ or ‘vaguely’ or any other. Laura is judging your own habits negatively and that is all. She only has power over you insofar as you are interpellated by what she writes.

Well, thank god the above is only vaguely judgemental, then. I’d hate to cop a really judgemental comment.
Being force fed offal is one of the direst things that could happen to anyone, as far as I’m concerned, and if it was said to me in the heat of an argument, I’d take offence. However, that was not the case, nor the intention, as I’m sure you are aware. If I have offended your religious or cultural sensitivities, I apologise.