The BBCs style guide amuses me. The princes must be referred to by their titles, as well as Sir David and anyone else with a knighthood.
I understand it's pretty common in the UK, but as an American it's funny to see.
David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
161–170 of 172 posts
Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#162The BBCs style guide amuses me. The princes must be referred to by their titles, as well as Sir David and anyone else with a knighthood. I understand it's pretty common in the UK, but as an American it's funny to see.
Conversely, I wince everytime I'm called 'sir' in an American restaurant or shop.
Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#163The BBCs style guide amuses me. The princes must be referred to by their titles, as well as Sir David and anyone else with a knighthood. I understand it's pretty common in the UK, but as an American it's funny to see.
Conversely, I wince everytime I'm called 'sir' in an American restaurant or shop.
Oh, I never thought about that. In the UK, is it improper to call someone Sir who isn't a Knight?
Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely, I wince everytime I'm called 'sir' in an American restaurant or shop.
Oh, I never thought about that. In the UK, is it improper to call someone Sir who isn't a Knight?
Pretty much.
Used outside that frame it’s an insult as in:
You, sir, are a cad and a bounder.
Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#165One of the gems that a publicly funded broadcasting system gave us.
Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is saying fields of corn and soybean wouldn't exist, but we would have far less of them without animal agriculture. You are creating a false dichotomy of "sustainable"/"not sustainable" the reality is human societies would be much more sustainable without animal agriculture. More sustainable does in fact result in less extinctions/ecosystem impact and reduced climate change. Maybe I'm wrong but reading your co…
> No one is saying fields of corn and soybean wouldn't exist, but we would have far less of them without animal agriculture There is no evidence that there would be far less farm fields without that. Farm fields exists if there is profit to be had. Right now the demand for biofuels are directly competing with the demand for animal feed. Farmers will primary grow and sell crops based on what pay the most, and can easi…
Bit of a fallacious argument here - why do you presume to know how farm land will be used in the future?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_determinism
> If you remove animal agriculture, you don't get far less fields. You get fields with a different crop in them.
we just simply cannot know this. but, we do know the impact of our current practices, not to mention the (supposedly) debatable ethical element of killing hundreds of billions of animals each year.
Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#167Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely, I wince everytime I'm called 'sir' in an American restaurant or shop.
Oh, I never thought about that. In the UK, is it improper to call someone Sir who isn't a Knight?
Not at all, for example at secondary/high school you would address male teachers interchangeable as ‘sir’ and ‘mr. Last name’.
Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want to the documentary to end with David Attenborough saying that it is too late to revert the destruction of natural habitat?
I, too, would appreciate this. "Look at what is getting lost because of YOUR choices and votes." It would be the truth.
Many people here like the bougie narrative that we’re all equally to blame, for obvious reasons. A vote is a vote is a vote.
Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most impactful elements of modern agriculture are entirely animal-based. Full-stop. You in fact rightfully but incompletely recognize : artificial fertilizers (for giant mono-crop fields of soybeans to feed to cows and pigs [0]), replacing forests (to clear room for soybean fields and pasture for cows and pigs [1][2]), and runoff of these fertilizers and manure into waterways. The parent comment is right - if we…
> The most impactful elements of modern agriculture are entirely animal-based. If we step back a bit, the most impactful bit is true human wish for growth. If we were satisfied with a comfortable stasis, that would be helpful.
strongly disagree; we can quantify the differences. our current population levels are sustainable if we stopped overfishing our oceans and raising billions of animals each year for slaughter. check my other comment for a bunch of citations!