DahGangalang

Yeah, its like someone tried to convert a Toyota pickup into a 2-door jeep.

I'm actually really down with this concept.

Imma need the stats on this so I can throw it in someone's face later.

Yeah, as someone who grew up in a VERY right wing household (and has made the transition to a much more liberal point of view), it kills me seeing the left make the same ~~logical fallacies~~ bad arguments to fear monger against the right as the right would use against the left.

Edit: probably over thinking my own wording. Its probably not a logical fallacy to assume your enemy is united, its just an inaccurate argument. Changed comment to maybe better reflect that.

It kills me because this seems to be the way that leftists seems to view the right.

Arizona coming in with the "Most Undecided" award on the chart.

So what I'm hearing is that we just need to selectively breed people to have smaller penises so we can just use chicken intestines for condoms instead?

I don't think so. But I think that that's going to vary a lot based on how you want to measure "badness for the climate".

My instinct is to look at Feed to Gain Ratio, which is the measure of food eaten to weight gained. This will vary animal to animal based on the animal's purpose (meat cows vs dairy cows, meat lambs vs wool sheep, etc) and the type of food they're fed.

Still, there are reliable bands for estimating for each animal. According to This Article, it looks like sheep can fall into a 4:1 to 6:1 ratio while cows are closer to 12:1 (this is a bit higher than I was taught in high school biology, but not by much). Of course, the higher these numbers, the "worse" the animal is for the environment.

This, but un-sarcastically.

Would be an interesting boost to the Sheep industry.

Yenis

Sorry, was definitely reading this 90% asleep as I rolled out of bed. Thanks for the extra link anyway.

Can you pass a link?

Are you implying you need to have Vermont in Vermont Curry?