Going vegetarian
firstoftwins
the error in their ways & grow crops instead. Eating fruit & veg in
preference to meat must surely appeal to everyone with their natural
instincts to animals in tact. Look at the disgusting loss of those poor
creatures. I know they were all ear marked for someones plate anyway, but
why kill them ALL just to keep our exports open. Surely vegetarianism, or
better still a vegan attitude to life, will be seen to offer a healthier
body & mind to all.
John Mercer
> With the current shame in the farming community, couldn't they at least see
> the error in their ways & grow crops instead.
Growing crops kills plenty of animals too. Don't you care?
> Eating fruit & veg in
> preference to meat must surely appeal to everyone with their natural
> instincts to animals in tact.
The opposite is true.
> Look at the disgusting loss of those poor
> creatures.
In crop growing? I agree. And veg*ns don't even care! They pretend that
these poor creatures don't even exist.
> I know they were all ear marked for someones plate anyway, but
> why kill them ALL just to keep our exports open. Surely vegetarianism, or
> better still a vegan attitude to life, will be seen to offer a healthier
> body & mind to all.
Why do you think that false dichotomies are a sign of a healthy mind?
firstoftwins
John Mercer <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
news:1eqd9qi.1c3mod81jmo3osN%um...@montana.edu...
> firstoftwins <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > With the current shame in the farming community, couldn't they at least
see
> > the error in their ways & grow crops instead.
>
> Growing crops kills plenty of animals too. Don't you care?
I do understand, although only very very recently, that animals are killed
in all sorts of ways during the harvesting of some foods, & like you I find
it very upsetting. I wish it could be otherwise.
>
> > Eating fruit & veg in
> > preference to meat must surely appeal to everyone with their natural
> > instincts to animals in tact.
>
> The opposite is true.
I don't understand
>
> > Look at the disgusting loss of those poor
> > creatures.
>
> In crop growing? I agree. And veg*ns don't even care! They pretend that
> these poor creatures don't even exist.
Oh come on, please. of course they care.
>
> > I know they were all ear marked for someones plate anyway, but
> > why kill them ALL just to keep our exports open. Surely vegetarianism,
or
> > better still a vegan attitude to life, will be seen to offer a healthier
> > body & mind to all.
>
> Why do you think that false dichotomies are a sign of a healthy mind?
Peace of mind is a rare quality, & eating meat in the knowlege that some
poor beast suffered wouldn't help mine.
Dutch
Certainly, if all the meat in the world becomes inedible, then for the sake of their
health everyone should become a vegetarian.
rick etter
>
> John Mercer <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1eqd9qi.1c3mod81jmo3osN%um...@montana.edu...
> > firstoftwins <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > With the current shame in the farming community, couldn't they at least
> see
> > > the error in their ways & grow crops instead.
> >
> > Growing crops kills plenty of animals too. Don't you care?
>
> I do understand, although only very very recently, that animals are killed
> in all sorts of ways during the harvesting of some foods, & like you I find
> it very upsetting. I wish it could be otherwise.
>
> >
> > > Eating fruit & veg in
> > > preference to meat must surely appeal to everyone with their natural
> > > instincts to animals in tact.
> >
> > The opposite is true.
>
> I don't understand
>
> >
> > > Look at the disgusting loss of those poor
> > > creatures.
> >
> > In crop growing? I agree. And veg*ns don't even care! They pretend that
> > these poor creatures don't even exist.
>
> Oh come on, please. of course they care.
If they care so much, why do many of them, like you, not know that their
diet is not the cruelty-free enterprize they want to believe it is.
You(veg*ns) don't bother to check what death/suffering you cause because
you want to be able to pin all the deaths on others. Makes you(veg*ns)
feel much better about themselves.
>
> >
> > > I know they were all ear marked for someones plate anyway, but
> > > why kill them ALL just to keep our exports open. Surely vegetarianism,
> or
> > > better still a vegan attitude to life, will be seen to offer a healthier
> > > body & mind to all.
> >
> > Why do you think that false dichotomies are a sign of a healthy mind?
>
> Peace of mind is a rare quality, & eating meat in the knowlege that some
> poor beast suffered wouldn't help mine.
===================
But eating a carrot, knowing that some poor animal suffered horribly
more than a butchered cow doesn't bother your peace of mind at all, eh?
Jon Janssen
please take care when reading some people's comments here.
There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
suffering of animals.
they could enlighten other about things, but they choose to blame and
accuse. I've come to view them as the angry people who grafitti on walls.
I'm with you- let's do what we can to make things better
take care
Jon
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:tb5sago...@news.supernews.com...
C. Jarrett
[...]
> There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
> instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> suffering of animals.
Jon -
As long as you do not measure your actual impact you have
no idea whether or not you are actually "reducing"
suffering.
For all you know, you are increasing the net amount of
suffering caused by your lifestyle.
Pointing out this fact is not inherently hostile or
unsupportive.
[...]
firstoftwins
firstoftwins
one do not wish to get BSE or grow breasts.
Dave
>
>
>
firstoftwins
Jon Janssen <resp...@home.com> wrote in message
news:2TDs6.28357$H5.63...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> firstoftwins welcome :-)
>
> please take care when reading some people's comments here.
>
> There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
> instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> suffering of animals.
>
used my friends machine to set up an e-mail address for myself for when I'm
netted up next week. Unfortunately he's got e-mails addressed with his name,
but with my e-mail name "firstoftwins", which were obviously directed at me.
Who's Rick Etter?
> they could enlighten other about things, but they choose to blame and
> accuse. I've come to view them as the angry people who grafitti on walls.
>
>
> I'm with you- let's do what we can to make things better
> take care
> Jon
Thanks for the tip Jon.
Dave
rick etter
> > ===================
> > But eating a carrot, knowing that some poor animal suffered horribly
> > more than a butchered cow doesn't bother your peace of mind at all, eh?
>
> Are you serious??
=================================
Completely, why? Don't you care about the animals you kill for food, or
HOW you kill them? At least the slaughter house cow gets a nice fast
bolt to the head. Your little fuzzies get ripped, mangled, shreaded,
dismembered, ground up, etc. Some don't even die right away, but get to
lie suffering in the fields until they rot. Where's your peace of mind
knowing that you do this just to eat??
rick etter
>
> Jon Janssen <resp...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:2TDs6.28357$H5.63...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > firstoftwins welcome :-)
> >
> > please take care when reading some people's comments here.
> >
> > There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
> > instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> > suffering of animals.
> >
> You should see the e-mails I had delivered. It's not even my PC either. I
> used my friends machine to set up an e-mail address for myself for when I'm
> netted up next week. Unfortunately he's got e-mails addressed with his name,
> but with my e-mail name "firstoftwins", which were obviously directed at me.
> Who's Rick Etter?
It is I. But, if you are saying that I have emailed you, you are lying
through your teeth.
firstoftwins
rick etter
>
> firstoftwins welcome :-)
>
> please take care when reading some people's comments here.
>
> There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
> instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> suffering of animals.
Which is exactly what we've been trying to tell you Jon. You state
reduction as an interest, but cannot support that you ARE doing anything
to reduce the number of animals you kill. It is just a 'feel good'
dogma that you have been brainwashed into believing.
>
> they could enlighten other about things, but they choose to blame and
> accuse. I've come to view them as the angry people who grafitti on walls.
---------------------------------
No, the typical graffiti is: I eat veggies, no animals die/ I cause no
death/suffering because I eat veg*n!/Meat is un-fit to eat/Meat kills/
and on and on. Each statement a lie, but told to themselves enough
times, veggie loons start to believe them. As for anger/violence, who
is protesting, who is sending bombs, who is beating people up in the
streets, who throws paint on people, etc.
>
> I'm with you- let's do what we can to make things better
> take care
==================================
But until you KNOW the death/suffering you cause, you cannot assign any
value to the amount 'better' you think you achieve.
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:tb5sago...@news.supernews.com...
> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > > With the current shame in the farming community, couldn't they at least
> see
> > > the error in their ways & grow crops instead. Eating fruit & veg in
> > > preference to meat must surely appeal to everyone with their natural
> > > instincts to animals in tact. Look at the disgusting loss of those poor
> > > creatures. I know they were all ear marked for someones plate anyway,
> but
> > > why kill them ALL just to keep our exports open. Surely vegetarianism,
> or
> > > better still a vegan attitude to life, will be seen to offer a healthier
> > > body & mind to all.
> >
> > Certainly, if all the meat in the world becomes inedible, then for the
> sake of their
> > health everyone should become a vegetarian.
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Canoe North!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
Step outside...The Graphics are Amazing!
firstoftwins
for the benifit of this groups & Rick;
Rick did not e-mail me with abuse, nor anything else. It was someone else
who I won't mention, let alone reply. I asked Jon who YOU were because I
noticed you have been very interested in my postings. I'm sorry if it looks
like I implied that, I even accept it does. Sorry
Dave
rick etter
> > Certainly, if all the meat in the world becomes inedible, then for the
> sake of their
> > health everyone should become a vegetarian.
> >
> Good point, but isn't it apparant already that meat is unfit to eat. I for
> one do not wish to get BSE or grow breasts.
------------------------------
You've apparently already grown the other part. Meat is NOT 'unfit to
eat'. Guess you buy into all that propaganda stuff, eh? Go ahead and
continue to torture and maim there killer.
firstoftwins
You've hounded each & every post I,ve written, & now you're calling me a
killer. I only introduced myself to this newsgroup last night & I've got
nothing but abuse. What's your problem friend?
rick etter
You are being foolish. Where's the foolishness of the statement?
Either your 'ethics' apply all the time, or you are just a hypocritcal
killer. You never bothered to answer the questions. Why is that,
killer?
rick etter
>
> for the benifit of this groups & Rick;
> Rick did not e-mail me with abuse, nor anything else. It was someone else
> who I won't mention, let alone reply. I asked Jon who YOU were because I
> noticed you have been very interested in my postings. I'm sorry if it looks
> like I implied that, I even accept it does. Sorry
> Dave
=================
Thanks for clearing that up.
rick
rick etter
Because, like many before you, you arrive, make staements about not
harming animals, meat is un=fit, farmers are a shame, life is a
mathematical constuction, etc. etc. None of these are exactly
original. We haer them everytime a new veggie loon arrives. We just
want to make sure you get up-to-speed as quickly as possible. When you
finally learn that you are a killer, that your diet may not cause less
death/suffering than others, and that your 'ethics' are full of holes,
you'll either turn tail and run, or try to find out where your 'ethics'
really stand in relation to others. Which will it be, hypocrite?
Release the hounds!!!
Paul Rees
>
>
> >
> > "Certainly, if all the meat in the world becomes inedible, then for the
> sake of their
> >
> "Good point, but isn't it apparant already that meat is unfit to eat. I
for
> one do not wish to get BSE or grow breasts."
> Dave
I don't know. . .I think they might suit you. :)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Jon Janssen
(can you handle your own questions:)
Don't you care about the animals you kill for food, or HOW you kill them?
Your little fuzzies get ripped, mangled, shreaded, dismembered, ground up,
etc. Some don't even die right away, but get to lie suffering in the fields
until they rot. Where's your peace of mind knowing that you do this just
to eat??
and if you eat meat then you also know that cows are getting "a nice fast
bolt to the head."
surely there's less harm in only contributing to the little fuzzies being
killed, and not neccessitating that more of them be killed (in order to
produce mutiple pounds of grain to create fewer pounds of meat) as well as
neccessitating that cows get killed in addition.
Unless you are hand farming, you are likely causing some degree of harm by
your diet. And we could all yell and blame each other, and this would
accomplish bad feelings, or we could think of ways to reduce the harm.
and support each other in efforts to reduce harm, and encourage efforts.
Jon
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:3AB38C...@bright.net...
Jon Janssen
then it measn that greater amount of grain is needed, and the number of
rodents killed in the process are increased because of the increased
requirement for grains
"C. Jarrett" <rast...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3AB3262F...@bigfoot.com...
> Jon Janssen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
> > instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> > suffering of animals.
>
> Jon -
>
> As long as you do not measure your actual impact you have
> no idea whether or not you are actually "reducing"
> suffering.
I think it's very likely that by not buying meat it reduces the demand, and
that will reduce the amount of meat created.
But this is as sure as thinking that when I donate blood, that the blood
doesn't get dumped on the ground- I never have measured that it goes to any
use.
So, what is your suggestion/s on how to reduce suffering of food animals?
>
> For all you know, you are increasing the net amount of
> suffering caused by your lifestyle.
>
your statements are useless.
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > firstoftwins welcome :-)
> >
> > please take care when reading some people's comments here.
> >
> > There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
> > instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> > suffering of animals.
> =================================
> Which is exactly what we've been trying to tell you Jon. You state
> reduction as an interest, but cannot support that you ARE doing anything
> to reduce the number of animals you kill. It is just a 'feel good'
> dogma that you have been brainwashed into believing.
If you haven't measured it yourself, then why are you concluding that it
isn't true?
>
> >
> > they could enlighten other about things, but they choose to blame and
> > accuse. I've come to view them as the angry people who grafitti on
walls.
> ---------------------------------
> No, the typical graffiti is: I eat veggies, no animals die/ I cause no
> death/suffering because I eat veg*n!/Meat is un-fit to eat/Meat kills/
if you can support the idea that meat doesn't kill, ......
> and on and on. Each statement a lie,
I did think, and I would assume that other vegans think, that a vegan diet
causes no deaths. Since I've learned about collateral deaths, I know that
there are still deaths caused.
you are hostile towards veg*ans, and you don't seem to care to help efforts
to reduce suffering. So why are you here?
Jon Janssen
if credible information counts as propaganda
(references at end)
In the pig industry, the general theme also is one of severe
confinement.113,118 Pregnant sows are confined continuously in individual
stalls. Their movement sometimes is restricted further by the use of chains
or other type of tether.20,32 No exercise or nesting is possible even though
the urge for such behavior is strong.18,23,76,78 The offspring of the sows
sometimes are placed into cages, so-called nurseries. These may be stacked
as many as three high. Moderate to severe crowding, to get the most
production using the least space, is standard.
These conditions lead to aberrant behavior such as bar-biting and other
stereotypic behavior.41,122 Although there is controversy, there are workers
in this area who believe that the stereotypic behavior is an indication of
stress and an effort to cope with conditions adverse to well-being.31,41,42
Although proponents of intensive confinement systems point out that the
systems are economical and result in less death of piglets or disease in the
pigs, there are numerous data showing these types of statements are not
necessarily true.24,34 The capabilities of the individual people involved in
the husbandry of the pigs may have a lot to do with improved production in
the face of a poor animal environment.63,64,103 More naturalistic systems
have been successful and profitable.13,34,109,121 Systems involving
tethering have been shown to have adverse effects not only on sow welfare,
but also on productivity68 and health.32
REFERENCES:
113. Tubbs, Roderick C.: The growing/finishing swine herd: Nursery
management. Vet. Med. 90 (3): 304-309, 1995 (March).
"[Nurseries] should allow 2.5 to 3 sq. ft. per pig, with 12 to 20 pigs per
pen. ... Nurseries that are expected to produce 55-lb to 65-lb pigs for
finishing should be designed to provide 2.8 to 3.2 sq. ft. per pig."
118. van Putten, G.: The pig: A model for discussing animal behaviour and
welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 22: 115-128, 1989.
20. Barnett, J.L., Winfield, C.G., Cronin, G.M., Hemsworth, P.H. and Dewar,
A.M.: The effect of individual and group housing on behavioural and
physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 14: 149-161, 1985.
32. Cariolet, R. and Dantzer, R.: Motor activity of pregnant tethered sows.
Ann. Rech. Vet. 15: 257-261, 1984.
18. Arey, D.S.; Petchey, A.M. and Fowler, V.R.: The preparturient behaviour
of sows in enriched pens and the effect of pre-formed nests. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 31 (1-2): 61-68, 1991 (July).
"Nest building is highly motivated behaviour in sows and the performance of
the activities themselves appears to have a significant role in reducing the
motivation. Nesting material appears to be a key factor both in the
regulation and performance of the behaviour."
23. Blackshaw, J.K.: Prostaglandin F2a induced nest building behavior in the
non-pregnant sow, and some welfare considerations. Int. J. Study Anim. Prob.
4: 299-304, 1983.
76. Hutson, G.D. and Haskell, M.J.: The behaviour of farrowing sows with
free and operant access to an earth floor. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 26:
363-372, 1990.
78. Jensen, P.: Nest site choice and nest building of free-ranging domestic
pigs due to farrow. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 22: 13-21, 1989.
41. Cronin, G.M. and Wiepkema, P.R.: An analysis of stereotyped behaviour in
tethered sows. Ann. Rech. Vet. 15: 263-270, 1984.
122. Vestergaard, K. and Hansen, L.L.: Tethered versus loose sows:
Ethological observations and measures of productivity. I. Ethological
observations during pregnancy and farrowing. Ann. Rech. Vet. 15: 245-256,
1984
31. Broom, D.M.: Sow welfare indicators. Vet. Rec. 123: 235, 1988.
41. Cronin, G.M. and Wiepkema, P.R.: An analysis of stereotyped behaviour in
tethered sows. Ann. Rech. Vet. 15: 263-270, 1984.
42. Cronin, G.M., Wiepkema, P.R. and van Ree, J.M.: Endorphins implicated in
stereotypies of tethered sows. Experientia 42: 198-199, 1986.
24. Blackshaw, J.K. and Hagelso, A.M.: Getting-up and lying-down behaviours
of loose-housed sows and social contacts between sows and piglets during day
1 and day 8 after parturition. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25: 61-70, 1990.
34. Clanton, C.A.: Raising 10,000 hogs on a patch of dirt and a ton of
common sense. National Hog Farmer 31: 14-17, 1986.
63. Gnatzig, B.: Happy hogs grow faster, breed easier. National Hog Farmer
28: 24,26, 1983.
64. Gonyou, H.W., Hemsworth, P.H. and Barnett, J.L.: Effects of frequent
interactions with humans on growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16:
269-278, 1986.
103. Seabrook, M.F.: The psychological interaction between the stockman and
his animals and its influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. Vet.
Rec. 115: 84-87, 1984.
109. Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D.G.M.: The identification of behavioural key
features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Ann. Rech.
Vet. 15: 287-299, 1984.
121. Vansickle, J.: Outdoor farrowing with all the modern conveniences.
National Hog Farmer: 12-15, 1987.
68. Hansen, L.L. and Vestergaard, K.: Tethered versus loose sows:
Ethological observations and measures of productivity: II. Production
results. Ann. Rech. Vet. 15: 185-191, 1984
32. Cariolet, R. and Dantzer, R.: Motor activity of pregnant tethered sows.
Ann. Rech. Vet. 15: 257-261, 1984.
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:3AB38D...@bright.net...
C. Jarrett
>
> since feeding aniamls to develop meat requires a greater amount of grain,
> then it measn that greater amount of grain is needed,
Eating meat does not require grain in the process. It is
quite easy to obtain meat that was produced without it.
> and the number of
> rodents killed in the process are increased because of the increased
> requirement for grains
Since grain is not a requirement, your claim is incorrect.
[...]
rick etter
>
> since feeding aniamls to develop meat requires a greater amount of grain,
> then it measn that greater amount of grain is needed, and the number of
> rodents killed in the process are increased because of the increased
> requirement for grains
Jon, why to you continue to lie? Meat animals DO NOT require grain to
grow fat and juicy, and land on my BBQ. If they DO NOT require grain,
how can you say they all need more? Selective propaganda, again?
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:3AB390...@bright.net...
> > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > >
> > > firstoftwins welcome :-)
> > >
> > > please take care when reading some people's comments here.
> > >
> > > There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
> > > instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> > > suffering of animals.
> > =================================
> > Which is exactly what we've been trying to tell you Jon. You state
> > reduction as an interest, but cannot support that you ARE doing anything
> > to reduce the number of animals you kill. It is just a 'feel good'
> > dogma that you have been brainwashed into believing.
>
> If you haven't measured it yourself, then why are you concluding that it
> isn't true?
Because I don't make the original claim that NO death/suffering occurs.
I just have to point out 1 death to blow your propaganda out of the
water.
>
> >
> > >
> > > they could enlighten other about things, but they choose to blame and
> > > accuse. I've come to view them as the angry people who grafitti on
> walls.
> > ---------------------------------
> > No, the typical graffiti is: I eat veggies, no animals die/ I cause no
> > death/suffering because I eat veg*n!/Meat is un-fit to eat/Meat kills/
>
> if you can support the idea that meat doesn't kill, ......
==================
I have no clue as to what you are saying here.
>
> > and on and on. Each statement a lie,
>
> I did think, and I would assume that other vegans think, that a vegan diet
> causes no deaths. Since I've learned about collateral deaths, I know that
> there are still deaths caused.
>
> you are hostile towards veg*ans, and you don't seem to care to help efforts
> to reduce suffering. So why are you here?
==========================
I've said numerous times HOW veg*ns can reduce death/suffering. The
typical western veggie can't be bothered with the inconvenience of those
actions. Their 'ethics' seem to disappear when they have to make some
serious lifestyle changes. And I'm only agains't idiocy, not your
diet. Unlike veg*n loons, I don't care what you eat, just don't try to
tell me it automatically cause less death/suffering.
> snippage...
rick etter
>
> Rick,
>
> (can you handle your own questions:)
Sure thing, ask away.
> Don't you care about the animals you kill for food, or HOW you kill them?
===============================
Like you, others kill my food for me. Sure I care, but I don't claim
that my life revolves around the death/suffering of animals.
> Your little fuzzies get ripped, mangled, shreaded, dismembered, ground up,
> etc. Some don't even die right away, but get to lie suffering in the fields
> until they rot. Where's your peace of mind knowing that you do this just
> to eat??
=============================
My peace of mind is just fine. I believe that I cause fewer of these
deaths than YOU do. I replace many of the calories that you pop down to
the old super-mart to stock up on, with grazed beef, and wild game.
Little to no 'collateral' killing there.
> and if you eat meat then you also know that cows are getting "a nice fast
> bolt to the head."
=========================
Much quicker and less painful than the way you kill animals for ALL your
food.
>
> surely there's less harm in only contributing to the little fuzzies being
> killed, and not neccessitating that more of them be killed (in order to
> produce mutiple pounds of grain to create fewer pounds of meat) as well as
> neccessitating that cows get killed in addition.
-----------------------------
Continuing the lie, eh Jon? Cows do not NEED grain. They do quite well
grazing. They get plumb and juicy, and taste great!
As to other cows, how much of a corn 'plant' do you eat? Kinda hard to
measure the efficiency of people vs cows when all you will eat is the
corn, not the cob, not the husks, not the leaves, not the stalk!! Why
do you waste all that plant material after doing so much killing just to
get it?
>
> Unless you are hand farming, you are likely causing some degree of harm by
> your diet.
================================
Wow, you got one right. Of course I cause death/suffering.
And we could all yell and blame each other, and this would
> accomplish bad feelings, or we could think of ways to reduce the harm.
> and support each other in efforts to reduce harm, and encourage efforts.
=============================
Then why do you automatically attack meat eating as the culprit? I've
shown you ways that meat eating can cause fewer deaths. It's not the
cut and dried propsition that you keep lying about. I suggest that it
is 'ethical' veg*ns that are doing little to find out how they can
reduce suffering. You yourself admitted that you knew nothing about the
deaths you cause, yet you still preached that your diet is
cruelty-free. If you were really trying to do your best to reduce
death/suffering, why did you not find out the ways to really make a
difference. Why do you even now, continue to spout the same old lies
and propaganda? You'll only get support for actions that have some real
meaning, pretending that going veg*n is the answer won't cut it.
rick etter
>
> rick, here is some information with credible references. Please tell me
> if credible information counts as propaganda
>
> (references at end)
>
> In the pig industry,
Again, how many exceptions do I give you that show your 'references' do
not apply to all pork? You continue to point fingers at others, yet
will do nothing to alleviate the death/suffering from your diet. Why
does the hypocritical way appeal to you so much?
Dutch
> since feeding aniamls to develop meat requires a greater amount of grain,
> then it measn that greater amount of grain is needed, and the number of
> rodents killed in the process are increased because of the increased
> requirement for grains
>
>
> "C. Jarrett" <rast...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3AB3262F...@bigfoot.com...
> > Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering, but
> > > instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> > > suffering of animals.
> >
> > Jon -
> >
> > As long as you do not measure your actual impact you have
> > no idea whether or not you are actually "reducing"
> > suffering.
>
> I think it's very likely that by not buying meat it reduces the demand, and
> that will reduce the amount of meat created.
You still aren't looking at the suffering YOU cause.
[..]
> > For all you know, you are increasing the net amount of
> > suffering caused by your lifestyle.
> >
>
> your statements are useless.
They are useless to your goal of deluding yourself. They would be useful if you had
the capacity to hear facts contrary to your beliefs.
[...]
Dutch
"Jon Janssen" <resp...@home.com> wrote
> Rick,
>
> (can you handle your own questions:)
> Don't you care about the animals you kill for food, or HOW you kill them?
> Your little fuzzies get ripped, mangled, shreaded, dismembered, ground up,
> etc. Some don't even die right away, but get to lie suffering in the fields
> until they rot. Where's your peace of mind knowing that you do this just
> to eat??
People must live, why should they feel guilty about it?
> and if you eat meat then you also know that cows are getting "a nice fast
> bolt to the head."
Yea, that's nice.
> surely there's less harm in only contributing to the little fuzzies being
> killed, and not neccessitating that more of them be killed (in order to
> produce mutiple pounds of grain to create fewer pounds of meat)
Myth
> as well as
> neccessitating that cows get killed in addition.
They wouldn't be alive in the first place if not for the food industry.
> Unless you are hand farming, you are likely causing some degree of harm by
> your diet. And we could all yell and blame each other, and this would
> accomplish bad feelings,
The only reason anyone blames you is because you can't stop pointing your fingers at
other people.
> or we could think of ways to reduce the harm.
> and support each other in efforts to reduce harm, and encourage efforts.
Why don't you start worrying about your own contribution instead of other peoples'?
[..]
firstoftwins
Because their are no meat eating newsgroups?
Dave
John Mercer
> rick, here is some information with credible references.
How do you know that either the information or the references are
credible, Jon?
Because it says what you want to hear?
> Please tell me
> if credible information counts as propaganda
Often it does, as when only one side of a choice is presented. That's
what you do.
---snip---
Jon Janssen
I thik that there are many sterotypes that you apply to veg*ans in general,
and because veg*ans differ some of those stereoptypes will be incorrect.
What is the difference between caring about animals who are killed for food,
and having the desire to reduce the deaths?
The idea that all veg*ans' lives revolve around the death/suffering of
animals is an incorrect belief. For some it's just caring about the
death of food animals, like you said you do and extending their concern to
try to reduce the deaths.
Just like one can care about homeless people and write a check for $20
doesn't mean that person's life revolves around the homeless.
Eating a veg*an diet or living the lifestyle might seem like a great
sacrifice of what is pleasurable, but it isn't for everyone. Some people
are more comfortable not buying veal whch they might have liked the taste
of, for instance, and for them they're not deprived of their pleasures; they
are more fulfilled by living according to principles and helping others than
by having the familiar good taste.
Jon
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:3AB463...@bright.net...
Jon Janssen
> <THIS SPACE NOT FOR JON TO TOP POST>
>
> "Jon Janssen" <resp...@home.com> wrote
> > Rick,
> >
> > (can you handle your own questions:)
> > Don't you care about the animals you kill for food, or HOW you kill
them?
> > Your little fuzzies get ripped, mangled, shreaded, dismembered, ground
up,
> > etc. Some don't even die right away, but get to lie suffering in the
fields
> > until they rot. Where's your peace of mind knowing that you do this
just
> > to eat??
>
> People must live, why should they feel guilty about it?
nobody said anything about feeling guilty. Besides the above section was
written by rick etter. I am only trying to encourage people who want to
reduce suffering. I am strongly apposed to making people feel guilty, as
it can lead to lethergy, instead of positive motivation or positive
feelings.
>
> > and if you eat meat then you also know that cows are getting "a nice
fast
> > bolt to the head."
>
> Yea, that's nice.
>
> > surely there's less harm in only contributing to the little fuzzies
being
> > killed, and not neccessitating that more of them be killed (in order to
> > produce mutiple pounds of grain to create fewer pounds of meat)
>
> Myth
are you saying that 1 pound of grain/beans creates one pound of meat?
>
> > as well as
> > neccessitating that cows get killed in addition.
>
> They wouldn't be alive in the first place if not for the food industry.
some of the animals would be better of not being born. read the life of a
veal calf. In my opinion, it'd be better if the were never born.
>
> > Unless you are hand farming, you are likely causing some degree of harm
by
> > your diet. And we could all yell and blame each other, and this would
> > accomplish bad feelings,
>
> The only reason anyone blames you is because you can't stop pointing your
fingers at
> other people.
Here's what happened- I came to this newsgroup to talk to others who are
vegan. you, rick etters, and a few others would call me a looney, tell me
my life revolves around animals, tell me I was silly, an idiot, and a few
other things. You are the ones who are pointing fingers, not me.
You are the ones who are here trying to convince everyone else that they are
wrong and bad for what they do.....or so it seems
>
> > or we could think of ways to reduce the harm.
> > and support each other in efforts to reduce harm, and encourage efforts.
>
> Why don't you start worrying about your own contribution instead of other
peoples'?
read my above section- you are the one who is trying to convince people,
not vice' versa.
>
> [..]
>
>
Jon Janssen
grains and beasn are farmed
grasses come from pastures, or from cutting dwon forests. Cutting
down forests causes deaths, and the common event of overgrazing on pastures
turns the land nto desert, which deprives other animals of their living off
that land as they once did.
"C. Jarrett" <rast...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3AB455FE...@bigfoot.com...
Jon Janssen
> "Jon Janssen" <resp...@home.com> wrote ...
> > since feeding aniamls to develop meat requires a greater amount of
grain,
> > then it measn that greater amount of grain is needed, and the number
of
> > rodents killed in the process are increased because of the increased
> > requirement for grains
> >
> >
> > "C. Jarrett" <rast...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:3AB3262F...@bigfoot.com...
> > > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering,
but
> > > > instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> > > > suffering of animals.
> > >
> > > Jon -
> > >
> > > As long as you do not measure your actual impact you have
> > > no idea whether or not you are actually "reducing"
> > > suffering.
> >
> > I think it's very likely that by not buying meat it reduces the demand,
and
> > that will reduce the amount of meat created.
>
> You still aren't looking at the suffering YOU cause.
>
I already have. I get the idea that you'd only be satisfied if I spend
every post expounding on my suffering. here's your question
turned at you, which is just as relevant: Why don't you address the
suffering you cause, instead of pointing the finger at me?
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AB390...@bright.net...
> > > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > firstoftwins welcome :-)
> > > >
> > > > please take care when reading some people's comments here.
> > > >
> > > > There are people here who are not interested in reducing suffering,
but
> > > > instead want to be hostile and unsupportive of efforts to reduce the
> > > > suffering of animals.
> > > =================================
> > > Which is exactly what we've been trying to tell you Jon. You state
> > > reduction as an interest, but cannot support that you ARE doing
anything
> > > to reduce the number of animals you kill. It is just a 'feel good'
> > > dogma that you have been brainwashed into believing.
> >
> > If you haven't measured it yourself, then why are you concluding that it
> > isn't true?
> ==================
> Because I don't make the original claim that NO death/suffering occurs.
> I just have to point out 1 death to blow your propaganda out of the
> water.
so the fact that you don't claim something means that you don't need to
measure it to know that it's incorrect? that doesn't make any logical
sense
Jon Janssen
farms. Do you agree with that?
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:3AB464...@bright.net...
Jon Janssen
Your doubting of written thigs can continue till you'd conclude that
anything that is not personally experienced can't have any value. You
can do what you want, but I'll continue to read secondary sources.
You have no way of knowing if the majority of content you read in primary
articles is ture or not- so why trust them as having any value?
p.s. if you find any references that contridict the information, then I'll
listen. But if all your doing is saying "you can't be sure" about anything
that is posted, except the things you want to beieve, then there is no
point to the conversation.
Jon
"John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
news:1eqgyji.1g8dtw51p7m891N%um...@montana.edu...
rick etter
>
> the majority of pork sold, bought, and eaten, in the USA comes from factory
> farms. Do you agree with that?
The majority of veggies sold, bought and eaten comes from factory farms.
Disagree? At least the pigs are killed humanely, unlike the critters
for your food. The problem is it just takes one exception to blow
your(veg*n) claims that all meat is 'factory farmed'.
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:3AB464...@bright.net...
> > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > >
> > > rick, here is some information with credible references. Please tell
> me
> > > if credible information counts as propaganda
> > >
> > > (references at end)
> > >
> > > In the pig industry,
> > ==============================
> > Again, how many exceptions do I give you that show your 'references' do
> > not apply to all pork? You continue to point fingers at others, yet
> > will do nothing to alleviate the death/suffering from your diet. Why
> > does the hypocritical way appeal to you so much?
--
John Mercer
> John, so anything that you haven't read is false?
No. Why don't you answer my question? How do you know that either the
information or the references are credible, Jon?
Your claim, your burden of proof. Why not do the ethical thing and admit
that you have no idea of the credibility?
> That is very illogical.
>
Yes, that position would be illogical. That's why you falsely and
unethically attributed that position to me.
> Your doubting of written thigs can continue till you'd conclude that
> anything that is not personally experienced can't have any value.
No, as I noted, you need to check the credibility of a source before you
claim it to be credible.
> You
> can do what you want, but I'll continue to read secondary sources.
>
I know you will. You are mainly concerned with reaffirming your
religious beliefs, not with learning the truth.
> You have no way of knowing if the majority of content you read in primary
> articles is ture or not- so why trust them as having any value?
>
Because most of them are important enough that other investigators use
them as a foundation for further work, which acts as an internal
control.
> p.s. if you find any references that contridict the information, then I'll
> listen.
No, you won't. You'll just continue making false statements about
credibility from ignorance.
> But if all your doing is saying "you can't be sure"
Jon, ethical people use quotation marks to denote what someone actually
said, not what they wish the other person said.
You're not an ethical person. Here's my question:
How do you know that either the information or the references are
credible, Jon?
> about anything
> that is posted, except the things you want to beieve, then there is no
> point to the conversation.
>
The point is to show that you make sweeping arguments from ignorance,
and I thank you for your help in providing evidence.
Your top-posting is some of the best evidence of all. Why not answer my
questions?
rick etter
>
> cattle requirte grains.beans, or grasses.
>
> grains and beasn are farmed
>
> grasses come from pastures, or from cutting dwon forests. Cutting
> down forests causes deaths, and the common event of overgrazing on pastures
> turns the land nto desert, which deprives other animals of their living off
> that land as they once did.
What a load!! Jon, haven't you posted that you are in Penn? I'd
imagine that it wouldn't take 2 hours driving from anywhere you live to
see small farms with cows grazing peacefully in pastures. And have been
for generations without the dire predictions you speak off. Last I
heard, there weren't too many deserts in Penn.
As far as cutting down forests, more forests, and farms for that matter,
are losts to you urban terrorists than anything!!
PS, how about the number State did on NC?
rick etter
> > > If you haven't measured it yourself, then why are you concluding that it
> > > isn't true?
> > ==================
> > Because I don't make the original claim that NO death/suffering occurs.
> > I just have to point out 1 death to blow your propaganda out of the
> > water.
>
> so the fact that you don't claim something means that you don't need to
> measure it to know that it's incorrect? that doesn't make any logical
> sense
Sure it does. My claim is that you(veg*ns) are liars. You(veg*ns) come
into the group claiming that your diet causes no animal
death/suffering. You provide NO support for that view, other than other
veg*ns lies and propaganda. I, on the other hand don't have to measure
the entireness of the suffering of your diet, I just have to show 1
death occurs and your whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
C. Jarrett
>
> cattle requirte grains.beans, or grasses.
>
> grains and beasn are farmed
>
> grasses come from pastures, or from cutting dwon forests.
I take it you haven't traveled in the Western US or
Canada.
The acreage of forests in North America is *increasing*.
> Cutting
> down forests causes deaths, and the common event of overgrazing on pastures
> turns the land nto desert, which deprives other animals of their living off
> that land as they once did.
Most of the US past the 100th parallel is desert. But, if
you traveled across the western US, you would observe
cattle, deer, antelope, and many other animals grazing
side by side.
Monoculture deprives animals of land and overgrazing
pastures is not a "common event" in grazing cattle.
You seem to have swallowed vegan propaganda without
question.
And you keep posting it in this newsgroup (without
properly noting the source).
[...]
rick etter
> >
> > People must live, why should they feel guilty about it?
>
> nobody said anything about feeling guilty. Besides the above section was
> written by rick etter. I am only trying to encourage people who want to
> reduce suffering. I am strongly apposed to making people feel guilty, as
> it can lead to lethergy, instead of positive motivation or positive
> feelings.
======================
But Jon, didn't you have great positive feelings and motivation when you
arrived here? Then you found out that many of your positive feelings
were out and out lies. Wheren't you a least feeling a little guilty at
all the years you were killing more animals than you knew, and did
nothing to stop their deaths because of ignorance? Has learning it not
inspired you to think in different ways? Think of there possibly being
other ways that really reduce death/suffering?
> >
> > > and if you eat meat then you also know that cows are getting "a nice
> fast
> > > bolt to the head."
> >
> > Yea, that's nice.
> >
> > > surely there's less harm in only contributing to the little fuzzies
> being
> > > killed, and not neccessitating that more of them be killed (in order to
> > > produce mutiple pounds of grain to create fewer pounds of meat)
> >
> > Myth
>
> are you saying that 1 pound of grain/beans creates one pound of meat?
> >
> > > as well as
> > > neccessitating that cows get killed in addition.
> >
> > They wouldn't be alive in the first place if not for the food industry.
>
> some of the animals would be better of not being born. read the life of a
> veal calf. In my opinion, it'd be better if the were never born.
====================
Are you obsessed with veal or something? I never had it, let me know
what it's like.
> >
> > > Unless you are hand farming, you are likely causing some degree of harm
> by
> > > your diet. And we could all yell and blame each other, and this would
> > > accomplish bad feelings,
> >
> > The only reason anyone blames you is because you can't stop pointing your
> fingers at
> > other people.
>
> Here's what happened- I came to this newsgroup to talk to others who are
> vegan. you, rick etters, and a few others would call me a looney, tell me
> my life revolves around animals, tell me I was silly, an idiot, and a few
> other things.
===========================
No, you came here with the typical veg*n, "I don't cause the
death/suffering of animals because I care, I'm a veg*n" line of BS.
You are the ones who are pointing fingers, not me.
> You are the ones who are here trying to convince everyone else that they are
> wrong and bad for what they do.....or so it seems
=======================
No, but intentions and actions are two different things. You state your
intentions as causing no death/suffering of animals, yet you can't say
that your actions do or do not cause less.
>
> >
> > > or we could think of ways to reduce the harm.
> > > and support each other in efforts to reduce harm, and encourage efforts.
--------------
I feel that I have encouraged a way that can reduce some suffering.
Veg*ns don't want to think about it though. Their 'ethics' isn't quite
what the say.
> >
> > Why don't you start worrying about your own contribution instead of other
> peoples'?
>
> read my above section- you are the one who is trying to convince people,
> not vice' versa.
----------------------------
We are trying to only 'convince' you to take a truely honest look at
what you say you believe and what you do.
rick etter
>
> rick,
>
> I thik that there are many sterotypes that you apply to veg*ans in general,
> and because veg*ans differ some of those stereoptypes will be incorrect.
And, in your mind, you didn't say meat-eater=murderer? Veg*ns have far
more names and death wishes for us than we do for you. Try checking out
some old posts. Heck, there's even one right now, can't remember the
name, spewing hate and death wishes on meat-eaters. For the most part,
you can't tell one loon from another in the first posts they make to
usenet.
>
> What is the difference between caring about animals who are killed for food,
> and having the desire to reduce the deaths?
-----------------------------------
Only that 'caring' and 'desire' don't equate to actions that make a
difference. You've proven that point, right? You had the desire and
you cared, yet you still were responsible for the death/suffering of
countless animals in the most torturous, inhumane ways.
>
> The idea that all veg*ans' lives revolve around the death/suffering of
> animals is an incorrect belief. For some it's just caring about the
> death of food animals, like you said you do and extending their concern to
> try to reduce the deaths.
=======================
But for many, it IS the 'ethics' of the diet they claim as the
motivating factor. I'm just pointing out their absolute hypocricy in
stating that by just eating they make any difference.
>
> Just like one can care about homeless people and write a check for $20
> doesn't mean that person's life revolves around the homeless.
============================
No, but you didn't also post to usenet that your 'ethics' tells you that
you must do what you can for the homeless, regardless of the possibility
that that $20 was used for booze, he gets drunk and falls in front of a
bus. Didn't really help him any, but it sure made you 'feel good' about
yourself at the time, eh?
>
> Eating a veg*an diet or living the lifestyle might seem like a great
> sacrifice of what is pleasurable, but it isn't for everyone.
================================
Give me a break. Going to the grocery and buying food is a sacrifice?
This is just what I'm talking about. Veg*ns assume that they are
'sacrificing' something for 'the good of the animals', when in fact they
are doing nothing!!! Sacrificing, if you REALLY want to save animals
would entail much much more than just by-passing the meat aisles while
driving around all over town getting this little herb here, that little
spice there...
Some people
> are more comfortable not buying veal whch they might have liked the taste
> of, for instance, and for them they're not deprived of their pleasures; they
> are more fulfilled by living according to principles and helping others than
> by having the familiar good taste.
--------------------
Never had veal, Jon. You recommending the taste?
But, what principles are you living up to? You haven't shown that you
kill fewer animals than all meat-eaters, and you still kill animals in
horrendous ways. How much pleasure do you derive from knowing that a
cow was not killed(quickly) just for you, so that many animals could be
maimed/killed instead?
Dutch
If you are truly concerned about your ethical position regarding animal suffering then
the suffering you cause should be your primary concern. You can't control or take
responsibility for what others do.
here's your question
> turned at you, which is just as relevant: Why don't you address the
> suffering you cause, instead of pointing the finger at me?
What you see is not my finger, it's your finger turned back at you. My attitude
towards the suffering I cause is not at issue since I do not claim to follow a diet or
lifestyle that causes less suffering of animals. I might hope that it does, but I
don't know it. I once thought my diet did that, but I just could not support it with
strong enough arguments to sustain the belief.
[..]
John Mercer
> cattle requirte grains.beans, or grasses.
Not quite. You can feed cattle on only fodder.
>
> grains and beasn are farmed
>
> grasses come from pastures, or from cutting dwon forests.
How can I get grasses from cutting down forests?
Are you familiar with the term "prairie," Jon?
> Cutting
> down forests causes deaths, and the common event of overgrazing on pastures
How common is this event, Jon?
> turns the land nto desert, which deprives other animals of their living off
> that land as they once did.
>
What proportion of grazing is overgrazing, Jon?
Doesn't crop farming deprive many animals of their living off
that land as they once did, even when done organically?
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> snip...
>
> > >
> > > People must live, why should they feel guilty about it?
> >
> > nobody said anything about feeling guilty. Besides the above section
was
> > written by rick etter. I am only trying to encourage people who want
to
> > reduce suffering. I am strongly apposed to making people feel guilty,
as
> > it can lead to lethergy, instead of positive motivation or positive
> > feelings.
> ======================
> But Jon, didn't you have great positive feelings and motivation when you
> arrived here? Then you found out that many of your positive feelings
> were out and out lies. Wheren't you a least feeling a little guilty at
> all the years you were killing more animals than you knew, and did
> nothing to stop their deaths because of ignorance? Has learning it not
> inspired you to think in different ways? Think of there possibly being
> other ways that really reduce death/suffering?
>
yes i did have postive feelings when I came here.
the only thing i learned was different than what i thought was that there
are rodents killed in the production of plant foods, and that there was more
than 1 variable in Ornish's work- neither were lies that were told to me.
the conclusion on Ornish's work wasn't true, but it can't be said that it
was told to m with the knowledge that it wasn't true
yes, I was hurt by learning that rodents are being killed and that my
lifestyle contributed t more deaths than I thought. I was alrady aware that
there are animal by-products used in almost every aspect of assembly-line
manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I already knew that there was
death contributed to by my lifestyle. But, sure, learning that there is
more deaths contributed to hurt me.
of course my ignorance stopped me from doing anything
about the deaths. I'm glad that I do know about them; not everything is
rosy and I'd rather keep striving for an accurate undderstanding of reality
and cause-and-effect so I can understand how to chaneg thigns effectively
Surely, I have thought about it last night, even. I realize that individual
hunting only requires one death, where as harvesting grain on a farm kills
many rodents. I really want to know more because there could be many
salient points - like if 200 rodents were killed in the process of producing
20,000 meals (1 death per 100 meals), then it could kill less lives per meal
than killing a deer which provides like 1 death per 50 meals or whatever.
And learning how many rodents are killed and exactly how they are killed,
and if any other animals are killed, and if there are different methods that
entail fewer deaths.
One thing i do know is that a lot of meat from supermarkets comes from
factory-farms, and there is more than 1 death caused by eat of those animal
growing and being killed (since the farmed animals eat grain/beans). So
meat from hunted animals is different than farmed meat, in terms of the
collatreral deaths.
I realize that in terms of deaths, understanding more about the collateral
deatsh is needed to have informed thoughts.
>
> > >
> > > > and if you eat meat then you also know that cows are getting "a
nice
> > fast
> > > > bolt to the head."
> > >
> > > Yea, that's nice.
> > >
> > > > surely there's less harm in only contributing to the little fuzzies
> > being
> > > > killed, and not neccessitating that more of them be killed (in order
to
> > > > produce mutiple pounds of grain to create fewer pounds of meat)
> > >
> > > Myth
> >
> > are you saying that 1 pound of grain/beans creates one pound of meat?
> > >
> > > > as well as
> > > > neccessitating that cows get killed in addition.
> > >
> > > They wouldn't be alive in the first place if not for the food
industry.
> >
> > some of the animals would be better of not being born. read the life of
a
> > veal calf. In my opinion, it'd be better if the were never born.
> ====================
> Are you obsessed with veal or something? I never had it, let me know
> what it's like.
>
why I mention veal is that the commonmethods of raising veal are very
restricting to the calf, and are among the most cruel I have learned of.
Mentioning veal brings up how sufferable the conditions can be; not for all
animals raised for meat, but for some. It shows a great degree of
suffering that does occur.
If one wants to eat a diet with as little death/suffer as possible, veal
would increase the suffering for no gain in calories created, and would be a
step in the wrong direction.
I'm not sure if I ever ate it when I ate meat. My grandfather likes it a
lot, supposedly it's very tender, for meat.
>
> > >
> > > > Unless you are hand farming, you are likely causing some degree of
harm
> > by
> > > > your diet. And we could all yell and blame each other, and this
would
> > > > accomplish bad feelings,
> > >
> > > The only reason anyone blames you is because you can't stop pointing
your
> > fingers at
> > > other people.
> >
> > Here's what happened- I came to this newsgroup to talk to others who are
> > vegan. you, rick etters, and a few others would call me a looney, tell
me
> > my life revolves around animals, tell me I was silly, an idiot, and a
few
> > other things.
> ===========================
> No, you came here with the typical veg*n, "I don't cause the
> death/suffering of animals because I care, I'm a veg*n" line of BS.
>
Rick, I had a very clear knowledge that my vegan lifestyle contributed/s to
deaths throught the animal by-products used in the rubber in my car tires,
used in manufacturing basically every (if not every single) assembly-line
produced item I have bought (as per lubricants used in the machines, and
adhesives used in many things.
I learned this from www.veganoutreach.org . When I was curious about
harms of eggs and dairy, it was their pamphelt that gave me some information
on the living conditions of, at least, some of the cows and hens. The
information was hard to think about- the idea of not having a completely
peaceful lifestyle was a hard truth to learn, but again I'd rather have an
accurate understanding of reqality so I can have an accurate idea of how
things inter-relate, so I can have more success in causing changes that I
want to cause
>
>
> You are the ones who are pointing fingers, not me.
> > You are the ones who are here trying to convince everyone else that they
are
> > wrong and bad for what they do.....or so it seems
> =======================
> No, but intentions and actions are two different things. You state your
> intentions as causing no death/suffering of animals, yet you can't say
> that your actions do or do not cause less.
>
I would b interested in measuing the suffering and death caused by a vegan
diet and other diets , so to compare them, but I have no idea how to do such
a complex measurement. From what I have learned about food, it seems
that big farmed plant foods require less pollution, deaths, and suffering,
than farmed meats. Plus, my path is to reduce suffering and death,
and I want to focus on how to reduce, or if possible eliminate the death and
suffering (fruitarian, small scale hand processed foods) and killing an
animal is opposed to my path- killing is what I want to move away from...
>
> >
> > >
> > > > or we could think of ways to reduce the harm.
> > > > and support each other in efforts to reduce harm, and encourage
efforts.
> --------------
> I feel that I have encouraged a way that can reduce some suffering.
> Veg*ns don't want to think about it though. Their 'ethics' isn't quite
> what the say.
>
your idea of hunting animals who have grazed makes sense that it kills just
one animal ad provides several meals. I'm curious in the deaths per meal
ratio of hunting as compared to farmed plants.
Understand that many veg*ans have been ridiculed and attacked harshly by
other people. In order to distinguish you from them takes me/us to read
explicitly your motivation.
comments like "don't you care about the deaths you cause"
reminds me like many emotional attacks I have gotten from other people.
You are the first person who has emotionally opposed veg*anism and
had the point about collateral deaths. I have heard stuff like that cows
would overpopulate the earth if we didn't eat them, ideas that animals were
born to be eaten by us, and other 'arguments' that weren't true or were just
arbitrary judgements. After being slammed by many people, I, and
others I know, develop a defense to those who seem to be doing the same
attacking or ridiculing.
The other guy here who calls veg*s "loonys" or who called me an
"idiot" a "fool" and other insults feeds that those who oppose veg*anism
simply want to insult and blame. They certainly make it harder for a
message like your to be considered.
> > >
> > > Why don't you start worrying about your own contribution instead of
other
> > peoples'?
> >
> > read my above section- you are the one who is trying to convince
people,
> > not vice' versa.
> ----------------------------
> We are trying to only 'convince' you to take a truely honest look at
> what you say you believe and what you do.
That's admirable, in my opinion. I'm glad to have learned about collateral
deaths, and am sure I will continue to consider them. Please
let veg*ans know that you are different from those who attack us, so we'll
be more likely to view you as not just trying to insult us like the others
do.
I hope you do continue to spread the info of collateral deaths,
and can do it in a peaceful and compassionate way- for those who have a
strong want to do all they can to stop the horrors that some animals live
through, the information can be very hard hitting
Jon
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > cattle requirte grains.beans, or grasses.
> >
> > grains and beasn are farmed
> >
> > grasses come from pastures, or from cutting dwon forests.
>
> I take it you haven't traveled in the Western US or
> Canada.
>
> The acreage of forests in North America is *increasing*.
>
the forests being destroyed are in latin america and brazil, as opposed to
being in the USA.
http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0851992307.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/
http://www.nasm.edu/ceps/research/AMAZON/amazon.html
>
> > Cutting
> > down forests causes deaths, and the common event of overgrazing on
pastures
> > turns the land nto desert, which deprives other animals of their living
off
> > that land as they once did.
>
> Most of the US past the 100th parallel is desert. But, if
> you traveled across the western US, you would observe
> cattle, deer, antelope, and many other animals grazing
> side by side.
>
they aren't grazing in the desert.
yes, there has been desert
and overgrazing has caused the amount of grazable land to decrease as it has
been turned into desert
> Monoculture deprives animals of land and overgrazing
> pastures is not a "common event" in grazing cattle.
>
overgrazing is not uncommon, it is a problem that is identifies as a
probelm, therefor it is common......
http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/northernrange/natreg/overgrazing.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/problems_overgrazing.html
> You seem to have swallowed vegan propaganda without
> question.
>
the above commets and links should show that the ideas of overgrazing are
true and are common, and are facts.
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen <resp...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > cattle requirte grains.beans, or grasses.
>
> Not quite. You can feed cattle on only fodder.
okay, good to know. Are any cattle fed 100% on fodder?
> >
> > grains and beasn are farmed
> >
> > grasses come from pastures, or from cutting dwon forests.
>
> How can I get grasses from cutting down forests?
it is is widely used method...
http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0851992307.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/
http://www.nasm.edu/ceps/research/AMAZON/amazon.html
http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/northernrange/natreg/overgrazing.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/problems_overgrazing.html
>
> Are you familiar with the term "prairie," Jon?
yes, why?
>
> > Cutting
> > down forests causes deaths, and the common event of overgrazing on
pastures
>
> How common is this event, Jon?
see the above links, and realize that those aren't all the accounts of
overgrazing that exist.
>
> > turns the land nto desert, which deprives other animals of their living
off
> > that land as they once did.
> >
> What proportion of grazing is overgrazing, Jon?
I haven't seen any %. but the links suggest that it's a significant amount
>
> Doesn't crop farming deprive many animals of their living off
> that land as they once did, even when done organically?
>
crop farming will deprive animals from continuing to eat on the land, and
live on it, by the fact that the forest that was once there was cut down,
which some animals died in the process.
It's a given that animals die in the process of mass farmed plant
foods.
still, i believe that farmed meats cause more deaths than does farmed plant
foods. Both cause hamr, and I believe that the plants cause less death and
suffering . And also cause less pollution, energy use, water use,
deforestation, desertification, and land use
Jon
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen <resp...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > John, so anything that you haven't read is false?
>
> No. Why don't you answer my question? How do you know that either the
> information or the references are credible, Jon?
I don;t know for 100% that anything I read is true unless I experience it
personally. Just as you do not know anything that you read is true unless
you experience it, and I understand that you do accept some of what you
read as being true, just as I do.
>
> Your claim, your burden of proof. Why not do the ethical thing and admit
> that you have no idea of the credibility?
>
> > That is very illogical.
> >
> Yes, that position would be illogical. That's why you falsely and
> unethically attributed that position to me.
>
here's what I said, before you edited it to edit the meaning
"so anything that you haven't read is false? That is very illogical."
> > Your doubting of written thigs can continue till you'd conclude that
> > anything that is not personally experienced can't have any value.
>
> No, as I noted, you need to check the credibility of a source before you
> claim it to be credible.
unlss you do an experiemnt yourself, and do it several times and are somehow
not biased, can you ever be sure of the credibility of a finding? I
understand that you have taken many articles you have read as being true,
even though they might not be. You are not sure that they are true, but
you accpet them as being true.
hopefully, you can see how there is some value in a degree of
faith......unless you accordingly don't trust ANYTHING that you have not
experienced personally
>
> > You
> > can do what you want, but I'll continue to read secondary sources.
> >
> I know you will. You are mainly concerned with reaffirming your
> religious beliefs, not with learning the truth.
when I realize the collateral deaths of rodents, obviously I am not just
interested in affirming my already held beliefs. Please stop judging my so
negatively, when you don't know me.
>
> > You have no way of knowing if the majority of content you read in
primary
> > articles is ture or not- so why trust them as having any value?
> >
> Because most of them are important enough that other investigators use
> them as a foundation for further work, which acts as an internal
> control.
>
> > p.s. if you find any references that contridict the information, then
I'll
> > listen.
>
> No, you won't. You'll just continue making false statements about
> credibility from ignorance.
yes, I will.
remember, as you have not expereinced the majority of what you have read,
then you are ignorantly putting faith in the writers, as well. This
doesn't make either of us bad people- it just measn that we use a degree
of faith/trust in information that comes from a source we trust because of
their apparent relation to the information.
>
> > But if all your doing is saying "you can't be sure"
>
> Jon, ethical people use quotation marks to denote what someone actually
> said, not what they wish the other person said.
>
> You're not an ethical person. Here's my question:
>
> How do you know that either the information or the references are
> credible, Jon?
read above.
>
> > about anything
> > that is posted, except the things you want to beieve, then there is no
> > point to the conversation.
> >
> The point is to show that you make sweeping arguments from ignorance,
> and I thank you for your help in providing evidence.
read above to see that if you have not experienced the things you read and
quote, that you use ignorance in your comments as well
>
> Your top-posting is some of the best evidence of all. Why not answer my
> questions?
there are times that I do not check email. I hope you can understand
Jon
C. Jarrett
[...]
> the forests being destroyed are in latin america and brazil, as opposed to
> being in the USA.
This is irrelevant to any discussion about cattle in the
US.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/96-01-17/intbeef.html
[...]
> > Most of the US past the 100th parallel is desert. But, if
> > you traveled across the western US, you would observe
> > cattle, deer, antelope, and many other animals grazing
> > side by side.
> >
> they aren't grazing in the desert.
Yes, they are. Most of the US west of the 100th parallel
is a desert. The prairies where the ranches are located
get very little rain -
> yes, there has been desert
> and overgrazing has caused the amount of grazable land to decrease as it has
> been turned into desert
The amount of "grazable" land isn't decreasing or turning
into desert.
You are just blindly accepting vegan propaganda.
> > Monoculture deprives animals of land and overgrazing
> > pastures is not a "common event" in grazing cattle.
> >
> overgrazing is not uncommon, it is a problem that is identifies as a
> probelm, therefor it is common......
> http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/northernrange/natreg/overgrazing.html
> http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/problems_overgrazing.html
Did you even bother to read these two links? One is about
overgrazing by wild elk and the other is about overgrazing
in the Himalayas.
Sheesh.
> > You seem to have swallowed vegan propaganda without
> > question.
> >
> the above commets and links should show that the ideas of overgrazing are
> true and are common, and are facts.
No, the above comments show that you don't even bother to
read what you post. You can't even think for yourself.
[...]
rick etter
> it is is widely used method...
> http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0851992307.html
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/
> http://www.nasm.edu/ceps/research/AMAZON/amazon.html
=============
These links make much effort to inform you that many reason are involved
in cutting. Ranches only being a part. Why are you so dishonest to
imply that they are about cattle farms only?
> http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/northernrange/natreg/overgrazing.html
==============
This one is about Elk in YNP. Just tells me that hunting needs to be
opened up in the area to keep the herd at a sustainable size. That what
you advocating?
> http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/problems_overgrazing.html
===============
This ones the best, though. How much of your food production do you get
from the Himalayas? Tell us how many crops can be grown in many of
those regions, Jon.
Jonathan Ball
Jon Janssen wrote:
>
> "C. Jarrett" <rast...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3AB6B0E5...@bigfoot.com...
> > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > >
> > > cattle requirte grains.beans, or grasses.
> > >
> > > grains and beasn are farmed
> > >
> > > grasses come from pastures, or from cutting dwon forests.
> >
> > I take it you haven't traveled in the Western US or
> > Canada.
> >
> > The acreage of forests in North America is *increasing*.
> >
>
> the forests being destroyed are in latin america and brazil, as opposed to
> being in the USA.
But the cattle ranching under discussion is in the U.S. Don't move the
goalposts.
The causes of tropical deforestation are much more complex than you make
them out to be. Although a lot of it is done primarily for cattle
grazing, the governments in the affected areas are mainly to blame, as
they have instituted and maintained policies that encourage the
deforestation. Below is a lengthy post I put up back in early February
on the topic:
------------------------------
Various people have posted material in these and other newsgroups
purporting to "prove" that developed nations' demand for "beefburgers"
is driving tropical deforestation. (I'll ignore the silly pejorative of
the quoted term "beefburger"; it really speaks for itself, as well as
the sneering self-righteousness of its users.)
When asked to support the claim, no one ever has; all we get are new
links to webpages of activist groups, reiterating the claim. (Illweed:
I'm talking about *you*.)
I located a book called "Development or Destruction: The Conversion of
Tropical Forest to Pasture in Latin America". It is a collection of
some 24 articles by academics looking at the problem. The book is
published by Westview Press, copyright 1992, edited by Theodore E.
Downing, Susanna B. Hecht, Henry A. Pearson, and Carmen Garcia-Downing.
All of the editors except Pearson also contributed articles.
The rainforest groupies will take vindication at knowing the consensus
of the authors is that conversion to pasture is the primary cause of
deforestation in the tropics of Latin America. However, they will find
no comfort in learning that the consensus also is that raising beef for
export to the U.S. and western Europe is not to blame. Here's Susanna
Hecht:
One of the most common explanations for pasture driven deforestation
focuses on the international beef market. The so-called "hamburger
connection" focused on the idea that international commerce for beef
was stimulating the patterns of forest conversion for grassland that
became so disturbing during the last 25 years...International market
dynamics have very little to do with the expansion of livestock
production in the Amazon lowland forests. Amazon herds are a very
small portion of national herds (usually less than 5%); aftosa (foot
and mouth disease) is endemic to the region and thus their products
are ineligible for international export.
...It is worth noting that U.S. imports of Latin American beef are
generally less than 5% of the total beef imports, which are eclipsed
by meat purchased from Australia, New Zealand and the EEC. However,
international exports of beef have generally declined from tropical
areas in national terms and as a portion of market share, reflecting
the surge in production by the European community.
The consensus of the various authors is that conversion of forest to
pasture is primarily driven by land use policies set by national
governments in the region. Several authors devote much of their
articles to discussing Brazilian policy in particular, focusing on
fiscal incentives including tax holidays, subsidized credits, and land
concessions. They also elaborate the idea that the development of
cattle ranching operations is an effective way to claim title to land,
and it is these land claims, rather than cattle ranching as an economic
enterprise, that are driving the deforestation. There is additional
discussion of cattle as a relatively liquid capital investment for
peasant farmers, and one that can be easily moved in the event of
eviction, which does occur.
I can't emphasize enough that all of the authors of articles in the book
believe that tropical deforestation is a problem, and that conversion to
pasture land for cattle is a major part of the problem. What is
completely missing is *any* belief that this is an export driven
phenomenon, and that reducing demand for beef in the western world is a
neat, easy solution.
Below are some links to charts showing that the U.S. is a very small net
importer of beef, and that the overwhelming portion of beef imported
into the U.S. does not come from tropical countries. The charts were
assembled by someone named Brian Roe, at Ohio State University
(agricultural extension). The first, at
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/Faculty/broe/outlook/CattleAug99/sld001.htm,
indicates that imports of beef into the U.S. rose from a level equal to
about 10% of domestic production to around 11%, from 1999 to 2000;
exports remained stable at about 10% of U.S. production (the chart
doesn't indicate if these percentages are of weight or of dollar
value.) Thus, the U.S. is a slight net importer of beef, of an amount
roughly equal to 1% of domestic production. The next one, at
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/Faculty/broe/outlook/CattleAug99/sld003.htm,
shows that exports exceeded imports in 2000 by a relatively small
amount; imports appear to be around 2,800 million pounds, while exports
were about 2,300 million.
The third chart, at
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/Faculty/broe/outlook/CattleAug99/sld005.htm,
shows that beef imports are primarily from Australia, New Zealand and
Canada. Unfortunately, the unit of measurement is missing from the Y
axis, but it would appear still to be millions of pounds. In 1999,
imports from New Zealand were around 275 million pounds; from Australia,
around 340 million; and from Canada, around 370 million. By contrast,
imports from Brazil were about 75 million; from Argentina, around 65-70
million; and from Central America, significantly under 50 million. Note
that Argentine beef production does not depend at all on tropical
deforestation, and most Brazilian beef production occurs far to the
south of the Amazonian rain forest.
The idea that U.S. and European demand for "beefburgers" is driving
tropical deforestation is an unsupported myth.
------------------------------
[...]
Dutch
> news:3AB6B7...@bright.net...
> > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > snip...
>
> are rodents killed in the production of plant foods, and that there was more
> than 1 variable in Ornish's work- neither were lies that were told to me.
> the conclusion on Ornish's work wasn't true, but it can't be said that it
> was told to m with the knowledge that it wasn't true
Not only rodents, birds, foxes, moles, lizards..
> yes, I was hurt by learning that rodents are being killed and that my
> lifestyle contributed t more deaths than I thought. I was alrady aware that
> there are animal by-products used in almost every aspect of assembly-line
> manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I already knew that there was
> death contributed to by my lifestyle. But, sure, learning that there is
> more deaths contributed to hurt me.
Because it's in your food chain it hits home.
> of course my ignorance stopped me from doing anything
> about the deaths. I'm glad that I do know about them; not everything is
> rosy and I'd rather keep striving for an accurate undderstanding of reality
> and cause-and-effect so I can understand how to chaneg thigns effectively
Right on !
> Surely, I have thought about it last night, even. I realize that individual
> hunting only requires one death, where as harvesting grain on a farm kills
> many rodents. I really want to know more because there could be many
> salient points - like if 200 rodents were killed in the process of producing
> 20,000 meals (1 death per 100 meals), then it could kill less lives per meal
> than killing a deer which provides like 1 death per 50 meals or whatever.
> And learning how many rodents are killed and exactly how they are killed,
> and if any other animals are killed, and if there are different methods that
> entail fewer deaths.
Sure, but in the end it's life&death, that's all. You should not worry.
> One thing i do know is that a lot of meat from supermarkets comes from
> factory-farms, and there is more than 1 death caused by eat of those animal
> growing and being killed (since the farmed animals eat grain/beans). So
> meat from hunted animals is different than farmed meat, in terms of the
> collatreral deaths.
The collateral deaths realization trashs the whole notion of ethical vegetarianism,
it's not a challenge to come up with an excuse.
> I realize that in terms of deaths, understanding more about the collateral
> deatsh is needed to have informed thoughts.
It mainly just must be considered as a factor.
[..]
> > ====================
> > Are you obsessed with veal or something? I never had it, let me know
> > what it's like.
> >
>
> why I mention veal is that the commonmethods of raising veal are very
> restricting to the calf, and are among the most cruel I have learned of.
That is Animal Welfare. I will stand at your side to argue in that cause.
[..]
> I would b interested in measuing the suffering and death caused by a vegan
> diet and other diets , so to compare them, but I have no idea how to do such
> a complex measurement.
I have seen attempts at this exercise using estimates. The results are disappointing
to veg*ns.
From what I have learned about food, it seems
> that big farmed plant foods require less pollution, deaths, and suffering,
> than farmed meats. Plus, my path is to reduce suffering and death,
> and I want to focus on how to reduce, or if possible eliminate the death and
> suffering (fruitarian, small scale hand processed foods) and killing an
> animal is opposed to my path- killing is what I want to move away from...
Go rural, grow veggies, raise chickens, milk a cow, do canning. That way you control
your own food supply.
> > > > > or we could think of ways to reduce the harm.
> > > > > and support each other in efforts to reduce harm, and encourage
> efforts.
> > --------------
> > I feel that I have encouraged a way that can reduce some suffering.
> > Veg*ns don't want to think about it though. Their 'ethics' isn't quite
> > what the say.
> >
>
> your idea of hunting animals who have grazed makes sense that it kills just
> one animal ad provides several meals. I'm curious in the deaths per meal
> ratio of hunting as compared to farmed plants.
Hey we have Jon Janssen hunting elk instead of eating store bought veggies!
[..]
> The other guy here who calls veg*s "loonys" or who called me an
> "idiot" a "fool" and other insults feeds that those who oppose veg*anism
> simply want to insult and blame. They certainly make it harder for a
> message like your to be considered.
People are understandably slighted by people who imply that they are some kind of
unevolved monster for eating meat.
[..]
>
> That's admirable, in my opinion. I'm glad to have learned about collateral
> deaths, and am sure I will continue to consider them. Please
> let veg*ans know that you are different from those who attack us, so we'll
> be more likely to view you as not just trying to insult us like the others
His method worked pretty well on you ;>)
> do.
> I hope you do continue to spread the info of collateral deaths,
> and can do it in a peaceful and compassionate way-
Nah,.. that wouldn't be rick
Eat well killer! Can you see yet that is NOT an insult?
Jon Janssen
something that isn't true
here's what I posted earlier, ythough you may not have seen the post yet..
"
I was alrady aware that there are animal by-products used in almost every
aspect of assembly-line manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I
already knew that there was
death contributed to by my lifestyle. "
I have NEVER claimed on this NG that my vegan lifestyle does not contribute
to deaths
please remember that
Jon
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:3AB6A4...@bright.net...
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > the majority of pork sold, bought, and eaten, in the USA comes from
factory
> > farms. Do you agree with that?
> --------------------
> The majority of veggies sold, bought and eaten comes from factory farms.
> Disagree? At least the pigs are killed humanely, unlike the critters
> for your food. The problem is it just takes one exception to blow
> your(veg*n) claims that all meat is 'factory farmed'.
>
please notice that I said "> > the majority of pork sold, bought, and eaten,
in the USA comes from factory > > farms. Do you agree with that?"
'majority' and 'all'
anyway, do you agree that the majority are produced in factory farms?
yes, I believe tha majority of plant food for people comes from factory
farms
if the pigs are raised on a factory farm then there are more fuzzy critters
who die by eating the pigs then by me eating the plants by themselves.
p.s. please acknowledge that I realize that rodents are killed in the
production of foods I eat
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > rick,
> >
> > I thik that there are many sterotypes that you apply to veg*ans in
general,
> > and because veg*ans differ some of those stereoptypes will be
incorrect.
> =======================
> And, in your mind, you didn't say meat-eater=murderer? Veg*ns have far
> more names and death wishes for us than we do for you. Try checking out
> some old posts. Heck, there's even one right now, can't remember the
> name, spewing hate and death wishes on meat-eaters. For the most part,
> you can't tell one loon from another in the first posts they make to
> usenet.
you changed the topic
why don;t we talk about this topic first, and then your topic can be talked
about on it's own thread.
>
> >
> > What is the difference between caring about animals who are killed for
food,
> > and having the desire to reduce the deaths?
> -----------------------------------
> Only that 'caring' and 'desire' don't equate to actions that make a
> difference. You've proven that point, right? You had the desire and
> you cared, yet you still were responsible for the death/suffering of
> countless animals in the most torturous, inhumane ways.
as I have said many times, i am already aware and acknowledge that animals
are killed because of the food i eat. My aim is to reduce sufferinf/deaths
over the long-term. My goal is not to eliminate all suffering and death
because that seems impossible. I am trying to reduce it
what I am saying is that you say you care about the animals, but it's wrong
to you that other people change their diet to reduce the suffering. I don't
understand.
>
>
> >
> > The idea that all veg*ans' lives revolve around the death/suffering of
> > animals is an incorrect belief. For some it's just caring about
the
> > death of food animals, like you said you do and extending their
concern to
> > try to reduce the deaths.
> =======================
> But for many, it IS the 'ethics' of the diet they claim as the
> motivating factor. I'm just pointing out their absolute hypocricy in
> stating that by just eating they make any difference.
when someone buys veal, they create demand for it, and the farmers will
produce enough to fill the demand. It's like with organic food- the
only reason it's here in supermarkets in growing quantity is because people
buy it- if people didn't buy it there would not be growing quantities.
what people buy with their money most definitely has an effect.
>
>
> >
> > Just like one can care about homeless people and write a check for $20
> > doesn't mean that person's life revolves around the homeless.
> ============================
> No, but you didn't also post to usenet that your 'ethics' tells you that
> you must do what you can for the homeless, regardless of the possibility
> that that $20 was used for booze, he gets drunk and falls in front of a
> bus. Didn't really help him any, but it sure made you 'feel good' about
> yourself at the time, eh?
it went to a group that buys food for the homeless. I'll stay curious
about your attempts to make me feel guilty or blame me for the harm I cause.
>
>
> >
> > Eating a veg*an diet or living the lifestyle might seem like a great
> > sacrifice of what is pleasurable, but it isn't for everyone.
> ================================
> Give me a break. Going to the grocery and buying food is a sacrifice?
> This is just what I'm talking about. Veg*ns assume that they are
> 'sacrificing' something for 'the good of the animals', when in fact they
> are doing nothing!!! Sacrificing, if you REALLY want to save animals
> would entail much much more than just by-passing the meat aisles while
> driving around all over town getting this little herb here, that little
> spice there...
I don';t buy herbs and spices. I do my shopping at one store. The idea
that all vegans drive to different stores and buy herbs and spices is a
false stereotype.
I was talking about sacrificing the taste of meat and of cheese. If you
like cheese and ever stop eating it, you'll know what I mean about
sacirificing. They are things you like and then you just stop eating them.
you have no numbers that veg*anism does nothing and you have no reasoning or
logic to support it. There is reasoning to suggest that eating veg*arian
does reduce the suffering/death one causes.
>
>
> Some people
> > are more comfortable not buying veal whch they might have liked the
taste
> > of, for instance, and for them they're not deprived of their pleasures;
they
> > are more fulfilled by living according to principles and helping others
than
> > by having the familiar good taste.
> --------------------
> Never had veal, Jon. You recommending the taste?
I don't remember eating it. my grandfather likes it and says it is very
tender.
pork roll and cheese steak were my favorite animal tastes
> But, what principles are you living up to? You haven't shown that you
> kill fewer animals than all meat-eaters, and you still kill animals in
> horrendous ways.
I can accept that i still kill animals- i am trying to reduce
suffering/death and if I can't do that immediately, so be it. I don't have
to convince antis that my diet is less harmful for it to be less harmful.
there are reasons why it is less harmful, and the supply/deamnd of veal and
organics is one example. Another is that farmed meats require more
grains/beans (and thus more killed rodents) than does eating the plants
themselves.
this is pretty basic reasoning and logic
yes I still kill animals, and yes I have changed so that I am killing fewer,
and yes I will continue to change to kill even fewer
>How much pleasure do you derive from knowing that a
> cow was not killed(quickly) just for you, so that many animals could be
> maimed/killed instead?
if less animals overall die in the process, then I feel less bad, than if I
was eating the cow who neccessitated more rodent deaths.
Since I already understand that my diet causes deaths, and keep staing this,
why do you seem to keep trying to convince or remind me of that point?
Dutch
> > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > >
> > > the majority of pork sold, bought, and eaten, in the USA comes from
> factory
> > > farms. Do you agree with that?
> > --------------------
> > The majority of veggies sold, bought and eaten comes from factory farms.
> > Disagree? At least the pigs are killed humanely, unlike the critters
> > for your food. The problem is it just takes one exception to blow
> > your(veg*n) claims that all meat is 'factory farmed'.
> >
>
> please notice that I said "> > the majority of pork sold, bought, and eaten,
> in the USA comes from factory > > farms. Do you agree with that?"
>
> 'majority' and 'all'
>
> anyway, do you agree that the majority are produced in factory farms?
> yes, I believe tha majority of plant food for people comes from factory
> farms
>
> if the pigs are raised on a factory farm then there are more fuzzy critters
> who die by eating the pigs then by me eating the plants by themselves.
Why are you wasting time trying to figure which diet kills fewer mice?
> p.s. please acknowledge that I realize that rodents are killed in the
> production of foods I eat
Do you really think anyone is worried about how many mice are killed?
[..]
rick etter
>
> Rick, please read my next words and remember them, becasue you keep saying
> something that isn't true
>
> here's what I posted earlier, ythough you may not have seen the post yet..
>
> "
> I was alrady aware that there are animal by-products used in almost every
> aspect of assembly-line manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I
> already knew that there was
> death contributed to by my lifestyle. "
>
> I have NEVER claimed on this NG that my vegan lifestyle does not contribute
> to deaths
The items you mention above have nothing to do with a veg*n lifestyle.
You(veg*ns) all run together after a few posts, but wasn't it you that
came here NOT knowing that your veg*n DIET caused death/suffering? And,
didn't you express the believe that your diet didn't kill?
John Mercer
> "John Mercer" <um...@montana.edu> wrote in message
> news:1eqj02b.rkgg5y1284lanN%um...@montana.edu...
> > Jon Janssen <resp...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > John, so anything that you haven't read is false?
> >
> > No. Why don't you answer my question? How do you know that either the
> > information or the references are credible, Jon?
>
> I don;t know for 100% that anything I read is true unless I experience it
> personally.
The issue is whether you had any reason to claim it to be credible, Jon.
You had none.
> Just as you do not know anything that you read is true unless
> you experience it,
I know that veg*n dogma is rarely credible, because I've looked
underneath.
> and I understand that you do accept some of what you
> read as being true, just as I do.
>
I provisionally accept a lot of what I read as true, but I never claim
something to be credible unless I have tested it for credibility. Your
"source" flunked the first test.
> > Your claim, your burden of proof. Why not do the ethical thing and admit
> > that you have no idea of the credibility?
> >
> > > That is very illogical.
> > >
> > Yes, that position would be illogical. That's why you falsely and
> > unethically attributed that position to me.
> >
>
> here's what I said, before you edited it to edit the meaning
> "so anything that you haven't read is false? That is very illogical."
Yes, you were using the straw man fallacy via innuendo. That was very
unethical of you.
> > > Your doubting of written thigs can continue till you'd conclude that
> > > anything that is not personally experienced can't have any value.
> >
> > No, as I noted, you need to check the credibility of a source before you
> > claim it to be credible.
>
> unlss you do an experiemnt yourself, and do it several times and are somehow
> not biased, can you ever be sure of the credibility of a finding?
We were discussing your false claim that the author of your beloved book
was credible. Your claim was a deliberate attempt to deceive your
audience, Jon.
> I
> understand that you have taken many articles you have read as being true,
> even though they might not be.
I don't claim anything as credible unless there is a foundation for my
opinion. You have no foundation.
> You are not sure that they are true, but
> you accpet them as being true.
We're talking about credibility.
> hopefully, you can see how there is some value in a degree of
> faith......unless you accordingly don't trust ANYTHING that you have not
> experienced personally
The issue is why you told others that the author was credible, when you
had no evidence.
> > > You
> > > can do what you want, but I'll continue to read secondary sources.
> > >
> > I know you will. You are mainly concerned with reaffirming your
> > religious beliefs, not with learning the truth.
>
> when I realize the collateral deaths of rodents, obviously I am not just
> interested in affirming my already held beliefs. Please stop judging my so
> negatively, when you don't know me.
>
You have very little credibility with me, Jon.
> >
> > > You have no way of knowing if the majority of content you read in
> primary
> > > articles is ture or not- so why trust them as having any value?
> > >
> > Because most of them are important enough that other investigators use
> > them as a foundation for further work, which acts as an internal
> > control.
> >
> > > p.s. if you find any references that contridict the information, then
> I'll
> > > listen.
> >
> > No, you won't. You'll just continue making false statements about
> > credibility from ignorance.
>
> yes, I will.
I know you pretty well, don't I?
>
> remember, as you have not expereinced the majority of what you have read,
> then you are ignorantly putting faith in the writers, as well. This
> doesn't make either of us bad people- it just measn that we use a degree
> of faith/trust in information that comes from a source we trust because of
> their apparent relation to the information.
No, you claimed the book to be credible, which is an implicit claim that
you have done more than read it.
> >
> > > But if all your doing is saying "you can't be sure"
> >
> > Jon, ethical people use quotation marks to denote what someone actually
> > said, not what they wish the other person said.
> >
> > You're not an ethical person. Here's my question:
> >
> > How do you know that either the information or the references are
> > credible, Jon?
>
> read above.
> >
Where?
> > > about anything
> > > that is posted, except the things you want to beieve, then there is no
> > > point to the conversation.
> > >
> > The point is to show that you make sweeping arguments from ignorance,
> > and I thank you for your help in providing evidence.
>
> read above to see that if you have not experienced the things you read and
> quote, that you use ignorance in your comments as well
Which comments?
> > Your top-posting is some of the best evidence of all. Why not answer my
> > questions?
>
> there are times that I do not check email. I hope you can understand
>
This has nothing to do with E-mail.
John Mercer
> yes, I was hurt by learning that rodents are being killed and that my
> lifestyle contributed t more deaths than I thought. I was alrady aware that
> there are animal by-products used in almost every aspect of assembly-line
> manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I already knew that there was
> death contributed to by my lifestyle. But, sure, learning that there is
> more deaths contributed to hurt me.
But you still haven't learned that there is little or no correlation
between the amount of animal material in a product or food and the
amount of suffering caused by that product or food, so there's more
hurtin' on the way.
Are you familiar with the fallacy of denying the antecedent, Jon?
John Mercer
How many are killed? Do you kill more or less than Rick?
> My aim is to reduce sufferinf/deaths
> over the long-term.
Why not over the short term? Don't those animals count for anything?
> My goal is not to eliminate all suffering and death
> because that seems impossible. I am trying to reduce it
You're not trying to reduce anything unless you are trying to measure
the thing you are trying to reduce, Jon.
Arguing with us instead of measuring the suffering you cause just proves
that you have no interest in reducing anything.
>
> what I am saying is that you say you care about the animals, but it's wrong
> to you that other people change their diet to reduce the suffering. I don't
> understand.
Does your diet cause less suffering and death than Rick's?
> > > The idea that all veg*ans' lives revolve around the death/suffering of
> > > animals is an incorrect belief. For some it's just caring about
> the
> > > death of food animals, like you said you do and extending their
> concern to
> > > try to reduce the deaths.
> > =======================
> > But for many, it IS the 'ethics' of the diet they claim as the
> > motivating factor. I'm just pointing out their absolute hypocricy in
> > stating that by just eating they make any difference.
>
> when someone buys veal, they create demand for it, and the farmers will
> produce enough to fill the demand.
When people buy cheap, machine-harvested veggies and grains, they create
demand for them, and farmers won't bother to use animal-friendly
harvesting methods.
> It's like with organic food- the
> only reason it's here in supermarkets in growing quantity is because people
> buy it- if people didn't buy it there would not be growing quantities.
>
> what people buy with their money most definitely has an effect.
> >
So why aren't you insisting on grains and veggies that are grown with
reduced suffering and death to the poor animals?
---snip---
>
> you have no numbers that veg*anism does nothing
He doesn't need any. You're the one claiming that veganism reduces
suffering and death to animals. The burden of proof is yours.
> and you have no reasoning or
> logic to support it.
Our claim is that you neither know nor care how many animals suffer and
die for your convenience. Every post you and your comrades make supports
this claim. The evidence is overwhelming.
> There is reasoning to suggest that eating veg*arian
> does reduce the suffering/death one causes.
No, there is not. Reduction requires measurement, and there is no single
veg*n diet, just as there is no single omnivorous diet. The amounts of
suffering and death vary wildly within the categories.
Your choice is a false one.
---snip---
>
> yes I still kill animals,
How many?
> and yes I have changed so that I am killing fewer,
How do you know if you refuse to count the ones you kill now?
---snip---
Jon Janssen
If Rick eats only animals who were hunted, adn easts plant foods that were
processed and grown on a smaller-scale operation that the plant foods I buy,
then I'd assume that rick's diet causes less suffering/death
> > My aim is to reduce sufferinf/deaths
> > over the long-term.
>
> Why not over the short term? Don't those animals count for anything?
>
yes they count, or rather, I think they count. But some things cannot
happen immediately. Even the change in McDonald's egg suppliers will need
time to adjust to th new changes. When something can't happen
immediately, then it's more wise to not try to expect immediate change.
> > My goal is not to eliminate all suffering and death
> > because that seems impossible. I am trying to reduce it
>
> You're not trying to reduce anything unless you are trying to measure
> the thing you are trying to reduce, Jon.
by not buying veal, I am not creating additional deamnd for it. I am
measuring it by the fact that 0% of my money goes towards veal, or meat, or
eggs, or milk.
Spending 0% of my money towards those products creates less demand for them
than if I spent a greater % of my money buying them. That is a
measurement
>
> Arguing with us instead of measuring the suffering you cause just proves
> that you have no interest in reducing anything.
> >
> > what I am saying is that you say you care about the animals, but it's
wrong
> > to you that other people change their diet to reduce the suffering. I
don't
> > understand.
>
> Does your diet cause less suffering and death than Rick's?
read what I said above
>
> > > > The idea that all veg*ans' lives revolve around the death/suffering
of
> > > > animals is an incorrect belief. For some it's just caring
about
> > the
> > > > death of food animals, like you said you do and extending their
> > concern to
> > > > try to reduce the deaths.
> > > =======================
> > > But for many, it IS the 'ethics' of the diet they claim as the
> > > motivating factor. I'm just pointing out their absolute hypocricy in
> > > stating that by just eating they make any difference.
> >
> > when someone buys veal, they create demand for it, and the farmers will
> > produce enough to fill the demand.
>
> When people buy cheap, machine-harvested veggies and grains, they create
> demand for them, and farmers won't bother to use animal-friendly
> harvesting methods.
>
I'd agree. I think people need to lern about the ways in which rodfents and
other animasl, if any, are killed in the process in order to look for ways
to reduce those deaths.
As people grow more aware, there will be more incentive for farmers to
adjust to the public feelings, just like organic foods.
> > It's like with organic food- the
> > only reason it's here in supermarkets in growing quantity is because
people
> > buy it- if people didn't buy it there would not be growing
quantities.
> >
> > what people buy with their money most definitely has an effect.
> > >
> So why aren't you insisting on grains and veggies that are grown with
> reduced suffering and death to the poor animals?
>
the majority of pork, beef, chicken, veal, ham are fed with grains/beans,
and, I understand right all animals are 'finished' with grains/beans.
By reducing the number of animals that need to be grown to meet the demand
for meat, it would reduce, overall, the amount of grains/beans that are
needed to be grown. That will likely reduce the overall number of deaths
of the rodents killed in the processing of the grains/beans. As well, as
those meat animals will not be killed themselves. It will also
reduce the water use, the energy use, the pollution created, and the amount
of land needed, as well as the amount of forests turned into grazeland.
studying the ways that rodents are killed, and then assessing what things
can be done to reduce or hopefully eventually eliminate those deaths, is
another way that the number of rodent deaths can be reduced.
Reducing the number of meat animals killed will reduce both their deaths, as
well as the number of rodents killed.
> ---snip---
> >
> > you have no numbers that veg*anism does nothing
>
> He doesn't need any. You're the one claiming that veganism reduces
> suffering and death to animals. The burden of proof is yours.
>
read my reasoning above- it seems valid. and in the absense of any
numbers supporting, or contradicting, that vegan diets from farmed plant
foods cause less suffering/death than farmed meats reasoning to
support the idea can be used, since there is more reasoning and logic for
than against the idea
sure, there's no proof. but the reasons suggest that it's likely that
reducing the amount of farmed meat one eats (or saying increasing that aount
of plant foods one eats) will reduce suffering.
> > and you have no reasoning or
> > logic to support it.
>
> Our claim is that you neither know nor care how many animals suffer and
> die for your convenience. Every post you and your comrades make supports
> this claim. The evidence is overwhelming.
>
I do care about all animals and all people. I have never met another
person from here in person, and have had one personal email from an person
who opposed the idea of veganism, and one person who encourages the ideas of
veganism
again, I'd rather direct the talk toward the ideas of suffering of diets,
ratehr than respond to personal attacks on the speakers
> > There is reasoning to suggest that eating veg*arian
> > does reduce the suffering/death one causes.
>
> No, there is not. Reduction requires measurement, and there is no single
> veg*n diet, just as there is no single omnivorous diet. The amounts of
> suffering and death vary wildly within the categories.
>
yes, there are different varieties of vegan and omnivore diets. i can see
that some meat-eating diets can cause less harm than some plant-based diets.
meat-eating diets will always require deaths, where as some plant-based
diets do not- I want to approach a diet that does not cause deaths.
> Your choice is a false one.
>
a choice is a choice. everyone makes their own
> ---snip---
> >
> > yes I still kill animals,
>
> How many?
fewer than if I ate a diet that included farmed meat. I want to reduce
suffering, and only need to know 'greater' or 'lesser' in order to do
that.
>
> > and yes I have changed so that I am killing fewer,
>
> How do you know if you refuse to count the ones you kill now?
i never said or suggested that i refuse. What is a way that one could
measure the animals killed in ones diet? You can only suggest doing
something if it is possible to do.....
I'm just going to copy what I typed above:
the majority of pork, beef, chicken, veal, ham are fed with grains/beans,
and, I understand right all animals are 'finished' with grains/beans.
By reducing the number of animals that need to be grown to meet the demand
for meat, it would reduce, overall, the amount of grains/beans that are
needed to be grown. That will likely reduce the overall number of deaths
of the rodents killed in the processing of the grains/beans. As well, as
those meat animals will not be killed themselves. It will also
reduce the water use, the energy use, the pollution created, and the amount
of land needed, as well as the amount of forests turned into grazeland.
as I am wanting to reduce the suffering/deaths ratehr than acheive a
specific number, I solely need to know if a certain food causes 'more' or
'less' suffering than another food. I do not need to know exact amounts
to know more or less.
like, if I wanted to eat fewer calories. I could know that eating an
apple and a sandwich would give me more calories than eating only the
sandwich. 'More' and 'less' don't require exact values and measurments
make you own choices always, and allow others to make their own
Jon
>
> ---snip---
Jon Janssen
> "Jon Janssen" <resp...@home.com> wrote...
> >
> > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > the majority of pork sold, bought, and eaten, in the USA comes from
> > factory
> > > > farms. Do you agree with that?
> > > --------------------
> > > The majority of veggies sold, bought and eaten comes from factory
farms.
> > > Disagree? At least the pigs are killed humanely, unlike the critters
> > > for your food. The problem is it just takes one exception to blow
> > > your(veg*n) claims that all meat is 'factory farmed'.
> > >
> >
> > please notice that I said "> > the majority of pork sold, bought, and
eaten,
> > in the USA comes from factory > > farms. Do you agree with that?"
> >
> > 'majority' and 'all'
> >
> > anyway, do you agree that the majority are produced in factory farms?
> > yes, I believe tha majority of plant food for people comes from
factory
> > farms
> >
> > if the pigs are raised on a factory farm then there are more fuzzy
critters
> > who die by eating the pigs then by me eating the plants by themselves.
>
> Why are you wasting time trying to figure which diet kills fewer mice?
I'm spending my time on the topic because if I want to kill fewer animals,
knowing what foods cause fewer is important.
>
> > p.s. please acknowledge that I realize that rodents are killed in the
> > production of foods I eat
>
> Do you really think anyone is worried about how many mice are killed?
>
I am. I don't see them die, and I don't hear them. But, i think their
suffering hurts them, and I'd rather as few of them suffer as possible.
> [..]
>
>
Jon Janssen
exactly. I get bad feelings from whn I've seen hurt animals, or when I see
a dead animal that was hit by a car, or when I learned about my food coming
from killed animals.
I adjusted my diet, wanting to not cause that suffering and deaths.
Then I leanred about factory-farmed eggs and milk, and stopped eating them
too, becasue I didn';t want to cause that harm. And then I got
perfectionistic about it, and sought to eliminate all animal-byproducts from
my lifestyle. I didn't eat casein, lethicin if it wasn't mentioned that
it was soy-based, and other stuff.
Then when I read from Vegan Outreach that animal byproducts are used
in adhesives, tires, lubricants, and realized that I would used those thing
as long as I lived in the general society, I was crushed. I felt like
giving up, and then I thought I could move into the woods if I really
decided to. That decision didn't feel right- it felt like running away
from the problem, ratehr than trying to help it. So I
eventually decided to continue living and efforting to reduce my use of
animal products as much as 'possible' and realize that I wasn't going to be
able to eliminate al of them from my life....rather I choose not to
eliminate all of them from my life, seeing as living in the woods in a log
cabin could acheive that.
>
> > of course my ignorance stopped me from doing anything
> > about the deaths. I'm glad that I do know about them; not everything is
> > rosy and I'd rather keep striving for an accurate undderstanding of
reality
> > and cause-and-effect so I can understand how to chaneg thigns
effectively
>
> Right on !
yeah, they seem like great ideas, and I'm glad to the people who exposed me
to them..
I'm sure many people have the idea, and I have the Dalai Lama to thank for
learning about understanding reality and the inter-relationships to
understand the consequences of one's actions.
>
> > Surely, I have thought about it last night, even. I realize that
individual
> > hunting only requires one death, where as harvesting grain on a farm
kills
> > many rodents. I really want to know more because there could be
many
> > salient points - like if 200 rodents were killed in the process of
producing
> > 20,000 meals (1 death per 100 meals), then it could kill less lives per
meal
> > than killing a deer which provides like 1 death per 50 meals or
whatever.
> > And learning how many rodents are killed and exactly how they are
killed,
> > and if any other animals are killed, and if there are different methods
that
> > entail fewer deaths.
>
> Sure, but in the end it's life&death, that's all. You should not worry.
i view natural death differently than one being killed by another, excpet
for if the one wants to be killed, like in euthanasia. We are all gonna
die, and I personally don't think that the suffering of life will matter to
one after they have died, or been killed. But when they're alive I think
it matter a lot. I will be dead one day, and I don't think anything
will matter to me, but if I broke my arm today, I'd matter a lot.
>
> > One thing i do know is that a lot of meat from supermarkets comes from
> > factory-farms, and there is more than 1 death caused by eat of those
animal
> > growing and being killed (since the farmed animals eat grain/beans).
So
> > meat from hunted animals is different than farmed meat, in terms of the
> > collatreral deaths.
>
> The collateral deaths realization trashs the whole notion of ethical
vegetarianism,
> it's not a challenge to come up with an excuse.
>
'ethical vegetarinism' generally refers to the motivation for the diet. it
describes that a person choose to be vegetarian because of the welfare of
the animals. It doesn't refer to eliminating suffering/death.
people will have their own ideas on these labels, and some people will
apply the label of 'vegetarian' when they eat fish, and other will een use
if when they eat chicken.
I guess anyone can see it either as they perceive it, or as others see
it.
But regardless of what the labels are, which are arbitrary, living by
vegetarianism and veganism can still cause suffering and death.
For me, and some others, their aim of their changes in diet, or with
'veganism" it's a matter of lifestyle because for most it aims to reduce the
use of animals as much as possible and includes not using leather, wool,
down, and other animal non-foods. ....the aim is to reduce the amount of
suffering.
for others they aim to emilinate suffering. Some of them likely think they
they still cause some suffering, and some others likely think that they
don't cause deaths.
the ideas of animal by-products in common products, and collateral deaths
aren't comonly known ideas from the stuff I've read. Vegan Outreach had a
separate article introducing the fact of the prevalence of animal
by-products in everday things.
>
> > I realize that in terms of deaths, understanding more about the
collateral
> > deatsh is needed to have informed thoughts.
>
> It mainly just must be considered as a factor.
>
I'm curious to understand how mnay die in what crops, and with what methods,
because I have an eye for wanting to thinking about how to improve things.
I'd love to be able to have my own farm when I grow up, and I want to know
how to reduce those deaths, or just know it for understandings-sake
> [..]
> > > ====================
> > > Are you obsessed with veal or something? I never had it, let me know
> > > what it's like.
> > >
> >
> > why I mention veal is that the commonmethods of raising veal are very
> > restricting to the calf, and are among the most cruel I have learned of.
>
> That is Animal Welfare. I will stand at your side to argue in that cause.
thanks- there is a big difference in shooting an animal, and in the way
some animals are kept.
this reminds me a bit of the controversy in deer hunts in park. Around me
there are a lot of houses going up on once forested land, and the deer are
getting concentrated in parks. Because there are so many deer, the parks
allow hunters to come in and shoot a certain number.
Looked at on the surface, and there's a big group that might see it
this way, is that gentle animals are being killed. One more deeper
piece of understanding is that if ther deer ppulation is left large, then in
the winter, the large number of deer will eat all the available bark and
shrubs, and many will starve. One effect of shooting some is that there
are not enough left to consume all the bark and shrubs in the winter.
Granted there are onther alternatives, such as costly
relocation, and sterilization, but they are besides my point of basic needs
and needless harm.
>
> [..]
>
> > I would b interested in measuing the suffering and death caused by a
vegan
> > diet and other diets , so to compare them, but I have no idea how to do
such
> > a complex measurement.
>
> I have seen attempts at this exercise using estimates. The results are
disappointing
> to veg*ns.
Please post any info, hints, links, or possible places to look.
>
> From what I have learned about food, it seems
> > that big farmed plant foods require less pollution, deaths, and
suffering,
> > than farmed meats. Plus, my path is to reduce suffering and
death,
> > and I want to focus on how to reduce, or if possible eliminate the death
and
> > suffering (fruitarian, small scale hand processed foods) and killing
an
> > animal is opposed to my path- killing is what I want to move away
from...
>
> Go rural, grow veggies, raise chickens, milk a cow, do canning. That way
you control
> your own food supply.
If I went rural, I'd aim for 100% hand-grown grains/beans/veggies/fruits,
and nuts. having zero suffering and death from my food consumption would be
a dream if I can achieve it.
>
> > > > > > or we could think of ways to reduce the harm.
> > > > > > and support each other in efforts to reduce harm, and encourage
> > efforts.
> > > --------------
> > > I feel that I have encouraged a way that can reduce some suffering.
> > > Veg*ns don't want to think about it though. Their 'ethics' isn't
quite
> > > what the say.
> > >
> >
> > your idea of hunting animals who have grazed makes sense that it kills
just
> > one animal ad provides several meals. I'm curious in the deaths per
meal
> > ratio of hunting as compared to farmed plants.
>
> Hey we have Jon Janssen hunting elk instead of eating store bought
veggies!
as for now, I am curious to see numbers. I really want to aim for not
requiring deaths/suffering in order to eat, and by choosig hunting it
would neccessitate. But the information comes before analysis...
>
> [..]
> > The other guy here who calls veg*s "loonys" or who called
me an
> > "idiot" a "fool" and other insults feeds that those who oppose
veg*anism
> > simply want to insult and blame. They certainly make it harder for a
> > message like your to be considered.
>
> People are understandably slighted by people who imply that they are some
kind of
> unevolved monster for eating meat.
>
I can see it clearly both ways. I don't have the experience of being
slighted when I did eat meat, but I have seen and read enough angry PETA and
other groups' thoughts. I think the general thing is that meat-eaters
get called evil and cruel, and that veggies get called loonies and
extremists. Both of those groups really need to get control of
their emotions before they speak, but for both I can imagine how the
emotions seem justified at the time.
> [..]
> >
> > That's admirable, in my opinion. I'm glad to have learned about
collateral
> > deaths, and am sure I will continue to consider them.
Please
> > let veg*ans know that you are different from those who attack us, so
we'll
> > be more likely to view you as not just trying to insult us like the
others
>
> His method worked pretty well on you ;>)
believe me, I think there are few things that can be done perfectly, but a
more gentle, understanding technique would have been much more easily read.
all the same, I'm glad he typed it his way, rather than not at all. I hope
he can type more gently next time.
>
> > do.
> > I hope you do continue to spread the info of collateral
deaths,
> > and can do it in a peaceful and compassionate way-
>
> Nah,.. that wouldn't be rick
>
> Eat well killer! Can you see yet that is NOT an insult?
>
>
I can imagine it not being an insult. An insult is gonna be defined
by the person who says something and the person who receives it.
generally, calling a vegetarian or vegan a killer will be taken as if it was
intended to hurt.
it is descriptive, as is calling everyone a killer, polluter, consumer,
trasher, and many other non pleasant thing to be summed up as.
i enjoyed this thread
Jon
Jon Janssen
here's why I think there is a correlation
the majority of pork, beef, chicken, veal, ham are fed with grains/beans,
and, I understand right all animals are 'finished' with grains/beans.
By reducing the number of animals that need to be grown to meet the demand
for meat, it would reduce, overall, the amount of grains/beans that are
needed to be grown. That will likely reduce the overall number of deaths
of the rodents killed in the processing of the grains/beans. As well, as
those meat animals will not be killed themselves. It will also
reduce the water use, the energy use, the pollution created, and the amount
of land needed, as well as the amount of forests turned into grazeland.
>
> Are you familiar with the fallacy of denying the antecedent, Jon?
I took logic twice, but didn't memorize all the labels. I don't remember
that one
Jon Janssen
it is on of my concerns, as well as sharing information with others who are
looking.
I realize that everyone makes their own decisions, and I don't take
responsibility or cntrol for what others do. I don't try to.
> here's your question
> > turned at you, which is just as relevant: Why don't you address the
> > suffering you cause, instead of pointing the finger at me?
>
> What you see is not my finger, it's your finger turned back at you. My
attitude
> towards the suffering I cause is not at issue since I do not claim to
follow a diet or
> lifestyle that causes less suffering of animals. I might hope that it
does, but I
> don't know it. I once thought my diet did that, but I just could not
support it with
> strong enough arguments to sustain the belief.
>
if you have changed to eat less meat, then here's some reasons why it does
help
(this is the same thing I have typed and posted before, here it's again)
the majority of pork, beef, chicken, veal, ham are fed with grains/beans,
and, I understand right all animals are 'finished' with grains/beans.
By reducing the number of animals that need to be grown to meet the demand
for meat, it would reduce, overall, the amount of grains/beans that are
needed to be grown. That will likely reduce the overall number of deaths
of the rodents killed in the processing of the grains/beans. As well, as
those meat animals will not be killed themselves. It will also
reduce the water use, the energy use, the pollution created, and the amount
of land needed, as well as the amount of forests turned into grazeland.
> [..]
>
>
Jon Janssen
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > Rick, please read my next words and remember them, becasue you keep
saying
> > something that isn't true
> >
> > here's what I posted earlier, ythough you may not have seen the post
yet..
> >
> > "
> > I was alrady aware that there are animal by-products used in almost
every
> > aspect of assembly-line manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I
> > already knew that there was
> > death contributed to by my lifestyle. "
> >
> > I have NEVER claimed on this NG that my vegan lifestyle does not
contribute
> > to deaths
> =======================
> The items you mention above have nothing to do with a veg*n lifestyle.
veganism is a lifestyle- anything relating to how a vegan lives is part of
the life and part of their life-style
> You(veg*ns) all run together after a few posts, but wasn't it you that
> came here NOT knowing that your veg*n DIET caused death/suffering? And,
> didn't you express the believe that your diet didn't kill?
>
Rick, please read my above type where i say that i was aware that my
lifestyle caused harm and death
here it is again- i'll copy and paste what is 20 lines above
> > I was alrady aware that there are animal by-products used in almost
every
> > aspect of assembly-line manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I
> > already knew that there was
> > death contributed to by my lifestyle. "
I didn't think that my diet caused deaths when I came here. And know I
assume that it does cause deaths.
to me this newsgroup is about discussing animal welfare in food animals,
and it seems like to you this newsgroup is about discussing if other people
who are vegetarians/vegans are aware that they cause death.
above
dh...@nomail.com
>With the current shame in the farming community, couldn't they at least see
>the error in their ways & grow crops instead. Eating fruit & veg in
>preference to meat must surely appeal to everyone with their natural
>instincts to animals in tact. Look at the disgusting loss of those poor
>creatures. I know they were all ear marked for someones plate anyway, but
>why kill them ALL just to keep our exports open. Surely vegetarianism, or
>better still a vegan attitude to life, will be seen to offer a healthier
>body & mind to all.
ˇ Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet. What they try to avoid is
products which provide life (and death) for farm animals,
but even then they would have to avoid the following in order
to be successful:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Buttons, Baseballs, Footballs, Surgical sutures,
China, Soaps, Photographic film, Cosmetics, Brushes, Perfume,
Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, Toothpaste,
Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Fabric printing/dying
http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Cellophane, Cement, Insulation, Matches, Plastics, Ornaments,
Rubber, Porcelain enamel, Fertilizer, Insecticides, Weed killers,
Floor waxes, Glass, Glue, Water Filters, Upholstery, Antifreeze
http://www.nppc.org/Food%20Safety/triviaNEW.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
CATTLE MEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Adrenal Glands
Epinephrine is used to relieve some symptoms of hay fever, asthma and some allergies.
It is also used as a heart stimulant in some crisis situations, and by dentists to prolong
the effect of local anesthetics.
Blood
Thrombin from cattle blood helps blood clotting, and is valuable in treating wounds to
inaccessible parts of the body. It is also used in skin grafting.
Liver
Liver extract is sometimes combined with folic acid and injected to treat various types
of anemia.
Pancreas
Perhaps the best known contribution, insulin derived from cattle pancreas, is used to
treat diabetes. Glucagon helps counteract insulinshock.
Others medical products include rennet, epinephrine, thrombin, heparin, TSH, ACTH,
cholesterol, estrogen, thyroid extract.
SWINE MEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Heart
Valves from young to adult hogs are used in valve replacement surgery in humans, from
infancy to old age. They are in some cases superior to mechanical valves because they
don't stick and do not need the same level of anti-coagulant infusion. In the last 12
years, more than 250,000 lives have been saved through implantation of swine heart
valves.
Skin
Due to its similarity to human skin, pigskin is used
to treat massive burns and large accidental skin
removal. Gelatin is used for capsules and pills.
Thyroid
Extracts are used to regulate the rate of
metabolism in humans. Another extract is used to
treat low calcium and phosphate levels
and regulate heart beat.
Pancreas
Extracts are the source of insulin; even
with synthetic insulin, there are an
estimated 5% of all diabetics allergic to all
but insulin from hogs.
Medical products from hog production include cortisone, Norepinephrine, plasmin,
blood fibrin, heart valves, estrogen, relaxin, insulin, burn dressings, pepsin and oxytocin.
http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year.
Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin
dependent -- they would be dead.
60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure
from lack of medication to control their high blood pressure.
Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive
acute lymphocytic leukemia.
More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year
because cataract surgery would be impossible.
Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord
injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements
would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs.
7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now
preventable through phototherapy.
There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with
end-stage renal disease.
Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of
modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general
insensitivity to pain.
Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others
would join the two million people already killed by the disease.
Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died from
anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and more than 200 other
diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.
http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.
In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]
http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
For much more see:
http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Teddy C Budell
rick etter wrote:
>
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >
> > rick, here is some information with credible references. Please tell me
> > if credible information counts as propaganda
> >
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:3AB92B...@bright.net...
> > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > >
> > > Rick, please read my next words and remember them, becasue you keep
> saying
> > > something that isn't true
> > >
> > > here's what I posted earlier, ythough you may not have seen the post
> yet..
> > >
> > > "
> > > I was alrady aware that there are animal by-products used in almost
> every
> > > aspect of assembly-line manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I
> > > already knew that there was
> > > death contributed to by my lifestyle. "
> > >
> > > I have NEVER claimed on this NG that my vegan lifestyle does not
> contribute
> > > to deaths
> > =======================
> > The items you mention above have nothing to do with a veg*n lifestyle.
>
> veganism is a lifestyle- anything relating to how a vegan lives is part of
> the life and part of their life-style
Hck, then I must be practically veg*n. I drive, I use electricty, I use
water, I use many modern appliances, i eat, i sleep, and eventually I
die. Yep, sounds pretty much like you, eh? If veg*n is a lifestyle,
and animal rights are a part of it, then I'd suggest that so many veg*ns
are hy[pocrites as to render the lifestyle immoral, by their own
definitions.
> > You(veg*ns) all run together after a few posts, but wasn't it you that
> > came here NOT knowing that your veg*n DIET caused death/suffering? And,
> > didn't you express the believe that your diet didn't kill?
> >
>
> Rick, please read my above type where i say that i was aware that my
> lifestyle caused harm and death
>
> here it is again- i'll copy and paste what is 20 lines above
=============================
Haven't you also stated you believe in animal rights?
> > > I was alrady aware that there are animal by-products used in almost
> every
> > > aspect of assembly-line manufacturing and in the car I drive, etc- so I
> > > already knew that there was
> > > death contributed to by my lifestyle. "
>
> I didn't think that my diet caused deaths when I came here. And know I
> assume that it does cause deaths.
>
> to me this newsgroup is about discussing animal welfare in food animals,
> and it seems like to you this newsgroup is about discussing if other people
> who are vegetarians/vegans are aware that they cause death.
===============================
Why is it about food-animals? It's about animals, vegetarians, and
'ethics'. You a veggie? Then your 'ethics' of animal rights takes a
backseat somewhere alone the road of your diet. Either animals have
these inherent 'rights' to life, or they don't. Which is it to you?
Jon Janssen
"Teddy C Budell" <ahy...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3ABCF112...@pacbell.net...
> Yes Rick! Got foot and mouth? Now dont have a mad cow!
>
> rick etter wrote:
> >
> > Jon Janssen wrote:
> > >
> > > rick, here is some information with credible references. Please
tell me
> > > if credible information counts as propaganda
> > >
> > > (references at end)
> > >
> > > In the pig industry,
> > ==============================
> > Again, how many exceptions do I give you that show your 'references' do
> > not apply to all pork?
they apply to the majority of porn produced in the USA- do you agree with
that?
You continue to point fingers at others,
I am posting information, not pointing fingers- you are not correctly
perceiving what I'm doing. I'm saying "for those who want to know how
most of the pigs for food are treated, here's some information"
I believe that you are thinking I'm saying " Here's what pork farmers
do. They bad people" or "Here's what you suport if you buy pork, and if you
do then you're bad"
I am posting the info for people who want to see it, and not posting it as
an argument
> > yet
> > will do nothing to alleviate the death/suffering from your diet.
I will change to improve my diet. There's no reason to assume that I won't
without asking me.
Why
> > does the hypocritical way appeal to you so much?
it doesn't, you assume wrongly that I will keep my diet exactly as it is now
for the rest of my life. That is not my intent. I intend to reduce the
suffering and death as I learn more information.
rick etter
But all the time you spend researhing 'others' diets could better be
spent changing your own! Why to you care that pigs are killed for food,
as long as you still continue to kill for your food? That is 'pointing'
at others diets, and apparently putting off the changes you need to make
in yours. The longer you take, the more you kill!
>
> > > yet
> > > will do nothing to alleviate the death/suffering from your diet.
>
> I will change to improve my diet. There's no reason to assume that I won't
> without asking me.
>
> Why
> > > does the hypocritical way appeal to you so much?
>
> it doesn't, you assume wrongly that I will keep my diet exactly as it is now
> for the rest of my life. That is not my intent. I intend to reduce the
> suffering and death as I learn more information.
==================
By posting info on pig farming? I don't see how that helps you kill
less for your diet, do you? I would think the best thing to do would be
to post all this new information you say you are learning on how to end
animal death/suffering. Wouldn't you think that too?
Jon Janssen
All in the matter of perspective. what I do is research foods, as
opposed to other's food.
I want to understand it, so I research it.
2 ways to help a situation is 1. thru your ow effort, and 2. help others
who want to help
believe me, I am not trying to convince anyone. I direct myself to those who
want to know more, and those who are curious why I do what I do.
you seem to perceive that I am posting this stuff to try to force other
people to follow what I post. and not true. I am posting for those who
want to read it, or who are looking for information. You are in an
animals ethics vegetarian NG, and you should expect there to be many people
who will post information.
this is like going into a Christianity NG and thinking that the people
there are trying to persuade you by what they post
there liklely are veg*ans who do point fingers, but not all do, and
besides you shouldn't care, because you should make yourown decisions based
on your thoughts and feelings.
If someone else thinks you should do something and you disagree, then don't
pay attention to them, whether it's about your diet, your career, or
whatever. And realize that not every other person who eats the same diet
doesn't feel the same exact way as them
Drummer
>>How much pleasure do you derive from knowing that a
>> cow was not killed(quickly) just for you, so that many animals could
>> be maimed/killed instead?
>
>if less animals overall die in the process, then I feel less bad, than
>if I was eating the cow who neccessitated more rodent deaths.
>Since I already understand that my diet causes deaths, and keep staing
>this, why do you seem to keep trying to convince or remind me of that
>point?
>
This whole argument is one of the stupidest things I have read in usenet in
quite a while.
I do not understand how 'Rick' thinks his terribly FAULTY logic has really
any bearing on the moral arguments surrounding veg*nism.
There is a HUGE difference between the intentional slaughter of animals for
food, and the collateral, unintentional killing of insects (and rats etc)
in the harvesting process.
If one has made the consious choice not to slaugher animals for food for
the sake of sparing them suffering, then I do not see how another person
should critisize this.
I personally eat meat.
But I have a little tolerance for bigots like Rick as I do the veg*n
evangelists and groups like peta (when they are in their paint throwing
mode) etc.
I have been considering giving up meat for the sake of ending my
contribution to the suffereng of the animals I eat. My goal is not to end
ALL suffereng. And I will not become activist, because that goes against
my personal philosophy. If others are affected by my choices then so be
it, but I intend to remain as friendly to my current carnivorous friends as
I ever have. I will just want my half of the piza with just garlic and
onion! ;) (as you can see, I would consider veganism out the the question
for me)
Drummer
http://mp3.com/laterain
Drummer
You are a dickhead.
Drummer
Why are you letting them drag you into the land of sematics and
technicalities?
rick etter
>
> Your argument is blatherous.
>
> You are a dickhead.
Ah, the argument is won!! Such concise articulation of the solution.
Such a way with logic and reason. Why hadn't anyone thought of this
solution sooner???
Our collective hats are off to you dummer, you done an invaluable
service to the newsgroup and to the world as a whole!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
rick etter
>
> >>How much pleasure do you derive from knowing that a
> >> cow was not killed(quickly) just for you, so that many animals could
> >> be maimed/killed instead?
> >
> >if less animals overall die in the process, then I feel less bad, than
> >if I was eating the cow who neccessitated more rodent deaths.
> >Since I already understand that my diet causes deaths, and keep staing
> >this, why do you seem to keep trying to convince or remind me of that
> >point?
> >
>
> This whole argument is one of the stupidest things I have read in usenet in
> quite a while.
>
> I do not understand how 'Rick' thinks his terribly FAULTY logic has really
> any bearing on the moral arguments surrounding veg*nism.
Show what is faulty.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between the intentional slaughter of animals for
> food, and the collateral, unintentional killing of insects (and rats etc)
> in the harvesting process.
=======================================
The deaths that occur in farming are far from unintentional. They are
far from just bugs and rats. They occur in the entire process, not just
harvesting. Try to learn a little about modern farming before you
disply your ignorance before the whole world.
Intentional deaths. -- YOU know the animals are there, the farmer knows
the animals are there. What effort do you make to 'save' these animals
from a horrendous, torturous death? NONE!! Therefore, you kill them,
you commision the deaths, you pay for the deaths, you are culpable for
the deaths.
Mechanization ---- The modern farm industry is mechinization. Fields
are plowed, seeded, sprayed, harvested. Each of these steps kills
animals. Each of these steps are seperate passes through the fields.
Much more killing than just for the harvest. Then there is storage.
Pests are POISONED there? How do you consider that unintentioal??
>
> If one has made the consious choice not to slaugher animals for food for
> the sake of sparing them suffering, then I do not see how another person
> should critisize this.
====================================
Because they come on to the group totally ignorant of the
death/suffering they cause. The other problem is that they have NOT
spared animals of suffering! The ones they continue to kill are the
ones that are killed in the most inhumane, horrendous ways.
>
> I personally eat meat.
>
> But I have a little tolerance for bigots like Rick as I do the veg*n
> evangelists and groups like peta (when they are in their paint throwing
> mode) etc.
=======================================
"veg*n evangelists', you just stated the reason, dummer. It isn't meat
eaters that are trying to make people change their diets! It's the
so-called 'ethical' veg*n that tries that.
>
> I have been considering giving up meat for the sake of ending my
> contribution to the suffereng of the animals I eat.
=================================
The poit of these many posts is that you DON'T know that you would be
reducing any suffering!! As long as you continue to live the typical
western lifestyle, the deaths you cause are many, and switching diets
probably won't change the numbers, just the types of death/suffering you
cause.
My goal is not to end
> ALL suffereng. And I will not become activist, because that goes against
> my personal philosophy. If others are affected by my choices then so be
> it, but I intend to remain as friendly to my current carnivorous friends as
> I ever have.
================
The the veg*n groups for awhile and just see who is hostile to whom.
See which group wishes death to the other, wishes who gets sick and
dies, etc.
I will just want my half of the piza with just garlic and
> onion! ;) (as you can see, I would consider veganism out the the question
> for me)
>
> Drummer
> http://mp3.com/laterain
--
Dutch
>
> >>How much pleasure do you derive from knowing that a
> >> cow was not killed(quickly) just for you, so that many animals could
> >> be maimed/killed instead?
> >
> >if less animals overall die in the process, then I feel less bad, than
> >if I was eating the cow who neccessitated more rodent deaths.
> >Since I already understand that my diet causes deaths, and keep staing
> >this, why do you seem to keep trying to convince or remind me of that
> >point?
> >
>
> This whole argument is one of the stupidest things I have read in usenet in
> quite a while.
Please elaborate.
> I do not understand how 'Rick' thinks his terribly FAULTY logic has really
> any bearing on the moral arguments surrounding veg*nism.
Please explain why you think this.
> There is a HUGE difference between the intentional slaughter of animals for
> food, and the collateral, unintentional killing of insects (and rats etc)
> in the harvesting process.
Why do you call it unintentional? The farmer knows the animals are there and does
nothing to avoid them during tilling or harvest. Also many animals are poisoned to
protect the crop.
> If one has made the consious choice not to slaugher animals for food for
> the sake of sparing them suffering, then I do not see how another person
> should critisize this.
The point is that person then judges others for their lifestyle, while giving their
own diet an ethical clean bill of health. It's self-serving hypocrisy.
> I personally eat meat.
You are an immoral person according to "ethical vegetarianism"
> But I have a little tolerance for bigots like Rick as I do the veg*n
> evangelists and groups like peta (when they are in their paint throwing
> mode) etc.
You keep saying that but you never explain it.
> I have been considering giving up meat for the sake of ending my
> contribution to the suffereng of the animals I eat.
Do you plan to replace all those calories in your diet? Do you suppose there will be
no animal suffering and death related to that choice?
> My goal is not to end
> ALL suffereng.
Do you plan to measure the suffering you cause so you can reduce it, or like most will
you just pretend?
> And I will not become activist, because that goes against
> my personal philosophy.
Which is what? personal convenience? don't ruffle feathers? You are getting a little
bit active right now.
> If others are affected by my choices then so be
> it, but I intend to remain as friendly to my current carnivorous friends as
> I ever have.
Why would you even contemplate being unfriendly to your friends?
> I will just want my half of the piza with just garlic and
> onion! ;) (as you can see, I would consider veganism out the the question
> for me)
Vegetarianism can be a very healthy dietary choice. Ethical vegetarianism is not a
rational philosophical stance.
John Mercer
So why don't you adopt Rick's diet today? Are the animals and their
suffering not important?
>
> > > My aim is to reduce sufferinf/deaths
> > > over the long-term.
> >
> > Why not over the short term? Don't those animals count for anything?
> >
>
> yes they count, or rather, I think they count. But some things cannot
> happen immediately.
This can. You can switch to Rick's diet today.
> Even the change in McDonald's egg suppliers will need
> time to adjust to th new changes.
Of course, but you can choose egg suppliers today. Why is your rhetoric
about what other people are doing? Why so little focus on your own
choices?
> When something can't happen
> immediately, then it's more wise to not try to expect immediate change.
>
But this can happen immediately, so you're just hand-waving.
>
> > > My goal is not to eliminate all suffering and death
> > > because that seems impossible. I am trying to reduce it
> >
> > You're not trying to reduce anything unless you are trying to measure
> > the thing you are trying to reduce, Jon.
>
> by not buying veal, I am not creating additional deamnd for it.
You eat something else, so you create additional demand for it. You
refuse to measure the animal suffering caused by your choice.
> I am
> measuring it by the fact that 0% of my money goes towards veal, or meat, or
> eggs, or milk.
>
> Spending 0% of my money towards those products creates less demand for them
> than if I spent a greater % of my money buying them. That is a
> measurement
>
No, it is not, because you are deliberately ignoring the cost of the
replacements. You don't care very much about the animals.
---snip---
Drummer
>Ah, the argument is won!! Such concise articulation of the solution.
>Such a way with logic and reason. Why hadn't anyone thought of this
>solution sooner???
Haha. Yeah well.. you are right of course.
>Our collective hats are off to you dummer, you done an invaluable
>service to the newsgroup and to the world as a whole!!
>
>Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
>
Now I think you are having delusions. "The world as a whole"? Do you
really think that?
Now, seriously... since I got your attention.
You state that 'veg*n loons' - as you have called them - are hypocrits
because they cannot quantify the death they cause during the harvest of
their veggies to compare this to the deaths that would be caused in total
by a meat/veggie diet. You proport that the difference may be in favor
(less) of the carnivore.
Yes. I have been reading long enough to get your general doctrine.
But my problem with your logic is that it seems to do a good job of
battleing the 'veg*n evangelist' but not the ideal itself. In other
words... it takes the wind out of the sails of the inflated BS
righteousness I so often see emenating from *some* veg*ns but it does not
argue that the goal of thesse people is erroneous.. only the method. And
this in a passive way.
I am a carnivore that is more and more interested in meatless diet for BOTH
health and ethical reasons. Are you telling me that there is no ethical
reason?
drummer
(sorry I called you a dickhead)
rick etter
Not one based on animals 'rights'. How can ALL animals hve inherent
rights, rights not to be raised for food, and yet, many other animals
don't have the same rights not to be killed for veggies? The
proposition is ludicrous, but it is what these 'ethical' veg*ns loons
base their diet on. As long as they kill even ONE animal, their
'ethics' are pure BS! All they have left is to point fingers at others,
and claim that their diets cause suffering. If you've read as long as
you say, then you know that the newbie veg*ns come on-line, make the
pronouncement that they KILL no animals BECAUSE they are veg*n. They
quickly then, if they are even remotely honest with themselves and admit
to the deaths they cause, then move on to the 'I kill fewer' animals.
Again, before they can claim this great reduction, one should know what
the before/after is, right? Heck, even differing veggie diets cause
differing amount of death/suffering, and they haven't even looked at
that! The easiest thing? Blame meat-eaters, they seem to believe that
that obsolves them of their guilt, since the 'care'.
Drummer
>Not one based on animals 'rights'. How can ALL animals hve inherent
>rights, rights not to be raised for food, and yet, many other animals
>don't have the same rights not to be killed for veggies? The
>proposition is ludicrous, but it is what these 'ethical' veg*ns loons
>base their diet on. As long as they kill even ONE animal, their
>'ethics' are pure BS! All they have left is to point fingers at others,
>and claim that their diets cause suffering. If you've read as long as
>you say, then you know that the newbie veg*ns come on-line, make the
>pronouncement that they KILL no animals BECAUSE they are veg*n. They
>quickly then, if they are even remotely honest with themselves and admit
>to the deaths they cause, then move on to the 'I kill fewer' animals.
>Again, before they can claim this great reduction, one should know what
>the before/after is, right? Heck, even differing veggie diets cause
>differing amount of death/suffering, and they haven't even looked at
>that! The easiest thing? Blame meat-eaters, they seem to believe that
>that obsolves them of their guilt, since the 'care'.
>
OK.. Then what do you want to say to me:
1. It doesn't bother me if you, or anyone eats meat.
2. The idea of willfully raising and killing animals for food has started
to bother me.
3. I am considering vegetarianism based on this as well as a desire for
the dietary benefits of a no-meat diet.
4. I can realize and live with the fact that other animals are hurt or
killed in the process of growing and harvesting plants.
5. I do not see myself as being a hypocrite even in light of the
combination of #2 and #4. In fact, I feel that my decision is still a good
one even if based only on the 'ethical' part.
Now... off to make a nice chicken sandwich. :)
Drummer
Dutch
[..]
>
> OK.. Then what do you want to say to me:
>
> 1. It doesn't bother me if you, or anyone eats meat.
>
> 2. The idea of willfully raising and killing animals for food has started
> to bother me.
What function does the word willfully have in that sentence? And why include
"and killing" when it most certainly is understood? Your point should
correctly read "The idea of raising animals for food has started to bother
me." Do you still feel bad about it when you stop trying to convince
yourself to be pro-Animals Rights?
>
> 3. I am considering vegetarianism based on this as well as a desire for
> the dietary benefits of a no-meat diet.
That's more like it, you're on to something here.
> 4. I can realize and live with the fact that other animals are hurt or
> killed in the process of growing and harvesting plants.
Congratulations, I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
> 5. I do not see myself as being a hypocrite even in light of the
> combination of #2 and #4. In fact, I feel that my decision is still a
good
> one even if based only on the 'ethical' part.
No kidding.. even if it turns out to unhealthy you might stick with it, even
though you know it doesn't lessen animal suffering in any measurable way.
> Now... off to make a nice chicken sandwich. :)
You are in the developing stages of ethexia nervosa. Your eating choices are
going to become controlled by a meat aversion, not by logic or real empathy,
unless you snap out of it.
Go ahead and be a (part-time) veggie for 3. alone, the dietary benefits,
you'll be glad you did.
Drummer
>What function does the word willfully have in that sentence? And why
>include "and killing" when it most certainly is understood? Your point
>should correctly read "The idea of raising animals for food has started
>to bother me." Do you still feel bad about it when you stop trying to
>convince yourself to be pro-Animals Rights?
You are right the word 'willfully' doesn't belong. But your resorting to
semantics is not making an impression on me. I think the reason I used the
word was to express the fact that I have a direct choice in the matter. My
choice is not as direct in the matter of the collateral deaths. Even if I
carefully grew my own food, (which I have no intention of doing) I imagine
that I would endanger, hurt, or kill animals in the process. It doesn't
really bother me though.
The idea of raising animals for food doesn't bother me as long as the food
is a product of a living animal. For example cheese. Raising animals for
wool etc also doesn't bother me. So THAT is why "and killing" was used. I
am leaning towards a preference of not eating animals.
As to the A/R comment. I don't really have an opinion on it. I am not
sure if animals HAVE rights. But even that doesn't preclude me from
choosing not to eat them. One opnion that I DO have on this topic is that
I am disturbed at my core by the guilt-tripping bullshit that I hear in
regards to animal-rights. Activists of just about every sort bothers me.
If i do choose to quit eating meat it will be an extention of my 'live and
let live' philosophy. Not a decision that I am so insecure about in my
heart that I must try to convince everyone around me to go along for the
ride to keep me company.
>> 3. I am considering vegetarianism based on this as well as a desire
>> for the dietary benefits of a no-meat diet.
>
>That's more like it, you're on to something here.
What? The diet part? I think meat can be included in a healthy diet too.
But with all the arguments around how hard it is to eat a healthy
vegetarian diet - I think it may be as hard to eat a healthy meat including
diet. ;) It's almost a moot point. But with the proper inculsion of
essential aminos, I think a veggie diet would benefit me more. In all
honesty I cannot see how *I* could possibly survive a vegan diet. *shrug*
>
>> 4. I can realize and live with the fact that other animals are hurt
>> or killed in the process of growing and harvesting plants.
>
>Congratulations, I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
I don't really give a shit. I can only do as much as I can... but I have
something to say about this at the end of the post. So wait a minute.
>> 5. I do not see myself as being a hypocrite even in light of the
>> combination of #2 and #4. In fact, I feel that my decision is still a
>good
>> one even if based only on the 'ethical' part.
>
>No kidding.. even if it turns out to unhealthy you might stick with it,
>even though you know it doesn't lessen animal suffering in any
>measurable way.
That's not what I meant, and I think you know it. You are just twisting
what I say to argue. I even wonder at this point why I am trying to
explain my position. This shows that you simply want to attack it. But I
will spell it out anyway. I meant: for ethical reasons instead of health
reasons but still assuming that there would BE health reasons. And since
you changed the subject I will go along for a minute. If my health were
significantly threatened by a non meat diet I would most likely not choose
to stop eating meat. My own self preservation outweighs my (still
theoretical ;) preference not to eat animals. And I don't have a problem
with THAT either.
>> Now... off to make a nice chicken sandwich. :)
>
>You are in the developing stages of ethexia nervosa. Your eating choices
>are going to become controlled by a meat aversion, not by logic or real
>empathy, unless you snap out of it.
>
Bah. What on earth is ethexia anyway? I have no meat aversion. I like to
eat meat. I like the taste. But as I said, I am considering changing for
both ethical and health reasons.
Here is my final point. I have been bothered by this 'logic' that is being
put forth so terribly often:
"If you are an ethical veg*n then you are a hypocrite since animals die in
the process of raising vegetables (and using various products etc.)."
This argument bothers me because it basically says: "If you can't be
perfect then why try?" I have let this sort of argument stop me from doing
lots of things. But I have learned to spot it. This is a variation but it
seems similar. I agree that this argument is useful against people who are
on a guilt trip. And I don't know how to convince you that I am not on
one. I have just been coming bit by bit to the realization that I do not
have to eat animals to survive. Not cows, not my pet bird, and not you
(prolly stringy anyway).
Sure, the products I use, and vegetables I buy etc may cause suffereng and
death. But I am not concerned with that. At least not now. I figure to
stop eating animals is a decision I can make indepedantly of this fact.
To argue against the self-righteous by proving to them that they are not
righteuos enough is an interesting and amusing technique. I like it. :)
But what about those who are not self righteous? Me for example? I do not
desire to be perfect. I am interested in becoming better. I do not claim
to be right. I may discover that I am wrong.
And if you choose to critisize or belittle me ("Congratulations, I'm sure
that makes them feel much better.") then you are just the flip side of the
same coin as all the veg*n evangelists telling me why the way I have chosen
to live is worng.
I have no problem with your beliefs. Not even that you think I am wrong
(really). Why are you so harsh to me?
One more thing, I am curious... I am sure it has been asked before, but a
quick scan does not reveal the answer. And it really is only curiousity.
Are you a vegetarian? Why/not?
anyway... later,
drummer
go LISTEN to my music! (NOTHING about meat or vegetables)
http://mp3.com/laterain
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>
> >What function does the word willfully have in that sentence? And why
> >include "and killing" when it most certainly is understood? Your point
> >should correctly read "The idea of raising animals for food has started
> >to bother me." Do you still feel bad about it when you stop trying to
> >convince yourself to be pro-Animals Rights?
>
> You are right the word 'willfully' doesn't belong. But your resorting to
> semantics is not making an impression on me. I think the reason I used
the
> word was to express the fact that I have a direct choice in the matter.
I probed the wording of your statement to reveal the true meaning. The extra
verbiage shows that there is an agenda there that you may not be fully aware
of. The agenda is ethical vegetarianism and it needs to be examined closely
or else it will insert itself into your thinking without logical reasoning
behind it.
My
> choice is not as direct in the matter of the collateral deaths. Even if I
> carefully grew my own food, (which I have no intention of doing) I imagine
> that I would endanger, hurt, or kill animals in the process. It doesn't
> really bother me though.
What *is* bothering you?
> The idea of raising animals for food doesn't bother me as long as the food
> is a product of a living animal. For example cheese. Raising animals for
> wool etc also doesn't bother me. So THAT is why "and killing" was used.
I
> am leaning towards a preference of not eating animals.
Explain the ethical difference between killing an animal to protect your
food and killing an animal to eat it.
>
> As to the A/R comment. I don't really have an opinion on it. I am not
> sure if animals HAVE rights. But even that doesn't preclude me from
> choosing not to eat them. One opnion that I DO have on this topic is that
> I am disturbed at my core by the guilt-tripping bullshit that I hear in
> regards to animal-rights. Activists of just about every sort bothers me.
The main problem with AR in my view is the hypocrisy of it, and how poorly
thought out it is .
> If i do choose to quit eating meat it will be an extention of my 'live and
> let live' philosophy. Not a decision that I am so insecure about in my
> heart that I must try to convince everyone around me to go along for the
> ride to keep me company.
As long as you realize that you are NOT "living and let live", you are
commissioning the awful deaths of animals by eating commercial grains, rice,
fruit, etc..
> >> 3. I am considering vegetarianism based on this as well as a desire
> >> for the dietary benefits of a no-meat diet.
> >
> >That's more like it, you're on to something here.
>
> What? The diet part? I think meat can be included in a healthy diet too.
Yes, a non-meat diet can be very healthy.
> But with all the arguments around how hard it is to eat a healthy
> vegetarian diet - I think it may be as hard to eat a healthy meat
including
> diet. ;) It's almost a moot point. But with the proper inculsion of
> essential aminos, I think a veggie diet would benefit me more. In all
> honesty I cannot see how *I* could possibly survive a vegan diet. *shrug*
I agree, I eat a lacto-ovo diet, have no trouble at all, my health is
spectacular.
> >
> >> 4. I can realize and live with the fact that other animals are hurt
> >> or killed in the process of growing and harvesting plants.
> >
> >Congratulations, I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
>
> I don't really give a shit. I can only do as much as I can... but I have
> something to say about this at the end of the post. So wait a minute.
Why do you dismiss them so easily while continuing to feel empathy for
livestock? It's not logical.
>
> >> 5. I do not see myself as being a hypocrite even in light of the
> >> combination of #2 and #4. In fact, I feel that my decision is still a
> >good
> >> one even if based only on the 'ethical' part.
> >
> >No kidding.. even if it turns out to unhealthy you might stick with it,
> >even though you know it doesn't lessen animal suffering in any
> >measurable way.
>
> That's not what I meant, and I think you know it. You are just twisting
> what I say to argue. I even wonder at this point why I am trying to
> explain my position. This shows that you simply want to attack it. But I
> will spell it out anyway.
I'm not doing what you say. You said that you would switch to a veggie diet
"based only on the 'ethical' part" which means to me you plan to ignore the
health part.
> I meant: for ethical reasons instead of health
> reasons but still assuming that there would BE health reasons.
Then you are still considering that a factor. You can't it both ways, it's
either important or not.
And since
> you changed the subject I will go along for a minute. If my health were
> significantly threatened by a non meat diet I would most likely not choose
> to stop eating meat. My own self preservation outweighs my (still
> theoretical ;) preference not to eat animals. And I don't have a problem
> with THAT either.
I can almost guarantee that you will find great health benefits in a
non-meat diet. You will miss meat at first, but it makes for a diet which is
very easy for your body to deal with.
>
> >> Now... off to make a nice chicken sandwich. :)
> >
> >You are in the developing stages of ethexia nervosa. Your eating choices
> >are going to become controlled by a meat aversion, not by logic or real
> >empathy, unless you snap out of it.
> >
>
> Bah. What on earth is ethexia anyway? I have no meat aversion. I like
to
> eat meat. I like the taste. But as I said, I am considering changing for
> both ethical and health reasons.
Ethexia nervosa is an eating disorder, the name I made up. It is imagining
an ethical position that is not supported by logic in order to obtain a good
feeling about oneself.
>
> Here is my final point. I have been bothered by this 'logic' that is
being
> put forth so terribly often:
>
> "If you are an ethical veg*n then you are a hypocrite since animals die in
> the process of raising vegetables (and using various products etc.)."
>
> This argument bothers me because it basically says: "If you can't be
> perfect then why try?"
That's not the argument. When you replace meat with vegetables or dairy you
remove one visible cause of animal death and suffering and replace it with a
less obvious one. Ethical vegetarians typically deny one half of this
equation, focusing only on the suffering they avoid, not the part they are
increasing.
> I have let this sort of argument stop me from doing
> lots of things. But I have learned to spot it. This is a variation but
it
> seems similar. I agree that this argument is useful against people who
are
> on a guilt trip. And I don't know how to convince you that I am not on
> one. I have just been coming bit by bit to the realization that I do not
> have to eat animals to survive. Not cows, not my pet bird, and not you
> (prolly stringy anyway).
You don't have to eat them, but with almost no exceptions, you must kill and
harm them to survive.
> Sure, the products I use, and vegetables I buy etc may cause suffereng and
> death. But I am not concerned with that. At least not now. I figure to
> stop eating animals is a decision I can make indepedantly of this fact.
Sure you can, I did.
> To argue against the self-righteous by proving to them that they are not
> righteuos enough is an interesting and amusing technique. I like it. :)
That's not it. They are not demonstrating that their chioce is more righeous
at all, they just want you to believe it without digging any deeper..
> But what about those who are not self righteous? Me for example? I do
not
> desire to be perfect. I am interested in becoming better. I do not claim
> to be right. I may discover that I am wrong.
It's great to desire to be better, just make sure you don't fall for any
self-serving lies, it's very easy to do.
> And if you choose to critisize or belittle me ("Congratulations, I'm sure
> that makes them feel much better.") then you are just the flip side of the
> same coin as all the veg*n evangelists telling me why the way I have
chosen
> to live is worng.
I am just advising you to pause and think before you blindly buy into an
ethical argument.
>
> I have no problem with your beliefs. Not even that you think I am wrong
> (really). Why are you so harsh to me?
That's just my writing style, I want to make you think.
> One more thing, I am curious... I am sure it has been asked before, but a
> quick scan does not reveal the answer. And it really is only curiousity.
> Are you a vegetarian? Why/not?
Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal" diet I tend more
easily to obesity, infections, and gastric problems. I can't even look at
meat anymore after 17 years, the aversion is in full control.
Drummer
press this point:
Why is it wrong to include ethical reasons for not eating meat in my
decision to become vegetarian (I would also choose lacto-ovo although I
almost never eat eggs or milk... but cheese now cheese... ;) even when I do
not choose to lead a lifestyle that would end ALL suffereng?
I will ask it another way.
Can't I understand that some of the choices I make cause the suffereng and
death of animals and still make the choice to change my life in *some* ways
to make an effort to reduce suffereng. And even if one of us *could* prove
that one way or the other caused more or less in the end, isn't my
conscious effort at least evident of a mindful intent in the very least?
One more try... I am not very good at this.
Even if I continue, by my existance, to cause suffering does that
invalidate my effort to lessen it by becomeing a vegetarian?
I know you are getting tired of this.. but try this one on:
Why is measuring my intent a bad way to judge my actions as opposed to
trying to measure the results of my existence in total? Especially when
the latter is impossible.
Ahh.. well on to my next client. I am enjoying this discussion.
drummer
Martin L. Martens
[...]
> Why is measuring my intent a bad way to judge my actions as opposed to
> trying to measure the results of my existence in total? Especially when
> the latter is impossible.
Your intent is irrelevant if the results are not anywhere
close to it. If you intend to go out and show your friends
a fun time but you end up killing them after driving drunk,
your intent does not matter. If a US military pilot intends
to drop a bomb in Kosovo on a military convoy but instead
drops it on a convoy of civilian refugees, intent is a
pretty poor excuse.
If you wish to reach a goal, it's generally a pretty good
idea to find out if your actions are actually leading toward
that goal.
[...]
rick etter
I'll have to tag along on your post. I didn't get the reply from
drummer you are using!
> "Drummer" <no...@bidnedz.com> wrote
> [..]
> >
> > OK.. Then what do you want to say to me:
> >
> > 1. It doesn't bother me if you, or anyone eats meat.
===================================
Good, however, most 'ethical' veg*ns would stop us if given the chance.
> >
> > 2. The idea of willfully raising and killing animals for food has started
> > to bother me.
=============================
Why? You won't eliminate killing animals for food by not eating meat.
> >
> > 3. I am considering vegetarianism based on this as well as a desire for
> > the dietary benefits of a no-meat diet.
====================================
Any diet can provide healthy 'benefits'. But is this more important, or
is animal 'rights' more important in that decision?
>
> > 4. I can realize and live with the fact that other animals are hurt or
> > killed in the process of growing and harvesting plants.
=============================
How can you live with the fact that these animals are killed far more
inhumanely than meat animals, and still feel bad about meat-animals?
>
> > 5. I do not see myself as being a hypocrite even in light of the
> > combination of #2 and #4. In fact, I feel that my decision is still a
> good
> > one even if based only on the 'ethical' part.
===========================================
What's 'ethical' about claiming animals have a right to live, and then
cotinuing to condemn many to an extremely cruel death?
Dutch
> Dutch,
>
> I'll have to tag along on your post. I didn't get the reply from
> drummer you are using!
Glad to help rick, this is why I pay U.S. $15 a month for Supernews. The @home usenet
feed misses too many areas, and the response time sucks too.
[..]
you can try Supernews for > one month for free, but I warn you, it's hard to give up.
Drummer
>Dutch,
>
>I'll have to tag along on your post. I didn't get the reply from
>drummer you are using!
There is an old saying: "Get a real news provider".
I use http://www.newscene.com
Other good choices are:
http://www.supernews.com/
http://www.airnews.net/
http://www.giganews.com/
http://www.newsguy.com/
among others...
Believe it or not there is even a whole usenet group devoted to debateing
which is best:
alt.binaries.news-server-comparison
As to our argument over veg*nism I see we have come to an impasse. Cest La
Vie.
drummer
tom
wrote:
>Jon Janssen wrote:
>>
>> the majority of pork sold, bought, and eaten, in the USA comes from factory
>> farms. Do you agree with that?
>--------------------
>The majority of veggies sold, bought and eaten comes from factory farms.
>Disagree? At least the pigs are killed humanely, unlike the critters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for your food. The problem is it just takes one exception to blow
>your(veg*n) claims that all meat is 'factory farmed'.
>
WHAT??? Please read the book, Slaugherhouse, by Gail Eisnitz. This
book documents the extreme brutality of the meat industry. Many
packing plants slaughter 155,000 hogs a week. Just think how much
time this allows for "humane" slaughter. Gail Eisnitz is a fantastic
investigative reporter whose sheer amount of documentation will leave
you doubtless as to her credibility.
>>
>> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
>> news:3AB464...@bright.net...
>> > Jon Janssen wrote:
>> > >
>> > > rick, here is some information with credible references. Please tell
>> me
>> > > if credible information counts as propaganda
>> > >
>> > > (references at end)
>> > >
>> > > In the pig industry,
>> > ==============================
>> > Again, how many exceptions do I give you that show your 'references' do
>> > not apply to all pork? You continue to point fingers at others, yet
>> > will do nothing to alleviate the death/suffering from your diet. Why
>> > does the hypocritical way appeal to you so much?
>
Dutch
> Well, overall we seem to agree on more than we disagree on. But I stil
> press this point:
>
> Why is it wrong to include ethical reasons for not eating meat in my
> decision to become vegetarian (I would also choose lacto-ovo although I
> almost never eat eggs or milk... but cheese now cheese... ;) even when I
do
> not choose to lead a lifestyle that would end ALL suffereng?
When you remove meat from your diet and replace it something else, you can't
say you have reduced animal suffering unless you measure the suffering
associated with the replacement calories and compare it with the suffering
of meat animals.
> I will ask it another way.
OK
>
> Can't I understand that some of the choices I make cause the suffereng and
> death of animals and still make the choice to change my life in *some*
ways
> to make an effort to reduce suffereng. And even if one of us *could*
prove
> that one way or the other caused more or less in the end, isn't my
> conscious effort at least evident of a mindful intent in the very least?
Sure, as long as you accept the possibility that your efforts may be having
the opposite effect.
> One more try... I am not very good at this.
>
> Even if I continue, by my existance, to cause suffering does that
> invalidate my effort to lessen it by becomeing a vegetarian?
You are genuinely trying to discover the real consequences, not just the
ones that might suit that's all one can ask.
> I know you are getting tired of this.. but try this one on:
>
> Why is measuring my intent a bad way to judge my actions as opposed to
> trying to measure the results of my existence in total? Especially when
> the latter is impossible.
As Martin said, intent is not the important factor. "The road to hell is
paved with good intentions."
> Ahh.. well on to my next client. I am enjoying this discussion.
same here
Jon Janssen
Dutch, you do not need to emasure to know that suffering is reduced. if
you disagree, say why...
eating meat requires more plants to be grown than eating plants - that is
the bottom line.
>
Knowing if one's dietary changes reduce deaths can be reasoned, and
accurately, even without exact measurements.
It is possible to reason the effects of an action, even if the exact
measurements are not known.
For instance:
say you see 2 donuts.
You can accurately reason and conclude that if you eat both you will
consume more calories than if you eat 1. 2 donuts have more
calories than 1 of them alone
measurements are not needed to know that 1 donut has fewer calories
than 2 donuts.
And reasoning can be used accurately in the comparisons of some diets.
The majority of all meats in the USA come from animals that have been raised
on grains and beans. This post addresses these majority of meats, and not
the minority of meats that come from hunting, roadkilled animals, or natural
death animals.
-meat animals require more plants to be grown-
These animals consume more than 1 pound of plant to develop each
single pound of meat. (because energy is also used for muscle activity,
temperature moderation, bone growth, cell regeneration, etc). Also, when
these animals are "finished", they are fed several pounds of plants for each
pound of meat.
When a person eats a diet of plants only, it requires less plants to be
grown, as compared to a diet including meats (which require multiple pounds
of plant to produce each pound of meat). And the comparison also holds true
for those who eat less meats compared to those who eat more meats.
-the amount of plants is related to the number/amount of death/suffering-
If the number of rodents and other animals killed in the production of
plants (through being killed by the plow, or poisoned in the storehouse) is
correlated to the amount of plants grown,
then the fewer plants grown means that fewer animals are killed. (as
well as the bulls, sheep, pigs, etc themselves)
-Reasoning-
So even though there are not exact values, one can validly reason that If:
- meats require greater amounts of plants to be grown,
- pigs, sheep, bulls, chicken, etc are killed to provide meats,
- the number of animals collaterally-killed in the production of plants is
correlated to the amount of plants grown
Then there are fewer deaths caused by a diet which provides more of it's
calories from plants, as compared to a diet which provides less of it's
calories from plants.
And that the greater the calories provided by plants, the fewer deaths
contributed to be the diet.
Thus, knowing if one's dietary changes reduce deaths can be reasoned, and
accurately, even without exact measurements.
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:tc47d2i...@news.supernews.com...
rick etter
>
> Dutch, you do not need to emasure to know that suffering is reduced. if
> you disagree, say why...
Because you don't even know the effects of your own diet in regards to
various veggie types. If you can't compare them knowledgably, then how
can you compare something else to them? Well, you can(since you
continue to,) but not honestly
>
> eating meat requires more plants to be grown than eating plants - that is
> the bottom line.
-----------------------------------
LOL Since most of these plants that have to be 'grown' for animals just
grow on their own, how does that matter? All your veggies have to be
tilled, planted, harvested, processed, stored. Want to make the
comparisons now?
>
> >
>
> Knowing if one's dietary changes reduce deaths can be reasoned, and
> accurately, even without exact measurements.
=====================================
Not when you don't even know your own diets 'harvest' of animal
death/suffering!
>
> It is possible to reason the effects of an action, even if the exact
> measurements are not known.
snip of twattle, again...