Re: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Mr.Smartypants
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> if so, exclude it from their diet.
>
> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>
> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>
> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> *still* accept it.
>
> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
Yer an idiot, Boobs.
Laurie
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
Rudy Canoza predictably embarrasses himself yet again; his
claim "All "vegans" begin their belief ..." is totally bogus,
as is his normal style.
Vegans also stop consuming animal flesh for the well
documented positive health rewards. Thus the choice is
purely selfish, in that it reduces harm to the self. not
just to prey animals.
TCCampbell; The China Study
http://tinyurl.com/2v689m
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum
do your reading.
"Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message
news:DbSdnYhnkofWCbHV...@earthlink.com...
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum
wear as an metal of honor?
"Mr.Smartypants" <bc...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:fb4b0ae2-4f4a-4ca8...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum
"Laurie" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:8PGdnSQxzP0tO7HV...@posted.echolabs...
Mr.Smartypants
> Larry Forti, complete and utter failure in business, lied:
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by subscribing to a
> >> logically fallacious argument:
>
> >> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> >> I do not eat meat;
>
> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
> > Rudy Canoza predictably
>
You're mangling, Boobs.
Mr.Smartypants
> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:
>
> > not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....
>
>
You left out IMPORTANT MATERIAL, Boobs.
> >> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!
Ooh! Ooh! Now do Global Warming!
LG (enjoyed that)
--
If you wonder how it came to be generally acknowledged "fact," accepted by
all men of good will, that Joe McCarthy was a monster, that Alger Hiss was
innocent, that mankind is causing global warming and that we're losing the
war in Iraq, try watching the rewriting of history nightly on MSNBC. - Ann
Coulter
Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!
"sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum" <youwan...@tampon.com> wrote in message
news:uP1Xj.24236$5b3.14099@trnddc05...
> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....
No, but they are all insane.
LG
--
Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently. - Henry Ford
sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum
if you don't eat the meat... the meat gets processed into additives,
adjuncts and other chemicals - ingredients for commercial food product and
other items.
are you that inept?
it is NOT that easy dear.
no wonder people can't take us vegans seriously!
a war against my own kind is worse than the one between the meatatarians and
myself.
don't you read labels?
research them... you'll find out most of that shit they add to foods comes
from an animal!
you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know that
comes from an animal?
that's just the wee tiny part of a very big pile.
leechap
> this is idealism.
>
>
> if you don't eat the meat... the meat gets processed into additives,
> adjuncts and other chemicals - ingredients for commercial food product
> and other items.
>
> are you that inept?
>
>
> it is NOT that easy dear.
>
>
>
> no wonder people can't take us vegans seriously!
>
> a war against my own kind is worse than the one between the meatatarians
> and myself.
>
>
>
>
> don't you read labels?
>
> research them... you'll find out most of that shit they add to foods
> comes from an animal!
>
>
> you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know that
> comes from an animal?
>
> that's just the wee tiny part of a very big pile.
You seem to be missing the main point, EVEN IF the food you eat is
completely devoid of animal parts, if it was commercially produced it
contains a legacy of animal suffering. This applies to non-food items as
well.
Mr.Smartypants
> "sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum" <youwantmya...@tampon.com> wrote in messagenews:_ZjXj.22$HJ5.8@trnddc01...
>
>
>
>
>
> > this is idealism.
>
> > if you don't eat the meat... the meat gets processed into additives,
> > adjuncts and other chemicals - ingredients for commercial food product
> > and other items.
>
> > are you that inept?
>
> > it is NOT that easy dear.
>
> > no wonder people can't take us vegans seriously!
>
> > a war against my own kind is worse than the one between the meatatarians
> > and myself.
>
> > don't you read labels?
>
> > research them... you'll find out most of that shit they add to foods
> > comes from an animal!
>
> > you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know that
> > comes from an animal?
>
> > that's just the wee tiny part of a very big pile.
>
> You seem to be missing the main point, EVEN IF the food you eat is
> completely devoid of animal parts, if it was commercially produced it
> contains a legacy of animal suffering. This applies to non-food items as
> well.
then it's time to change the system BACK to what it was. Beneficial
insects controlling crop damaging insects, organic fertilization
supplemented by earthworms in the soil.
> >> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
leechap
Good ideas, if a little idealistic. I've read about a completely sustainable
farm where the crops benefit the livestock and vice versa, that would be
good, In nature animals and plants are symbiotic.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <b...@canada.com> wrote in message
Not only idealistic but perfectly workable.
How the hell do you think crops were grown BEFORE chemical fertilizer,
chemical pesticides, and fungicides?
leechap
news:3f0eaefa-a534-41cc...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
With some difficulty, and much lower yields. But I agree with you, I wish it
would happen, The current trend towards larger and larger scale production
and bigger and bigger factory farms is horrible. A pox on the human race!
Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!
"leechap" <lee...@fakedomain.com> wrote in message
news:g0lmgq$drm$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Actually the current trend is toward smaller farms located nearer the
consumer for all the above reasons. It's not a very dynamic trend, and
doesn't make the headlines of course, but slowly it is happening. We're not
going back to the 1800s as most people just want cheap food, but if you want
higher quality it can be found.
Try shopping at your local farmer's market instead of the supermarkets.
LG (farmer)
--
Visit www.fairtax.org , sign the petition, and make America what it could
be.
Laurie
> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
Thanks for proving my point!
Vulgarity is all you have.
You have no ability to refute anything I said.
> ... do your reading.
Why don't you use your own obviously extensive "reading"
to provide a polite, intelligent response?
Don't have the ability??
Why don't you trim off the irrelevant ng's?
Mr.Smartypants
> larry forti, *failed* engineer, lied:
>
> > sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:
> >> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
> > Thanks for proving my point!
>
>
> > Vulgarity is all you have.
>
>
> > You have no ability to refute anything I said.
>
> blabbered a lot of bullshit.
Translation: I will ignore what Laurie said since I can't refute it
with any facts.
dh
>larry forti, *failed* engineer, lied:
>> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:
>>> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
>> Thanks for proving my point!
>
>He didn't.
>
>
>> Vulgarity is all you have.
>
>Wrong.
>
>
>> You have no ability to refute anything I said.
>
>You didn't state anything subject to verification or refutation.
"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
- Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
dh
>this is idealism.
>
>
>if you don't eat the meat... the meat gets processed into additives,
>adjuncts and other chemicals - ingredients for commercial food product and
>other items.
>
>are you that inept?
>
>
>it is NOT that easy dear.
>
>no wonder people can't take us vegans seriously!
>
>a war against my own kind is worse than the one between the meatatarians and
>myself.
>
>
>
>
>don't you read labels?
>
>research them... you'll find out most of that shit they add to foods comes
>from an animal!
>
>
>you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know that
>comes from an animal?
>
>that's just the wee tiny part of a very big pile.
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
Laurie
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008, Rudy V. Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> larry forti, *failed* engineer,
are the one who FAILED to complete your highest chosen
degree, I completed mine.
And, what was your major: economics? Those who know the
price of everything and the value of NOthing.
Notice that your economist ilk has plunged the US, and
global, economy into free fall by creating the sub-prime
fiasco and numerous mortgage packaging plans that ripped the
public off?
>>>> Vulgarity is all you have.
>>> Wrong.
True, you also have personal insults, lies, deceit,
distortions of others' posts, avoidance of issues,
intellectual cowardice, and no ability to support your
idiotic claims with facts and logic. You are an
intellectual fraud -- claiming to be educated but you could
not pass an 8th grade science quiz.
You fear me because you know, as does everyone else who
reads these ng's, that you could not refute anything I say
with facts and logic in a fair debate. You have failed to
meet me in a fair intellectual contest for over a decade,
because you know you are inferior.
You are a coward, pure and simple, and everyone knows it.
And, the most entertaining part of your psychopathology is
that you just can't understand that your behavior, alone,
totally invalidates you as an intelligent person or
anyone worthy of respect.
You, are destroying any illusion of your having an
intellect by your brutish behavior, and you are so stupid
that you don't understand this.
Your behavior is purely reptilian, you demonstrate no
development of the higher brain structures: logic, social
graces, politeness, ability to communicate, ...
> Your computer date is wrong, you stupid fuckwitted
> cracker.
Wrong again! You can't even read a date.
Vulgarity shows you for what you are.
BooBo...@gmail.com
1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are
vegan only for the better health aspect.
2. Others insist eating meat costs way too much, also
don't care about animals.
3. A small but vocal %age of vegans are bible-based; these
zealots again don't care about the plight of farm animals.
4. Certain small numbers of Hindus avoid meat--
--once again--the reason is not compassion but rather:
"Look at us--switch to our religion."
5. Some don't like the taste.
6. Still, the larger of all these groups of vegans
are those who hate the cruelty; they don't delude
themselves re. all the ag deaths. They simply feel
guilty about biting into the flesh.
Mr.Smartypants
> Laurie wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 17 May 2008, Rudy V. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>> larry forti, *failed* engineer,
> > noB
>
> employment.
>
> >>>>> Vulgarity is all you have.
> >>>> Wrong.
> > True,
>
>
> >> Your computer date is wrong, you stupid fuckwitted cracker.
> > Wrong again!
>
That's ALL you have left isn't it, Boobs?......computer dates and
times.
pearl
> the stupid fuckwit moooooshki lied:
>
> > On May 17, 9:29 pm, Laurie <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
> >
> > 1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are
> > vegan only for the better health aspect.
>
> vegetarian for (poorly thought out) health reasons, but not "vegan".
> "vegan" means eschewing *all* animal products, not just foods, as well
> as some products tested for safety on animals. Nobody refuses to wear
> leather shoes or wool trousers because he feels it's inherently unhealthful.
International Vegetarian Union definitions includes "dietary vegan"..
'Vegan: excludes animal flesh (meat, poultry, fish and seafood), animal
products (eggs and dairy), and usually excludes honey and the wearing
and use of animal products (leather, silk, wool, lanolin, gelatin...).
..
Dietary Vegan: follows a vegan diet, but doesn't necessarily try and
exclude non-food uses of animals.
Why Vegan?
VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which seeks to exclude,
as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. *
In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing with *all* animal
produce - including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, animal milks, honey, and
their derivatives.
Abhorrence of the cruel practices inherent in dairy, livestock and poultry
farming is probably the single most common reason for the adoption of
veganism, but many people are drawn to it for health, ecological,
spiritual and other reasons.
"Land, energy and water resources for livestock agriculture range
anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than those necessary to produce
an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock agriculture does not
merely *use* these resources, it *depletes* them.
This is a matter of historical record. Most of the world's soil, erosion,
groundwater depletion, and deforestation -- factors now threatening the
very basis of our food system -- are the result of this particularly
destructive form of food production" (Keith Akers, p. 81, "A
Vegetarian Sourcebook", 1989).
..'
http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html
* Thus, the term "dietary vegan" is in fact and rightly contentious.
'The term vegan was originally coined to differentiate those vegetarians
who (primarily for ethical or environmental reasons) sought to eliminate
all animal products in all areas of their lives from those who simply
avoided eating meat.
Vegans use as their primary motivation the concept of reducing animal
suffering. Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed by authors such
as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical veganism is the belief that
humans have a moral obligation to avoid causing suffering to any other
living creature. Animals are seen to have the same inherent rights as
humans to a life as free from suffering as possible. Therefore ethical
vegans not only avoid eating meat and dairy products but also avoid the
use of any product whose production involves the suffering of animals.
..
A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion for
animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak writes that
the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because veganism is by
definition about helping animals, and a term such as "total vegetarian"
should be used for people who avoid eating animal products for health
reasons but, for example, buy leather shoes.
..'
(Wikipedia)
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/VEGANISM
dh
>On May 17, 9:29 pm, Laurie <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point!
>> Vulgarity is all you have.
>> You have no ability to refute anything I said.
>>
>> > ... do your reading.
>>
>> Why don't you use your own obviously extensive "reading"
>> to provide a polite, intelligent response?
>> Don't have the ability??
>>
>> Why don't you trim off the irrelevant ng's?
>>
>> Laurie
>>
>> --
>> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
>> news:alt.food.vegan.science
>
>
>1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are
>vegan only for the better health aspect.
Wrong, but why do you want to promote the impression that
it's true, do you have any idea?
>2. Others insist eating meat costs way too much, also
>don't care about animals.
I've never heard of anyone saying that, so I don't buy it.
>3. A small but vocal %age of vegans are bible-based;
Romans 14
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
disputable matters.
2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
and:
Genesis 4
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
as an offering to the LORD.
4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
was very angry, and his face was downcast.
Genesis 9
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful
and increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth
and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along
the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into
your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,
I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Exodus 12
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of
your year.
3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this
month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each
household.
[...]
6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when
all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them
at twilight.
7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides
and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the
lambs.
8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire,
along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.
9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over
the fire-head, legs and inner parts.
[...]
14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you
shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance.
Leviticus 1
1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.
He said,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings an
offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either
the herd or the flock.
3 "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer
a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent
of Meeting so that it[1] will be acceptable to the LORD.
4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will
be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
wood on the fire.
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering
made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
Leviticus 12
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over,
she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a
year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for
a sin offering.
7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and
then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. " 'These are
the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl.
8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young
pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this
way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "
Deuteronomy 12
15 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your
towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were
gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your
God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean
may eat it.
Deuteronomy 14
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
goat,
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
that chews the cud.
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not
chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
carcasses.
9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has
fins and scales.
10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
for you it is unclean.
11 You may eat any clean bird.
12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14 any kind of raven,
15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
1 Kings 8
5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had
gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep
and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
[...]
63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the LORD:
twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand
sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the
temple of the LORD.
Mark 7
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing
that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and
then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
"clean.")
Mark 14
12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it
was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples
asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations
for you to eat the Passover?"
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city,
and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?'
(refer to Exodus 12 for details about the Passover food)
Luke 2
22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of
Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is
to be consecrated to the Lord" ),
24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law
of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."
Luke 24
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;
a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
etc...
>these zealots again don't care about the plight of farm animals.
We see that you're wrong about the myth of Biblical
veganism, but why do you want to promote the idea?
>4. Certain small numbers of Hindus avoid meat--
>--once again--the reason is not compassion but rather:
> "Look at us--switch to our religion."
>
>5. Some don't like the taste.
>
>6. Still, the larger of all these groups of vegans
>are those who hate the cruelty; they don't delude
>themselves re. all the ag deaths. They simply feel
>guilty about biting into the flesh.
Why do they only feel guilty about the deaths
they contribute to if they bite into the flesh of
dead animals, but not if they don't bite dead
animals?
dh
>the stupid fuckwit moooooshki lied:
>
>> On May 17, 9:29 pm, Laurie <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
>>>
>>> Thanks for proving my point!
>>> Vulgarity is all you have.
>>> You have no ability to refute anything I said.
>>>
>>>> ... do your reading.
>>> Why don't you use your own obviously extensive "reading"
>>> to provide a polite, intelligent response?
>>> Don't have the ability??
>>>
>>> Why don't you trim off the irrelevant ng's?
>>>
>>> Laurie
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
>>> news:alt.food.vegan.science
>>
>>
>> 1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are
>> vegan only for the better health aspect.
>
>Bullshit. No one is "vegan" for health reasons. One might be
>vegetarian for (poorly thought out) health reasons, but not "vegan".
>"vegan" means eschewing *all* animal products, not just foods, as well
>as some products tested for safety on animals. Nobody refuses to wear
>leather shoes or wool trousers because he feels it's inherently unhealthful.
That's true Goo, and if it's easy enough for you to understand it
then it should be easy enough for anyone to understand it. So it
brings questions to mind, like:
1. Are these people who try to create the impression that they don't
understand really too stupid to comprehend, or are they dishonestly
pretending to be for some reason?
2. Why do they want to promote the false impression that there
are people who are vegan for reasons that don't involve animals?
You being the most dishonest person I've ever encountered should
have an idea why they do it Goob, but of course that doesn't mean
you'll be honest about what it is. Why are you even honest about
the fact that they're being dishonest, btw? Now that we mention it,
in the VAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of cases it's you who is the
dishonest party, not "the other guy", so what strange quirk put you
on the honest side for a change, Goo?
dh
>"Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:stadncDxuu5Eia_V...@earthlink.com...
>> the stupid fuckwit moooooshki lied:
>>
>> > On May 17, 9:29 pm, Laurie <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> >> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
>..
>> >
>> > 1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are
>> > vegan only for the better health aspect.
>>
>> Bullshit. No one is "vegan" for health reasons. One might be
>> vegetarian for (poorly thought out) health reasons, but not "vegan".
>> "vegan" means eschewing *all* animal products, not just foods, as well
>> as some products tested for safety on animals. Nobody refuses to wear
>> leather shoes or wool trousers because he feels it's inherently unhealthful.
>
>International Vegetarian Union definitions includes "dietary vegan"..
>
> 'Vegan: excludes animal flesh (meat, poultry, fish and seafood), animal
>products (eggs and dairy), and usually excludes honey and the wearing
>and use of animal products (leather, silk, wool, lanolin, gelatin...).
>..
>Dietary Vegan: follows a vegan diet, but doesn't necessarily try and
>exclude non-food uses of animals.
Then I can call myself an Intermittent Dietary Vegan. During my
meals I will take a bite of animal flesh, and then a bite of something
like rice or potatoe, often followed by a bite of some cellulose based
vegetable like broccoli, then a bite of animal flesh, then back to the
vegan portions...inermittently alternating between veganism and
carnivorism several times during the course of each meal. Or do you
think it would be better to just say that I'm a vegan who consumes
and wears animal based products?
>Why Vegan?
>
>VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which seeks to exclude,
>as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
>to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. *
Why do YOU want to promote the dishonest idea that some
supposed vegans don't care about animals, do you know?
dh
>Of course it is.
No, the VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of the time what you
post is a lie, Goo.
>[snip cracker bullshit]
Why are you so afraid to address the following facts and
questions Goob? Why don't you want the dishonesty behind
what they attempt, to be revealed to everyone Goo?
>>and if it's easy enough for you to understand it
>>then it should be easy enough for anyone to understand it. So it
>>brings questions to mind, like:
>>
>>1. Are these people who try to create the impression that they don't
>>understand really too stupid to comprehend, or are they dishonestly
>>pretending to be for some reason?
>>
>>2. Why do they want to promote the false impression that there
>>are people who are vegan for reasons that don't involve animals?
>>
>>You being the most dishonest person I've ever encountered should
>>have an idea why they do it Goob, but of course that doesn't mean
>>you'll be honest about what it is. Why are you even honest about
>>the fact that they're being dishonest, btw? Now that we mention it,
>>in the VAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of cases it's you who is the
>>dishonest party, not "the other guy", so what strange quirk put you
>>on the honest side for a change, Goo?
Goober, why were you so unusually and very uncharacteristically
honest about something, can you say or must we guess?
dh
>Why did it take so long, Goo?
Probably perturbations in the flux of spacetime in this region Goober.
>Why haven't you learned in over NINE years, Goo, that your entire "take"
>on the issue of animal "rights" is bullshit?
How do you think pointing out the fact that it wouldn't provide
better lives, longer lives, more lives or ANY lives--much less provide
"rights"--for domestic animals is bullshit Goob, do you have any idea?
>There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing "ar"
Yet you have repeatedly indicated that you aren't aware of a single
one of them, Goo. If you think you are finally aware of any and capable
of explaining it/them, I challenge you to try doing so now. GO:
(prediction: the Goober will be unable to present any, wussing off
in a most inept and cowardly way)
dh
>No, Goo. *I* have elaborated logical and correct opposition to "ar".
As I correctly predicted Goober you can not do it. You can't
now, you never could, and you will never be able to. You have
completely failed the challenge. The challenge still stands though
Goo, so try. We can't say try again because as I predicted you
wussed off in a most inept and cowardly way without trying at
all, so try doing it now Goo:
(correct prediction: the Goober will as always be unable to
present opposition and be forced to go the coward's way again)
Laurie
> Bullshit. No one is "vegan" for health reasons.
After his compulsive vulgarity, noBalls here falsely claims
to have interviewed ALL vegan on the planet and "NONE" has
changed their diets for health reasons. Clearly, that is a lie.
> One might be vegetarian for (poorly thought out) health
reasons, ...
There are thousands on credible scientific articles
finding that eating meat is associated with all
currently-popular "degenerative diseases".
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
Further, noBalls can not support his claim "poorly thought
out"; he can not provide any support for hos claims, he never
can, he never does.
> ... "vegan" means eschewing *all* animal products, not
> just foods, as well as some products tested for safety on
> animals. Nobody refuses to wear leather shoes or wool
> trousers because he feels it's inherently unhealthful.
noBalls apparently does not know the dietary vegans simply
eliminate animal products from their diet, but there are so
called "ethical vegans" who choose to not harm animals in
ways other than diet. These choices are based on a false
concept of "ethics".
Laurie
> There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing
You can not present any moral reasons for anything because
there is NO objective standards of ethics/morals.
And how does, arguably, the most immoral person in
cyberspace qualified to lecture on morals?
Your false msg headers prove that not only are you admitting
your lack of moral refinement, but that you are ASHAMED at your
own psychopathic behavior.
Mr.Smartypants
> larry forti, *FAILED* engineer who now orders fiberglass wicks to make
> bombs to be used for terrorism, lied:
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing "ar", but
> >> *none* of your bullshit is among them.
> > You can not present any moral reasons for anything because
> > there is NO objective standards of ethics/morals.
>
Boobs, you're trying to hide from Rupert by having Laurie kick your
ass?
That doesn't sound like much of a plan.
dh
>No, Goo. You did not "predict" anything,
In contrast to that lie Goo, I correctly predicted your complete
ineptitude as far as being able to provide any opposition to the
misnomer. Every time I make that prediction I'm right Goober, each
and every time. Recently I've made two correct predictions which
YOU fulfilled by being so inept. The two correct predictions are:
(prediction: the Goober will be unable to present any, wussing off
in a most inept and cowardly way)
(correct prediction: the Goober will as always be unable to
present opposition and be forced to go the coward's way again)
>*JUST* as you do not "point out"
That's another lie Goo, and pointing out that it's a lie reveals
the lie itself. You sure are a stupid Goober.
In contrast to your inability to oppose elimination Goob I
will now point out--with examples--that you try to promote
its acceptance:
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals" - Goo
"if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live" - Goo
"not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
"it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>anything and do not "challenge".
That's another lie of course, since it's one of my challenges
which has led you to lie about all of this. Here are two more
challenges which will kick your ass to the extent that you won't
even be able to attempt them, followed by another correct
prediction of your imminent cowardly failure to attempt. The two
challenges:
1. Try to explain how you think you think you might disagree
with yourself about any of your above quotes.
2. Try to explain any of your supposed opposition(s) to the
elimination objective, or any similar aspects of the misnomer.
(correct prediction: Goo will again take the coward's way
by wussing out entirely, awareness of his own incredible
ineptitude preventing him from making any attempt to
meet either--much less both--of these two challenges)
dh
>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. No one is "vegan" for health reasons.
>
> After his compulsive vulgarity, noBalls here falsely claims
>to have interviewed ALL vegan on the planet and "NONE" has
>changed their diets for health reasons. Clearly, that is a lie.
If you can twist the meaning to include people who use
animal products as vegans, then I'll twist it a fraction of what
you are twisting it to include people who eat dairy products,
eggs, flesh, organs, blood, fat, and any other animal parts.
By using your method of dishonestly distorting the term I can
call myself a vegan who both uses and consumes animal
products, for both health and ethics related reasons. (ŚŹţ)
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo: you do *not* present a challenge - ever. You *CANNOT*.
>
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the one and only Goo and a staggeringly
> stupid cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:24:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>
>
> >>> On Wed, 21 May 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the one and only Goo and a staggeringly stupid cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Why did it take so long, Goo?
> >>>>> Probably perturbations
>
>
> >>>>>> Why haven't you learned in over NINE years, Goo, that your entire "take"
> >>>>>> on the issue of animal "rights" is bullshit?
> >>>>> How do you think pointing out the fact
>
>
> >>>> Your answer was a non-sequitur, Goo. I asked you why you haven't learned,
> >>>> in over NINE years of futility here, that your entire "take" on the issue of
> >>>> animal "rights" is bullshit? Answer the question, Goo. Your take *is* bullshit,
> >>>> and we want to know why you haven't been able to figure that out in over NINE
> >>>> years of fucking around here.
>
> >>>>>> There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing "ar"
> >>>>> Yet you have repeatedly indicated that
>
>
> >>> As I correctly predicted
>
> > In contrast to that lie
>
> cracker bullshit; that's all.
>
> You do not "predict", you do not "point out", you do not "challenge".
> You're a stupid cracker, Goo - you have *ADMITTED* it. You're just
> jerking off here. You're a lifelong jerk-off - not a serious
> contributor at all.-
How's my system time Mr. Serious Contributor?
crisology
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum" <youwantmya...@tampon.com> wrote:
> >you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know that
> >comes from an animal?
If the food is labeled as "vegan" it shouldn't have casein in it. I
think you're talking about the "non-dairy" label which vegans
naturally assume is without casein.
> The meat industry
Is largely government subsidized.
> provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats.
Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.
What could be healthier with a lower impact on ecology than to grow at
least some of your own organic food? I have edible fruit/grasses/
leaves or veg in my yard every day of the yr. A lot of the fruit I
grow are native species/easy to grow. I only harvest what I eat
immediately/nothing wasted & I don't mind sharing w/native scavengers.
I'm fortunate to live during a time that I can also obtain a large
variety of species of fruit trees that produce fruit with short shelf
lives (otherwise never found in stores). The vast area needed for cow
grazing isn't nearly as efficient, natural or healthy. No need/no
place for the extra excrement in my yard from any cow processing
industry.
> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings.
For the "conscientious consumers of animal products" What do the
calves get? Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
> Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
You don't get the same amounts of available animal byproducts from
grass fed cows since they take up to 4 yrs longer to raise. The prices
of all the plywood, fertilizers, pesticides, etc (from animals) would
increase 4-fold. The grass fed cow eating industry would soon be
subsidized at least as much as the current feedlot industry.
Are you comparing organic meat to non-organic veg too? Cow (non-
native) grazing "habitat" requires vast areas of land while a fraction
of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today are
already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
this reason. Grass fed cow slaughtering businesses are not as
unhealthy/unsustainable as feedlot cow businesses but it's impractical
& still a compromise to picking local apples/pawpaws/blueberries, etc.
Hunting for a reason to hunt while grazing,
Chris
dh
>On May 18, 1:01 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum" <youwantmya...@tampon.com> wrote:
>
>> >you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know that
>> >comes from an animal?
>
>If the food is labeled as "vegan" it shouldn't have casein in it. I
>think you're talking about the "non-dairy" label which vegans
>naturally assume is without casein.
>
>> The meat industry
>
>Is largely government subsidized.
Good for all of us.
>> provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> as animals do in other habitats.
>
>Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
Yes. In the wild the animals never have food provided
so they often have to struggle and suffer over food. They
also have to do so over territory, and are often provide
with no shelter or safety from the elements or predators.
They also often suffer from fear their entire lives, in contrast
to most livestock who never live in fear at all. Etc...
>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> being vegan.
>
>What could be healthier with a lower impact on ecology than to grow at
>least some of your own organic food? I have edible fruit/grasses/
>leaves or veg in my yard every day of the yr.
That certainly does nothing to help any livestock.
>A lot of the fruit I
>grow are native species/easy to grow. I only harvest what I eat
>immediately/nothing wasted & I don't mind sharing w/native scavengers.
>I'm fortunate to live during a time that I can also obtain a large
>variety of species of fruit trees that produce fruit with short shelf
>lives (otherwise never found in stores). The vast area needed for cow
>grazing isn't nearly as efficient, natural or healthy. No need/no
>place for the extra excrement in my yard from any cow processing
>industry.
>
>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings.
>
>For the "conscientious consumers of animal products" What do the
>calves get?
Life, and whatever experiences go along with it.
>Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Do you think life is?
>> Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
>You don't get the same amounts of available animal byproducts from
>grass fed cows since they take up to 4 yrs longer to raise. The prices
>of all the plywood, fertilizers, pesticides, etc (from animals) would
>increase 4-fold. The grass fed cow eating industry would soon be
>subsidized at least as much as the current feedlot industry.
Okay.
>Are you comparing organic meat to non-organic veg too? Cow (non-
>native) grazing "habitat" requires vast areas of land
Land on which wildlife has been MUCH more welcome than in
crop fields with every farmer I've ever discussed it with. In fact,
the farmers I've discussed it with have been happy and appeared
sort of proud to see deer in grazing with their cattle, while those
same farmers would be bothered to the point of wanting to kill
them when they got in their crop fields. Things like that don't
matter to supposedly ethical veg*ns, but they matter a great deal
to the humans and other animals who are involved.
>while a fraction
>of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today are
>already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
>this reason.
Good.
>Grass fed cow slaughtering businesses are not as
>unhealthy/unsustainable as feedlot cow businesses but it's impractical
That depends entirely on how it's done.
crisology
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On May 18, 1:01 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum" <youwantmya...@tampon.com> wrote:
> >> The meat industry
>
> >Is largely government subsidized.
>
> Good for all of us.
all of us = those who would rather be fed than feed themselves.
all of them = the ones feeding all of you.
> >> provides life for the animals that it
> >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> >> as animals do in other habitats.
>
> >Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
>
> Yes. In the wild the animals never have food provided
Wild animals live much longer/naturally.
> so they often have to struggle and suffer over food.
So they adapt to feed themselves & the species evolves thusly & enjoy
natural pleasure of suckling, mating, longer life, etc
.
> They also have to do so over territory"
And earn mating priveleges.
> with no shelter or safety from the elements or predators
Except for the fake predator/human hunters (who can't even digest meat
like real predators) who castrate/brand/mutilate/slaughter before even
reaching breeding age, etc.
> They also often suffer from fear their entire lives, in contrast
> to most livestock who never live in fear at all. Etc...
Everyone who enjoys freedom does so at the risk of fear.
> >> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> >> being vegan.
>
> >What could be healthier with a lower impact on ecology than to grow at
> >least some of your own organic food? I have edible fruit/grasses/
> >leaves or veg in my yard every day of the yr.
>
> That certainly does nothing to help any livestock.
I don't know about your "live$tock" profits but it certainly does help
ecology and relieves dependency upon wildlife you are interested in
killing for no nutritional/environmental reason as people can grow
more of their own food.
> >A lot of the fruit I
> >grow are native species/easy to grow. I only harvest what I eat
> >immediately/nothing wasted & I don't mind sharing w/native scavengers.
> >I'm fortunate to live during a time that I can also obtain a large
> >variety of species of fruit trees that produce fruit with short shelf
> >lives (otherwise never found in stores). The vast area needed for cow
> >grazing isn't nearly as efficient, natural or healthy. No need/no
> >place for the extra excrement in my yard from any cow processing
> >industry.
>
> >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >> get thousands of dairy servings.
>
> >For the "conscientious consumers of animal products" What do the
> >calves get?
>
> Life, and whatever experiences go along with it.
>
> >Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
>
> Do you think life is?
No. This was the point. To inefficiently cycle through the biomass to
raise "livestock" (don't you mean free ranging animals?) it requires
resources/land that aren't available on a widespread basis. If you can
afford free range meat then that is a choice (an environmental &
nutritional compromise to available fruit that can be grown from home
but a choice, nonetheless). Every time you go up the trophic level for
food, you make a greater ecological impact.
> >> Due to the influence of farm
> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
> >You don't get the same amounts of available animal byproducts from
> >grass fed cows since they take up to 4 yrs longer to raise. The prices
> >of all the plywood, fertilizers, pesticides, etc (from animals) would
> >increase 4-fold. The grass fed cow eating industry would soon be
> >subsidized at least as much as the current feedlot industry.
>
> Okay.
OK
> >Are you comparing organic meat to non-organic veg too? Cow (non-
> >native) grazing "habitat" requires vast areas of land
>
> Land on which wildlife has been MUCH more welcome than in
> crop fields with every farmer I've ever discussed it with.
My alternative to preserving wildlife (you totally ignored) was to use
the backyards already carved out of habitat to provide food sources
(fruit/veg) instead of taking more habitat for additional sources of
nutritionally inferior food (meat). This way, wildlife is not only
"welcome" but REMAINS IN HABITAT.
> the farmers I've discussed it have been happy
I know, I know... You want to make money but I'm saying regardless of
what your meat industry friends want, a solution to diminished
wildlife/dependency upon slaughtering captive animals is to grow some
of your own food.
> and appeared
> sort of proud to see deer in grazing with their cattle, while those
> same farmers would be bothered to the point of wanting to kill
> them when they got in their crop fields.
And I already told you I'm happy to see the raccoon (like last night)
in my backyard stealing fruit/veg. The difference is I didn't have to
go out and carve out more of his habitat and kill additional animals.
Are you really looking for solutions to preserving wildlife or are you
trying to support a meat industry despite nutritional/environmental
issues?
> >a fraction
> >of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today are
> >already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
> >this reason.
>
> Good.
Good that you kill wildlife? What's your aim, besides money?
> >& still a compromise to picking local apples/pawpaws/blueberries, etc.
>
Still hunting for a reason (nutritional or environmental) to hunt
while grazing,
Chris
dh
>Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and
>presented no challenge:
>
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), crisology <cris...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum" <youwantmya...@tampon.com> wrote:
>>>>> you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know that
>>>>> comes from an animal?
>>> If the food is labeled as "vegan" it shouldn't have casein in it. I
>>> think you're talking about the "non-dairy" label which vegans
>>> naturally assume is without casein.
>>>
>>>> The meat industry
>>> Is largely government subsidized.
>>
>> Good for all of us.
>
>No. Subsidies are inherently inefficient and paternalistic.
What if there were none?
>>>> provides life for the animals that it
>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>>>> as animals do in other habitats.
>>> Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
>>
>> Yes. In the wild the animals never have food provided
>> so they often have to struggle and suffer over food.
>
>Irrelevant.
Only to the insanely inconsiderate.
>>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>>>> being vegan.
>>> What could be healthier with a lower impact on ecology than to grow at
>>> least some of your own organic food? I have edible fruit/grasses/
>>> leaves or veg in my yard every day of the yr.
>>
>> That certainly does nothing to help any livestock.
>
>It is not anyone's "duty" to help any livestock, Fuckwit. There is no
>morally compelling reason for livestock to exist at all, and if they do
>exist, it is no consumer's moral "duty" to do something to "help" them.
>
>You're still just pretending, anyway, Fuckwit. You don't really care
>about livestock; you only care about the products that come from them.
It's a mental limitation that you eliminationists can't appreciate
the lives of the animals you contribute to the deaths of Goob, but
most of us certainly can. Not only is it a mental weakness on your
part Goo but you veg*ns don't contribute to the lives of ANY
animals; you only contribute to the deaths of wildlife. Since you
can't feel good about contributing to lives of positive value for any
animals since you don't do it, you know it's a threat to your supposed
ethical superiority that meat consumers can, hence your desperation
in trying to prevent them from appreciating their contribution.
>>> A lot of the fruit I
>>> grow are native species/easy to grow. I only harvest what I eat
>>> immediately/nothing wasted & I don't mind sharing w/native scavengers.
>>> I'm fortunate to live during a time that I can also obtain a large
>>> variety of species of fruit trees that produce fruit with short shelf
>>> lives (otherwise never found in stores). The vast area needed for cow
>>> grazing isn't nearly as efficient, natural or healthy. No need/no
>>> place for the extra excrement in my yard from any cow processing
>>> industry.
>>>
>>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>>>> get thousands of dairy servings.
>>> For the "conscientious consumers of animal products" What do the
>>> calves get?
>>
>> Life, and whatever experiences go along with it.
>
>Meaningless.
Only to the insanely inconsiderate, Goo.
>It is not "better" that livestock animals "get to
>experience life", Fuckwit. This is settled.
>
>>
>>> Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
>>
>> Do you think life is?
>
>Typically stupid Fuckwit David Harrison question.
>
>>>> Due to the influence of farm
>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>>>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>>>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>> You don't get the same amounts of available animal byproducts from
>>> grass fed cows since they take up to 4 yrs longer to raise. The prices
>>> of all the plywood, fertilizers, pesticides, etc (from animals) would
>>> increase 4-fold. The grass fed cow eating industry would soon be
>>> subsidized at least as much as the current feedlot industry.
>>
>> Okay.
>
>Not a good thing.
Good enough.
>>> Are you comparing organic meat to non-organic veg too? Cow (non-
>>> native) grazing "habitat" requires vast areas of land
>>
>> Land on which wildlife has been MUCH more welcome than in
>> crop fields with every farmer I've ever discussed it with.
>
>You've *NEVER* discussed this with any farmer, you fucking cracker liar.
That's a lie Goo. I've discussed it with farmers that have
had problems with deer in their crops. I've discussed it with
farmers who have had problems with wild hogs too, Goo.
>>> while a fraction
>>> of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today are
>>> already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
>>> this reason.
>>
>> Good.
>
>No, bad. Reasonable and thoughtful people value natural habitats that
>include predators.
Not the people who have to deal with them, Goober.
>Stupid religious-bullshit-spewing crackers don't.
>
>
>>
>>> Grass fed cow slaughtering businesses are not as
>>> unhealthy/unsustainable as feedlot cow businesses but it's impractical
>>
>> That depends entirely on how it's done.
>
>No, it's impractical, full stop, for *everyone* to be able to eat
>grass-fed beef. There isn't enough grassland.
There might be if so much of it wasn't growing grain, Goo.
dh
>On May 26, 10:04 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On May 18, 1:01 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum" <youwantmya...@tampon.com> wrote:
>
>> >> The meat industry
>>
>> >Is largely government subsidized.
>>
>> Good for all of us.
>
>all of us = those who would rather be fed than feed themselves.
>
>all of them = the ones feeding all of you.
All of us.
>> >> provides life for the animals that it
>> >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> >> as animals do in other habitats.
>>
>> >Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
>>
>> Yes. In the wild the animals never have food provided
>
>Wild animals live much longer/naturally.
Since most wild animals die as infants or very young,
the average lifespan would be much less.
>> so they often have to struggle and suffer over food.
>
>So they adapt to feed themselves
They suffer more than domestic animals.
>& the species evolves thusly & enjoy
>natural pleasure of suckling, mating, longer life, etc
>.
>> They also have to do so over territory"
>
>And earn mating priveleges.
They suffer more.
>> with no shelter or safety from the elements or predators
>
>Except for the fake predator/human hunters (who can't even digest meat
>like real predators) who castrate/brand/mutilate/slaughter before even
>reaching breeding age, etc.
· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>> They also often suffer from fear their entire lives, in contrast
>> to most livestock who never live in fear at all. Etc...
>
>Everyone who enjoys freedom does so at the risk of fear.
They suffer from it more than livestock.
>> >> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> >> being vegan.
>>
>> >What could be healthier with a lower impact on ecology than to grow at
>> >least some of your own organic food? I have edible fruit/grasses/
>> >leaves or veg in my yard every day of the yr.
>>
>> That certainly does nothing to help any livestock.
>
>I don't know about your "live$tock" profits
There are none.
>but it certainly does help
Certainly not any livestock.
>ecology and relieves dependency upon wildlife you are interested in
>killing for no nutritional/environmental reason as people can grow
>more of their own food.
>
>> >A lot of the fruit I
>> >grow are native species/easy to grow. I only harvest what I eat
>> >immediately/nothing wasted & I don't mind sharing w/native scavengers.
>> >I'm fortunate to live during a time that I can also obtain a large
>> >variety of species of fruit trees that produce fruit with short shelf
>> >lives (otherwise never found in stores). The vast area needed for cow
>> >grazing isn't nearly as efficient, natural or healthy. No need/no
>> >place for the extra excrement in my yard from any cow processing
>> >industry.
>>
>> >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> >> get thousands of dairy servings.
>>
>> >For the "conscientious consumers of animal products" What do the
>> >calves get?
>>
>> Life, and whatever experiences go along with it.
>>
>> >Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
>>
>> Do you think life is?
>
>No. This was the point. To inefficiently cycle through the biomass to
>raise "livestock" (don't you mean free ranging animals?)
Not necessarily since everyone I've talked to who is familiar
with them feels that cattle enjoy being in the stock yards eating
grain all day, so I feel that even grain finished cattle have lives
of positive value which should be taken into consideration.
Both methods do fine.
>> the farmers I've discussed it have been happy
>
>I know, I know... You want to make money but I'm saying regardless of
>what your meat industry friends want, a solution to diminished
>wildlife/dependency upon slaughtering captive animals is to grow some
>of your own food.
No thanks.
>> and appeared
>> sort of proud to see deer in grazing with their cattle, while those
>> same farmers would be bothered to the point of wanting to kill
>> them when they got in their crop fields.
>
>And I already told you I'm happy to see the raccoon (like last night)
>in my backyard stealing fruit/veg.
People who are doing it for real can't afford to let wildlife
destroy their crops.
>The difference is I didn't have to
>go out and carve out more of his habitat and kill additional animals.
If you don't, someone else will have to do it instead.
>Are you really looking for solutions to preserving wildlife or are you
>trying to support a meat industry despite nutritional/environmental
>issues?
I'm pointing out aspects of the situation that eliminationists
don't want people to think about.
>> >a fraction
>> >of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today are
>> >already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
>> >this reason.
>>
>> Good.
>
>Good that you kill wildlife?
Some of them.
>What's your aim,
To get people to consider some of the facts that eliminationists
don't want them to think about.
dh
>The fact is, Fuckwit doesn't care at all for the animals' "getting to
>experience life"
There's no evidence of that at all Goo, but we have
plenty of proof that you not only do not, but you don't
want anyone else to either:
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo
"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo
dh
>Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and
>presented no challenge:
>
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> dh pointed out:
>>>
>>>> In the wild the animals never have food provided
>>>> so they often have to struggle and suffer over food.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> Only to the insanely inconsiderate.
>
>No. It is completely irrelevant.
Only to the insanely inconsiderate Goo. It's just that you are
insanely inconsiderate so it feels right to your feeble little mind
that everyone else *should* be as inconsiderate as you are.
. . .
>>> You've *NEVER* discussed this with any farmer, you fucking cracker liar.
>>
>> That's a lie Goo.
>
>It's not a lie
Goober we had a farm in NC, and many of our neighbors were
farmers too. We often rode horses to their places and talked
about things and learned things from them. Having been on a
number of farms is what taught me that many livestock animals
have decent lives of positive value Goo, and just because you
can't comprehend and lie about the fact does not and can not
do anything to reduce what I learned from personal experiences.
. . .
>it is impractical for everyone to eat grass-fed beef as a substantial
>part of their diet.
Try backing that up Goo. Go:
dh
>Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and
>presented no challenge:
>
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 22:27:10 -0700 (PDT), crisology <cris...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 26, 10:04 am, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 18, 1:01 am, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum" <youwantmya...@tampon.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The meat industry
>>>>> Is largely government subsidized.
>>>> Good for all of us.
>>> all of us = those who would rather be fed than feed themselves.
>>>
>>> all of them = the ones feeding all of you.
>>
>> All of us.
>
>*NONE* of us. Subsidies are bad. They distort prices and in effect are
>making a choice for people that people ought to be making for themselves.
Try explaining it Goo.
>>>>>> provides life for the animals that it
>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats.
>>>>> Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
>>>> Yes. In the wild the animals never have food provided
>>> Wild animals live much longer/naturally.
>>
>> Since most wild animals die as infants or very young,
>> the average lifespan would be much less.
>
>You don't know what you're talking about. He's comparing wild animals
>with domestic livestock that are mostly slaughtered at less than a year
>old, Fuckwit. You're deliberately making a false comparison, Fuckwit.
Goo, the majority of wild animals don't live long at all but are
killed usually as prey while very young. Even in larger supposedly
more successful animals like lions and grizzly bears 50% or more
never reach maturity. Of the many mallard's I've seen with ducklings
they managed to hatch off, I haven't seen a single one make it to
maturity. In fact I've only seen two live long enough to grow any
visible feathers. That doesn't mean no mallards manage to raise
any young Goob, but it does show that the vast majority of them
don't live as long as broiler chickens do.
>>>> so they often have to struggle and suffer over food.
>>> So they adapt to feed themselves
>>
>> They suffer more than domestic animals.
>
>Irrelevant,
May be Goober, but only to the insanely inconsiderat if so.
>and not something you could prove anyway. It is not
>"better" for the universe if we prevent wild animals from suffering by
>forcing them into extinction.
Why do you think it is better in the case of livestock, but not
better in the case of wildlife, Goo?
>>> & the species evolves thusly & enjoy
>>> natural pleasure of suckling, mating, longer life, etc
>>> .
>>>> They also have to do so over territory"
>>> And earn mating priveleges.
>>
>> They suffer more.
>
>Irrelevant. You aren't "helping" wild animals by promoting livestock
>over them.
There's no good reason to try ignoring the lives of
livestock Goob, and as you eliminationsts consistently
demonstrate you can't even come up with much in the
way of poor reasons, much much less can you come up
with a good one.
. . .
>>> And I already told you I'm happy to see the raccoon (like last night)
>>> in my backyard stealing fruit/veg. The difference is I didn't have to
>>> go out and carve out more of his habitat and kill additional animals.
>>
>> If you don't, someone else will have to do it instead.
>
>No.
Someone, or their dog, or their car...will end up
killing it, Goo. Maybe you should go try to save it.
>>> Are you really looking for solutions to preserving wildlife or are you
>>> trying to support a meat industry despite nutritional/environmental
>>> issues?
>>
>> I'm pointing out aspects of the situation
>
>You are not. You do not "point out" anything. You bullshit.
>
>
>>>>> a fraction
>>>>> of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today are
>>>>> already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
>>>>> this reason.
>>>> Good.
>>> Good that you kill wildlife?
>>
>> Some of them.
>>
>>> What's your aim,
>>
>> To get people to consider
>
>No.
In order to get a more realistic interpretation, people
should think beyond the restrictions you advocates of
the misnomer want to place on their thinking. They need
to think beyond your claim that elimination is the most
ethical possible choice, and consider that decent animal
welfare, providing lives of positive value for billions of
animals, might be ethically equivalent or superior to the
elimination objective
dh
>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008, Goo claimed:
>>
>>> dh pointed out:
>>>
>>>> They suffer more.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. You aren't "helping" wild animals by promoting livestock
>>> over them.
>>
>> There's no good reason to try ignoring the lives of
>> livestock, you insanely inconsiderate Goober.
>
>I don't ignore them
You try to, and you try to persuade others to Goo,
because considering them suggests that providing
decent AW could be ethically equivalent or superior
to the objective behind the misnomer.
the Bede
gonna have to explain this "goo" business to us outsiders.
the Bede
"Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
news:J7OdnWK1WNTyV9jV...@earthlink.com...
> the Bede wrote:
>> hey moron, if you're gonna continue with the obsessive crossposting
>> you're gonna have to explain this "goo" business to us outsiders.
>
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison - that's how everyone in
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian knows him - is an astoundingly stupid
> uneducated cracker living near Atlanta. He's a goober, hence Goo.
>
> Really not much to it.
>
>
oh, it's just short for "goober"? fine.
carry on.