Facts we should *not* consider.
dh...@nomail.com
superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that. The following are
lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want
to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so.
Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
killed so we can eat them.
Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
killed so we can eat them.
2. Some of the animals raised for food have decent lives.
3. Veg*nism does nothing to provide decent lives for farm animals.
4. Veg*nism does nothing to help or provide more life for any animals.
5. People can contribute to decent lives for farm animals, but they
can't do it by being veg*n.
6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.
8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
veggies.
sil...@onairos.com
> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
> Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
> meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that. The following are
> lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want
> to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so.
>
> Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
> 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> killed so we can eat them.
>
> Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
> 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> killed so we can eat them.
It ought to tell you something that no one wants to
consider this so-called "fact". The reason is, it is
unimportant. Everyone is right to disregard it: in
the debate over eating meat, the fact that farm animals
"get to experience life" has no meaning.
swamp
>Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> killed so we can eat them.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone *ever* bought this argument, David?
--swamp
dh...@nomail.com
I have mentioned it to quite a few people in face to face conversations,
and have *never* had anyone attach a bunch of extra junk to it about a
right to life for unconceived hypothetical potential future animals, like the
Gonad and some of his veg*n buddies do. They have always agreed that
raising animals for food provides billions of them with life, since it would
be absurd to disagree. As for whether or not providing them with life is
an acceptable trade off for taking it later, no one has ever had a problem
with it. There has certainly never been anyone who felt that we should
*disregard* that aspect of the situation, and when I tell people about the
responses I get in these ngs, they feel that people making them are the
ones who don't think of things realistically. No offence to you swamp,
and no offence was intended when I mentioned it before, but the
objections you presented to it were for the most part if not entirely
arguments that veg*ns would use. Some of them I suppose I would
agree with to some extent, and others I wouldn't. I've been wondering
ever since how many of them you agreed with and how many you
didn't, but we never got down to details like that so I still don't know
which are objections that you agree with and which are not. I might
still have a list of them if you'd care to go through it and say which you
go along with and which you don't.
When I mention this aspect of the situation to people in person, it
is met with a completely different reaction than it is in these ngs. Why
not try it yourself with a few people and see what their reaction is,
just out of curiosity. Please let me know how it turns out if you give it
a go. You could just tell them that some moron you've seen online is
going around saying that billions of animals are not simply "killed" as
"ARAs" want us to perceive the situation, but that those same billions
of animals only get any life at all because people raise them for food,
and see what their reaction is.
Jonathan Ball
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:26:39 GMT, swamp <sw...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:40:46 GMT, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>>>1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
>>> killed so we can eat them.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, has anyone *ever* bought this argument, David?
>>
>>--swamp
>
>
> I have mentioned it to quite a few people in face to face conversations,
You live in the South. The idiots you mentioned it to
are southerners. That's all anyone needs to know.
Jonathan Ball
That's right, Fuckwit: when I have compiled the
lengthy list of OPPONENTS of "ar" who tell you that
your story is bullshit, I indadvertently omitted swamp.
He think it's bullshit, too.
EVERYONE thinks it's bullshit, Fuckwit, and they ALL
are smarter and have greater insight than you have.
You are wrong, and your story is bullshit.
Jonathan Ball
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:26:39 GMT, swamp <sw...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:40:46 GMT, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>>>1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
>>> killed so we can eat them.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, has anyone *ever* bought this argument, David?
>>
>>--swamp
>
>
> I have mentioned it to quite a few people in face to face conversations,
> and have *never* had anyone attach a bunch of extra junk to it about a
> right to life for unconceived hypothetical potential future animals, like the
> Gonad and some of his veg*n buddies do. They have always agreed that
> raising animals for food provides billions of them with life, since it would
> be absurd to disagree.
No more absurd than pointing it out. It is true, but
it's trivial; it is meaningless in the debate about
whether or not it's morally right to eat meat.
> As for whether or not providing them with life is
> an acceptable trade off for taking it later, no one has ever had a problem
> with it.
Thanks for the admission that you think "getting to
experience life" is some kind of moral good. I'm
adding this to the FAQ.
> There has certainly never been anyone who felt that we should
> *disregard* that aspect of the situation, and when I tell people about the
> responses I get in these ngs, they feel that people making them are the
> ones who don't think of things realistically.
You have a cherry-picked audience of brain-dead rednecks.
> No offence to you swamp,
> and no offence was intended when I mentioned it before, but the
> objections you presented to it were for the most part if not entirely
> arguments that veg*ns would use.
Some of what "vegans" say is correct.
> Some of them I suppose I would
> agree with to some extent, and others I wouldn't. I've been wondering
> ever since how many of them you agreed with and how many you
> didn't, but we never got down to details like that so I still don't know
> which are objections that you agree with and which are not. I might
> still have a list of them if you'd care to go through it and say which you
> go along with and which you don't.
>
> When I mention this aspect of the situation to people in person, it
> is met with a completely different reaction than it is in these ngs.
Dumb inbred southern rednecks. What did you expect?
Gary Beckwith
first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
for meat.
second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
that directly affect the welfare of animals.
now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
outside in years.
your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
crop that kills more animals than meat?
you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts.
But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking
about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so
there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one
before.
Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping
you. Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong,
though. Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely
untrue.
Gary
dh...@nomail.com
>you are full of vegan baloney!
>
>first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
>for meat.
Which animals does it help, and how does it help them?
>second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
>vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
>organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
>that directly affect the welfare of animals.
Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
what other things a person does.
>now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
>industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
>true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
>lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
>body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
>know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
>I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
>often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
>dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
>full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
>outside in years.
Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't. If
you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
decent lives.
>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>crop that kills more animals than meat?
From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
get over 500 servings of beef. A few meals of tofu are likely
to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
From the life and death of a grass raised dairy cow people can
get thousands of dairy servings. A few servings of rice milk are
likely to involve more deaths than a thousand servings of grass
raised cow milk.
>you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
>
>It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
>your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
They are all true, as was the main point which is that there
are quite a few significan facts that you veg*ns do *not* want
people to consider. That's because you care more about
promoting veg*nism than you do about human influence on
animals.
Jonathan Ball
> you are full of vegan baloney!
>
> first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
> for meat.
How does that help any currently living farm animals?
>
> second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
> vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
> organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
> that directly affect the welfare of animals.
But a meat eater who is concerned with animal welfare
could do the same thing, and undoubtedly there are
"vegans" who aren't members of any such organizations.
Being "vegan" has nothing to do with it.
>
> now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
> industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
> true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
> lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
> body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways.
Prove any of this. Get busy.
> Do you
> know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
> I live in farm country and I see it every day.
Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
lying.
> Even dairy cows are
> often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
> dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
> full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
> outside in years.
You've never been inside the building, either, so you
don't know what you're talking about.
>
> your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> crop that kills more animals than meat?
Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested,
heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
killing animals.
>
> you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
>
> It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
> your cruel habit.
You're right about that particular poster, David
Harrison, better known as Fuckwit. However, some of
the points he raises are correct and serve to disprove
"vegan" claims. In particular, his claims about
animals being killed in the course of producing
vegetables are correct.
What you should disregard is his fatuous, fuckwitted
claim about how raising meat animals "provides them
with life". It is trivially true, but it is not a
reason to raise them, and he is the only loon who
thinks it is.
> Virtually all your statements are completely false.
No, quite a lot of them are true.
> If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts.
It's obvious to one and all that you do not practice
what you preach.
> But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking
> about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so
> there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one
> before.
>
> Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping
> you. Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong,
> though.
If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate
ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal
products in order not to cause animal suffering, their
lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical
fallacy. "vegans" cause massive animal suffering with
their "lifestyle"; they just don't eat the dead animals.
> Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely
> untrue.
That is not a proper English sentence.
elv...@rapanan.net
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:33:56 GMT, Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>>you are full of vegan baloney!
>>
>>first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
>>for meat.
>
>
> Which animals does it help, and how does it help them?
>
>
>>second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
>>vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
>>organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
>>that directly affect the welfare of animals.
>
>
> Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
> what other things a person does.
Meat eating does nothing to help animals, either,
regardless of what other things a person does.
>
>
>>now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
>>industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
>>true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
>>lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
>>body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
>>know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
>>I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
>>often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
>>dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
>>full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
>>outside in years.
>
>
> Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't.
That's merely your opinion, and it is based on ignorance.
> If you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
> more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
> decent lives.
If one thinks that it is horrible to kill an animal for
human consumption, then they indeed all have horrible
lives.
>
>
>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
>
>
> From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
> get over 500 servings of beef.
You are a massive hypocrite. You do not eat grass-fed
beef. You do not make any effort at all to choose meat
from sources that treated animals better than the
average for their industries. You buy whatever beef,
chicken, pork and other that Piggly Wiggly has in
shrink-wrapped packages. You are not an ethical meat
eater.
> A few meals of tofu are likely
> to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
You have no support for that claim. It's idle,
ignorant speculation.
> From the life and death of a grass raised dairy cow people can
> get thousands of dairy servings. A few servings of rice milk are
> likely to involve more deaths than a thousand servings of grass
> raised cow milk.
>
>
>>you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
>>
>>It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
>>your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
>
>
> They are all true,
One of them is completely insignificant: the one about
the meat and dairy industries "providing life" for farm
animals.
> as was the main point which is that there
> are quite a few significan facts that you veg*ns do *not* want
> people to consider.
Vegans not giving any consideration to this stupid
"providing life" argument is not out of a fear of what
might be discovered. It is based on a full-knowledge
awareness that there is nothing to consider.
Gary Beckwith
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:33:56 GMT, Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >you are full of vegan baloney!
> >
> >first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
> >for meat.
>
> Which animals does it help, and how does it help them?
it helps the ones that don't have to be born into a life of torture.
>
> >second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
> >vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
> >organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
> >that directly affect the welfare of animals.
>
> Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
> what other things a person does.
you can twist the facts any way you want. most vegans have a lifestyle,
not just an eating habit. what's your point? veganism itself is
>
> >now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
> >industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
> >true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
> >lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
> >body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
> >know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
> >I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
> >often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
> >dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
> >full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
> >outside in years.
>
> Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't. If
> you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
> more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
> decent lives.
the VAST MAJORITY, i'd say well over 95% live horrible lives. did I
ever say all? again, what's the point? does it make a difference if
it's all, or most, or 95% or 50%?
>
> >your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> >crop that kills more animals than meat?
>
> From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
> get over 500 servings of beef. A few meals of tofu are likely
> to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
> From the life and death of a grass raised dairy cow people can
> get thousands of dairy servings. A few servings of rice milk are
> likely to involve more deaths than a thousand servings of grass
> raised cow milk.
you are full of it. you did not give any example. what deaths? there
simply are not any animal deaths involved in tofu production. get real.
the fact is that for every pound of beef produced, hundreds of pounds of
grain must be grown and hundreds of gallons of water are wasted. The
entire earth could live off the grain and water that is wasted to feed
cattle. get your facts straight. you are completely wrong on this
one. do you know how many pounds of grain and gallons of water are
required to raise that head of beef that makes 500 servings? I guess
not because if you did you would not make that statement.
>
> >you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
> >
> >It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
> >your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
>
> They are all true, as was the main point which is that there
> are quite a few significan facts that you veg*ns do *not* want
> people to consider. That's because you care more about
> promoting veg*nism than you do about human influence on
> animals.
I supposed you know exactly what I think and believe and what I want to
do. your original statement is full of generalizations of what vegans
think and do. how would you know what I think? how do you know what i
care about?
Simply stated, your arguments are not true, your arguments are completey
full of holes and when given an opporutunity to respond you skirt the
issue. If you reallly know the facts, why don't you tell me where all
the animal deaths are that result from tofu production? Three times
you've said that more animals die from the raising of vegetables than
meat and never have you given a single example. You also seem to know
nothing about beef production and the resources that go into it. Your
arguments are hollow and unsubstantiated. You generalize a whole group
of people into thinking and feeling one certain way, which is completely
outrageous.
You should learn more about the facts, and perhaps take a class on
debating. In real debates, you don't make generalizations and you
substantiate your facts. You've done neither.
I don't even see why you're trying to make this case. go ahead and eat
meat if you want to. it's a personal choice. Why do you have to tell
other people they are wrong for making personal decisions that differ
from yours? Maybe you're feeling guilty for eating meat and you're
trying to justify your habit by making these statements?
Jonathan Ball
>
> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:33:56 GMT, Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>you are full of vegan baloney!
>>>
>>>first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
>>>for meat.
>>
>> Which animals does it help, and how does it help them?
>
>
> it helps the ones that don't have to be born into a life of torture.
"They" don't exist, so they can't be helped. Try again.
>
>
>>>second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
>>>vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
>>>organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
>>>that directly affect the welfare of animals.
>>
>> Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
>>what other things a person does.
>
>
> you can twist the facts any way you want. most vegans have a lifestyle,
> not just an eating habit. what's your point? veganism itself is
...is, what? Try to write complete sentences next time.
There is nothing intrinsic to "veganism" that means
people are going to be more likely to contribute to
animal welfare organizations. To the extent they
contribute to radical animal "rights" organizations,
they aren't helping any animals.
"vegans", in fact, are exceptionally self absorbed
people, and I contend they are likely to do far LESS to
help existing animals in any meaningful way.
>
>
>
>>>now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
>>>industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
>>>true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
>>>lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
>>>body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
>>>know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
>>>I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
>>>often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
>>>dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
>>>full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
>>>outside in years.
>>
>> Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't. If
>>you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
>>more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
>>decent lives.
>
>
> the VAST MAJORITY, i'd say well over 95% live horrible lives. did I
> ever say all? again, what's the point? does it make a difference if
> it's all, or most, or 95% or 50%?
You have done ZERO research to allow you legitimately
to reach any percentage. You're just shooting wildly
in the dark, but aiming numerically high.
>
>
>
>>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
>>
>> From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
>>get over 500 servings of beef. A few meals of tofu are likely
>>to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
>>From the life and death of a grass raised dairy cow people can
>>get thousands of dairy servings. A few servings of rice milk are
>>likely to involve more deaths than a thousand servings of grass
>>raised cow milk.
>
>
> you are full of it. you did not give any example. what deaths? there
> simply are not any animal deaths involved in tofu production. get real.
No, you get real, liar. Animals living in soybean
fields are slaughtered wholesale in the course of
tilling the field and harvesting the crop. Most likely
there also is some kind of active pest control
practiced in the field. Once the crop is harvested, it
is stored somewhere before being distributed, and
vegetable storage facilities ACTIVELY exterminate
rodents. Those deaths COUNT against you, buddy.
>
> the fact is that for every pound of beef produced, hundreds of pounds of
> grain must be grown and hundreds of gallons of water are wasted.
As far as the beef most North Americans actually eat,
some animal-killing grains IS produced and used. Your
ratio is far off, indicating again you don't know what
you're talking about. The actual ratio of grain:beef
is about 6:1, not hundreds to one. As to the "waste"
of water, it isn't a waste; it is just an input. Rice
production "wastes" water by your argument, and in
fact, Californian rice farmers do indeed waste water
prodigiously, as the water is heavily subsidized, and
they have zero incentive to conserve it.
> The entire earth could live off the grain and water that is wasted
> to feed cattle.
Doubtful, but irrelevant anyway. The use of the grain
and the water are not "waste"; they are inputs to a
production process like any other.
> get your facts straight. you are completely wrong on this
> one.
You appear to be the one who is completely wrong, as
you don't know AT ALL what you're talking about.
> do you know how many pounds of grain and gallons of water are
> required to raise that head of beef that makes 500 servings? I guess
> not because if you did you would not make that statement.
I don't have to guess, dummy; I KNOW that you don't
know what you're talking about when you say "hundreds"
of pounds of grain go into producing one pound of beef.
That is a lie.
>
>
>>>you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
>>>
>>>It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
>>>your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
>>
>> They are all true, as was the main point which is that there
>>are quite a few significan facts that you veg*ns do *not* want
>>people to consider. That's because you care more about
>>promoting veg*nism than you do about human influence on
>>animals.
>
>
> I supposed you know exactly what I think and believe and what I want to
> do.
In fact, dummy, when you declare yourself "vegan", you
DO INDEED reveal far more about your thoughts and
beliefs than you realize. Among other things, you
reveal that you are a rather radical leftist in your
political thinking. By revealing yourself to be
"vegan", I know EVERYTHING you think on political and
social issues. I've made this claim before in these
groups, and I have been proved right EVERY time.
> your original statement is full of generalizations of what vegans
> think and do.
Those generalizations are correct.
> how would you know what I think? how do you know what i
> care about?
Because "veganism" is a marker that is INTENDED to
reveal a lot more than merely what you eat. It is a
signal.
[snip remaining foam-at-the-mouth rant]
Gary Beckwith
Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
> > industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
> > true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
> > lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
> > body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways.
>
> Prove any of this. Get busy.
>
I don't have to prove it, there are dozens of books already written,
with photos, first hand accounts from farmers, etc. read Diet for A New
America.
> > Do you
> > know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
> > I live in farm country and I see it every day.
>
> Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
> lying.
My point was not about WHERE they are slaughtered, it is about HOW. The
WHERE has nothing to do with it.
>
> > Even dairy cows are
> > often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
> > dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
> > full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
> > outside in years.
>
> You've never been inside the building, either, so you
> don't know what you're talking about.
>
> >
> > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> > crop that kills more animals than meat?
>
> Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested,
> heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
> killing animals.
killing what animals? the bugs in the soil? this is rediculous.
Jonathan Ball
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>>now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
>>>industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
>>>true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
>>>lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
>>>body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways.
>>
>>Prove any of this. Get busy.
>>
>
>
> I don't have to prove it, there are dozens of books already written,
Cite them.
> with photos, first hand accounts from farmers, etc. read Diet for A New
> America.
Worthless propaganda by someone who ought to know
better, and probably does, but willfully lies.
>
>
>
>>>Do you
>>>know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
>>>I live in farm country and I see it every day.
>>
>>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
>>lying.
>
>
> My point was not about WHERE they are slaughtered, it is about HOW. The
> WHERE has nothing to do with it.
Liar. You claimed to know the HOW because you live in
farm country, which is a WHERE:
I know [how beef cattle are slaughtered], I live in
farm country and I see it every day.
You LIED. You do NOT see it every day. In fact, you
filthy liar, you have NEVER seen it.
Admit it: you LIED.
>
>
>>>Even dairy cows are
>>>often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
>>>dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
>>>full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
>>>outside in years.
>>
>>You've never been inside the building, either, so you
>>don't know what you're talking about.
Predictably, no comment. You liked about your
knowledge of dairy cattle operations, too.
Just out of curiosity, is there anything you HAVEN'T
lied about in this thread?
>
>
>>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
>>
>>Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested,
>>heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
>>killing animals.
>
>
> killing what animals? the bugs in the soil? this is rediculous.
No, dummy. Burrowing mammals, birds, reptiles. What's
"rediculous" [sic] about it?
usual suspect
> you are full of vegan baloney!
>
> first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
> for meat.
No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the
developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible
influence on the lives of farm animals. What would improve the quality
of farm animals is if you were to consume animals raised organically and
in humane conditions. Such operations do exist. The fact that you have
chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching
does nothing to help the plight of any animal.
> second, vegan is not just an eating habit.
No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act.
> it is a way of life.
Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. Such actions
become a "way of life" particularly when one ostracizes societal norms
and puts oneself on the fringe. VeganISM is a subculture.
> many
> vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
> organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA,
This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free
to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- which, incidentally,
are not concerns of PETA (Peta is for animal rights, not welfare).
> that have many programs
> that directly affect the welfare of animals.
Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to
do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected
in nearly every nation where it's been tried. The exceptions maintain
their anti-capitalism by force, not by popular choice.
> now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
> industry providing a good life for many animals.
Why?
> That simply is NOT true.
Actually, it IS true. Animals with economic value are treated better
than animals with no economic value. You ignore this point when shocking
yourself and friends with PETA propaganda pamphlets, but visit a farm
for yourself and see how animals are treated. Sick animals don't gain
weight, they lose weight; sick animals don't bring more revenue, they
drain revenue; sick animals do not save ranchers money, they lose
ranchers money.
> The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
> lives.
Care to prove that wild accusation?
> They are confined to very small areas,
Even veal calves, long the poster-animals of benighted zealots like
yourself, are not kept in crates in the US. "The vast majority of
animals raised for meat" in fact have sufficient range to move.
Confinement is the exception, though it does have some merit: it
prevents disease in younger animals, injuries from aggressive or
territorial animals, etc. I realize in some parts of the country the
scale of farming requires intensive methods including confinement; this,
though, is usually a function of restricted land-use and economies of scale.
> pumped with hormones,
Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to
ranching/farming to support this?
> body parts removed,
Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of Peta
or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do you
promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats?
> and killed in very painful and inhumane ways.
Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and
I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. It was neither inhumane
nor painful for any animal.
<snip>
> I know,
> I live in farm country and I see it every day.
You do not know, and you probably live in the suburbs if you live near
any "farm country." Cattle aren't slaughtered out in the pasture,
nitwit. USDA makes sure of that.
> Even dairy cows are
> often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam.
Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not. The reasons can be
manifold, but most cattle roam pastures as long as there's sufficient
forage for grazing.
> I drive by a
> dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
> full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
> outside in years.
How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the
"huge metal building"?
> your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> crop that kills more animals than meat?
Yes. Pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, etc. It all takes a toll on
animals -- a heavy toll in death and dismemberment. Davey's seventh
point is correct.
> you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
So should you, Einstein.
> It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
> your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
Davey isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but in this case he's
correct.
> If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts.
If you do some research rather than reading propaganda from groups like
Peta, maybe you'll get the real facts.
> But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking
> about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so
> there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one
> before.
No, he'll keep on about animals and life. He doesn't alter his posts one
bit. As for wearing blinders, what's your excuse, country boy?
> Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping
> you.
Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder
for some people to eat what they want. Stop supporting anti-meat
organizations if you're so libertarian. Otherwise, stop whining when
others clear up your misunderstandings about ranching and animal welfare.
> Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong,
> though.
It's a free country and he can do that if he wants.
> Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely
> untrue.
Especially if you're going to write bad sentences. Ick.
Gary Beckwith
closed minded anyway. to say it is worthless propoganda shows your
point of view already. why should I waste my time. the truth is, it is
NOT worthless propaganda when people who have spent their lifetimes
raising cattle tell their stories. photos don't lie either.
Gary Beckwith
criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them.
it's just like being environmental, and recycling. I've heard people say
it's a waste of time to recycle because there's so much garbage. Or why
buy an electric car, or use solar panels on your house, when it won't
really make a difference.
The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough
food to feed the entire world. and if everyone used renewable energy
our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years.
I didn't start this discussion. I don't go out of my way to tell people
they should or shouldn't do anything. You can eat all the meat you
want. But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at
people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with
yours.
Jonathan Ball
> i have no responsibility to prove anything to you.
You have an intellectual responsibility to support your
claims. That you don't even attempt to support them,
particularly after shrilly demanding that others
support theirs, indicates not just the intellectual
bankruptcy of your position, but a massive character
flaw as well.
The massive character flaw, of course, was already in
evidence, when you LIED about your basis for knowing
about cattle slaughter and dairy farm operations. The
flaw is revealed as even deeper than expected, when you
top-post and refuse to address the fact that you LIED.
> you are obviously closed minded anyway.
Non sequitur, and not based on either logic or
observation. You merely don't like that I disagree
with you.
> to say it is worthless propoganda shows your
> point of view already.
Robbins is a polemicist and propagandist, not a scientist.
rick etter
"Gary Beckwith" <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3F8AB836...@adelphia.net...
> you are full of vegan baloney!
>
> first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
> for meat.
And increases the demand for veggies that can cause even more animals to
die.
Why is it that only the big moo-eyed cows count toward all this vegan
'saving'?
>
> second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life.
======================
Which is not being followed by *ANY* so-called vegan here on usenet.
many
> vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
> organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
> that directly affect the welfare of animals.
================
You do realize don't you that PeTA(the 'e' is lower case in their logo for a
reason) kills more
animals than it saves once they get their bloody hands on them don't you?
>
> now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
> industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
> true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
> lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
> body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
> know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting.
=====================
It's killed in a far more humane fashion than the animals that die to
provide you with your cheap, conveninet veggies, hypocrite.
Have you seen what poisons do to an animals gut over the course of a few
days, while they die a slow painful death?
I know,
> I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
> often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
> dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
> full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
> outside in years.
>
> your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> crop that kills more animals than meat?
====================
Yes, exactly. Look it up, killer. Plowing, spraying, harvesting, all can
cause death and suffering to animals.
Some crops even more so than others. Plus, your crops provide abundant
cover and easy food, allowing
the populations of many animals to explode over the summer. Then what
happens once these numbers are at their peak?
You take away all the food and cover, leaving the animals to suffer from
starvation and predation. Face it, crop production
is a killing proposition. And, that doesn't even include all the
petro-chemical input for the production, processing, and transportation of
your crops.
>
> you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
==================
I suggest you get your's lined up first before you look even more stupid
than you already do.
>
> It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
> your cruel habit.
=================
No need. We accept that death occurs. Now, why do you try to justify all
the death
and suffering you cause?
Virtually all your statements are completely false.
=====================
Everyone of yours is....
> If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts.
> But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking
> about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so
> there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one
> before.
==================
ROTFLMAO I suggest you worry about the mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and
amphibians tha die for no more reason
than your selfish conveninece.
>
> Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping
> you. Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong,
> though. Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely
> untrue.
==================
It's yours that is completly untrue and full of ignorance. And, vegans are
always trying to tell us how to eat.
usual suspect
> whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to
> criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them.
I don't eat meat. I also don't consume dairy or eggs. Shatters your
illusion, huh.
> it's just like being environmental, and recycling.
No, it isn't.
> I've heard people say it's a waste of time to recycle because there's
> so much garbage.
Who cares what you've heard? Most of the people I know DO recycle. It
has nothing at all to do with this thread, but I know you're out of ammo
now that you've been called out on your country boy claims.
> Or why buy an electric car,
Shit, with the cost of electricity in my city? No way I'd ever get an
electric car. If everyone (since you seem to like such thoughts) had an
electric car, we'd have to build more nuclear power plants to keep up
with electrical demand. You want more nuclear power? Or want us to burn
more coal and natural gas (the two main non-nuke sources of energy in
the US)? Funny, you leftists seem to want us to use less energy.
> or use solar panels on your house, when it won't
> really make a difference.
Irrelevant, Gary. Solar panels are only cost-effective for certain
situations.
> The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough
> food to feed the entire world.
That is not the truth. There is enough food to feed the entire world
already. The problem lies in distribution.
> and if everyone used renewable energy
> our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years.
The planet will still be inhabitable in 500 years. Stop getting your
talking points from failed policy wonks. The assholes feeding you this
nonsense, like Paul Ehrlich, were the ones who said we'd go to another
ice age. They were wrong about the coming ice age, they're wrong about
everything else now that they've changed their minds.
> I didn't start this discussion.
You participated.
> I don't go out of my way to tell people they should or shouldn't
> do anything.
You made claims which you failed to support with evidence. The best
you've done is make reference to one book written by an activist.
Where's your evidence from mainstream sources?
> You can eat all the meat you want.
I don't eat any.
> But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at
> people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with
> yours.
Whoa, wait one fucking minute. You're the one who's made unsupported
claims. You do not get a pass by calling others liars without supporting
your own assertions. That's really pathetic. As for finger-pointing, wtf
are you doing to me? Loser.
PS: Quit top-posting and go back and respond point-by-point to what I
wrote, country boy.
Jonathan Ball
Gary Beckwith wrote:
> whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to
> criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them.
It has a lot to do with us. "veganism" is an
aggressive movement that seeks ultimately to impose its
values on those who disagree with "vegan" fanatics.
>
> it's just like being environmental, and recycling. I've heard people say
> it's a waste of time to recycle because there's so much garbage. Or why
> buy an electric car, or use solar panels on your house, when it won't
> really make a difference.
>
> The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough
> food to feed the entire world.
There already is more than enough food to feed the
entire world, EVEN WITH the consumption of grain by
livestock. You indicate that you are utterly ignorant
of the economics of world hunger.
> and if everyone used renewable energy
> our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years.
>
> I didn't start this discussion.
Yes, you did.
> I don't go out of my way to tell people
> they should or shouldn't do anything.
It's implicit in "veganism". You feel you're doing
something "more" ethical by not consuming Animal Parts,
and it's quite natural to think that everyone else
ought to do likewise. In fact, if you DIDN'T feel that
everyone ought to do likewise, then it would be even
further removed from being a legitimate ethical choice.
It always amazes me that people are so indoctrinated
into moral relativism that when they behave, or believe
they are behaving, differently on ethical matters from
others, they can pretend there is no implied criticism
of those who don't believe and practice as they do.
Thus, for example, people who proclaim themselves
"personally" opposed to abortion, but out the other
side of their mouths say they don't want to "impose
their values" on those who want an abortion, are
massive hypocrites. If it's wrong for them to
extinguish the life of an unborn human fetus, then they
MUST necessarily believe that it is wrong for everyone.
You are LYING, again, if you say you don't want to tell
others what to eat.
> You can eat all the meat you want.
There's your lie again.
> But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at
> people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with
> yours.
The "personal decisions" are based on lies and illogic.
rick etter
<elv...@rapanan.net> wrote in message
news:JVzib.9376$dn6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
snippage...
> >
> >
> > Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't.
>
> That's merely your opinion, and it is based on ignorance.
==================
Just as it is vegan ignorance that says they have bad lives?
>
> > If you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
> > more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
> > decent lives.
>
> If one thinks that it is horrible to kill an animal for
> human consumption, then they indeed all have horrible
> lives.
=======================
Why is vegans never consider it bad to kill animals and then NOT eat them?
happens all the time for your veggies production.
>
> >
> >
> >>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> >>crop that kills more animals than meat?
> >
> >
> > From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
> > get over 500 servings of beef.
>
> You are a massive hypocrite. You do not eat grass-fed
> beef. You do not make any effort at all to choose meat
> from sources that treated animals better than the
> average for their industries. You buy whatever beef,
> chicken, pork and other that Piggly Wiggly has in
> shrink-wrapped packages. You are not an ethical meat
> eater.
====================
Grass fed beef is quite easy to find, oh master mind-reader. The ones I eat
are raised just down the road, and are slaughtered
just a few more miles down the road. They aren't 'kept' in barns or stalls
either. They have an open 'shed' they can go into if they please, but they
mostly roam the fields doing what cows do best. Eating grasses.
>
> > A few meals of tofu are likely
> > to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
>
> You have no support for that claim. It's idle,
> ignorant speculation.
=====================
No, it's not. What is speculative about pesticide deaths of animals? what
is speculative about poisoning animals at storage and processing facilities?
I think it's your blinders getting in the way.
Animals die in crop production. It's not a game. It's not speculation.
Plowing, spraying, harvesting are all machine intensive operations. their
direct usage
kills animals. the indirect costs from the petro-chemical industry causes
even more.
Have a nice blood-drenched dinner, killer...
Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animal die...
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
f
Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kmPMnV7pZC4C:www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
Just a little extra proof that they are NO vegans on usenet.
snippage...
rick etter
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > >
> > > now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
> > > industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
> > > true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
> > > lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
> > > body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways.
> >
> > Prove any of this. Get busy.
> >
>
> I don't have to prove it, there are dozens of books already written,
> with photos, first hand accounts from farmers, etc. read Diet for A New
> America.
Yes, you do. You made a claim about meat. Starnge that I see the cows that
I end up eating roaming the fields right down the road day and night.
Never seen tham in a stall, since there are none. never seen them in a
crate, since there are none. So, come on, prove to me that these cows are
just a figment of my imagination, and that your so-called proof isn't just
the same trumped up stuff shown over and over and over....
>
>
> > > Do you
> > > know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I
know,
> > > I live in farm country and I see it every day.
> >
> > Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
> > lying.
>
> My point was not about WHERE they are slaughtered, it is about HOW. The
> WHERE has nothing to do with it.
> ========================
Some are. Some are slaughtered right on the farms at smaller operations.
But, the fact still remains, they die a far more humane death than the
animals that die for your cheap, conveninet veggies.
> >
> > > Even dairy cows are
> > > often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
> > > dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
> > > full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
> > > outside in years.
> >
> > You've never been inside the building, either, so you
> > don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> > > crop that kills more animals than meat?
> >
> > Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested,
> > heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
> > killing animals.
>
> killing what animals? the bugs in the soil? this is rediculous.
=======================
No, ignorant fool. mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians. Are you
really that stupid as to have to ask?
Now, if you want to discuss bugs, let's go right ahead. what do you think
they are? Mineral? Seem like live creatures to me though.
Want to add them to your 'account' of death and suffering of living
creatures just so that YOU can live a selfish, convenient lifestyle?
Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides.
usual suspect
>> whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to
>> criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them.
>
> It has a lot to do with us. "veganism" is an aggressive movement that
> seeks ultimately to impose its values on those who disagree with "vegan"
> fanatics.
Yes, and this is the reason Robbins writes his books. It isn't enough to
point to the healthy benefits of adding whole grains, fruits, and
vegetables to one's diet. He instead vilifies industries that involve
livestock and presents disinformation that those industries are
responsible for hunger and nearly every societal ill. The solutions
offered are not moderate, but radical: elimination of meat and dairy
industries.
Gary's tolerance is baseless in the respect that he offers such a
radical source as evidence. He willfully ignores the problem of
collateral deaths in production of plant-based foods. He wants to change
the world, but he cannot even change himself.
>> The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough
>> food to feed the entire world.
>
> There already is more than enough food to feed the entire world, EVEN
> WITH the consumption of grain by livestock. You indicate that you are
> utterly ignorant of the economics of world hunger.
The problem of hunger is based on three main variables, which are best
summed up into one. The three main variables are war, famine, and
poverty; they are summed up by the problem of distribution. We can and
do drop food into Somalia, but most people there are unlikely to receive
very much, if any, because it's captured by warlords who use it to
increase their power bases. We can and do feed other regions hit by
drought, which only encourages them to remain in unproductive regions.
We can and do provide food to people of poor nations, whose governments
are usually corrupt and/or repressive (e.g., North Korea).
>> and if everyone used renewable energy
>> our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years.
>>
>> I didn't start this discussion.
>
> Yes, you did.
>
>> I don't go out of my way to tell people
>> they should or shouldn't do anything.
>
> It's implicit in "veganism". You feel you're doing something "more"
> ethical by not consuming Animal Parts, and it's quite natural to think
> that everyone else ought to do likewise. In fact, if you DIDN'T feel
> that everyone ought to do likewise, then it would be even further
> removed from being a legitimate ethical choice.
>
> It always amazes me that people are so indoctrinated into moral
> relativism that when they behave, or believe they are behaving,
> differently on ethical matters from others, they can pretend there is no
> implied criticism of those who don't believe and practice as they do.
> Thus, for example, people who proclaim themselves "personally" opposed
> to abortion, but out the other side of their mouths say they don't want
> to "impose their values" on those who want an abortion, are massive
> hypocrites. If it's wrong for them to extinguish the life of an unborn
> human fetus, then they MUST necessarily believe that it is wrong for
> everyone.
>
> You are LYING, again, if you say you don't want to tell others what to eat.
Very well put, Mr Ball. Gary's hypocrisy is pretty blatant.
>> You can eat all the meat you want.
>
> There's your lie again.
"If everyone ate vegetarian" kind of blows up his notion of tolerance.
So do his sources -- PETA and Robbins.
>> But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at
>> people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with
>> yours.
>
> The "personal decisions" are based on lies and illogic.
All of which makes for a super-sized portion of self-delusion.
Gary Beckwith
don't lie. Have fun eating meat.
rick etter
> whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to
> criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them.
More odd than ignorant bozos trying to make sure others can't continue to
eat what they want? Vegans are part of
groups that would tell others what they can or cannot eat. That makes it
everyones business, hypocrite.
> it's just like being environmental, and recycling. I've heard people say
> it's a waste of time to recycle because there's so much garbage. Or why
> buy an electric car, or use solar panels on your house, when it won't
> really make a difference.
>
> The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough
> food to feed the entire world.
======================
Hey, loser. there already is enough food to feed the world, and much still
goes to waste through spoilage.
eating meat has nothing to do with what the world does or doesn't have.
and if everyone used renewable energy
> our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years.
>
> I didn't start this discussion. I don't go out of my way to tell people
> they should or shouldn't do anything. You can eat all the meat you
> want. But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at
> people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with
> yours.
===============
It's YOUR lys that are being discussed here killer. No one on this side is
lying.
Gary Beckwith
rick etter wrote:
>
> > ========================
> Some are. Some are slaughtered right on the farms at smaller operations.
> But, the fact still remains, they die a far more humane death than the
> animals that die for your cheap, conveninet veggies.
>
can someone tell me what the heck you are talking about? that is
ludicrous. you people keep saying this but have not substantiated it a
single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic
carrot in my hand? get real.
Jonathan Ball
> Whatever dude.
The "whatever", "dude", is that you are a liar.
> You can call Robbins a propgandist all you want.
Robbins IS a propagandist. He has no expertise in any
of the stuff he's written about. He's written a book
that tells you what you want to hear, and being a
gullible nitwit, you gobble it right up.
> Photos don't lie.
Actually, photos DO lie, particularly when they are of
some atypical phenomenon that is dishonestly being
passed off as typical.
> Have fun eating meat.
I do.
Have a rotten conscience, knowing that the production
of the foods you eat STILL kills animals, in large numbers.
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:33:56 GMT, Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>you are full of vegan baloney!
>>>
>>>first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
>>>for meat.
>>
>>
>> Which animals does it help, and how does it help them?
>>
>>
>>>second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
>>>vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
>>>organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
>>>that directly affect the welfare of animals.
>>
>>
>> Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
>> what other things a person does.
>
>Meat eating does nothing to help animals, either,
>regardless of what other things a person does.
Firstly it provides billions of them with life. After they are born, it provides
them with food, shelter, protection from predators, and medical care. Those
things do help the animals. Some of them still have horrible lives as your
budy pointed out, but some of them have decent lives as well as none of
you want to think about.
>>>now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
>>>industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
>>>true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
>>>lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
>>>body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
>>>know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
>>>I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
>>>often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
>>>dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
>>>full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
>>>outside in years.
>>
>>
>> Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't.
>
>That's merely your opinion, and it is based on ignorance.
It's based on observation. The first time I went in a broiler house
I just wished that I could provide my own birds with such a nice
environment. Some small percentage of them get beaten on when
they get old enough to be aggresive, some of them get sick, but
the majority of them have decent lives.
Every day I pass hundreds of cattle grazing in fields and nursing
their young. They have decent lives. If they don't like it when it's
their turn in the stock yard--and no one has shown that they don't
like it--then it's the equivalent of other animals' and humans' final
days being worse than the earlier parts of their lives.
>> If you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
>> more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
>> decent lives.
>
>If one thinks that it is horrible to kill an animal for
>human consumption, then they indeed all have horrible
>lives.
Well we don't all believe it is horrible to kill them for food. And
some of us think that the methods of slaughter are more humane
than the killing methods you veg*ns contribute to, and also that
they are more humane than starvation, disease and nonhuman
predation which your "AR" buddies feel are ethically superior to
human hunting.
So far no one has been able to explain exactly what is wrong
with killing animals for human consumption btw, they just say that
it is wrong. My prediction is that you can't explain it either, but if
you can, please do so.
>>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
>>
>>
>> From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
>> get over 500 servings of beef.
>
>You are a massive hypocrite. You do not eat grass-fed
>beef. You do not make any effort at all to choose meat
>from sources that treated animals better than the
>average for their industries. You buy whatever beef,
>chicken, pork and other that Piggly Wiggly has in
>shrink-wrapped packages. You are not an ethical meat
>eater.
It doesn't matter what I do or don't eat. I could seek out the
cruelest foods possible (I eat a fair amount of rice, and feel
that rice production causes as much death and suffering as
any type of food), and still point out that some types of meat
involve less animal deaths than some types of veggies. You
show desperation by bringing up something as insignificant
as that. I haven't said that I contribute to as few deaths as
possibe. Veg*ns are the ones who say that, and they are
dishonest when they say it.
>> A few meals of tofu are likely
>> to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
>
>You have no support for that claim. It's idle,
>ignorant speculation.
Your failure to appreciate facts like that show *without any
doubt!!* that you care more about promoting veg*nism than you
do about human influence on animals. And that has been the
case with EVERY SINGLE VEG*N who has discussed this with
me in these ngs. By this time I have been taught by veg*ns, to
view them as being ethically inferior to their opponents, and
also to people who don't care one way or the other. Veg*ns
want to promote the false impression that veg*nism helps
animals when it does not, and that no types of meat or dairy
involve less animal deaths than any types of veggies. That is
quite disgusting and grossly inconsiderate of animals!!
>> From the life and death of a grass raised dairy cow people can
>> get thousands of dairy servings. A few servings of rice milk are
>> likely to involve more deaths than a thousand servings of grass
>> raised cow milk.
>>
>>
>>>you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
>>>
>>>It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
>>>your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
>>
>>
>> They are all true,
>
>One of them is completely insignificant: the one about
>the meat and dairy industries "providing life" for farm
>animals.
Well the next time I'm around a herd of cattle I'll tell them that
their lives are completely insignificant, and see if they disapear
or something. My guess is that nothing will change. They will
still be there, living their lives 24/7, just like all the other billions
of farm animals around the world, whether you "think" they are
all insignificant or not.
>> as was the main point which is that there
>> are quite a few significan facts that you veg*ns do *not* want
>> people to consider.
>
>Vegans not giving any consideration to this stupid
>"providing life" argument is not out of a fear of what
>might be discovered. It is based on a full-knowledge
>awareness that there is nothing to consider.
Then there's no loss when they are killed, so there's nothing
horrible about it.
Jonathan Ball
How do you suppose that carrot was grown, DUMMY? The
field was tilled by large machinery, for starters.
That kills burrowing animals and birds. During the
period the carrots were growing, pest animals were
killed in order to prevent them from eating the
carrots. Those animals are just as dead, whether or
not the means of killing them were "organic". Then,
the carrots were mechanically harvested, again by heavy
machinery driving through the fields, destroying animals.
But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
and distribution causes the death of animals. You
simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
usual suspect
Gary Beckwith wrote:
> Whatever dude.
Is that really your best response to Jonathan's well-reasoned reply?
> You can call Robbins a propgandist all you want.
The shoe certainly fits.
> Photos don't lie.
No, but photographers often do. What you've seen are isolated instances,
and in many cases those instances are prosecutable (some of them were
pursued and resulted in severe punishment). The problem I have with some
of those photographs is that the same sets make the rounds. In other
words, the same horrific scenes are presented as though the problems are
systemic rather than isolated.
You're out there in farm country (haha, I don't believe you). Drop in on
a farm and check out the animals. See for yourself if they're
mistreated, confined, etc. Don't take John Robbins' word for it, much
less PETA's. Wtf do they know? They're safely esconced in their ivory
towers, living off your generosity (you said you support them, right?).
> Have fun eating meat.
I'm sure he will. Do you ever have any fun?
elv...@rapanan.net
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:55:21 GMT, elv...@rapanan.net wrote:
>
>
>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:33:56 GMT, Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>you are full of vegan baloney!
>>>>
>>>>first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
>>>>for meat.
>>>
>>> Which animals does it help, and how does it help them?
>>>
>>>>second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
>>>>vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
>>>>organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
>>>>that directly affect the welfare of animals.
>>>
>>> Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
>>>what other things a person does.
>>
>>Meat eating does nothing to help animals, either,
>>regardless of what other things a person does.
>
> Firstly it provides billions of them with life.
That is not a "help" to farm animals.
>
>
>>>>now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
>>>>industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
>>>>true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
>>>>lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
>>>>body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
>>>>know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
>>>>I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
>>>>often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
>>>>dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
>>>>full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
>>>>outside in years.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't.
>>
>>That's merely your opinion, and it is based on ignorance.
>
>
> It's based on observation.
It's based on ignorance. You are unqualified to judge
the quality of their lives, and you also are a shill.
>
>>>If you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
>>>more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
>>>decent lives.
>>
>>If one thinks that it is horrible to kill an animal for
>>human consumption, then they indeed all have horrible
>>lives.
>
>
> Well we don't all believe it is horrible to kill them for food.
But vegans do believe it, and you are unable to counter
their belief.
> So far no one has been able to explain exactly what is wrong
> with killing animals for human consumption btw,
So far, you have been utterly unable to explain what is
wrong with preventing them from getting to live. You
clearly believe something IS wrong with it, but you are
unable to say what it is.
>
>
>>>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>>>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
>>>
>>>
>>> From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
>>>get over 500 servings of beef.
>>
>>You are a massive hypocrite. You do not eat grass-fed
>>beef. You do not make any effort at all to choose meat
>>from sources that treated animals better than the
>>average for their industries. You buy whatever beef,
>>chicken, pork and other that Piggly Wiggly has in
>>shrink-wrapped packages. You are not an ethical meat
>>eater.
>
>
> It doesn't matter what I do or don't eat.
It matters very much. It shows that you are a massive
hypocrite.
>
>
>>>A few meals of tofu are likely
>>>to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
>>
>>You have no support for that claim. It's idle,
>>ignorant speculation.
>
>
> Your failure to appreciate facts like that show *without any
> doubt!!* that you care more about promoting veg*nism than you
> do about human influence on animals.
It shows nothing of the sort.
YOU have made a claim that involves a comparison, and
you not only have no numbers to justify the conclusion,
you have no theoretical knowledge that would make your
idle speculation likely to be accurate.
>
>
>>>From the life and death of a grass raised dairy cow people can
>>>get thousands of dairy servings. A few servings of rice milk are
>>>likely to involve more deaths than a thousand servings of grass
>>>raised cow milk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
>>>>
>>>>It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
>>>>your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are all true,
>>
>>One of them is completely insignificant: the one about
>>the meat and dairy industries "providing life" for farm
>>animals.
>
>
> Well the next time I'm around a herd of cattle I'll tell them that
> their lives are completely insignificant,
I don't doubt that you would try to tell cattle
something like that.
"providing life" for farm animals does not create moral
bonus points. It is insignificant in the discussion.
>
>
>>>as was the main point which is that there
>>>are quite a few significan facts that you veg*ns do *not* want
>>>people to consider.
>>
>>Vegans not giving any consideration to this stupid
>>"providing life" argument is not out of a fear of what
>>might be discovered. It is based on a full-knowledge
>>awareness that there is nothing to consider.
>
>
> Then there's no loss when they are killed,
Yes, there is. There is the loss of life of a living
creature. As always, you keep getting confused between
the value of a potential for life, before an animal is
born, and the value of an actual life, after an animal
is born. No one else is confused about this. You are
confused. You give evidence of extremely weak intellect.
usual suspect
The organic carrot grew from a seed. The seed was planted in a field,
most likely by machine. The machine is very heavy and very dangerous,
not only for the animals in the field but also for the farmer. The
farmer has a stake in the yield of the field, so he treats the topsoil
with a variety of substances. These may include fish emulsions (so is
your carrot really vegan?), but could also include substances which are
supposed to kill rodents and birds and insects. Yes, organic farming
allows for the use of pesticides, just not the synthetic ones (the most
lethal ones are organic anyway). The farmer also has to irrigate his
fields if he doesn't get enough rain. That could include flooding a field.
Your carrot could have included deaths and/or dismemberments from heavy
machinery, pesticides, and flooding. That doesn't even take into
consideration animals and insects killed where the carrot was stored
(food safety laws require certain pest control standards), transported,
or even sold (where the same food safety laws apply). In short, the only
way to ensure no animal dies in the production of your food is if you
grow it yourself.
Here is a picture of a fawn which got shredded by a combine:
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
Combines are used for grains, killer. You eat grains, don't you?
usual suspect
<snip>
>> You can call Robbins a propgandist all you want.
>
> Robbins IS a propagandist. He has no expertise in any of the stuff he's
> written about. He's written a book that tells you what you want to
> hear, and being a gullible nitwit, you gobble it right up.
Some of Robbins' proponents like to engage in the logical fallacy of
appealing to authority, since Robbins was heir to the Baskin-Robbins ice
cream chain. You are correct, though, that he has no expertise; he is an
activist. None of his biographies online offer bona fides, at least in
terms of education or experience. His work has long revolved around
leftist and non-profit causes (though his book sales and speaking fees
no doubt cause someone, namely him, to profit).
<snip>
Jonathan Ball
I was wondering if it's pleasant to live in a
conscience-free zone, as rich leftists do, but then my
conscience told me it isn't.
dh...@nomail.com
>
>
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:33:56 GMT, Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >you are full of vegan baloney!
>> >
>> >first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
>> >for meat.
>>
>> Which animals does it help, and how does it help them?
>
>it helps the ones that don't have to be born into a life of torture.
>
>>
>> >second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
>> >vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
>> >organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
>> >that directly affect the welfare of animals.
>>
>> Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
>> what other things a person does.
>
>you can twist the facts any way you want. most vegans have a lifestyle,
>not just an eating habit. what's your point?
It's always the same. People who want to contribute to decent lives
for farm animals with their lifestyle should NOT become veg*ns, but
they should become more conscientious consumers. If there were any
veg*ns around who really cared about animals, they would point that
out themselves and there would be no reason for me to keep doing
it. But there are no veg*ns in these ngs who really care about human
influence on animals, yourself included. In fact, you have shown that
you not only care less than I do, but you are opposed to seeing facts
pointed out if they are more in the animals' favor than they are in favor
of promoting veg*nism.
>veganism itself is
>
>
>>
>> >now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
>> >industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
>> >true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
>> >lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
>> >body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
>> >know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
>> >I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
>> >often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
>> >dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
>> >full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
>> >outside in years.
>>
>> Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't. If
>> you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
>> more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
>> decent lives.
>
>the VAST MAJORITY, i'd say well over 95% live horrible lives. did I
>ever say all? again, what's the point? does it make a difference if
>it's all, or most, or 95% or 50%?
It would only matter to someone who wants to promote better lives
for farm animals, not to someone who only cares about promoting
veg*nism.
>> >your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>> >crop that kills more animals than meat?
>>
>> From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
>> get over 500 servings of beef. A few meals of tofu are likely
>> to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
>> From the life and death of a grass raised dairy cow people can
>> get thousands of dairy servings. A few servings of rice milk are
>> likely to involve more deaths than a thousand servings of grass
>> raised cow milk.
>
>you are full of it. you did not give any example. what deaths? there
>simply are not any animal deaths involved in tofu production. get real.
Hopefully other posters have helped you to learn the truth. If you
haven't learned it from the obvious facts they shared with you, then
there is no hope for you at all imo.
>the fact is that for every pound of beef produced, hundreds of pounds of
>grain must be grown and hundreds of gallons of water are wasted. The
>entire earth could live off the grain and water that is wasted to feed
>cattle. get your facts straight. you are completely wrong on this
>one. do you know how many pounds of grain and gallons of water are
>required to raise that head of beef that makes 500 servings?
Grass raised beef is not raised on grain.
>I guess
>not because if you did you would not make that statement.
>
>>
>> >you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".
>> >
>> >It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
>> >your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
>>
>> They are all true, as was the main point which is that there
>> are quite a few significan facts that you veg*ns do *not* want
>> people to consider. That's because you care more about
>> promoting veg*nism than you do about human influence on
>> animals.
>
>I supposed you know exactly what I think and believe and what I want to
>do. your original statement is full of generalizations of what vegans
>think and do. how would you know what I think? how do you know what i
>care about?
Some types of meat involve less deaths than some types of veggies.
Some animals raised for food have decent lives. The meat industry
provides life for billions of animals. Those are three facts which have
a great influence on animals, but you aren't even indifferent to them,
you are OPPOSED to seeing them taken into consideration. That
shows without any question--there is absolutely NO question about
it!!!--that you care much more about promoting veg*nism than you do
about human influence on animals. Maybe you're unaware of it? That
is possible. The position you take is the same one that EVERY veg*n
I've discussed this with has taken in these ngs, so it's apparently a
natural way to respond. It comes from basic human nature. Once a
person has made a choice about something, and learned to have trust
in the choice they made, they certainly don't want to admit even to
themselves that they might not have made the best choice. After a
person has boasted to others about how their veg*n lifestyle is the
best they can do for animals, they are certainly not likely to want to
later admit that they could contribute to even less deaths by eating
grass raised beef and dairy products. In order to avoid the very
uncomfortable feelings created by learning they were wrong, people
often do quite absurd things like deny that plowing, harrowing,
poisoning, removing the habitat that animals have made their home,
and deliberately killing animals in grain storage areas, kills less
animals than cattle do by eating grass.
>Simply stated, your arguments are not true, your arguments are completey
>full of holes and when given an opporutunity to respond you skirt the
>issue. If you reallly know the facts, why don't you tell me where all
>the animal deaths are that result from tofu production? Three times
>you've said that more animals die from the raising of vegetables than
>meat and never have you given a single example. You also seem to know
>nothing about beef production and the resources that go into it. Your
>arguments are hollow and unsubstantiated. You generalize a whole group
>of people into thinking and feeling one certain way, which is completely
>outrageous.
>
>You should learn more about the facts, and perhaps take a class on
>debating. In real debates, you don't make generalizations and you
>substantiate your facts. You've done neither.
The reactions have been 100% the same from every veg*n I've
encountered in these ngs for over 4 years. No, I take that back.
There was one person who said he was reconsidering after learning
more facts, but then he said he was going back to lurking and I
don't know what he ended up doing. If he's reading this, maybe
he'll unlurk for a bit and let us know.
>I don't even see why you're trying to make this case. go ahead and eat
>meat if you want to. it's a personal choice. Why do you have to tell
>other people they are wrong for making personal decisions that differ
>from yours?
I point out things that people who really care about their influence
on animals should be interested in. As we have already learned, that
does not include you. You are in the opposite position even if you're
not aware of it--you are *opposed* to people considering all of the
facts, if those facts don't promote what you have chosen to do. Which
brings up back to the subject of the thread itself: Facts we should *not*
consider.
>Maybe you're feeling guilty for eating meat and you're
>trying to justify your habit by making these statements?
I have no reason to feel guilt. It would go on without me. If I
did feel guilt, I would buy a calf and pay a farmer to raise it on
grass with no grain. I'd probably buy a veal calf, and provide
it with a much longer life than it would have if I didn't buy it.
Then I'd be sure it was killed humanely, shot on the farm it
was kept on so it didn't suffer from transport. If I ate rice and
bread with a steak from the animal, I'd just have to live with
knowing the rice and bread involved more deaths than the
beef did. I could get over 500 meals from the death of the
one animal. Maybe I'll do that some day, but so far no guilt
has bothered me enough to make the effort. We used to
raise our own Black Angus, and we were in the situation I
described, but now I don't have a place to raise my own
cattle, and don't want to keep a big freezer around, etc.
[...]
Shitbag Slater
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:58:08 GMT, Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
>>>what other things a person does.
>>
>>you can twist the facts any way you want. most vegans have a lifestyle,
>>not just an eating habit. what's your point?
>
>
> It's always the same. People who want to contribute to decent lives
> for farm animals with their lifestyle should NOT become veg*ns, but
> they should become more conscientious consumers.
It's always the same: you are not really talking about
"decent lives for farm animals", Fuckwit. You are
talking about trying to persuade "vegans" that they
"ought" to eat meat, in order to cause more farm
animals to "get to experience life". You are perfectly
transparent, Fuckwit, and this is why your stupid trick
doesn't work.
This is why your hypocrisy matters, Fuckwit: YOU
obviously do not want to contribute to "decent lives"
for farm animals, because you are not a conscientious
consumer.
> If there were any
> veg*ns around who really cared about animals, they would point that
> out themselves and there would be no reason for me to keep doing
> it.
There are lots of "vegans" around who really care about
animals, Fuckwit. They are misguided in their caring,
but they really do care.
It is not inconsistent for them to think that farm
animals ought not to exist.
>>the fact is that for every pound of beef produced, hundreds of pounds of
>>grain must be grown and hundreds of gallons of water are wasted. The
>>entire earth could live off the grain and water that is wasted to feed
>>cattle. get your facts straight. you are completely wrong on this
>>one. do you know how many pounds of grain and gallons of water are
>>required to raise that head of beef that makes 500 servings?
>
>
> Grass raised beef is not raised on grain.
Most beef is not grass-only raised beef. Most beef
involves grain consumption.
>>I don't even see why you're trying to make this case. go ahead and eat
>>meat if you want to. it's a personal choice. Why do you have to tell
>>other people they are wrong for making personal decisions that differ
>
>>from yours?
>
> I point out things that people who really care about their influence
> on animals should be interested in.
No, mostly you point out something that is utterly
irrelevant: that farm animals "get to experience life".
There is no reason for anyone to think about that at
all when deciding whether or not farm animals should
continue to be bred.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
> lying.
The Big Four meat-packers, (ConAgra, IBP, Excel, National Beef),
slaughter 84% of American cattle. Their plants are concentrated in the
non-union _farm_ states of Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa.
>
(snip)
> > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> > crop that kills more animals than meat?
>
> Fields are disced, killing animals.
Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems. Anyone
concerned about wildlife and the environment should be careful to
purchase products from farmers using sound conservation practices. Even
the USDA recognizes the all-around benefits of conservation farming and
offers economic incentives to farmers who go easy on the land and the
animals living on it.
> and when the crops are harvested,
> heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
Don't you ever get off the freeway, Ball? A good portion of
California's fruits and vegetables are hand-harvested. You've heard of
farm-workers, haven't you? This means the total ground surface damage
(and alleged squashing of field animals) from heavy machinery in the
fields can be measured in tire tracks of the trucks hauling the produce
out of the field.
I can see field mice scampering from my footsteps as I climb the slopes
of San Bruno Mountain. I step lightly on a 112 lb. frame. Do you think
field animals are going to sit still and wait for a loud, smoking,
vibrating machine to rumble over them?
You hate animals and know nothing about them.
(snip)
>
> If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate
> ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal
> products in order not to cause animal suffering, their
> lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical
> fallacy.
Strawman. Vegans believe by not eating meat and purchasing other animal
products they are not contributing to the suffering of _farmed animals_
and they're not.
For the record, because I purchase enormous quantities of slaughterhouse
waste in the form of catfood, I am, technically, not a vegan. How does
this CONFORM to your vision of me as a vegan CONFORMIST?
(snip)
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
>>lying.
>
>
> The Big Four meat-packers, (ConAgra, IBP, Excel, National Beef),
> slaughter 84% of American cattle. Their plants are concentrated in the
> non-union _farm_ states of Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa.
The plants are in cities, not in "farm country".
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
>>
>>Fields are disced, killing animals.
>
>
> Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems.
Most farmers, including the ones who supply most of the
food you eat, do not practice that.
> Anyone concerned about wildlife and the environment should be careful to
> purchase products from farmers using sound conservation practices. Even
> the USDA recognizes the all-around benefits of conservation farming and
> offers economic incentives to farmers who go easy on the land and the
> animals living on it.
>
>
>>and when the crops are harvested,
>>heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
>
>
> Don't you ever get off the freeway, Ball? A good portion of
> California's fruits and vegetables are hand-harvested.
High-value things like strawberries and asparagus,
sure. Rice, on the other hand, is lethal. What are
the relative shares of strawberries, asparagus and rice
in the typical "vegan" diet, skank?
> You've heard of
> farm-workers, haven't you? This means the total ground surface damage
> (and alleged squashing of field animals) from heavy machinery in the
> fields can be measured in tire tracks of the trucks hauling the produce
> out of the field.
>
> I can see field mice scampering from my footsteps as I climb the slopes
> of San Bruno Mountain. I step lightly on a 112 lb. frame. Do you think
> field animals are going to sit still and wait for a loud, smoking,
> vibrating machine to rumble over them?
>
> You hate animals and know nothing about them.
>
> (snip)
>
>>If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate
>>ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal
>>products in order not to cause animal suffering, their
>>lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical
>>fallacy.
>
>
> Strawman.
Nope. They commit the fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent, as well as the vilest sort of hypocrisy.
> Vegans believe by not eating meat and purchasing other animal
> products they are not contributing to the suffering of _farmed animals_
> and they're not.
Irrelevant, and you know it, conformist bitch.
"vegans" have no principle that justifies worrying
about animals they might eat, and not worrying about
those killed in the course of producing their food.
>
> For the record, because I purchase enormous quantities of slaughterhouse
> waste in the form of catfood, I am, technically, not a vegan. How does
> this CONFORM to your vision of me as a vegan CONFORMIST?
Your massive conformism isn't about some single
isolated exception. It has to do with your overall
conformist-to-unconvential lifestyle. You have an
excruciatingly self conscious view of what it is to be
"unconventional", and you rigidly and self consciously
conform to it. You are the conformist, not I. This is
beyond dispute.
usual suspect
> The Big Four meat-packers, (ConAgra, IBP, Excel, National Beef),
> slaughter 84% of American cattle. Their plants are concentrated in the
> non-union _farm_ states of Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa.
Most of their processing plants are near urban areas. Makes for ease of
transport.
> Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems. Anyone
> concerned about wildlife and the environment should be careful to
> purchase products from farmers using sound conservation practices.
The OP (Gary, apparently no relation to the late "Chargin' Charlie"
Beckwith) is oblivious to conservation-minded practices. It wouldn't
surprise me if his ignorance were manifest in indiscriminate purchasing
habits, resulting in the deaths of many small animals.
> Even
> the USDA recognizes the all-around benefits of conservation farming and
> offers economic incentives to farmers who go easy on the land and the
> animals living on it.
That doesn't extend to hand-planting and hand-harvesting every food
item. Machinery is used even in hand-harvesting operations -- tractors
haul produce and workers out of fields. Squish!
>>and when the crops are harvested,
>>heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
>
> Don't you ever get off the freeway, Ball? A good portion of
> California's fruits and vegetables are hand-harvested. You've heard of
> farm-workers, haven't you? This means the total ground surface damage
> (and alleged squashing of field animals) from heavy machinery in the
> fields can be measured in tire tracks of the trucks hauling the produce
> out of the field.
What about grains? I haven't heard of migrant farmworkers picking wheat
or rice by hand.
> I can see field mice scampering from my footsteps as I climb the slopes
> of San Bruno Mountain.
If you're the Mary in the picture on page six of the following
newsletter, no wonder they scamper. Any of those witches would scare the
shit out of a cougar.
http://www.sfspca.org/volunteers/pdf/CC_feb02.pdf
> I step lightly on a 112 lb. frame. Do you think
> field animals are going to sit still and wait for a loud, smoking,
> vibrating machine to rumble over them?
Yes. Some of them burrow deeper.
> You hate animals and know nothing about them.
He knows they taste good, at least if properly prepared.
> (snip)
>
>>If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate
>>ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal
>>products in order not to cause animal suffering, their
>>lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical
>>fallacy.
>
> Strawman. Vegans believe by not eating meat and purchasing other animal
> products they are not contributing to the suffering of _farmed animals_
> and they're not.
So *farm* animal welfare is separate from animal welfare in toto? That
reeks of hypocrisy.
<snip>
Dutch
[..]
> Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems. Anyone
> concerned about wildlife and the environment should be careful to
> purchase products from farmers using sound conservation practices.
Low-till/no-till has become popular in the region where our land is. We
don't use it because it requires soaking the fields with Roundup after
harvest to supress the weeds.
Even
> the USDA recognizes the all-around benefits of conservation farming
and
> offers economic incentives to farmers who go easy on the land and the
> animals living on it.
No-till farming isn't easy on the land in my opinion. It means less soil
erosion from wind, but without tilling, weeds take over the field,
meaning more herbicides are needed. I don't know if the USDA has
factored that into it's analysis.
[..]
rick etter
Having trouble with comprehension, I see. Must be your diet, eh killer?
OK, again, the animals I'm referring to are: mammals, birds, reptiles, fish,
and amphibians.
Did you catch it that time, or should I write them slower for you?
Radical Moderate
> whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to
> criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them.
>
Those other people are, explicitly, seeking to make it illegal for
*anyone* to eat meat. Most people have qualms about allowing others do
dictate their basic life choices.
> The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough
> food to feed the entire world.
>
Begging the question. There are too many people already, period. If
people made the choice to stop having more children than they can
support, demand on the system would diminish. Reducing everyone's
standard of living simply to make it possible to have more of them is
ultimately counterproductive.
For a better illustration of the concept, try "The World Inside" by
Robert Silverberg.
> and if everyone used renewable energy
> our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years.
>
Would you consider biosynthetic petroleum to be 'renewable' energy?
> I don't go out of my way to tell people
> they should or shouldn't do anything.
>
Maybe you don't, but you have allied yourself with people who seek to do
just that. And they want to make it the law.
> You can eat all the meat you want.
>
Thanks, but I'll stick with what I can afford, consistent with an
overall balance of nutrients.
>>> body parts removed
>>>
>>Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of Peta
>>or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do you
>>promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats?
>>
I think the reference of 'removing body parts' was to dehorning, tail
docking, and so on.
Radical Moderate
>
Vegetables are almost invariably harvested by machines. Small field
animals get caught up and killed in the process. Rice harvest is the
worst offender, since many of the animals can't effectively escape. The
more 'organic' the operation, the more little critters there are; this
is good in a way as it reflects a healthier ecosystem, but it also means
more mice in the gears...
It's called the Law of Unintended Effects. And that doesn't even
include pest control.
rick etter
"Radical Moderate" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3F8B6A63...@home.com...
He'll ignore it all, and continue his rant about the big bad meat-industry.
It's all his hate has to offer him...
It is truly amazing the number of bozos that believe organic automatically
equals cruelty-free.
swamp
>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
takers.
--swamp
Gene Seibel
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.
> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
> Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
> meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
frlpwr
>
> frlpwr wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
> >>lying.
> >
> >
> > The Big Four meat-packers, (ConAgra, IBP, Excel, National Beef),
> > slaughter 84% of American cattle. Their plants are concentrated in the
> > non-union _farm_ states of Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa.
>
> The plants are in cities, not in "farm country".
You are a classic example of the clueless urbanite you so despise.
Here's a list of Tyson (formerly IBP) plants. You will note only
Amarillo and Boise could be considered "cities" and this only with a
stretch of your Southern California imagination (just kidding about the
imagination part).
http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/freshmeats/locations/
> > (snip)
> >
> >>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> >>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
> >>
> >>Fields are disced, killing animals.
> > Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems.
>
> Most farmers, including the ones who supply most of the
> food you eat, do not practice that.
The food I buy comes from Rainbow General which only carries food items
produced in an environment-friendly way. Farming methods that are good
for the environment are good for field animals, it's as simple as that.
I've already mentioned a number of times that I feel all farmers should
be compelled to practice conservation farming through a system of
progressively more punitive
fines, including eventual property seizure.
(snip)> >
> >
> >>and when the crops are harvested,
> >>heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
> >
> > Don't you ever get off the freeway, Ball? A good portion of
> > California's fruits and vegetables are hand-harvested.
>
> High-value things like strawberries and asparagus,
> sure.
The list is much more extensive, including beans, tomatoes, squash,
olives, grapes, avocados, apricots, apples, citrus fruits, all berries,
melons and on and on.
> Rice, on the other hand, is lethal.
Beckwith asked about a "vegetable crop" that kills more animals than
livestock farming. Rice isn't a vegetable, dummy.
Further, hand-harvested wild rice is readily available, even in Safeway
stores.
> What are the relative shares of strawberries, asparagus and rice
> in the typical "vegan" diet, skank?
What's the "typical vegan diet", fuckhead? Include verifiable evidence
in your answer, please.
> > (snip)
> >
> >>If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate
> >>ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal
> >>products in order not to cause animal suffering, their
> >>lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical
> >>fallacy.
> > Strawman.
>
> Nope.
Yes. You are arguing against a non-existent belief.
> They commit the fallacy of Denying the
> Antecedent, as well as the vilest sort of hypocrisy.
>
> > Vegans believe by not eating meat and purchasing other animal
> > products they are not contributing to the suffering of _farmed animals_
> > and they're not.
>
> Irrelevant, and you know it, conformist bitch.
Highly relevant to your thrashing of a strawman.
>
> "vegans" have no principle that justifies worrying
> about animals they might eat, and not worrying about
> those killed in the course of producing their food.
Please provide a quote from any vegan on this group that shows s)he
doesn't worry about field animals killed in the course of agricultural
production. Nash might say he doesn't feel responsible for them, but I
bet he abhors them, nonetheless.
>
> > For the record, because I purchase enormous quantities of slaughterhouse
> > waste in the form of catfood, I am, technically, not a vegan. How does
> > this CONFORM to your vision of me as a vegan CONFORMIST?
>
> Your massive conformism isn't about some single
> isolated exception.
I have a whole list of exceptions to my supposed "negative conformism",
> It has to do with your overall
> conformist-to-unconvential lifestyle.
You are so full of shit. How many times do I have to tell you? I have
a job. I own a house. I own three other parcels of land. I own two
vehicles. I have insurance up the ass. I have a pension and personal
savings plans. I pay taxes. I vote. I make charitable contributions.
I buy products I don't need. I vacation. I entertain. I garden. I
marry. I'm so much like you I could puke.
(snip)
> You are the conformist, not I.
You doth protest too much.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>frlpwr wrote:
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
>>>>lying.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Big Four meat-packers, (ConAgra, IBP, Excel, National Beef),
>>>slaughter 84% of American cattle. Their plants are concentrated in the
>>>non-union _farm_ states of Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa.
>>
>>The plants are in cities, not in "farm country".
>
>
> You are a classic example of the clueless urbanite you so despise.
>
> Here's a list of Tyson (formerly IBP) plants. You will note only
> Amarillo and Boise could be considered "cities" and this only with a
> stretch of your Southern California imagination (just kidding about the
> imagination part).
>
> http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/freshmeats/locations/
You fucking moron. More than half of those places are
suburbs of larger cities. Most of the rest have a
population over 10,000. That's a city, whether a
distempered tuna like you wants to acknowledge it or not.
>
>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>>>>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
>>>>
>>>>Fields are disced, killing animals.
>
>
>>>Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems.
>>
>>Most farmers, including the ones who supply most of the
>>food you eat, do not practice that.
>
>
> The food I buy comes from Rainbow General which only carries food items
> produced in an environment-friendly way.
And you have verified this...how? Yok yok yok...
> Farming methods that are good
> for the environment are good for field animals, it's as simple as that.
>
> I've already mentioned a number of times that I feel all farmers should
> be compelled to practice conservation farming through a system of
> progressively more punitive
> fines, including eventual property seizure.
Yes, we knew force would be at the root of any scheme
you support for anything. I'll be waiting for you.
>
> (snip)> >
>
>>>>and when the crops are harvested,
>>>>heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
>>>
>>>Don't you ever get off the freeway, Ball? A good portion of
>>>California's fruits and vegetables are hand-harvested.
>>
>>High-value things like strawberries and asparagus,
>>sure.
>
>
> The list is much more extensive, including beans, tomatoes, squash,
> olives, grapes, avocados, apricots, apples, citrus fruits, all berries,
> melons and on and on.
All things that are not staples, things that figure
diminutively in anyone's diet, even when considered
together. You STUPID dyke.
>
>
>>Rice, on the other hand, is lethal.
>
>
> Beckwith asked about a "vegetable crop" that kills more animals than
> livestock farming. Rice isn't a vegetable, dummy.
I suppose it's meat, then?
>
> Further, hand-harvested wild rice is readily available, even in Safeway
> stores.
Wild rice isn't rice, DUMMY. It also isn't something
that stupid "vegans" are going to substitute for good
old animal-killing rice.
>>>>If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate
>>>>ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal
>>>>products in order not to cause animal suffering, their
>>>>lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical
>>>>fallacy.
>
>
>>>Strawman.
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> Yes. You are arguing against a non-existent belief.
Nope. I have an accurate iron grip on the fatuous and
fallacy-based belief set of "vegans".
>
>
>>They commit the fallacy of Denying the
>>Antecedent, as well as the vilest sort of hypocrisy.
>>
>>
>>>Vegans believe by not eating meat and purchasing other animal
>>>products they are not contributing to the suffering of _farmed animals_
>>>and they're not.
>>
>>Irrelevant, and you know it, conformist bitch.
>
>
> Highly relevant to your thrashing of a strawman.
No strawman. I have the "vegan" way of thinking down cold.
>
>>"vegans" have no principle that justifies worrying
>>about animals they might eat, and not worrying about
>>those killed in the course of producing their food.
>
>
> Please provide a quote from any vegan on this group that shows s)he
> doesn't worry about field animals killed in the course of agricultural
> production. Nash might say he doesn't feel responsible for them, but I
> bet he abhors them, nonetheless.
Cheap.
>
>>>For the record, because I purchase enormous quantities of slaughterhouse
>>>waste in the form of catfood, I am, technically, not a vegan. How does
>>>this CONFORM to your vision of me as a vegan CONFORMIST?
>>
>>Your massive conformism isn't about some single
>>isolated exception.
>
>
> I have a whole list of exceptions to my supposed "negative conformism",
No, you do not. Everything about your life is rigidly
conformist to your goofy sense of unconventionality.
>
>
>>It has to do with your overall
>>conformist-to-unconvential lifestyle.
>
>
> You are so full of shit.
Nope.
> How many times do I have to tell you?
Repetition doesn't change the basic fact of your
rigidly conformist "lifestyle".
> I have a job.
A highly unconventional job for a little waif, a job
you self consciously chose BECAUSE of its
unconventionality.
> I own a house.
That's nice. We know what kind of "house" it is, and
roughly where it is.
> I own three other parcels of land. I own two
> vehicles.
Very ecologically correct.
> I have insurance up the ass. I have a pension and personal
> savings plans. I pay taxes. I vote. I make charitable contributions.
> I buy products I don't need. I vacation. I entertain. I garden. I
> marry.
No. Same sex marriages are not recognized in
California. What you do is shack up.
> I'm so much like you I could puke.
You are, I am happy to say, not a bit like me.
>
> (snip)
>
>
>> You are the conformist, not I.
>
>
> You doth protest too much.
Nope. You continue to confuse conformity with
conventionality. My life, today, is conventional, but
only now, and only if one wastes the time to make the
comparison.
Why is this distinction so hard for you (I mean, other
than because you're fucking stupid as a lamppost)?
Conventionality and conformity are two entirely
different things. Conventionality is what one
objectively does; conformity is why one subjectively
does it, i.e., how one got there. You are highly
unconventional in your choice of food, work, residence,
politics, and eating cunt, but the way you got there is
through RIGID conformity to a highly negative world view.
You might as well give up now, skank. It's over.
Dutch
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
[..]
> > "vegans" have no principle that justifies worrying
> > about animals they might eat, and not worrying about
> > those killed in the course of producing their food.
>
> Please provide a quote from any vegan on this group that shows s)he
> doesn't worry about field animals killed in the course of agricultural
> production. Nash might say he doesn't feel responsible for them, but I
> bet he abhors them, nonetheless.
The ignorance isn't stated, it's implicit. Any declaration that it's immoral
to kill animals for meat is tantamount to ignorance of animal death and
suffering in non-meat food production. This would be your "tortrix"'s of the
world.
piddock
> single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic
> carrot in my hand? get real.
Don't worry, Gary. You are NOT going to get an answer out of Rick
Etter
and Jon Ball. They come here with no knowledge with the intent
only to stir up trouble. They are not scientists. They are not
professionals. They are nobody.
It is a well-established scientific fact, universally accepted
throughout
the scientifice community, that 10 to 16 times MORE animals are killed
to raise and feed animals to be fed to humans -- by the methods
Jon Ball has admitted to be true -- than if humans ate the plants
themselves,
because you have to churn up 10 to 16 times more animals in the ground
to grow the plants to feed the cows, chickens, and pigs to feed to
humans
than if you, the human, ate the plants directly.
Furthermore, anti-vegetarians like Etter and Jonball are EXTREMELY
anti-human.
They harrass and impede the important dedicated work of farmers,
vegetarian
food processors and salespeople, animal rights activists, and
environmentalists.
They support media censorship of the truth about the reality of
factory
farms and interfere with the work of groups who feel for
every ad for McDonald's hamburgers or KFC we should show scenes from
factory farms on tv and in the newspaper.
exploratory
> > first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
> > for meat.
>
> No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the
> developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible
> influence on the lives of farm animals.
Then this is EXACTLY the reason we need FAR MORE vegans --
so they WILL have a bigger impact on the lives of farm animals.
Each vegan is STILL saving the life of a dozen cows, a few hundred
chickens, and tens of pigs in their lifetime by being vegan than
eating
meat.
Secondly, if vegans or vegetarians constitute such a small minority,
then you have absolutely NOTHING to complain about.
> chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching
> does nothing to help the plight of any animal.
You are the one who is a fundamentalist anti-vegan religious fanatic
who absolutely wants the whole world to exclude the third option
of not eating the animals in the first place.
> No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act.
No, Gary had it right. Veganism is just an matter of eating.
Unlike you in the pro-meat religion, vegans happen to take into
account
the consequences of ALL their buying habits. So, they may consider
things which have nothing to do with veganism
(e.g. animals in entertainment).
> Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization.
Lies and bullshit, from someone who has never seen the real world.
> This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free
> to support animal welfare programs and agencies --
Hypocritical bullshit. If you don't happen to support the work or
philosophy of a particular charitable organization, like PETA,
you call their philosophy a "way of life" or "a religion".
Hunting and those in the slaughterhouse business are the ones who
are sheltered in their overly protected and unseen world by ultra-
conservative politicians. They, like Frank Purdue, make slaughtering
animals their entire life's work, never thinking of other
possibilities
for a REAL job.
> Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to
> do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected
> in nearly every nation where it's been tried.
More insane bullshit lies. There is no more anti-capitalism in
animal rights philosophy than in any other philosophy. Millions of
Chinese and Soviet Red Army Communists could not care less about
brutally murdering and torturing billions of animals for food.
If the pro-meat fanatics were so "pro-capitalist", then would
come out STRONGLY in favor of legalizing ALL drugs and ALL
pornography.
Those are businesses which don't hurt anybody --- nobody FORCES
you to smoke pot or look at porn -- and which have been unfairly
crippled by anti-drug and anti-porn zealots.
But, naturally, pro-meat fanatics will not do that, it does not
directly benefit THEM. Like all religious fanatics, anti-vegetarian
cultists are concerned with general ideals like "capitalism"
and "freedom" being applied ONLY in favor of THEIR business.
Anti-veganism and anti-animal rights religions have absolutely NOTHING
to do with human rights. They can say they are for human rights the
same way Joseph Stalin was for his human right to murder millions of
Russians or the Spanish Inquisition was for their human rights to
torture non-Christians. Needlessly torturing animals
is the only "human right" the anti-vegans care about.
The anti-animal fanatics whine and complain about being forced not
to eat meat. Yet they FORCE BILLIONS of animals to be born, kept in
crates their whole lives, tortured and then murdered
illegally because these cults do not obey even the most
lax animal-slaughter laws.
They show their true anti-human colors when they force only THEIR
opinions to be heard in public schools, on tv, on radio, in
newspapers.
The pro-meat-industry cults violently stop pro-vegetarian groups from
airing THEIR points of view, from promoting vegetarian diets in
schools,
while forcing THEIR advertisements and THEIR products everywhere.
> Actually, it IS true. Animals with economic value are treated better
> than animals with no economic value. You ignore this point when shocking
> yourself and friends with PETA propaganda pamphlets, but visit a farm
> for yourself and see how animals are treated.
This statement shows how deeply entrenched the stupidity and lack
of brains the anti-animal rights cult in our country is. They could
take a trip to China and claim that every single Chinaman is happy
because they see nobody in prison or on in a slave camp or being
executed.
So then why do slaughterhouses and meat-packing plants violently
and illegally stop PETA and any other animal-rights groups from
videotaping
and recording the truth about all your alleged humane conditions?
Perhaps a few have, but for your argument to make even a BIT of sense,
ALL of them would have to.
> Sick animals don't gain weight,
Care to prove your wild accusation that if the meat-industry were
shut down, how sick animals would be born in the first place?
> Even veal calves, long the poster-animals of benighted zealots like
> yourself, are not kept in crates in the US. "The vast majority of
> animals raised for meat" in fact have sufficient range to move.
> Confinement is the exception, though it does have some merit: it
YOU ADMITTED IT!! YOU ADMITTED that confinement occurs!
Of course, you added the lie that it is "the exception".
You and the entire pro-meat cult religion are ENTIRELY discredited.
Democracy in this country is founded on TRUTH, and your religion
does EVERYthing to hide the truth about this holocaust.
> Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to
> ranching/farming to support this?
Do you have any information NOT from ranchers or the meat-industry
or those in government with ties to the meat industry to deny the
hormones
> Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of Peta
> or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do you
> promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats?
You should get down on your hands and needs and kiss PETA on the ass
for their efforts to stop ALL unnecessary breeding of bulls and
domestic pets. Naturally, your ignorance is astounding.
Neutering dogs and cats who are homeless is appropriate to prevent
millions MORE dogs and cats from either freezing to death, starving
to death, or dying lonely in a gas chamber in a pound.
In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate
a bull to prevent future cows from being born. They are going to do
what the government, weak-willed politicians, the FBI,
and pro-meat fanatics like you are too cowardly to do: SHUT DOWN
THE FACTORY FARM!
> Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and
> I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. It was neither inhumane
> nor painful for any animal.
Yeah, yeah. And I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and so is my
family,
all for animal rights. And I know for a fact that the trolls I have
persuaded to go vegetarian have suffered absolutely nothing either.
Don't lie and preach to me that shutting you and your ranching family
down causes you "hardship" or crap like that. It is GOOD for you.
It makes you THINK and TRY OTHER THINGS in life. It is INFINITELY
more HUMANE to all the cultists in the pro-meat religion to shut them
all down and force them in prison for life than ANYthing they have
EVER done to the animals they needlessly raised for food.
> Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not.
Another lie. Put the MOST in front of "confined" and you will be
closer to the truth. Even so, you STILL admit that SOME are confined.
That is QUITE a bit different from the meat religion's earlier mantra
that NOT dairy cattle are confined.
> How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the
> "huge metal building"?
Good. Then let us in.
> Yes. Pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, etc. It all takes a toll on
> animals -- a heavy toll in death and dismemberment. Davey's seventh
> point is correct.
It would take LESS of a toll if YOU and your pro-ranching cult family
(guess you learned from Charles Manson) spent your lives and careers
looking for ways of growing food with MINIMAL suffering and pain,
looking for biotechnological innovations in modifying plant food
to yield more protein, etc.
Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to.
> > It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
> > your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.
That he is, Gary!
> Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder
> for some people to eat what they want.
Waaah!! Waaah!! BOO- HOO!! And you stop telling PETA and
pro-vegetarian
groups what THEY can do with THEIR time and money! I think every
nurse and doctor should refuse to assist a pro-meat cultist every time
they get a heart attack or have an accident. If you are so
"libertarian",
then you would leave alone those who wish to have no association with
your business.
rick etter
"piddock" <pid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c93ec7ed.03101...@posting.google.com...
> Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>
> > single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic
> > carrot in my hand? get real.
>
> Don't worry, Gary. You are NOT going to get an answer out of Rick
> Etter
> and Jon Ball.
Wrong, you stupid loon. he was answered, and has been answered. Organic is
just a code word for high-priced yuppie stuff.
No extra nutrition, just more cost, in money and animal lives. Too bad you
don't like that, eh hypocrite?
They come here with no knowledge with the intent
> only to stir up trouble. They are not scientists. They are not
> professionals. They are nobody.
=====================
Only people with facts. unlike you. Come on pillock, back up your denials.
>
> It is a well-established scientific fact, universally accepted
> throughout
> the scientifice community, that 10 to 16 times MORE animals are killed
> to raise and feed animals to be fed to humans -- by the methods
> Jon Ball has admitted to be true -- than if humans ate the plants
> themselves,
========================
Another of your lies. YOU, and no other person can live on the grass that
feeds cows. And, it costs nothing for game animals to consume enough
plants(again, many inedible by you) so you're whole diatribe is just that.
Lots of words with nothing to say.
> because you have to churn up 10 to 16 times more animals in the ground
> to grow the plants to feed the cows, chickens, and pigs to feed to
> humans
> than if you, the human, ate the plants directly.
================
Nope. too bad you're too stupid to see the lys you keep spewing, killer.
what crops are grown for game animals? What crops are grown for grass-fed
beef?
>
> Furthermore, anti-vegetarians like Etter and Jonball are EXTREMELY
> anti-human.
====================
Nope, neither. I've never said anything agains't vegetarians. It is vegans
that are hateful, droll little mis-fits that have to spew their ignorance
and stupidity to try to make themselves feel wanted.
> They harrass and impede the important dedicated work of farmers,
> vegetarian
> food processors and salespeople, animal rights activists, and
> environmentalists.
================
LOL And you aren't anyone of these, killer.
> They support media censorship of the truth about the reality of
> factory
> farms
=================
Nope. Unlike you, I am in the forefront of providing the meat industry with
a viable alternative to the 'factory farmed' meat you claim to despise so
much. It's really just people you hate. Animals are just your tools.
and interfere with the work of groups who feel for
> every ad for McDonald's hamburgers or KFC we should show scenes from
> factory farms on tv and in the newspaper.
===============
Show whatever you like, loser. Nobody is stoppng you. the problem is your
ignorance and stupidity are what turns people away from your so-called
message.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer.
rick etter
"exploratory" <explo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e2719240.0310...@posting.google.com...
> usual suspect <n...@foot.rub> wrote in message news:<mKAib.37091$
>
> > > first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases
demand
> > > for meat.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the
> > developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible
> > influence on the lives of farm animals.
>
> Then this is EXACTLY the reason we need FAR MORE vegans --
> so they WILL have a bigger impact on the lives of farm animals.
> Each vegan is STILL saving the life of a dozen cows, a few hundred
> chickens, and tens of pigs in their lifetime by being vegan than
> eating
> meat.
and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals. Way to go killer!
> Secondly, if vegans or vegetarians constitute such a small minority,
> then you have absolutely NOTHING to complain about.
==============
your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might
figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem.
>
> > chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching
> > does nothing to help the plight of any animal.
>
> You are the one who is a fundamentalist anti-vegan religious fanatic
> who absolutely wants the whole world to exclude the third option
> of not eating the animals in the first place.
===============
nope. veganism is the religion here, dolt.
>
> > No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act.
>
> No, Gary had it right. Veganism is just an matter of eating.
===============
No it is not you ignorant loon. Try looking up the word. read the guy that
actually coined the word, Donald Watson. I'm sure you're too stupid to even
know that, right hypocrite?
> Unlike you in the pro-meat religion, vegans happen to take into
> account
> the consequences of ALL their buying habits. So, they may consider
> things which have nothing to do with veganism
> (e.g. animals in entertainment).
===============
No, you take into account nothing. You prove that with each and everyone of
your ignorant usenet posts, fool.
>
> > Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization.
>
> Lies and bullshit, from someone who has never seen the real world.
====================
says the idiot from behind the bars?
>
> > This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free
> > to support animal welfare programs and agencies --
>
> Hypocritical bullshit. If you don't happen to support the work or
> philosophy of a particular charitable organization, like PETA,
> you call their philosophy a "way of life" or "a religion".
==================
PeTA kills more animals than they save once they get their bloody hands on
them loser. But then, you like that don't you? Killing animals that is.
You prove it with every inane post.
>
> Hunting and those in the slaughterhouse business are the ones who
> are sheltered in their overly protected and unseen world by ultra-
> conservative politicians. They, like Frank Purdue, make slaughtering
> animals their entire life's work, never thinking of other
> possibilities
> for a REAL job.
====================
at least they have a real job, unlike you, loser.
>
> > Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to
> > do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected
> > in nearly every nation where it's been tried.
>
> More insane bullshit lies. There is no more anti-capitalism in
> animal rights philosophy than in any other philosophy. Millions of
> Chinese and Soviet Red Army Communists could not care less about
> brutally murdering and torturing billions of animals for food.
==================
Hey, what a coincedence, neither do you. Are you a red chinese commie?
snippage of rest of really stupid inane drivel....
swamp
>Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>
>> single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic
>> carrot in my hand? get real.
>
>Don't worry, Gary. You are NOT going to get an answer out of Rick
>Etter
>and Jon Ball. They come here with no knowledge with the intent
>only to stir up trouble. They are not scientists. They are not
>professionals. They are nobody.
>
>It is a well-established scientific fact...
Strike one.
>..., universally accepted throughout the scientifice community...
Strike two.
>..., that 10 to 16 times MORE animals are killed
>to raise and feed animals to be fed to humans
Strike three. 1 down.
> -- by the methods
>Jon Ball has admitted to be true -- than if humans ate the plants
>themselves
>because you have to churn up 10 to 16 times more animals in the ground
>to grow the plants to feed the cows, chickens, and pigs to feed to
>humans
>than if you, the human, ate the plants directly.
Strike one
>Furthermore, anti-vegetarians like Etter and Jonball are EXTREMELY
>anti-human.
Strike two.
>They harrass and impede the important dedicated work of farmers,
Strike three. 2 down.
>vegetarian food processors
Utter nonsense. Strike one.
>... and salespeople, animal rights activists, and environmentalists.
When was the last time an "anti" harassed *anyone*? Strike two.
>They support media censorship of the truth about the reality of
>factory
>farms and interfere with the work of groups who feel for
>every ad for McDonald's hamburgers or KFC we should show scenes from
>factory farms on tv and in the newspaper.
Utter bs. Strike three and sit down.
Go Cubbies!
--swamp
Dutch
> Gary Beckwith <gary...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>
> > single time. what animals are dying by the production of this
organic
> > carrot in my hand? get real.
>
> Don't worry, Gary. You are NOT going to get an answer out of Rick
> Etter
> and Jon Ball. They come here with no knowledge with the intent
> only to stir up trouble.
>They are not scientists. They are not
> professionals. They are nobody.
Ad hominem fallacy. What are YOUR credentials by the way? Grade 10?
> It is a well-established scientific fact, universally accepted
> throughout
> the scientifice community,
Show those "scientific" studies. You can't? Big surprise.
> that 10 to 16 times MORE animals are killed
> to raise and feed animals to be fed to humans
How many animals are killed to produce one codfish?
-- by the methods
> Jon Ball has admitted to be true -- than if humans ate the plants
> themselves,
> because you have to churn up 10 to 16 times more animals in the ground
> to grow the plants to feed the cows, chickens, and pigs to feed to
> humans
> than if you, the human, ate the plants directly.
Ground doesn't need to be "curned up" to raise cattle, or any livestock
feed. It does need to be churned up to raise vegetables though.
The majority of livestock feeds are very high yield, low maintenance
crops.
> Furthermore, anti-vegetarians like Etter and Jonball are EXTREMELY
> anti-human.
Ad hominem fallacy.
> They harrass and impede the important dedicated work of farmers,
false, show how
> vegetarian
> food processors
false, show how
and salespeople,
false
animal rights activists, and
> environmentalists.
All falsehoods, all they do is express their opinions on a newsgroup.
Animal Rights activists do much more to impede others' freedoms than
they do.
> They support media censorship of the truth about the reality of
> factory
> farms
Show where they do that.
> and interfere with the work of groups who feel for
> every ad for McDonald's hamburgers or KFC we should show scenes from
> factory farms on tv and in the newspaper.
You're ranting incoherently, you really ought to grow up, do some real
reading and stop believing everything you read on PeTA.com
Dutch
>
> > > first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases
demand
> > > for meat.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in
the
> > developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have
negligible
> > influence on the lives of farm animals.
>
> Then this is EXACTLY the reason we need FAR MORE vegans --
> so they WILL have a bigger impact on the lives of farm animals.
> Each vegan is STILL saving the life of a dozen cows, a few hundred
> chickens, and tens of pigs in their lifetime by being vegan than
> eating meat.
I'm not interested in "saving cows". Provided they get reasonably well
treated during their lives I am quite content to see them get bred and
slaughtered so I can eat the occasional burger. If you thinks it's so
all-fired important, YOU do it. Stop pushing your ideas on me.
> Secondly, if vegans or vegetarians constitute such a small minority,
> then you have absolutely NOTHING to complain about.
Veganism is the stillborn stepchild of the Animal Rights movement, who
even in small numbers are famous for doing plenty of damage to people's
lives.
> > chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching
> > does nothing to help the plight of any animal.
>
> You are the one who is a fundamentalist anti-vegan religious fanatic
> who absolutely wants the whole world to exclude the third option
> of not eating the animals in the first place.
Nobody CARES what you fucking eat, pillock!
> > No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act.
>
> No, Gary had it right. Veganism is just an matter of eating.
Then why are you here trying to convert me?
> Unlike you in the pro-meat religion, vegans happen to take into
> account
> the consequences of ALL their buying habits. So, they may consider
> things which have nothing to do with veganism
> (e.g. animals in entertainment).
I realize that, as I said, veganism is the stillborn stepchild of the
Animal Rights movement.
> > Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization.
>
> Lies and bullshit, from someone who has never seen the real world.
>
> > This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are
free
> > to support animal welfare programs and agencies --
>
> Hypocritical bullshit. If you don't happen to support the work or
> philosophy of a particular charitable organization, like PETA,
> you call their philosophy a "way of life" or "a religion".
You didn't even read what he said.
> Hunting and those in the slaughterhouse business are the ones who
> are sheltered in their overly protected and unseen world by ultra-
> conservative politicians. They, like Frank Purdue, make slaughtering
> animals their entire life's work, never thinking of other
> possibilities for a REAL job.
How dare you, you arrogant twerp?
> > Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and
everything to
> > do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been
rejected
> > in nearly every nation where it's been tried.
>
> More insane bullshit lies. There is no more anti-capitalism in
> animal rights philosophy than in any other philosophy. Millions of
> Chinese and Soviet Red Army Communists could not care less about
> brutally murdering and torturing billions of animals for food.
> If the pro-meat fanatics were so "pro-capitalist", then would
> come out STRONGLY in favor of legalizing ALL drugs and ALL
> pornography.
> Those are businesses which don't hurt anybody --- nobody FORCES
> you to smoke pot or look at porn -- and which have been unfairly
> crippled by anti-drug and anti-porn zealots.
> But, naturally, pro-meat fanatics will not do that, it does not
> directly benefit THEM. Like all religious fanatics, anti-vegetarian
> cultists are concerned with general ideals like "capitalism"
> and "freedom" being applied ONLY in favor of THEIR business.
And you would deny me the right to eat meat. That's totalitarianism.
> Anti-veganism and anti-animal rights religions have absolutely NOTHING
> to do with human rights. They can say they are for human rights the
> same way Joseph Stalin was for his human right to murder millions of
> Russians or the Spanish Inquisition was for their human rights to
> torture non-Christians. Needlessly torturing animals
> is the only "human right" the anti-vegans care about.
Who appointed you to decide for *me* what is "needed" and what is not?
Everything single thing you consume carries a toll of animal death. Do I
tell you that you have eaten too much rice, or apples from an orchard
that uses too much poison? No, those are life choices that you make for
yourself, without interference. Yet you have decided that one life
choice of yours ought to be imposed on me.
> The anti-animal fanatics whine and complain about being forced not
> to eat meat. Yet they FORCE BILLIONS of animals to be born, kept in
> crates their whole lives,
Bullshit, livestock are not "kept in crates their whole lives".
tortured and then murdered
> illegally because these cults do not obey even the most
> lax animal-slaughter laws.
If you can't even come close to the truth how do expect anyone to accept
what you're saying?
> They show their true anti-human colors when they force only THEIR
> opinions to be heard in public schools, on tv, on radio, in
> newspapers.
I hear plenty of AR stories in the media. You're media darlings aamof.
> The pro-meat-industry cults violently stop pro-vegetarian groups from
> airing THEIR points of view, from promoting vegetarian diets in
> schools,
> while forcing THEIR advertisements and THEIR products everywhere.
Companies pay for advertising, and they don't tell people to stop eating
vegetables.
> > Actually, it IS true. Animals with economic value are treated better
> > than animals with no economic value. You ignore this point when
shocking
> > yourself and friends with PETA propaganda pamphlets, but visit a
farm
> > for yourself and see how animals are treated.
>
> This statement shows how deeply entrenched the stupidity and lack
> of brains the anti-animal rights cult in our country is. They could
> take a trip to China and claim that every single Chinaman is happy
> because they see nobody in prison or on in a slave camp or being
> executed.
When's the last time you visited a farm? Did you see animals in crates,
being tortured?
> So then why do slaughterhouses and meat-packing plants violently
> and illegally stop PETA and any other animal-rights groups from
> videotaping
> and recording the truth about all your alleged humane conditions?
Because they know that PeTA will lie and distort the truth to advance
their own agenda, which is the abolition of meat.
> Perhaps a few have, but for your argument to make even a BIT of sense,
> ALL of them would have to.
Rubbish.
> > Sick animals don't gain weight,
>
> Care to prove your wild accusation that if the meat-industry were
> shut down, how sick animals would be born in the first place?
What?
> > Even veal calves, long the poster-animals of benighted zealots like
> > yourself, are not kept in crates in the US. "The vast majority of
> > animals raised for meat" in fact have sufficient range to move.
> > Confinement is the exception, though it does have some merit: it
>
>
> YOU ADMITTED IT!! YOU ADMITTED that confinement occurs!
> Of course, you added the lie that it is "the exception".
It's not a lie. The lie is that it's the norm, it isn't.
> You and the entire pro-meat cult religion are ENTIRELY discredited.
> Democracy in this country is founded on TRUTH, and your religion
> does EVERYthing to hide the truth about this holocaust.
You don't care about the truth, you care about stories that support your
rabid prejudices.
> > Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to
> > ranching/farming to support this?
>
> Do you have any information NOT from ranchers or the meat-industry
> or those in government with ties to the meat industry to deny the
> hormones
>
> > Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of
Peta
> > or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do
you
> > promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats?
>
> You should get down on your hands and needs and kiss PETA on the ass
> for their efforts to stop ALL unnecessary breeding of bulls and
> domestic pets.
There you go again, telling ME what is necessary. Where do you get off
anyway?
> Naturally, your ignorance is astounding.
> Neutering dogs and cats who are homeless is appropriate to prevent
> millions MORE dogs and cats from either freezing to death, starving
> to death, or dying lonely in a gas chamber in a pound.
> In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate
> a bull to prevent future cows from being born. They are going to do
> what the government, weak-willed politicians, the FBI,
> and pro-meat fanatics like you are too cowardly to do: SHUT DOWN
> THE FACTORY FARM!
>
> > Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family,
and
> > I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. It was neither
inhumane
> > nor painful for any animal.
>
> Yeah, yeah. And I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and so is my
> family,
> all for animal rights. And I know for a fact that the trolls I have
> persuaded to go vegetarian have suffered absolutely nothing either.
> Don't lie and preach to me that shutting you and your ranching family
> down causes you "hardship" or crap like that. It is GOOD for you.
Who appointed you to dictate to others what's good for them? What are
your credentials to do this?
> It makes you THINK and TRY OTHER THINGS in life. It is INFINITELY
> more HUMANE to all the cultists in the pro-meat religion to shut them
> all down and force them in prison for life than ANYthing they have
> EVER done to the animals they needlessly raised for food.
What about the needless consumption vegans engage in? What about the
extra helpings, the gross use of power and autos? Who is going to stop
THAT needless consumption and it's inherent animal suffering? Should I?
> > Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not.
>
> Another lie.
Prove it, fathead.
Put the MOST in front of "confined" and you will be
> closer to the truth. Even so, you STILL admit that SOME are confined.
So what? I spend most of my time confined myself.
> That is QUITE a bit different from the meat religion's earlier mantra
> that NOT dairy cattle are confined.
You've got nothing but mindless ranting and hate-filled dogma.
> > How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside
the
> > "huge metal building"?
>
> Good. Then let us in.
Let who in? Fanatical troublemakers? Why?
> > Yes. Pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, etc. It all takes a
toll on
> > animals -- a heavy toll in death and dismemberment. Davey's seventh
> > point is correct.
>
> It would take LESS of a toll if YOU and your pro-ranching cult family
> (guess you learned from Charles Manson) spent your lives and careers
> looking for ways of growing food with MINIMAL suffering and pain,
> looking for biotechnological innovations in modifying plant food
> to yield more protein, etc.
YOU do it, stop fucking dictating how other's must live, HITLER!
> Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to.
Try it punk.
> > > It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to
justify
> > > your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely
false.
>
> That he is, Gary!
>
> > Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it
harder
> > for some people to eat what they want.
>
> Waaah!! Waaah!! BOO- HOO!! And you stop telling PETA and
> pro-vegetarian
> groups what THEY can do with THEIR time and money! I think every
> nurse and doctor should refuse to assist a pro-meat cultist every time
> they get a heart attack or have an accident. If you are so
> "libertarian",
> then you would leave alone those who wish to have no association with
> your business.
You're a fucked-up, stupid crank, if you had half a brain you'd be
dangerous.
usual suspect
>>>first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
>>>for meat.
>>
>>No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the
>>developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible
>>influence on the lives of farm animals.
>
> Then this is EXACTLY the reason we need FAR MORE vegans --
It won't change a thing.
> so they WILL have a bigger impact on the lives of farm animals.
> Each vegan is STILL saving the life of a dozen cows, a few hundred
> chickens, and tens of pigs in their lifetime by being vegan than
> eating
> meat.
No it won't. You apparently don't understand that it's not zero-sum.
Those animals not eaten by each vegan are still used for other purposes,
ranging from petfood to tires and so on.
> Secondly, if vegans or vegetarians constitute such a small minority,
> then you have absolutely NOTHING to complain about.
I'm not complaining. I've only pointed out that veg-ns make no
difference in the quality of animal lives despite their posturing.
>>chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching
>>does nothing to help the plight of any animal.
>
> You are the one who is a fundamentalist anti-vegan religious fanatic
> who absolutely wants the whole world to exclude the third option
> of not eating the animals in the first place.
Listen, asshole, I don't eat animals. At all. Nor do I consume dairy or
eggs. If your intention is to improve the lives of animals, you will
consume products that are consistent with such quality. Avoiding all
animal products, for the reasons you state, results in the status quo.
You're not part of the demand, so there's no reason to supply it. You're
the one who should stop complaining about the treatment of farm animals.
Why should a rancher cater to the demands of someone who's withdrawn
from the market?
>>No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act.
>
> No, Gary had it right. Veganism is just an matter of eating.
Do you wear leather? Do you wear fur? For or against rodeos, circuses,
animal testing?
> Unlike you in the pro-meat religion,
What pro-meat religion? How about calling me pro-choice: I believe
people should be free to eat whatever they want as long as it's not
stolen. You're the anti-choice fanatic, seeking to both deny others
freedom and force your will upon them.
> vegans happen to take into
> account
> the consequences of ALL their buying habits.
Which is why it is about much more than eating, asshole.
> So, they may consider
> things which have nothing to do with veganism
> (e.g. animals in entertainment).
Consider? No! They reject that.
>>Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization.
>
> Lies and bullshit, from someone who has never seen the real world.
I beg to differ, particularly as I'recently returned from a three-week
vacation in what's considered a third-world nation. I've seen a lot more
of the world -- the real one -- than you ever will.
>>This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free
>>to support animal welfare programs and agencies --
>
> Hypocritical bullshit.
What's hypocritical about what I wrote, Einstein?
> If you don't happen to support the work or
> philosophy of a particular charitable organization, like PETA,
PETA are not a charitable organization. They are a group of political
activists.
> you call their philosophy a "way of life" or "a religion".
Unlike you, I'm reserved when it comes to throwing out the charge of
religion. "Way of life" and "philosophy" are terms used by vegans and
other fellow travelers, and I think they're sufficient.
> Hunting and those in the slaughterhouse business are the ones who
> are sheltered in their overly protected and unseen world by ultra-
> conservative politicians.
Go ahead and cede the point that your political point of view is shared
by other vegans. You cannot partake in veganISM without being a leftist.
> They, like Frank Purdue, make slaughtering
> animals their entire life's work, never thinking of other
> possibilities
> for a REAL job.
Your ancestors no doubt considered such work a real job.
>>Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to
>>do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected
>>in nearly every nation where it's been tried.
>
> More insane bullshit lies. There is no more anti-capitalism in
> animal rights philosophy than in any other philosophy.
Your opposition to legitimate and wanted businesses above shows that
you're the one lying and full of bullshit. AR is anti-capitalist to its
core. The great irony is that many vegan shoppers purchase from
entrepeneurs -- many of whom do not share the same zeal, or even same
sense of aesthetics (diet, etc), but only want to make a buck by niche
marketing. I love free markets.
<snip>
> If the pro-meat fanatics were so "pro-capitalist", then would
> come out STRONGLY in favor of legalizing ALL drugs and ALL
> pornography.
Non-sequiturs.
> Those are businesses which don't hurt anybody --- nobody FORCES
> you to smoke pot or look at porn -- and which have been unfairly
> crippled by anti-drug and anti-porn zealots.
I'm for decriminalization of marijuana, but I strongly advocate that
individuals not get involved with recreational drugs. Dope doesn't
improve one's quality of life, except in certain medical situations and
even then the data are inconclusive. Those situations are unfairly used
as red herrings by pro-dope activists, who masquerade as humanitarians
when they only want legitimacy for their vices. Fine. Just make sure DUI
laws are enforced to protect those of us who don't need mind-altering
crutches to deal with life.
I do take exception, though, about your assertions about harm done by
drugs and pornography. Abusing one's body with drugs is an escape from
reality -- and you accuse me of being out of touch with the real world.
You may like to jack off to your porn, but the women who are shown are
often not (or almost always under-) compensated, often abused, and in
many cases very emotionally unstable. I know that doesn't matter to you
since they're not animals and you have your nut to crack.
Porn also affects relationships, and most often deleteriously. You find
it easier to wank to a video or a magazine than to build a relationship.
Your rampant engagement in self-pleasure is selfish, so you're
increasingly less concerned about finding satisfaction from your spouse
or significant other. You judge others by what you fill your mind with,
even though they're cosmetically-enhanced.
It's not a good thing at all.
http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/laydenhealthy.cfm
> But, naturally, pro-meat fanatics will not do that, it does not
> directly benefit THEM. Like all religious fanatics, anti-vegetarian
> cultists are concerned with general ideals like "capitalism"
> and "freedom" being applied ONLY in favor of THEIR business.
Again, I don't eat meat. You're not making a rational case in any event.
> Anti-veganism and anti-animal rights religions have absolutely NOTHING
> to do with human rights. They can say they are for human rights the
> same way Joseph Stalin was for his human right to murder millions of
> Russians or the Spanish Inquisition was for their human rights to
> torture non-Christians. Needlessly torturing animals
> is the only "human right" the anti-vegans care about.
Non-sequitur. Did you smoke some of your dope as you wrote this?
> The anti-animal fanatics whine and complain about being forced not
> to eat meat. Yet they FORCE BILLIONS of animals to be born, kept in
> crates their whole lives, tortured and then murdered
> illegally because these cults do not obey even the most
> lax animal-slaughter laws.
What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even
"murdered illegally"?
> They show their true anti-human colors when they force only THEIR
> opinions to be heard in public schools, on tv, on radio, in
> newspapers.
Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies and
industry groups.
> The pro-meat-industry cults violently stop pro-vegetarian groups from
> airing THEIR points of view,
Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost all
the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month? Let's see, they put acid on a
chef's car, flooded his shop (and adjacent ones), released mink into the
wild wherein the mink ate pets and livestock, firebombed a research
facility, etc. Seems like you've confused to two sides in this debate.
> from promoting vegetarian diets in
> schools,
What children eat should be between their parents and the schools, not
activist organizations.
> while forcing THEIR advertisements
Advertisements are not forced, they're paid for with cash. Maybe you did
not know that.
> and THEIR products everywhere.
Products are placed where they will sell. Why are there so few vegan
stores and restaurants? Because there are so few vegan shoppers and diners.
>>Actually, it IS true. Animals with economic value are treated better
>>than animals with no economic value. You ignore this point when shocking
>>yourself and friends with PETA propaganda pamphlets, but visit a farm
>>for yourself and see how animals are treated.
>
> This statement shows how deeply entrenched the stupidity and lack
> of brains the anti-animal rights cult in our country is. They could
> take a trip to China and claim that every single Chinaman is happy
> because they see nobody in prison or on in a slave camp or being
> executed.
Non-sequitur. Lay off the bong.
> So then why do slaughterhouses and meat-packing plants violently
Examples of violence?
> and illegally stop PETA and any other animal-rights groups from
> videotaping
Whoa, what is illegal about stopping someone from doing something on my
property? Do PETA and other AR groups have a legal right to be on
private property?
> and recording the truth about all your alleged humane conditions?
I've never said inhumane conditions do not exist, but that they're rare
and isolated. If PETA or anyone else is aware of an atrocity, it should
be reported to law enforcement. PETA are not policemen.
> Perhaps a few have, but for your argument to make even a BIT of sense,
> ALL of them would have to.
Many farmers and ranchers allow media access to their property. Of
course, the media often *ask* permission. Activists are not journalists,
and they have no interest in truth -- especially when it's at odds with
their agenda. Yes, activists have agendas.
If I ran a farm, I wouldn't allow access to my operation to someone
whose mission in life was to shut me down. Fuck that. If someone wanted
to see what we do and how we treat our animals, fine. I'd show them
everything they wanted to see.
>>Sick animals don't gain weight,
>
> Care to prove your wild accusation that if the meat-industry were
> shut down, how sick animals would be born in the first place?
It's not a wild accusation, asshole. Why are you so intent in closing
down farms and ranches and denying people the food they want to eat?
>>Even veal calves, long the poster-animals of benighted zealots like
>>yourself, are not kept in crates in the US. "The vast majority of
>>animals raised for meat" in fact have sufficient range to move.
>>Confinement is the exception, though it does have some merit: it
>
> YOU ADMITTED IT!! YOU ADMITTED that confinement occurs!
> Of course, you added the lie that it is "the exception".
It is the exception, fool.
> You and the entire pro-meat cult religion are ENTIRELY discredited.
By whom, lol?
> Democracy in this country is founded on TRUTH,
Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you -- the
minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the
freedom to choose food based on personal preference? You are not a
democrat, you are an authoritarian zealot.
> and your religion
> does EVERYthing to hide the truth about this holocaust.
How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against
humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were subhuman
led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman.
>>Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to
>>ranching/farming to support this?
>
> Do you have any information NOT from ranchers or the meat-industry
> or those in government with ties to the meat industry to deny the
> hormones
What about the hormones?
>>Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of Peta
>>or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do you
>>promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats?
>
> You should get down on your hands and needs and kiss PETA on the ass
No, but you can kiss mine.
> for their efforts to stop ALL unnecessary breeding of bulls and
> domestic pets. Naturally, your ignorance is astounding.
Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context, jellyhead.
You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but
advocate it for others.
> Neutering dogs and cats who are homeless is appropriate to prevent
> millions MORE dogs and cats from either freezing to death, starving
> to death, or dying lonely in a gas chamber in a pound.
Cattle are homeless, too, idiot.
> In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate
> a bull to prevent future cows from being born.
No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for fund-raising.
It seems to work for them, but they'd be better off with real jobs.
> They are going to do
> what the government, weak-willed politicians, the FBI,
> and pro-meat fanatics like you are too cowardly to do: SHUT DOWN
> THE FACTORY FARM!
No, they're not.
>>Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and
>>I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. It was neither inhumane
>>nor painful for any animal.
>
> Yeah, yeah. And I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and so is my
> family,
I've been vegetarian longer than you. So what?
> all for animal rights.
You should do what's best for yourself, not for posturing in the name of
novel and faddist political movements.
> And I know for a fact that the trolls I have
> persuaded to go vegetarian have suffered absolutely nothing either.
You've never persuaded anyone to go vegetarian. You forced it upon your
family, just as you seek to force the entire world to follow your
conscience.
> Don't lie and preach to me that shutting you and your ranching family
> down causes you "hardship" or crap like that. It is GOOD for you.
Unlike you, I don't make excuses. I don't have to. You'll never shut
down anyone.
> It makes you THINK and TRY OTHER THINGS in life.
Why don't you try this rather than forcing others to act on your weak
conscience?
> It is INFINITELY
> more HUMANE to all the cultists in the pro-meat religion to shut them
> all down and force them in prison for life than ANYthing they have
> EVER done to the animals they needlessly raised for food.
It worked for Stalin, didn't it.
>>Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not.
>
> Another lie.
It's the truth.
> Put the MOST in front of "confined" and you will be
> closer to the truth. Even so, you STILL admit that SOME are confined.
Yes, where land is too costly for operations, or further north when the
fields go dormant. Nobody denies that.
> That is QUITE a bit different from the meat religion's earlier mantra
> that NOT dairy cattle are confined.
No, nobody denies that dairy cattle are confined under certain
circumstances.
>>How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the
>>"huge metal building"?
>
> Good. Then let us in.
Ask a farmer/rancher and see if he will.
>>Yes. Pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, etc. It all takes a toll on
>>animals -- a heavy toll in death and dismemberment. Davey's seventh
>>point is correct.
>
> It would take LESS of a toll if YOU and your pro-ranching cult family
> (guess you learned from Charles Manson) spent your lives and careers
> looking for ways of growing food with MINIMAL suffering and pain,
> looking for biotechnological innovations in modifying plant food
> to yield more protein, etc.
Ho hum. I have family who are in plant science research. You don't know
anything about the toll on ranches and farms. You only know propaganda.
> Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to.
According to whom, scumbag?
<snip>
>>Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder
>>for some people to eat what they want.
>
> Waaah!! Waaah!! BOO- HOO!!
Need a hanky, tittybaby?
> And you stop telling PETA and
> pro-vegetarian
> groups what THEY can do with THEIR time and money!
No. Farmers and ranchers create products that consumers demand.
Activists create NOTHING except fear through disinformation.
> I think every
> nurse and doctor should refuse to assist a pro-meat cultist every time
> they get a heart attack or have an accident.
You sure are a sensitive and caring person, aren't you. You pretend to
be compassionate, but you just showed you're not. You also pretend
you're for democracy, but you want to deny others the right to vote with
their mouths. You're just another authoritarian intent on forcing others
to act on your burdensome conscience. Your post proves the claim that
vegans are intent on prosletyzing others to adopt a foreign lifestyle.
> If you are so "libertarian",
> then you would leave alone those who wish to have no association with
> your business.
You should practice what you preach. If you don't like meat, don't eat
it. Let others eat what they want. That's how I handle it.
usual suspect
<snip>
> Go Cubbies!
Looks like they went, lol. They're going down today.
Baa-aaa-aaa-aaa! I hear the goats already.
dh...@nomail.com
I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
Have you mentioned it to anyone?
swamp
Crap, last I heard it was 4-1. How'd Wood give up 7? Couple innings
left, tho. We'll see...
--swamp
Shitbag Slater
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp <sw...@xxxspamadelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
>>
>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>>takers.
>>
>>--swamp
>
>
> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
> animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
> raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
> who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement,
Not from "getting to live", Fuckwit. They "benefit"
only in comparison to animals who aren't treated well.
> but some are
> overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
> until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
But you want the animals to live, period. You don't
care one bit about their quality of life. That's why
you buy any meat or poultry that Piggly Wiggly has for
sale.
> It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
> Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
> a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
> everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
> animals benefit from farming and some don't,
No animals "benefit from farming", Fuckwit. Life
itself is never a benefit.
brad beattie
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. The
consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to
minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is
validity to abstaining from eating meat.
Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?
Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive. This is why I will eat
in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food; this is
unavoidable. If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
you for food, I will. For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
isn't.
(bradbeattie)at(alumni.uwaterloo.ca)
Jonathan Ball
> ----- Message Text -----
> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>
> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.
Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.
> The
> consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to
> minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is
> validity to abstaining from eating meat.
Nope. The harm to animals needs to be reduced to the
same small level as human death and injury. If it
isn't, it is incumbent on you not to buy the stuff, if
you're going to claim to be "ethical".
>
> Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?
Not just valid, but necessary.
> Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive.
There is no requirement for you to survive, and
certainly not at some given level of comfort. Get off
your fucking fat ass and grow vegetables that don't
cause animals to die.
> This is why I will eat
> in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food; this is
> unavoidable.
That's a lie. You could grow it yourself, or hire
"ethical" farmers to grow it to your specification.
You're too enamored of your phony self image as a "more
ethical" person due to not eating meat.
> If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
> you for food, I will.
Oh, I have no doubt. You are a thoroughly unethical
person.
> For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
> isn't.
There is no such thing as "necessity". You lose.
usual suspect
> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>
> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.
*Nature* is entirely dependent upon death of individual animals. Without
death there is no life. In order for you and so many of our species to
live an urban existence, it is necessary for large scale farming to
occur. That means machinery is required. Animal deaths are part and
parcel of your own existence whether you choose to eat them or not.
> The consumption of meat requires that animals are killed.
Actually, it doesn't. It may be deemed inhumane to remove a leg of lamb,
beef, or pork at a time, but animals could continue to live if we didn't
make use of their entire bodies at once. Economy dictates the scale of
use of each animal every bit as much as your urban existence requires
large-scale, intensive grain and vegetable production.
> If one's goal is to minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible),
> then there is validity to abstaining from eating meat.
Abstention under any circumstance is a *personal* issue. The area where
I have the largest disagreement with you and other veg-ns is forcing
others to live according to the dictates of your weak conscience. I say
that as someone who doesn't eat meat, too.
If you're sincere about minimizing harm, you'll stop purchasing food and
instead grow all of your own.
> Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?
You don't make a strong case for abstaining from animal foods in the
first place, so your second point is moot. Your next sentence, though,
points out the obvious: food is NEEDED (i.e., necessary) for survival.
> Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive.
Sustenance versus nourishment versus satiety versus contentment: the
four are not the same. I don't know you or anything about you, but my
guess is that you're not wispish thin. You could "survive" on far less
than you actually consume, but you probably over-indulge just like
others in developed nations (including me). The amount of death and harm
to animals AND farmers is commensurate with the food you purchase. Add
to that workplace accidents, accidents, and pollution from storage and
transportation of your purchased food. Your food is laden with
suffering, again, in proportion to the amount you purchase and consume.
> This is why I will eat in full knowledge that there are deaths
> associated with my food; this is unavoidable.
No, you can grow your own or buy directly from small-scale farms.
> If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
> you for food, I will.
Not if I'm hungrier, faster, and a better hunter than you are.
> For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
> isn't.
Sorry, but neither are plant-based foods if one's not disposed to eating
them. You're not even clouding the issue with your illogic. The issue
wasn't what's *necessary*. At least you admit animals die in the
production of your food; that still doesn't set you on any higher plane
than meat eaters.
LordSnooty
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>brad beattie wrote:
>> ----- Message Text -----
>> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
>> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
>> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
>> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
>> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>>
>> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
>> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.
>
>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
>production and distribution caused the death.
This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter. Accidents will happen, no doubt, bring
forth any facts and figures about deliberate slaughter of wildlife and
I can assure you the world would be up in arms, further, we will help
you to expose it for what it is.
As it's pure fantasy, this will of course never happen, because you
are just trying to divert attention from your deviant likes.
>> The
>> consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to
>> minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is
>> validity to abstaining from eating meat.
>
>Nope.
Of course it is.
> The harm to animals needs to be reduced to the
>same small level as human death and injury. If it
>isn't, it is incumbent on you not to buy the stuff, if
>you're going to claim to be "ethical".
Accidental death of wildlife in arable crop production is so
insignificant that facts are unavailable, you are talking hogwash.
<snip, we don't want to tax you too much>
dh...@nomail.com
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
><jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>>brad beattie wrote:
>>> ----- Message Text -----
>>> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
>>> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
>>> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
>>> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
>>> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>>>
>>> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
>>> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.
>>
>>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
>>production and distribution caused the death.
>
>This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
>friends like Clutch Wetter.
[...]
Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.
8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
veggies.
LordSnooty
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>><jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>>brad beattie wrote:
>>>> ----- Message Text -----
>>>> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
>>>> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
>>>> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
>>>> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
>>>> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>>>>
>>>> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
>>>> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
>>>production and distribution caused the death.
>>
>>This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
>>friends like Clutch Wetter.
>[...]
>
>Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
>
>6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
> else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
> things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
Fallacy. All things meat eaters do, therefore by it's very nature a
vegan diet means the meat animals are taken out of the picture. Your
maths are very bad.
>7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
> veggies.
Fallacy.
>8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
> veggies.
Fallacy.
rick etter
"brad beattie" <bj3b...@student.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.03101...@lassar.math.uwaterloo.ca...
> ----- Message Text -----
> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>
> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. The
> consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to
> minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is
> validity to abstaining from eating meat.
No, there is not. Again, thye death and suffering of animals is part and
parcel with crop production.
That you continue to support a western, consumer oriented mass production of
crops justs means you
*must* kill even more animals. Now, if your goal truly were to
eliminate/reduce animal death and suffering,
you'd replace 100s of 1000s of those crop produced calories with the death
of just 1 animal. A grass-fed cow, or game.
Yet you won't, precisly because saving animals is not your gola, or any
usenet vegans goal.
>
> Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?
> Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive. This is why I will eat
> in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food;
==================
Possibly even more than many meat-eaters diets.
this is
> unavoidable. If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
> you for food, I will. For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
> isn't.
================
far more necessary than brocolli. You cannot live without meat, or some
supplement to replace it. That supliment also causes animal death and
suffering to produce. Animals lose either way with your so-called
compasionate diet, killer.
>
> (bradbeattie)at(alumni.uwaterloo.ca)
>
>
>
Cash Cow
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>><jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>brad beattie wrote:
>>>
>>>>----- Message Text -----
>>>>|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
>>>>|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
>>>>|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
>>>>|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
>>>>|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>>>>
>>>>The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
>>>>consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
>>>production and distribution caused the death.
>>
>>This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
>>friends like Clutch Wetter.
>
> [...]
>
> Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
>
> 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
> else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
> things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
Okay so far...
> 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
> veggies.
Oooooh! You stumbled badly, Fuckwit.
SOME vegetables and fruit involve no death whatever,
and a person could fairly easily grow and eat only
these vegetables and fruits. Not so with meat, unless
a person is going to eat nothing but roadkill.
> 8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
> veggies.
The fact that Fuckwit wants to disregard: we all see
through your lamebrained, fuckwitted trick to try to
"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
quality of life.
piddock
> and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals.
And you anti-animal meat-eating folks murder thousands upon thousands of humans
each year with the unnecessary pressure and pollution you put on
society to maintain your lifestyle, including people getting maimed in
processing plants, to the additional trasportation needed
to deliver meat each minute of the day, refrigeration processes.
I can add up a LOT more way you anti-animal cultists are also anti-human
than you can find that vegans deliberately hurt animals.
> your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might
> figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem.
GET THE FUCK OFF VEGAN NEWSGROUPS!
This just proves that the meat empire needs more
animals rights activists on its financial boards and as employees
so they can vote to shut down operations, and to break the industry
out of its seclusion and listen to ALTERNATIVE points of view.
> nope. veganism is the religion here, dolt.
> No it is not you ignorant loon. Try looking up the word. read the guy that
> actually coined the word, Donald Watson.
Yeah -- I looked up the word in the dictionary. So what? Nothing
there about it being a "religion", you dangerous cult leader.
> PeTA kills more animals than they save once they get their bloody hands on
Said by someone who has never even been to the PETA or Farm Sanctuary
websites, never read their magazine, never donated money to them,
never read a book in his life.
>>> at least they have a real job, unlike you, loser.
Child pornographers contribute more to children and society than
scum like you and KFC, McDonalds, or Frank Perdue.
fr...@just.fried
> "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message news:<rx0jb.330$
>
>
>
>>and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals.
>
>
> And you anti-animal meat-eating folks
Nope. Wanting to eat animals doesn't make one
anti-animal. You're a moron.
> murder thousands upon thousands of humans each year
Nope. Strike two. First, accidental industrial deaths
aren't murder, by definition. It's conceivable that
human deaths due to negligence might be prosecuted as
manslaughter, but that's pretty unusual.
> with the unnecessary pressure and pollution you put on
> society to maintain your lifestyle, including people getting maimed in
> processing plants,
Where?
> to the additional trasportation needed
> to deliver meat each minute of the day, refrigeration processes.
> I can add up a LOT more way you anti-animal cultists are also anti-human
> than you can find that vegans deliberately hurt animals.
Nope. Not anti-animal, not anti-human.
>
>
>>your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might
>>figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem.
>
>
> GET THE FUCK OFF VEGAN NEWSGROUPS!
MAKE ME, cocksucker! Yeah, you puny fucking queer!
Let's see you MAKE me. Fucking gutless, powerless
fuckdrip.
>
>>nope. veganism is the religion here, dolt.
>>No it is not you ignorant loon. Try looking up the word. read the guy that
>>actually coined the word, Donald Watson.
>
>
> Yeah -- I looked up the word in the dictionary. So what? Nothing
> there about it being a "religion", you dangerous cult leader.
It's followed with religious-like devotion. For all
intents, it is religion. Eat shit.
>
>
>>PeTA kills more animals than they save once they get their bloody hands on
>
>
> Said by someone who has never even been to the PETA or Farm Sanctuary
> websites,
I've been there, fuckdrip. They're SHIT.
> never read their magazine, never donated money to them,
You're GODDAMNED RIGHT I've never donated money to
them, fucking asswipe.
rick etter
"Cash Cow" <Mo...@URPC.net> wrote in message
news:V7Ejb.3147$7a4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
None is fewer isn't it? what part then is wrong? saying *some* meats
involve less death than *some* veggies is correct. Some meat requires only
1 death. What's fewer than 1?
>
> SOME vegetables and fruit involve no death whatever,
> and a person could fairly easily grow and eat only
> these vegetables and fruits.
========================
Not and maintain the western, convenience oriented lifestyle they are living
now. Besides, if a *real* vegan would go to all that trouble, they wouldn't
be here on usenet either. But then, there are no *real* vegans here on
usenet, right?
Not so with meat, unless
> a person is going to eat nothing but roadkill.
=================
Some people do. The fact remains that no one involved here on usenet,
living a western lifestyle is growing anywhere near all the veggies they
need to live on. their lifestyles won't allow it. And, if they manage a
portion of their needs, they'd be better off, animal death and suffering
wise, to then replace the needed calories with certain meats. It is quite
easy to make that 'difference' by eating grass-fed beef and game. No change
in a consumer lifestyle is required at all.
rick etter
"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:up2uovg141r88ve5k...@earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:56:41 GMT, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty <Lord_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> >><jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
> >>
> >>>brad beattie wrote:
> >>>> ----- Message Text -----
> >>>> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
> >>>> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
> >>>> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
> >>>> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
> >>>> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
> >>>>
> >>>> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
> >>>> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.
> >>>
> >>>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
> >>>production and distribution caused the death.
> >>
> >>This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
> >>friends like Clutch Wetter.
> >[...]
> >
> >Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
> >
> >6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
> > else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
> > things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
>
> Fallacy.
No, truth, killer...
All things meat eaters do, therefore by it's very nature a
> vegan diet means the meat animals are taken out of the picture. Your
> maths are very bad.
================
Your ignorance is appalling...
>
> >7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
> > veggies.
>
> Fallacy.
===============
Fact...
>
> >8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
> > veggies.
>
> Fallacy.
==============
Fact...
piddock
> I'm not complaining. I've only pointed out that veg-ns make no
> difference in the quality of animal lives despite their posturing.
And I am saying that stopping animal-rights organizations doing
whatever
THEY do will have absolutely NO positive impact for humans and THEIR
lives, despite the posturing of supposedly pro-human-rights groups.
> Listen, asshole, I don't eat animals. At all. Nor do I consume dairy or
> eggs. If your intention is to improve the lives of animals, you will
> consume products that are consistent with such quality. Avoiding all
> animal products, for the reasons you state, results in the status quo.
Right. So if X people have 0 impact, then X*Y people will have
0*Y=0 impact. So then YOU are saying that if we ALL avoided animal
products,
the world would be EXACTLY the same as it is now.
SO WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ANTI-ANIMAL RIGHTS ASSHOLES COMPLAINING
ABOUT?!
Your world to you will be the same if PeTA were to achieve ALL its
goals.
> You're not part of the demand, so there's no reason to supply it. You're
> the one who should stop complaining about the treatment of farm animals.
> Why should a rancher cater to the demands of someone who's withdrawn
> from the market?
So you are saying that if I BUY animal products, then I can help
reduce
the number of animals killed or confined?
Hold this thought -- because I am going to shove it down your throat
to answer your next question...
> Do you wear leather? Do you wear fur? For or against rodeos, circuses,
> animal testing?
Listen, shit-for-brains. A person can be anti-meat and pro-leather,
pro-fur,
pro-rodeo and pro-gun -- what's the contradiction? A person can be
anti-meat
with absolutely NO concern for animals, and it does not contradict
wearing
leather.
No -- I do not wear leather, fur, go to rodeos, test on animals.
But, remember what YOU said above -- you would say that I would be
PERFECTLY consistent with animal rights and helping animals if I
DID buy leather, fur, rodeos, etc. because of some economic idealized
fantasy-theory you invented that says that I can help animals by
buying these products.
Combined with what you have said before: YOU claim that one is
CONSISTENT with animal-welfare EITHER WAY whether one eats or does not
eat meat, wear leather, fur, go to rodeos, etc.
SO THEN YOU CANNOT CALL ANYONE INCONSISTENT WITH ANIMAL-WELFARE
WHETHER OR NOT THEY DO SOME OR ALL OR NONE OF THESE THINGS!
THAT MEANS YOU ARE CALLING NOBODY INCONSISTENT!!
THEN THAT MEANS YOU ARE A LYING HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SCUM FOR
DELIBERATELY TARGETING AND LIBELLING THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO CALL
THEMSELVES ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS -- WHETHER THEY DO NONE OR SOME
OR ALL OF THESE THINGS!!
This means YOUR IDEAS ARE WORTHLESS, BECAUSE YOU MAKE NO MEANINGFUL
DISTINCTIONS (discrete modelling) OR DEGREES OF TORTURE (continuous
modelling- utilitarian approach, the one *I* favor)!!
> What pro-meat religion?
Why don't you spend your breathe telling fuckshit Rick Etter to stop
calling vegetarianism a "religion"?
>How about calling me pro-choice: I believe
> people should be free to eat whatever they want as long as it's not
> stolen. You're the anti-choice fanatic, seeking to both deny others
> freedom and force your will upon them.
You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack
of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany.
Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for
most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire!
No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient
animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence
because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice"
for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their
whole lives.
> > vegans happen to take into account
> > the consequences of ALL their buying habits.
>
> Which is why it is about much more than eating, asshole.
That's too bad, asshole. And, you did not deny what I said:
thus it proves you are a lying piece of
shit for suggesting only NON-vegans take into account the consequences
of ALL their buying habits.
> I beg to differ, particularly as I'recently returned from a three-week
> vacation in what's considered a third-world nation. I've seen a lot more
> of the world -- the real one -- than you ever will.
Obviously you have a lot of time and free money on your hands to take
a vacation. And it is STILL completely irrelevant to this issue --
because it does not mean you have the brains or rationality to draw
any proper interpretations or make PROPER generalizations from
your observations or determine cause and effect in a logically
consistent manner. It still does not disprove what I have said here,
or elsewhere,
or the animal rights activists who have had many of their OWN
experiences
in the real world -- including third world countries.
It really IS pathetic how you bring up your third-world exploits.
Guess what -- I was in the Soviet Union for 7 weeks in the summer of
1985.
And it made me even MORE of an animal rights activist!
(More so because of the greed and selfishness and stupidity,
regrettably,
of the Americans on our tour who gave America a bad name than of any
of the Russians.)
> PETA are not a charitable organization.
> They are a group of political activists.
No contradiction there. The law may be the best way to help animals.
No giving money to preserving some species of wild bird is going to
help end rodeos. And all charitable organizations are political
organization. Medical charities have lobbyists at Congress constantly
pressuring the government to
allocate more tax dollars to cure their particular disease.
> Unlike you, I'm reserved when it comes to throwing out the charge of
> religion.
No you're not. You are just like Rick Etter.
> Go ahead and cede the point that your political point of view is shared
> by other vegans. You cannot partake in veganISM without being a leftist.
You are a REAL fuck the way you talk like you are god or a REAL
scientist
with your ABSOLUTE socialogical categorizations!
Get a REAL degree if you want to talk this way.
There are plenty of conservative vegans. Hell -- YOU are one of them!
You have repeatedly say you do not eat meat, yet you have a VERY
anti-capitalist anti-choice view on pornography which I delve into
below.
> Your ancestors no doubt considered such work a real job.
I don't give a shit what you or anyone else calls a "real" job.
> Your opposition to legitimate and wanted businesses above shows that
> you're the one lying and full of bullshit.
Not wanted by the animals.
Not wanted by those TRULY concerned with animal welfare.
You mean violent, deceptive, lying and very often blatantly illegal
businesses which violate the law in their practices.
> AR is anti-capitalist to its core.
Yeah -- you can't rationally
justify specific instances of animal slaughter, so instead
you do this name-calling and gross generalization of groups of
people just because you don't like the charitable work they do.
>The great irony is that many vegan shoppers purchase from
> entrepeneurs -- many of whom do not share the same zeal, or even same
> sense of aesthetics (diet, etc), but only want to make a buck by niche
> marketing. I love free markets.
Thereby proving you lie when you say
"AR is anti-capitalist to its core".
Anti-animal rights is VIOLENTLY anti-capitalist, threatening
Congressmen if they don't get their gigantic corporate welfare
handouts. And there is nothing pro-capitalist or pro-libertarian
about pig farmers polluting their neigbors' property.
> I'm for decriminalization of marijuana,
Great. Your drug views closely match mine. I have never smoked
tobacco,
marijuana or any illegal drugs in my life. And I do not drink alcohol.
> Abusing one's body with drugs is an escape from reality --
> and you accuse me of being out of touch with the real world.
WAIT A minute! Now -- YOU are allowed to make distinctions between
using different kinds of drugs: marijuana vs. cocaine, for instance,
without being called a hypocrite.
And you make FURTHER distinctions between freedom of choice of
porn, drugs, and eating meat -- based upon what YOU see as their
effects.
(Of course, with the meat issue, you see ONLY the effects on YOU, not
the animals.)
SO I CAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ANIMALS!!
I can say: kill the bugs to build my house because my pain of being
homeless is more than the pain to bugs. Plus bug "initiate force"
against me by attacking me.
And I can consistently say (and I should not be called a hypocrite for
this): put people in prison for eating meat
because they pain to them of being in prison is less than that of
eating 400 chickens, 50 pigs, 20 cows in a lifetime.
This is rational utilitarian thinking.
Yet, when it comes ONLY TO ANIMAL ISSUES you would call me and other
animal rights activists "hypocrites" for making distinctions which YOU
make all
the time in non-animal issues based upon the effect on you or human
society.
And who the FUCK are YOU --- someone who deliberately avoids
taking in account what animals go through in factory farms
whenever you buy your food --
to judge drug users of escaping reality?
What the hell happened to your free-choice, free-market,
pro-capitalist
philosophy??
> You may like to jack off to your porn, but the women who are shown are
> often not (or almost always under-) compensated,
For your information (not that I need to justify anything I say or do
to YOU): I do not like looking at people having sex. Period. I do not
like
looking at what is formally called porn. I happen to like looking
at certain kinds of very mild, non-violent sexy videos, what one might
call "fetish".
>often abused, and in many cases very emotionally unstable.
A gross generalization. I am sure it happens often. But they are a
minority. Nobody is FORCING most porn actresses to star in porn!
And when they are forced to, the fault is not porn! It is called
"slavery", which is a crime!
More importantly nobody is FORCING anybody to read porn!
And nobody is forcing anybody in relationships to lie to their
partners
about looking at porn!
WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL YOUR FREE-MARKET PRO-CAPITALIST PRO-CHOICE
RHETORIC WHICH YOU KEEP SPOUTING? Answer: you are pro-choice
free-market pro-capitalist only
if it fits your agenda, your ideology, or goes along already with
what ever laws some anti-porn or pro-meat activists shoved down
our throats.
> Again, I don't eat meat. You're not making a rational case in any event.
> Non-sequitur. Did you smoke some of your dope as you wrote this?
I will just come right out and say this: I have a PhD in mathematics.
A HARD subject. All the experiences and injustices you may have seen
or think exist and all the great things that you have done in life
don't amount to SHIT next to FIVE minutes of MY hard thinking.
> What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even
> "murdered illegally"?
> Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies and
> industry groups.
So, I can promote vegetarianism for animal rights in public schools
the way meat industry promotes THEIR point of view??
> Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost all
> the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month?
"Terror" acts -- that's a LAUGH! What "terror" acts? What acts of
"violence"??
> What children eat should be between their parents and the schools, not
> activist organizations.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!! YOU SAID AR ACTIVISTS HAVE THE SAME MEDIA ACCESS
AS PRO-MEAT GROUPS!! AND YOU DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT FIVE SENTENCES
BACK!!
> Advertisements are not forced, they're paid for with cash. Maybe you did
> not know that.
And what AR groups say in public or private school is THEIR business,
THEY paid with it with THEIR money and time, and THEY were INVITED
in! AR groups never "forced" their way in!!
> Whoa, what is illegal about stopping someone from doing something on my
> property? Do PETA and other AR groups have a legal right to be on
> private property?
Yes -- BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID THAT WE HAD PERMISSION TO BE ON THEIR
PROPERTY WHEN YOU SAID WE MAY VISIT MEAT-PACKING PLANTS ANY TIME!!
> I've never said inhumane conditions do not exist, but that they're rare
> and isolated.
YOU ARE SO FULL OF FUCKING SHIT! AND SO ARE INCREDIBLY RARE OF
ANY "ILLEGAL" THINGS PETA OR AR GROUPS HAVE EVER DONE!!
>If PETA or anyone else is aware of an atrocity, it should
> be reported to law enforcement. PETA are not policemen.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE LAWS IN PLACE TO PROTECT ANIMALS IF
ANIMAL-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS HAD NOT DRAGGED THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF YOU
AND THE POLICE!!!
> Many farmers and ranchers allow media access to their property. Of
> course, the media often *ask* permission. Activists are not journalists,
Journalists do not have any special permission to be on private
property
either! And, if you think they do, then PeTA News also has that
right.
Either way, if slaughterhouses are committing illegal acts and the
police
do nothing about it, who the HELL ELSE is going to uncover the truth
and drag the
> and they have no interest in truth -- especially when it's at odds with
> their agenda. Yes, activists have agendas.
>
> If I ran a farm, I wouldn't allow access to my operation to someone
> whose mission in life was to shut me down. Fuck that. If someone wanted
> to see what we do and how we treat our animals, fine. I'd show them
> everything they wanted to see.
And YOU have an agenda to KILL and EAT animals. Even in some instances
where it might be right, YOU STILL HAVE AN AGENDA!!
So why the FUCK should pornographers let YOU or anyone else onto their
property if YOU want to shut THEM down???
> It's not a wild accusation, asshole. Why are you so intent in closing
> down farms and ranches and denying people the food they want to eat?
Notice: you said "want" to eat, not "need".
Because assholes like you want to close down pornographers and deny
people the porn they want to see.
Because assholes like you want to deny animals which YOU forced into
existence the right to choose to be free and stay alive.
> Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you -- the
> minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the
So fucking what. I will do what the fuck I want to inferior subhumans
like yourself. Don't you fucking tell me what to do.
The animals are the VAST majority here. And the MAJORITY of humans
(in the US) believes in the right to free association, which means the
right to form whatever groups they want, and the MAJORITY of humans
in the world, I might generalize, believes that any one or any group
deserves the benefits of their labor and activism, the freedoms for
which they fight, and to live in a world created b
> How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against
> humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were subhuman
> led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman.
TOO BAD! You do not own the words! Don't you tell me what words
I may or may not use! Don't pretend that you are "offended".
YOU are the Nazi because YOU
would have murdered Jews because YOU always favor the majority and the
Jews were in the minority.
> Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context, jellyhead.
> You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but
> advocate it for others.
Which species am I complaining about being "fixed"?
I have advocated fixing most species -- humans, dogs, cats, etc.
> Cattle are homeless, too, idiot.
What? Is this a follow-up of your earlier piece of insanity that
no animals are kept in crates?
> > In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate
> > a bull to prevent future cows from being born.
>
> No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for fund-raising.
Wait a minute: how can PeTA, or any group, go into the opposing
group's
camp and "gather propaganda"? Propaganda is something one
manufactures
in one's own magazine or tv show. One can gather information -- i.e.
the truth -- on the opposing side. Now, perhaps there is nothing of
importance in that truth, but generating lies and propaganda is a
separate
independent activity.
In fact, if PeTA just generated lies and propaganda,
then why would they need to investigate criminal activities of animal
abuse, taking undercover video, spending THEIR time and energy?
By the way -- PeTA itself does not do undercover police operations
and surveillance videotaping -- perfectly consistent with the way
you feel things should be. No animal rights group has the money to do
that!
PeTA is simply a repository
of videotapes or testimony often GIVEN to them
by ex-employees of animal testing facilities or meat-packing plants
who are fired for whistleblowing.
> It seems to work for them, but they'd be better off with real jobs.
> >>Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and
> >>I've slaughtered more than my share of steers.
So then why do YOU not eat meat? For your health?
> I've been vegetarian longer than you. So what?
I doubt that now, even though you have said it many times.
I now believe that you are redefining the word "vegetarian".
> You should do what's best for yourself, not for posturing in the name of
> novel and faddist political movements.
Typing all this is best for me.
> You've never persuaded anyone to go vegetarian. You forced it upon your
> family, just as you seek to force the entire world to follow your
> conscience.
You are a REAL ass. And child pornographers believe you are forcing
the
world to follow YOUR conscience.
And my family was vegetarian before me. And nobody forced it on me.
> It worked for Stalin, didn't it.
No. Stalin just stole all the food for himself and the army.
China and North Korea do that, too. It seems to be a common trait of
non-vegetarian dictators and regimes.
> Yes, where land is too costly for operations, or further north when the
> fields go dormant. Nobody denies that.
Ok. Then may I ask: how much of land which is used to grow
grass, wheat, whatever to feed cattle -- what % of that land can be
grown to soybeans, whatever, to feed people directly (soymilk, say)?
If you wish to object to the claims that humans could eat off the land
more efficiently at a lower level than by eating higher on the food
chain,
then why not start by answering THIS question?
And we can FORGET and FORGIVE everything else in this thread!
Forget all this crap about religion and who has a "real" job.
(Basically, this leads to the noble pursuit of using all past
knowledge
and technology -- even all of that which was gained by war and torture
and lots of humans and animals killed -- to make sure it doesn't
happen
again.)
> Ask a farmer/rancher and see if he will.
I actually remember that I DID do this once -- in high school.
I was doing a report on ergot. I visited a farmer who grew rye.
> Ho hum. I have family who are in plant science research. You don't know
> anything about the toll on ranches and farms. You only know propaganda.
If you continue to dismiss the MAJORITY of the toll on animals,
then how can you expect anyone not to dismiss the toll on ranches
and farms? Let us calculate ALL the tolls -- in proportion to the
reality of their magnitudes! Keep in mind, though, as a
pro-capitalist:
there are NO economic tolls to you, because, according to
your notion of capitalism, you can always find another job with no
effort.
> > Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to.
>
> According to whom, scumbag?
> No. Farmers and ranchers create products that consumers demand.
> Activists create NOTHING except fear through disinformation.
SOMEBODY gives activists money. That is why I call people who
work for animals what they SHOULD be called: animal welfare/rights
WORKERS. I just got a letter from PeTA saying some big donor wants
to give matching funds.
I am not as obsessed about definitions of words like "vegetarian"
or "human rights activist" or "soldier" as you are. Those words are
only means to an end. I care about TOTAL cause and effect,
cost versus benefit to EACH individual, and justice.
I have always wondered what is wrong with calling a Navy or Army
or Marine soldier a "human rights activist", since they clearly
fight for SOME person's human right not to be murdered or unjustly
imprisoned or impoverished.
> You sure are a sensitive and caring person, aren't you.
Far more than you. You refuse to let professionals choose whom they
wish to do business with or help. One of the heads of an animal
rights
group in New Jersey got fed up with being a nurse because she saw
so many heart attacks from a self-inflicted diet of excessive fatty
meats.
I am not even claiming to agree with EVERY specific instance of her
interpretations of the negative health effects of a high-fat diet.
But it was clear that she would have helped other animal welfare
workers
better if she had been allowed the CHOICE of staying on as a nurse and
helping only those patients who truly deserved it.
Dutch
> usual suspect <n...@foot.rub> wrote
[..] major snippage [..]
> You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack
> of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany.
> Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for
> most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire!
You're a nitwit. Just because people have lived without freedom in the
past is not a reason to deny it to them now.
> No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient
> animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence
> because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice"
> for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their
> whole lives.
How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order
to have will, an animal must exist first.
[..]
> (Of course, with the meat issue, you see ONLY the effects on YOU, not
> the animals.)
As with the issue of plant foods, along with every other aspect of
modern life. You only see the effects on you, not the animals. In fact
the only time vegans are concerned with animal issues is when they can
clearly see the animals benefitting mankind. Countless unseen,
collateral deaths are not to be spoken of...
> SO I CAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ANIMALS!!
Pure rubbish.
> I can say: kill the bugs to build my house because my pain of being
> homeless is more than the pain to bugs. Plus bug "initiate force"
> against me by attacking me.
Those bugs didn't attack you with deadly force, you could have
accomodated them and still built your house. You did the selfish,
expeditious thing, just like the rest of us.
> And I can consistently say (and I should not be called a hypocrite for
> this): put people in prison for eating meat
> because they pain to them of being in prison is less than that of
> eating 400 chickens, 50 pigs, 20 cows in a lifetime.
You should be called a hypocrite because that's exactly what you are.
Every aspect of your cushy western existence is built upon the bodies of
countless billions of animals. For one thing, if you didn't benefit
directly from modern medicine you probably wouldn't live past the age of
40, and if you did it would likely be too painful to endure.
> This is rational utilitarian thinking.
> Yet, when it comes ONLY TO ANIMAL ISSUES you would call me and other
> animal rights activists "hypocrites" for making distinctions which YOU
> make all
> the time in non-animal issues based upon the effect on you or human
> society.
The distinctions you make are irrational. Why is it wrong to shoot an
animal and eat it, yet perfectly OK to kill animals by the tens of
thousands to harvest a rice crop?
[..]
> I will just come right out and say this: I have a PhD in mathematics.
> A HARD subject. All the experiences and injustices you may have seen
> or think exist and all the great things that you have done in life
> don't amount to SHIT next to FIVE minutes of MY hard thinking.
You're FULL of shit. You have the mentality of a 17 year-old.
> > What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even
> > "murdered illegally"?
>
> > Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies
and
> > industry groups.
>
> So, I can promote vegetarianism for animal rights in public schools
> the way meat industry promotes THEIR point of view??
Answer the question. I'm quite sure no meat I eat is raised in crates,
so why did you say that farm animals are raised in crates "their whole
lives"?
> > Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost
all
> > the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month?
>
> "Terror" acts -- that's a LAUGH! What "terror" acts? What acts of
> "violence"??
You're living in a dream world.
[..]
> And YOU have an agenda to KILL and EAT animals.
I have an agenda to eat some animals. I don't kill them myself, but I
take full responsibility for their deaths. You have an agenda to eat
convenient store-bought plant-based foods that are produced at the cost
of animal lives, but YOU don't take responsibility for those deaths,
judging from your attitude.
[..]
> Because assholes like you want to deny animals which YOU forced into
> existence the right to choose to be free and stay alive.
You didn't allow the bugs that lived where your house was built the
right to choose to be free and stay alive.
> > Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you --
the
> > minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the
>
> So fucking what. I will do what the fuck I want to inferior subhumans
> like yourself. Don't you fucking tell me what to do.
>
> The animals are the VAST majority here. And the MAJORITY of humans
> (in the US) believes in the right to free association, which means the
> right to form whatever groups they want, and the MAJORITY of humans
> in the world, I might generalize, believes that any one or any group
> deserves the benefits of their labor and activism, the freedoms for
> which they fight, and to live in a world created b
You're a windy son-of-a-bitch aren't you?
> > How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against
> > humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were
subhuman
> > led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman.
>
> TOO BAD! You do not own the words! Don't you tell me what words
> I may or may not use! Don't pretend that you are "offended".
> YOU are the Nazi because YOU
> would have murdered Jews because YOU always favor the majority and the
> Jews were in the minority.
Yep, you're 17, mentally anyway...
> > Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context,
jellyhead.
> > You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but
> > advocate it for others.
>
> Which species am I complaining about being "fixed"?
> I have advocated fixing most species -- humans, dogs, cats, etc.
>
> > Cattle are homeless, too, idiot.
>
> What? Is this a follow-up of your earlier piece of insanity that
> no animals are kept in crates?
Now we have to prove the absolute negative of your categorical
assertion? That's not how a debate works. You said *categorically* that
animals are forced to live in crates their whole lives. Now show some
evidence that a significant number of food animals farmed in the western
world live that way, or *any*.
> > > In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to
castrate
> > > a bull to prevent future cows from being born.
> >
> > No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for
fund-raising.
>
> Wait a minute: how can PeTA, or any group, go into the opposing
> group's
> camp and "gather propaganda"? Propaganda is something one
> manufactures
> in one's own magazine or tv show. One can gather information -- i.e.
> the truth -- on the opposing side. Now, perhaps there is nothing of
> importance in that truth, but generating lies and propaganda is a
> separate
> independent activity.
You're WRONG. Propaganda includes taking isolated incidents and
presenting them as typical or widespread in order to give a false
impression. It worked on you.
> In fact, if PeTA just generated lies and propaganda,
> then why would they need to investigate criminal activities of animal
> abuse, taking undercover video, spending THEIR time and energy?
To generate donations.
> By the way -- PeTA itself does not do undercover police operations
> and surveillance videotaping -- perfectly consistent with the way
> you feel things should be. No animal rights group has the money to do
> that!
How would you know?
> PeTA is simply a repository
> of videotapes or testimony often GIVEN to them
> by ex-employees of animal testing facilities or meat-packing plants
> who are fired for whistleblowing.
Disgruntled workers who are looking for ways to get back at the employer
who fired them, and make a few bucks in the process.
[..]
> And my family was vegetarian before me. And nobody forced it on me.
Are you the same religion as your family? Do you have the same language
and culture? Naturally. You never had a chance to make an objective
choice.
[..]
> Ok. Then may I ask: how much of land which is used to grow
> grass, wheat, whatever to feed cattle -- what % of that land can be
> grown to soybeans, whatever, to feed people directly (soymilk, say)?
Irrelevant, there is already more than enough arable land to grow all
the soy people want. There are worldwide surpluses of every grain.
> If you wish to object to the claims that humans could eat off the land
> more efficiently at a lower level than by eating higher on the food
> chain,
> then why not start by answering THIS question?
Efficiency is not the most important determinant people use in choosing
behaviour, ever.
[..]
> SOMEBODY gives activists money. That is why I call people who
> work for animals what they SHOULD be called: animal welfare/rights
> WORKERS. I just got a letter from PeTA saying some big donor wants
> to give matching funds.
Did the ploy work? Did you send them some money?
> I am not as obsessed about definitions of words like "vegetarian"
> or "human rights activist" or "soldier" as you are. Those words are
> only means to an end. I care about TOTAL cause and effect,
> cost versus benefit to EACH individual, and justice.
Your words are like turds, they slide out easily and have about as much
significance.
> I have always wondered what is wrong with calling a Navy or Army
> or Marine soldier a "human rights activist", since they clearly
> fight for SOME person's human right not to be murdered or unjustly
> imprisoned or impoverished.
Not necessarily. They may be fighting for the ability of one country's
currency to remain in a position of dominance in the world, or for the
ability of one country to control more resources.
[..]
swamp
Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.
Go Sox!
--swamp
Jonathan Ball
Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.
Jonathan Ball
ONE exceptionally dimwitted goofball named "Polly"
(sheesh) halfway agreed with it. She used to describe
it as a "'neat' side benefit". To whom, she didn't
say, but it seemed evident to me she meant it was a
benefit to *humans*, not to any animals. It's further
obvious she meant to humans *like her*. See
http://tinyurl.com/r90b
As far as I can recall, she's the only one. She was a
good pal and confederate to that fat ugly asshole Sue
Bitchup, so that ought to tell you something.
swamp
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>swamp wrote:
[snip]
>> Go Sox!
>
>Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.
Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
both lose.
Admittedly bitter,
--swamp
Unknown
>piddock wrote:
>
>> "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message news:<rx0jb.330$
>>
>>
>>
>>>and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals.
>>
>>
>> And you anti-animal meat-eating folks
>
>Nope. Wanting to eat animals doesn't make one
>anti-animal. You're a moron.
You are a moron Jon, sadly born to it.
>> murder thousands upon thousands of humans each year
>
>Nope. Strike two. First, accidental industrial deaths
>aren't murder, by definition. It's conceivable that
>human deaths due to negligence might be prosecuted as
>manslaughter, but that's pretty unusual.
>
>> with the unnecessary pressure and pollution you put on
>> society to maintain your lifestyle, including people getting maimed in
>> processing plants,
>
>Where?
>
>> to the additional trasportation needed
>> to deliver meat each minute of the day, refrigeration processes.
>> I can add up a LOT more way you anti-animal cultists are also anti-human
>> than you can find that vegans deliberately hurt animals.
>
>Nope. Not anti-animal, not anti-human.
>
>>
>>
>>>your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might
>>>figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem.
>>
>>
>> GET THE FUCK OFF VEGAN NEWSGROUPS!
>
>MAKE ME, cocksucker! Yeah, you puny fucking queer!
>Let's see you MAKE me. Fucking gutless, powerless
>fuckdrip.
Best snip it hear, there is something obscene about a lame brain dwarf
called jonathan ball pretending he is rock hard.
Why the nymshift jon?
. . . . . . . .
The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...
/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'`< '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
<----. __ / __ \
<----|====O)))==) \) /====
<----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/
I'm a horny devil when riled.
pete who?
-=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97
.""--.._
[] `'--.._
||__ `'-,
`)||_ ```'--.. \
_ /|//} ``--._ |
.'` `'. /////} `\/
/ .""".\ //{///
/ /_ _`\\ // `||
| |(_)(_)|| _// ||
| | /\ )| _///\ ||
| |L====J | / |/ | ||
/ /'-..-' / .'` \ | ||
/ | :: | |_.-` | \ ||
/| `\-::.| | \ | ||
/` `| / | | | / ||
|` \ | / / \ | ||
| `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | ||
/ /` `\ || ||
| . / \|| ||
| | |/ ||
/ / | ( ||
/ . / ) ||
| \ | ||
/ | / ||
|\ / | ||
\ `-._ | / ||
\ ,//`\ /` | ||
///\ \ | \ ||
|||| ) |__/ | ||
|||| `.( | ||
`\\` /` / ||
/` / ||
jgs / | ||
| \ ||
/ | ||
/` \ ||
/` | ||
`-.___,-. .-. ___,' ||
`---'` `'----'`
I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic!
tortrix
> > of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany.
> > Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for
> > most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire!
>
> You're a nitwit. Just because people have lived without freedom in the
> past is not a reason to deny it to them now.
Hey -- this is the SAME argument right-wingers and conservatives use
to justify censoring anti-war critics of the president in America:
that just because somebody else is denied freedom in the past or
somewhere else, then Michael Moore should not use HIS legal and well-earned
right to take his one and only opportunity to speak out, etc.
I do not want to falsely label all pro-war people as right-wingers
and conservatives, since there are good reasons to go to war
(to free people and animals). But many of the so-called
pro-war protestors have no concept of giving taxpayers a CHOICE
about which wars they wish to support or criticize. These are the
right-winger extremists.
I DO actually like your attempts to make a distinction between
a "soldier" and a "human rights activist". <snipped below>
However, even abstract purposes like you mentioned:
fighting for one COUNTRY to have dominance over the resources of another
-- STILL can and must be brought down to the reductionistic level
of what a sentient being can observe: a human of ONE country is
being given more right or access to property and resources than another.
So a soldier is still fighting for some human rights.
To keep this relevant to this newsgroup: the same is true if we
replace the word "human" with "animal".
> How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order
> to have will, an animal must exist first.
It is called BREEDING. Look into it.
Jonathan Ball
I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA
who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says
that he roots for injuries.
>
> Admittedly bitter,
As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and
Miamians wanted to see.
Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the
business of the sport enough to know much about how
teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is
well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know
that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the
Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times
writing that this Florida team was built more in the
good old fashioned way: player development and
"normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings.
As I also said before, I'd root for the national team
from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the
Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders
in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in
hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team
I hated that much.
usual suspect
> Hey -- this is the SAME argument right-wingers and conservatives use
> to justify censoring anti-war critics of the president in America:
You blooming idiot. Nobody has been censored in America. Responding to
the critics and their hysteria is NOT censorship, it's free speech.
> that just because somebody else is denied freedom in the past or
> somewhere else, then Michael Moore should not use HIS legal and well-earned
> right to take his one and only opportunity to speak out, etc.
That fat slob chose to politicize an awards show. He's had, and still
has, forums open to rant and rave as he's wont to do. Suggesting that
his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's
about good taste. As far as whether or not he earned an Oscar for his
deceitful mockumentary, I'll leave it to the Academy. I didn't see it,
and I probably won't.
> I do not want to falsely label all pro-war people as right-wingers
> and conservatives, since there are good reasons to go to war
> (to free people and animals).
Our self-preservation was also a very good reason for war. We also
happened to liberate the people of Iraq from a brutal thug dictator.
According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.
> But many of the so-called
> pro-war protestors have no concept of giving taxpayers a CHOICE
> about which wars they wish to support or criticize.
You've no concept of our laws if you think that. We don't hold elections
just to allow ninnies to pontificate their opposition to war. You were,
and remain, free to oppose any facet of our government you want. Your
opportunity to support or oppose those facets occurs every two years for
the House of Representatives, four years for President, and six years
for Senate.
> These are the right-winger extremists.
Non sequitur. Leftist administrations have entangled us in more wars, to
which even leftists objected, than "right-wingers." That doesn't make
them extremists, it only tells us they operate on standards that rise
above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
action in Iraq. The President still enjoys the support of the majority
of Americans despite all the negative press and vilification from prats
like you.
> I DO actually like your attempts to make a distinction between
> a "soldier" and a "human rights activist". <snipped below>
The two aren't necessarily the same. You're not very bright, are you.
> However, even abstract purposes like you mentioned:
> fighting for one COUNTRY to have dominance over the resources of another
Some of us would argue that is NOT an abstract purpose. It's quite
concrete. Ask Saddam and his dead boys.
> -- STILL can and must be brought down to the reductionistic level
> of what a sentient being can observe: a human of ONE country is
> being given more right or access to property and resources than another.
> So a soldier is still fighting for some human rights.
Property and resources are human rights, but the taking of them by force
may be a violation of said rights. How is that fighting for rights?
Consider Saddam's rise to power and his use of the military to control
resources and subjugate the population. The result was a loss of rights,
even though soldiers were being used for Saddam's evil purposes.
Contrast that to selfless allied actions which deposed Saddam and are
now restoring human rights.
It's like a knife: a deadly tool in the wrong hands, but able to give
life in the hands of a surgeon. You really lack a clear grasp of the issue.
> To keep this relevant to this newsgroup: the same is true if we
> replace the word "human" with "animal".
Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have. It is a
peculiar concept which is of recent origin. Its popularity may be
increasing, albeit marginally, but only because of the urbanization of
our species.
>>How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order
>>to have will, an animal must exist first.
>
> It is called BREEDING. Look into it.
No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
fertilization? While you're at it, please explain what an animal's will
is and how you know animals have wills.
swamp
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>swamp wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:20:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>swamp wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>>Go Sox!
>>>
>>>Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.
>>
>>
>> Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
>> Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
>> both lose.
>
>I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA
>who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says
>that he roots for injuries.
I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite
understood them. Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so
naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so
I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite
team is whoever's playing Notre Dame. And I like a good hit as much as
anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just
kids playin' ball...
>As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and
>Miamians wanted to see.
They'll get great ratings on the East coast. Our side, they'll be
lucky to outdraw the History channel.
>Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the
>business of the sport enough to know much about how
>teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is
>well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know
>that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the
>Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times
>writing that this Florida team was built more in the
>good old fashioned way: player development and
>"normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings.
More in the old-fashioned way this time than Huizenga's Marlins, yes,
but Pudge was bought. I still have problems rooting for them.
>As I also said before, I'd root for the national team
>from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the
>Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders
>in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in
>hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team
>I hated that much.
You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach,
elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge?
I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match
my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie
stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World
Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the
Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined.
--swamp
Jonathan Ball
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>swamp wrote:
>>
>>>Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
>>>Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
>>>both lose.
>>
>>I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA
>>who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says
>>that he roots for injuries.
>
>
> I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite
> understood them.
They hate USC, and no one likes ND.
> Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so
> naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so
> I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite
> team is whoever's playing Notre Dame.
That's what UCLA students and alumni say about USC.
I did two years at community college, then completed
undergrad at [lowers voice to whisper] USC. I was
badly fooled. It wasn't a good school. It was L.A.'s
connections school: where young white men went to get
into some dull moneymaking thing like real estate
development or accounting, and women went to meet the
budding real estate developer or accountant to get
married. I got to grad school at UCLA and realized I
was woefully unprepared. UCLA was and is an excellent
school, just a tiny nudge below Berkeley; USC was junk.
USC has gotten a lot better than it once was, but it
still does not match UCLA academically.
> And I like a good hit as much as
> anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just
> kids playin' ball...
My friend was only expressing his disgust for both
schools, not truly rooting for injuries.
>
>
>>As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and
>>Miamians wanted to see.
>
>
> They'll get great ratings on the East coast. Our side, they'll be
> lucky to outdraw the History channel.
>
>
>>Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the
>>business of the sport enough to know much about how
>>teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is
>>well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know
>>that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the
>>Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times
>>writing that this Florida team was built more in the
>>good old fashioned way: player development and
>>"normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings.
>
>
> More in the old-fashioned way this time than Huizenga's Marlins, yes,
> but Pudge was bought. I still have problems rooting for them.
>
>
>>As I also said before, I'd root for the national team
>
>>from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the
>
>>Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders
>>in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in
>>hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team
>>I hated that much.
>
>
> You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach,
> elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge?
I certainly didn't like them, but I wouldn't say I
hated them, although in retrospect I should have hated
that racist shitbag Auerbach. I still remember McHale
practically decapitating Kurt Rambis, and nothing
happened to him.
It seemed to me the team to hate in that era, for
Lakers fans, as the bad boy Pistons, not the Celtics.
The Celtics we just wanted to beat, and soundly.
>
> I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match
> my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie
> stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World
> Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the
> Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined.
I lived in the Bay Area for a while and became kind of
a secondary Giants fan, although I can't stand Bonds.
I stopped hating the Cowboys as soon as Staubach
retired and we quit hearing that "America's Team" crapola.
exploratory
> his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's
Yes it is. It was FREE SPEECH for Michael Moore to discuss whatever
the hell he
wanted. It is for the Academy Awards people to decide what they want
to air.
If you did not want to hear it, then you could change the channel.
Because YOU would say the EXACT same thing if animal rights people
complained
about inappropriate advertising and promotion by the meat industry in
situations which THEY did not ask for. You would defend every action
of
promoting the MEAT agenda as "free speech" and wrongly accuse
animal rights people of trying to "censor" you.
Why do I have to take a trip on a Greyhound bus and have the bus
deliberately pull over to a McDonald's on an unscheduled unannounced
stop? There is NOTHING about "free speech" or the "First Amendment"
in doing that. Assholes like you would bitch and complain if the bus
stopped at an all-vegetarian health food store.
You are just jealous because his books are so popular.
> According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
> in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.
What polls? You may be true, and I hope you are, but it is
ridiculously
naive that a serious scientific poll has been taken in a country
struggling
to build itself out of the ruins of a war.
> above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
> you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
> action in Iraq.
That is false, at best. Polls are not scientific, because they do not
answer
the questions people wish to ask. You are SO hung up on opinion
polls, like they mean ANYthing.
And being in the minority does not have ANYthing to do with the
correctness
of one's argument.
I have personally emailed President Bush asking him to take military
action
against OTHER countries, such as dictatorships in South America (most
notably,
Peru) and elsewhere. I would be all for war if it meant freeing
billions
of animals from factory farms and torture laboratories in other
countries!
But then YOU would OPPOSE that war, since you would preach blindly
against the violence on one side.
> Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have.
That is just YOUR opinion. Many humans believe they DO have rights.
> No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
> breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
> fertilization?
Non-sequitur. I never said animals have a will before, or even after,
fertilization. HUMANS have a will, however, and deliberately choose
to bring male and female animals together, KNOWING full well that the
animals will mate. Or, humans will simply artificially inseminate the
animals.
You are like a person giving a loaded gun to a child and then blaming
the child if the child shoots themself. After all, YOU did not choose
to make the child shoot themself. But, would you argue that children
have no rights (one of which may be the right to be kept out of
deliberate danger by handing them a loaded gun)?
exploratory
> The fact that Fuckwit wants to disregard: we all see
> through your lamebrained, fuckwitted trick to try to
> "promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
> quality of life.
Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole!
I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect
and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian.
Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter and others who deny
that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed
and who suffer.
They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough
times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major
tenets of
debunking -- an irrational form of discourse.
The cartoon character Zap Brannigan on the great tv show, "Futurama",
is NO exaggeration with
his insane jabbering and blaming OTHERS for HIS enormous screw-ups.
Rick Etter and Usual Suspect have Zap Brannigan beat.
exploratory
> >fuckdrip.
<snip> Nice ASCII artwork, <> ! It seems we got to Jon Ball after all,
pointy brackets!
LordSnooty
wrote:
>Cash Cow <Mo...@URPC.net> wrote in message news:<V7Ejb.3147
>
>> The fact that Fuckwit wants to disregard: we all see
>> through your lamebrained, fuckwitted trick to try to
>> "promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
>> quality of life.
>
>Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole!
>
>I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect
Who is also a dwarf called J Ball who has a flat spot on his
backside.& on his forehead.
>and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian.
>Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter
Who is also a dwarf with a flat spot on his head.
> and others who deny
>that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed
>and who suffer.
That would be Crutch Pissflaps, who is also a dwarf, and who also has
a flat spot on his forehead.
The clues are there, all dwarves, all poison and all have flatspots
where they were separated at birth
Now guess who was joined where?
And you have your reasons for the pro hunt stupidity.
>They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough
>times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major
>tenets of
>debunking -- an irrational form of discourse.
>
>The cartoon character Zap Brannigan on the great tv show, "Futurama",
>is NO exaggeration with
>his insane jabbering and blaming OTHERS for HIS enormous screw-ups.
>Rick Etter and Usual Suspect have Zap Brannigan beat.
'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
LordSnooty
wrote:
Just how dangerous can a poison, pygmy dwarf be, even with two twins?
Dutch
> being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed and who
suffer.
You assume that, you keep saying it, let's see some proof.
> They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough
> times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major
> tenets of
> debunking -- an irrational form of discourse.
Quite so, that's what you're doing.
[..]
Dutch
> "<>" <> wrote in message > >Let's see you MAKE me. Fucking gutless,
powerless
> > >fuckdrip.
>
> <snip> Nice ASCII artwork, <>
It's plagarized.
! It seems we got to Jon Ball after all,
> pointy brackets!
You've been agreeing with him.
Dutch
> I never said animals have a will.
Yes you did. Don't you remember this?
"No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient
animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence
because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice" for
petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their whole
lives."
You think animals are born "against their will". Everything you say is
loaded, irrational emotion, not reason.
exploratory
> you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
> action in Iraq.
Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq.
So, the majority of which select part of the population do
you want to talk about?
I guarantee: a MAJORITY of the population of the US, even the world,
would love Bill Gates to give them each a $1000. Forcing Bill Gates
to do so just because a majority wants it does not make it right.
(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
Iraq may be right for other reasons.)
The essence of "majority rule" is considering the majority opinion
of THOSE AFFECTED MOST. For example, if you want to support the War
in Iraq using this concept, you have to say something like, the
victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and brutality form a majority over
Saddam Hussein himself
and his immediate family. Otherwise, you are forced to face the
reality
that a clear majority of Iraqis voted for Hussein -- 100% in fact.
In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
majority.
I don't give a damn about the opinion of some arbitrary majority
who know nothing about an issue, never researched it, never did
anything
to acquire the knowledge, etc.
What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work,
suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers.
Bob Yates
> Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq.
> So, the majority of which select part of the population do
> you want to talk about?
I have trouble believing that the majority of people in the world even
care if there is an Iraq, much less if there is a war there.
swamp
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>swamp wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>swamp wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
>>>>Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
>>>>both lose.
>>>
>>>I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA
>>>who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says
>>>that he roots for injuries.
>>
>>
>> I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite
>> understood them.
>
>They hate USC, and no one likes ND.
Except NBC.
>> Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so
>> naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so
>> I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite
>> team is whoever's playing Notre Dame.
>
>That's what UCLA students and alumni say about USC.
>
>I did two years at community college, then completed
>undergrad at [lowers voice to whisper] USC. I was
>badly fooled. It wasn't a good school. It was L.A.'s
>connections school: where young white men went to get
>into some dull moneymaking thing like real estate
>development or accounting, and women went to meet the
>budding real estate developer or accountant to get
>married. I got to grad school at UCLA and realized I
>was woefully unprepared. UCLA was and is an excellent
>school, just a tiny nudge below Berkeley; USC was junk.
> USC has gotten a lot better than it once was, but it
>still does not match UCLA academically.
At the risk of conspiracy accusations, I see nothing wrong w/
attending CCs or SC. A close friend did exactly that. I wanted to go
to Cal, but didn't quite meet its requirements out of high school.
Didn't want to go to SC back then, but its academic standing has
definitely moved up since. Longer ago than I'd care to admit.
>> And I like a good hit as much as
>> anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just
>> kids playin' ball...
>
>My friend was only expressing his disgust for both
>schools, not truly rooting for injuries.
Yeah, I know some UCLA grads... Not too sure about them when SC's
playing... Hope you're right.
[snip]
>> You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach,
>> elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge?
>
>I certainly didn't like them, but I wouldn't say I
>hated them, although in retrospect I should have hated
>that racist shitbag Auerbach. I still remember McHale
>practically decapitating Kurt Rambis, and nothing
>happened to him.
I'm guessing I'm more of a sports fan than you are, but am equally
opposed to AR. I can provide decent suggestions on veggie chili
recipes in compensation
>It seemed to me the team to hate in that era, for
>Lakers fans, as the bad boy Pistons, not the Celtics.
>The Celtics we just wanted to beat, and soundly.
To each his own. I hate the Celtics. Pistons... indifferent.
>> I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match
>> my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie
>> stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World
>> Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the
>> Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined.
>
>I lived in the Bay Area for a while and became kind of
>a secondary Giants fan,
God save your soul... ;)
>....although I can't stand Bonds.
>I stopped hating the Cowboys as soon as Staubach
>retired and we quit hearing that "America's Team" crapola.
I don't like the Braves for the same "America's team" reason. Guess I
hold grudges longer than you.
Fish won tonite. Anything's better than the evil empire.
--swamp
Dutch
> What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work,
> suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers.
It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving self..
usual suspect
>>his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's
>
> Yes it is.
No, it wasn't censorship. He made his remarks. Nobody bleeped his words,
nobody stopped him from saying them. The fact that others remarked about
and/or criticized his hate-speech is NOT censorship. It, too, is free
speech, even when others suggest he should have chosen a more
appropriate forum for his tirade.
> It was FREE SPEECH for Michael Moore to discuss whatever
> the hell he wanted.
He did, didn't he?
> It is for the Academy Awards people to decide what they want
> to air.
They did. Members of the Academy, for the most part, apparently did not
care for his out-of-bounds remarks. They booed Moore.
> If you did not want to hear it, then you could change the channel.
I don't watch much television, and I certainly don't care to watch the
wretched excesses of Hollywood types awarding each other. I heard the
remarks on news channels -- further evidence that the fat shit's
statements were NOT censored by given far more air play than they
deserved. You are a fucking idiot if you consider THAT censorship.
> Because YOU would say the EXACT same thing if animal rights people
> complained
> about inappropriate advertising and promotion by the meat industry in
> situations which THEY did not ask for.
You're the one bordering on calls of censorship. Meat advertisements
aren't exactlt free speech, though: advertising costs money.
> You would defend every action of
> promoting the MEAT agenda as "free speech" and wrongly accuse
> animal rights people of trying to "censor" you.
No, see above. You have no clue about what censorship is, much less free
speech. Nobody said the fat shithead couldn't say what he did, they only
suggested he do it in a more appropriate venue. While Hollywood has been
particularly partisan in the past, most people have been civil during
awards shows. That was the point of the people -- who probably agreed
with the fat turd more than they disagreed with him -- who booed.
> Why do I have to take a trip on a Greyhound bus and have the bus
> deliberately pull over to a McDonald's on an unscheduled unannounced
> stop?
You don't have to take a bus. I don't know what Greyhound's policies
are, but I bet that's an issue between Greyhound and their drivers. If
you don't want anything from McD's, stay on the bus. It's not that
difficult, you prat.
> There is NOTHING about "free speech" or the "First Amendment"
> in doing that.
Irrelevant. You're free to complain to Greyhound if it really bothers
you (though I find it awfully petty of you to whine about it).
> Assholes like you would bitch and complain if the bus
> stopped at an all-vegetarian health food store.
I don't know if I would since I'm a vegetarian.
> You are just jealous because his books are so popular.
I'm not jealous. He preaches to a small but frenzied choir.
>>According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
>>in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.
>
> What polls?
Gallup, you dolt.
Baghdad residents support US presence for now - poll
14/10/2003 - 06:58:51
More than two-thirds of Baghdad residents would like to see US
troops stay longer than a few more months, but many still have
sharply mixed feelings about their presence troops, a poll says.
The Gallup poll found that 71% of the Iraqi capital’s residents
felt US troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26%
felt the troops should leave that soon.
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=67981220&p=6798y8xx
> You may be true,
I am.
> and I hope you are,
Liar.
> but it is ridiculously
> naive that a serious scientific poll has been taken in a country
> struggling to build itself out of the ruins of a war.
No, it isn't naive. Science can and does happen in the strangest places.
>>above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
>>you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
>>action in Iraq.
>
> That is false, at best.
It's true whether you like it or not.
> Polls are not scientific,
You obviously do not understand polling.
> because they do not answer
> the questions people wish to ask.
Polls *may* be skewed by the way questions are asked, but even poorly
done polls can gauge public sentiment. In the case of the polling done
by every news organization in the US prior to war with Iraq, every poll
showed widespread support for taking action regardless of which
pollsters (Gallup, Harris, Pew, Quinnipiac College, et al) asked questions.
> You are SO hung up on opinion
> polls, like they mean ANYthing.
I'm not hung up on polls. I pointed out something that goes against what
you said previously. Stop shooting the messenger, you fudgepacker.
> And being in the minority does not have ANYthing to do with the
> correctness of one's argument.
I didn't say it did. Take a look at my defense of minority rights in a
democracy in my exchanges with "Jane" in the "it's too easy" thread.
> I have personally emailed President Bush asking him to take military
> action
> against OTHER countries, such as dictatorships in South America (most
> notably,
> Peru) and elsewhere.
Try writing your congressman and senators. Only Congerss can authorize
such military actions.
> I would be all for war if it meant freeing billions
> of animals from factory farms and torture laboratories in other
> countries!
Yes, you sure do have your priorities straight, misanthrope.
> But then YOU would OPPOSE that war, since you would preach blindly
> against the violence on one side.
No, I would oppose a war for liberation of other species because it
would be a complete waste of valuable resources. I don't "preach"
anything -- I believe terrorism by ARAs is wrong.
>>Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have.
>
> That is just YOUR opinion.
Legally, it is a fact.
> Many humans believe they DO have rights.
Appeal to popularity. Some people believed David Koresh would rise from
the dead. He hasn't. What people some believe doesn't make it so.
>>No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
>>breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
>>fertilization?
>
> Non-sequitur.
Sequitur. The OP asked a question and your answer evaded it.
> I never said animals have a will before, or even after,
> fertilization.
The OP responded to you with:
How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"?
In order to have will, an animal must exist first.
Your response evaded the issue and suggested he look into breeding.
> HUMANS have a will, however, and deliberately choose
> to bring male and female animals together, KNOWING full well that the
> animals will mate. Or, humans will simply artificially inseminate the
> animals.
Yes, we do that to fulfill a demand. FWIW, male and female animals often
get together without man's interaction, knowing full well that they will
fuck and have offspring. That is one of the three drives of animals:
mating, defense of territory, food.
> You are like a person giving a loaded gun to a child and then blaming
> the child if the child shoots themself.
Non sequitur.
> After all, YOU did not choose to make the child shoot themself.
HIMself. Singular. Still non sequitur.
> But, would you argue that children
> have no rights (one of which may be the right to be kept out of
> deliberate danger by handing them a loaded gun)?
Correct, I believe children don't have rights. Minors and others deemed
incompetent, like the retarded or infirm, are afforded protections under
the law. Rights assume a measure of responsibility, and the law respects
the fact that most minors are not yet responsible. It's a legal
distinction, but a very valid one even under our current legal system
(attacks on this distinction have occurred in recent years, but the
principle remains).
Your analogy, though, remains non sequitur.