'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
O.pearl
'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
. . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE)
..
There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the best
choice. There are many podcasts that focus on the Animal Cruelty/Animal
Rights reasons while others add the health and environmental reasons.
The "Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions for a Sustainable Environment" podcast
will focus on the Environmental Reasons.
..
Richard Schwartz "An Alternative US Foreign Policy"
Mike Hudak "Violence and Social Harassment"
Ken Midkiff "Repetition Of A Lie"
Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates
Pamela Rice "Fossil Fuel Alchemy"
Kathy Freston "A Few More 'Inconvenient Truths' "
Howard Lyman and Jerry Cook "Environmental Effects of Animal Factory
Farming"
Karen Davis "Why Industrial Chicken Production is Wrong"
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri "Meat and Climate Change"
George Monbiot "Why Vegans Were Right All Along"
Richard Schwartz "Ten Strategies Toward a Vegetarian Conscious World"
Earth & Sky "Newspapers Neglect Food Impact On Climate"
Cesar Chavez "The Basis For Peace"
Dan Brook "Eating for Personal, Public, and Planetary Health"
Mike Hudak "Politics Trumps Science in Rangeland Management"
10 Online Videos on Meat and Global Warming
David Pimentel "Reducing Energy Inputs in the US Food System"
LOBSA "Vegan/AR Video Collection"
Kathy Freston "Vegetarian is the New Prius"
Mike Hudak "Ranchers Mortgage Our Natural Capital"
Aryan Tavakkoli "Misuse Of Water And Soil Through Meat Production"
Lee Hall "Veganism: It's Good for the Earth -- But Is It a Realistic Goal?"
Ken Midkiff "CAFO's: Air And Water Pollution"
Will Tuttle "World Peace Diet"
Pamela Rice: "World Water III"
Dan Brook: "Meat and Global Warming"
UN Says "Eat Less Meat To Curb Global Warming"
Richard Schwartz "Responding to Environmental Crises"
Howard Lyman "Spongiform"
..
http://h2opodcast.com/vsse.html
Dutch
>
> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the best
> choice.
For whom?
Raising animals or hunting is the *only* choice for a large
part of the world's human population.
You have turned a decent lifestyle alternative into a
religion, and by doing so so corrupted it that it has lost
whatever positive value it had.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>>
>> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
>> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
>> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the best
>> choice.
>
> For whom?
Everyone.
> Raising animals or hunting is the *only* choice for a large
> part of the world's human population.
Ipse dixit.
<ad hominem snipped>
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:Gsq6m.11398$3o6...@newsfe24.iad...
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>
>>> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
>>> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
>>> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the
>>> best choice.
>>
>> For whom?
>
> Everyone.
I'm sure the Inuit are impressed, or the many tribes in East
Asia and Africa who depend on herds of goats because the
harsh nature of the land and climate makes agriculture
impractical. Veganism is for comfortable western dingbats
with too much time on their hands.
>> Raising animals or hunting is the *only* choice for a large part of
>> the world's human population.
>
> Ipse dixit.
What a loon.
> <truth I can't stand to read snipped>
Get back in my killfile you nutcase.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:Gsq6m.11398$3o6...@newsfe24.iad...
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
>>>> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
>>>> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the
>>>> best choice.
>>>
>>> For whom?
>>
>> Everyone.
>
> I'm sure the Inuit are impressed,
'American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 27, 916-925, 1974
Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos
Richard B. Mazess Ph.D.1 and Warren Mather B.S.1
1 From the Bone Mineral Laboratory, Department of Radiology
(Medical Physics), University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison,
Wisconsin 53706
Direct photon absorptiometry was used to measure the bone mineral
content of forearm bones in Eskimo natives of the north coast of
Alaska. The sample consisted of 217 children, 89 adults, and 107
elderly (over 50 years). Eskimo children had a lower bone mineral
content than United States whites by 5 to 10% but this was consistent
with their smaller body and bone size. Young Eskimo adults (20 to 39
years) of both sexes were similar to whites, but after age 40 the
Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from 10 to 15% relative to
white standards. Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations,
has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutritional
factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low
calcium intakes may be implicated.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/916
But these days they reportedly eat a lot of /imported/ junk food..
> or the many tribes in East
> Asia and Africa who depend on herds of goats because the
> harsh nature of the land and climate makes agriculture
> impractical. Veganism is for comfortable western dingbats
> with too much time on their hands.
'"Flesh foods are not the best nourishment for human beings and were
not the food of our primitive ancestors," observes Dr. Kellogg. "There
is nothing necessary or desirable for human nutrition to be found in
meats or flesh foods which is not found in and derived from vegetable
products."
Although writing in 1923, Dr. Kellogg's words confirm a recent statement
by the American Dietetic Association, that, "most of mankind for most
of human history has lived on vegetarian or near vegetarian diets."
"The human race in general has never really adopted flesh as a staple food,"
explains Dr. Kellogg. "The Anglo-Saxons and a few savage tribes are about
the only flesh-eating people. The people of other nations use meat only as
a luxury or an emergency diet. According to Mori, the Japanese peasant of
the interior is almost an exclusive vegetarian. He eats fish once or twice a
month and meat once or twice a year."
Dr. Kellogg writes that in 1899, the Emperor of Japan appointed a
commission to determine whether it was necessary to add meat to the
nation's diet to improve the people's strength and stature. The
commission concluded that as far as meat was concerned, "the Japanese
had always managed to do without it, and that their powers of endurance
and their athletic prowess exceeded that of any of the Caucasian races.
Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."
According to Dr. Kellogg, "the rice diet of the Japanese is supplemented
by the free use of peanuts, soy beans, and greens, which...constitute a
wholly sufficient bill of fare. Throughout the Island Empire, rice is largely
used, together with buckwheat, barley, wheat, and millet. Turnips and
radishes, yams and sweet potatos are frequently used, also cucumbers,
pumpkins and squashes. The soy bean is held in high esteem and used
largely in the form of miso, a puree prepared from the bean and fermented;
also to-fu, a sort of cheese; and cho-yu, which is prepared by mixing the
pulverized beans with wheat flour, salt, and water and fermenting from
one and a half to five years.
"The Chinese peasant lives on essentially the same diet, as do also the
Siamese, the Koreans, and most other Oriental peoples. Three-fourths
of the world's population eat so little meat that it cannot be regarded as
anything more than an incidental factor in their bill of fare. The countless
millions of China," writes Dr. Kellogg, "are for the most part flesh-
abstainers. In fact, at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the world
make so little use of flesh that it can hardly be considered an essential
part of their dietary...The ancient vegetarian races of Mexico and Peru
had attained to a high degree of civilization when discovered by Cortez,
and were certainly far more gentle and amiable in character than were
their flesh-eating conquerors, whose treachery and cold-blooded
atrocities so nearly resulted in the complete extinction of a noble race."
Dr. Kellogg reports that the South American bark-gatherers live
"almost wholly upon bananas and other equally simple vegetable food...
Certain tribes of South American Indians who subsist wholly upon a
non-flesh dietary, are remarkable for vigor and endurance...the natives
of the great plateau of the Andes subsist almost wholly upon corn and
potatos...the old Peruvians...were practically vegetarians." Dr. Kellogg
quotes Charles Darwin as having described the laborers in the mines of
Chile living "exclusively on vegetable food, including many seeds of
leguminous plants."
Concerning Central Africa, Dr. Kellogg admits, "It is true that practically
all the natives eat meat on occasion, but...the chief sustenance of the
native is obtained from the products of the earth, which are most abundant
in this fertile region. Maize, yuma, manioc, coconuts, palm cabbage,
bananas, and a great number of fruits and nuts afford ample variety and
sufficient nourishment without flesh foods."
Dr. Kellogg cites a Mr. Sarvis of the Boston Transcript, who wrote:
"The Bantu race, who inhabit the great part of Central Africa, are almost
entirely vegetarian... Generally, their food consists largely of a kind of
millet, which is almost tasteless... Bananas and sweet potatos also form
a very important part of the diet of the African races of the central parts
...The natives also eat vegetables and salads of many kinds. In a few
districts cattle are kept for the milk and butter, but the natives do not
kill the animals for food...The Kavirondos wear no clothing whatever,
and they are absolute vegetarians, the banana forming the base of their
food."
The Ladrone Islands were discovered by the Spaniards around 1620.
There were no animals on the islands except birds, which the natives
did not eat. The natives had never seen fire, and they lived entirely on
plant foods-fruits and roots in their natural state. They were found
to be vigorous, active, and of good longevity.
Dr. Kellogg gives an account of the "Silesians, Roumanians, and many
Oriental people," all of whom he says "are almost exclusively vegetarians,
and enjoy a degree of vigor, vitality, and longevity not found among
flesh-eating nations."
In his 1583 text, Anatomy of Abuses, Stubbes wrote that previous
generations "fed upon graine, corne, roots, pulse, hearbes, weedes,
and such other baggage; and yet lived longer than we, were healthfuller
than we, of better complexion than we, and much stronger than we in
every respect." A century later, Macauley noted that, "meat was so
dear in price that hundreds of thousands of families scarcely knew the
taste of it," while half the population of England, "ate it not at all or
not more often than once a week."
Writing in the 1840s, Sylvester Graham observed: "The peasantry of
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy,
Switzerland, France, Spain, England, Scotland, Ireland, a considerable
portion of Russia and other parts of Europe subsist mainly on non-flesh
foods. The peasantry of modern Greece...subsist on coarse brown bread
and fruits. The peasantry in many parts of Russia live on very coarse
bread, with garlic and other vegetables; and like the same class in Greece,
Italy, etc., they are obliged to be extremely frugal even in this kind of food.
Yet they are (for the most part) healthy, vigorous, and active. Many of the
inhabitants of Germany live mainly on rye and barley, in the form of coarse
bread.
"The potato is the principle food of the Irish peasantry, and few portions
of the human family are more healthy, athletic, and active...That portion of
the peasantry of England and Scotland who subsist on their barley and
oatmeal bread, porridge, potatos, and other vegetables, with temperate,
cleanly habits (and surroundings) are able to endure more fatigue and
exposure than any other class of people in the same countries.
Three-fourths of the whole human family, in all periods of time...have
subsisted on non-flesh foods; and when their supplies have been abundant
and their habits in other respects correct, they have been well nourished."
Dr. Kellogg also found a vegetarian lifestyle to be the norm in much of
Europe: "An official report shows that the diet of the Swiss peasant
includes little or no meat. 'In the Schwyz canton, the people have long
lived on plant food, without flesh. They are a fine set of independent
mountaineers, and from this canton the freedom of the Swiss was born.'
The peasants of northern Italy eat meat twice a year. They are remarkably
robust and hearty.
"The hardy Scotch have never been great meat eaters. In the remote districts
kailbrose, shredded greens and oatmeal over which hot water is poured, is
eaten with or without milk...According to Douglas, writing in 1782, the diet
of the Scotch of the East Coast was then oatmeal and milk with vegetables.
He says: 'Flesh is never seen in the houses of the common farmers, except
at a baptism, a wedding, Christmas, or Shrovetide.'"
...'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html
>>> Raising animals or hunting is the *only* choice for a large part of
>>> the world's human population.
>>
>> Ipse dixit.
>
> What a loon.
What a delusional ignoramus.
>> <truth I can't stand to read snipped>
Dishonest edit.
> Get back in my killfile you nutcase.
Off you troll now, despicable lowlife.
MorrisonAndBoyd
> O.pearl wrote:
>> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
>> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
>> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the best
>> choice.
> For whom?
For anyone with a heart. Anyone who cares about sentient beings, even
if they're not the two-legged kind.
> Raising animals or hunting is the *only* choice for a large
> part of the world's human population.
That makes no sense. It's MANY TIMES more expensive, and more
resource-intensive (think water usage), to raise animals for food than
it is to raise plants for food.
> You have turned a decent lifestyle alternative into a
> religion, and by doing so so corrupted it that it has lost
> whatever positive value it had.
That's ludicrous. The reasons for being v*gan are valid REGARDLESS of
any proselytizing any one individual or group may do. What reasons?
Compassion. Refusing to participate in the torture and killing of
animals. Having respect for all sentient beings. Understanding that
animals feel and experience the same emotional and physical things
humans do. And so on.
--
CafePress screwing its shopkeepers. Please sign this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/help-CafePress-shopkeepers-earn-fair-pay
Linux users, be counted! Register with Linux counter: http://counter.li.org
Vegan/vegetarian, animal-related merchandise:
http://www.smartassproducts.com/sections_animals.shtml
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
>>> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
>>> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the
>>> best choice.
>
>> For whom?
>
> For anyone with a heart. Anyone who cares about sentient beings, even
> if they're not the two-legged kind.
You're suffering from the prototypical vegan delusion. ALL
forms of agriculture cause animal death, you're not
eliminating it by being a vegan, you're just refusing to
allow the evidence to appear on your plate.
>
>> Raising animals or hunting is the *only* choice for a large part of
>> the world's human population.
>
> That makes no sense. It's MANY TIMES more expensive, and more
> resource-intensive (think water usage), to raise animals for food than
> it is to raise plants for food.
Not all land supports plant agriculture.
>
>> You have turned a decent lifestyle alternative into a religion, and by
>> doing so so corrupted it that it has lost whatever positive value it had.
>
> That's ludicrous. The reasons for being v*gan are valid REGARDLESS of
> any proselytizing any one individual or group may do. What reasons?
> Compassion. Refusing to participate in the torture and killing of
> animals. Having respect for all sentient beings. Understanding that
> animals feel and experience the same emotional and physical things
> humans do. And so on.
You're participating plenty.
O.pearl
> MorrisonAndBoyd wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
>>>> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
>>>> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the
>>>> best choice.
>>
>>> For whom?
>>
>> For anyone with a heart. Anyone who cares about sentient beings, even
>> if they're not the two-legged kind.
>
> You're suffering from the prototypical vegan delusion.
Such a nice decent fellow, our ditch. What a joke.
"It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I thought I had
made someone feel a little uncomfortable, a little guilty about their diet. "
- Dutch, 21/8/2006.
And clearly it still does.
"Deluding myself felt good" - Dutch, Jun 4 2005.
And clearly it still does.
> ALL forms of agriculture cause animal death,
What animal deaths are caused by forest gardening?
http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/forestgarden/page2.html
What animal deaths are caused by organic horticulture?
Provide credible evidence.
> you're not
> eliminating it by being a vegan, you're just refusing to
> allow the evidence to appear on your plate.
"Dutch" accepts Davis' figures, below. (Conventional ag', probable forage crop).
'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land animals are raised
and slaughtered for human consumption.
....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice natural habits
like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast, the grass-fed cow, while able
to roam some distance in a fenced pasture, may suffer third-degree burns
(branding), have holes punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his
horns scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding naturally.
Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up to several hundred
miles without food, water, or protection from extreme heat or cold; then he is
killed in a conventional slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses
have been described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997). Suffice it to say, it is
hard to imagine that the pain experienced by a mouse as she or he is killed in
a harvester compares to the pain even a grass-fed cow must endure before
being killed.
..
Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop production
(15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). If this is true, then as long as
crop production uses less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to
deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an
omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as
grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver
the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be
produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares
used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar, 1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to obtain
the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-
vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill
0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals.
Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population
would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-
vegetarian population.
..'
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf
>>> Raising animals or hunting is the *only* choice for a large part of
>>> the world's human population.
>>
>> That makes no sense. It's MANY TIMES more expensive, and more
>> resource-intensive (think water usage), to raise animals for food than
>> it is to raise plants for food.
>
> Not all land supports plant agriculture.
From Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment. 1997. Pp. 56-73.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press "How Much Land Can Ten Billion
People Spare for Nature?"...
'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian diet people
can change the number that a plot can feed. And large numbers of people do
change their diets. The calories and protein available from present cropland
could provide a vegetarian diet to ten billion people. A diet requiring food
and feed totaling 6,000 calories daily for ten billion people, however, would
overwhelm the capability of present agriculture on present cropland. The
global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even water could produce far more
food than what ten billion people need.
..'
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=4767&page=56
Note that what is being referred to here is arable cropland, not including the
30% - 50% of land globally used for grazing domestic 'livestock' with the
destruction of natural habitat and ecological communities that entails. See:
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html (global perspective).
'Inefficient Food Production
Producing the equivalent amount of protein from meat takes 11 times the
amount of fossil fuel use compared to a vegetable based protein.
Further, producing the equivalent amount of animal protein takes 100 times
more water than for vegetable protein. Much of this use comes from growing
the crops and forage for livestock with agricultural irrigation accounting for
85% of freshwater use. [3] Fish protein also requires 14 times more fossil
fuels than that required to produce vegetable protein (when the fish are
caught via trawlers). [4]
In regard to meat and soy products, an equivalent amount of meat protein
requires 6 to 17 times the amount of land than soy protein. Additionally,
meat production requires 4.4 times the amount of water through intensive
irrigation, and 26 times the amount of water through rainfall alone,
compared to soy. Meat production also requires between 2.5 and 50 times
(depending on the intensity of agriculture) the fossil fuels than soy protein
requires. [4]
Comparing cheese produced with cows' milk or with lupin, cows' milk
cheese requires 5 times the land compared to lupin cheese, and cows' milk
cheese has between 9 to 21 times the environmental burden than lupin cheese.
[4]
A recent study found that a vegan diet had the lowest impact on the environment.
Organic farming was also better for the environment than conventional methods.
In assessing the impact of single food items beef had the biggest impact followed
by fish, cheese and milk. The sources of stress were from waste produced that
couldn't be used as fertilizer, land use, fossil fuel use and water use. The use of
water for irrigating lands and crops to feed cattle was noted as an inefficient use
of natural resources and unsustainable to feed future generations. It was also
noted that land clearing in developing countries is often used for grazing and crop
feeds for animals consumed in western countries rather than the crops being used
to feed local populations. [5]
Another recent study investigated ways to reduce the impact of livestock
production on the environment. Improved environmental practices were cited
as one recommendation, however current efficiency measures were noted as
not producing the amount of change required to significantly impact on emissions.
Thus it was proposed that western countries significantly reduce their red meat
consumption and that developing countries aim to reach this lower target,
labelled a constriction and convergence policy which was argued as the most
equitable way of addressing the problem. The authors commented that such an
approach would also have health benefits by reducing the prevalence of chronic
disease and lowering the contact between humans and zoonotic infections.
Increased communication, pricing signals and policies which reduce population
growth were all recommended to address the significant problem of ensuring
resources are able to meet future population needs. The authors concluded that
there are clear environmental benefits of plant-based diets. [6]
...'
http://www.ara.org.au/index.php/Go-Vegan/go-vegan-for-the-earth.html
>>> You have turned a decent lifestyle alternative into a religion, and by
>>> doing so so corrupted it that it has lost whatever positive value it had.
>>
>> That's ludicrous. The reasons for being v*gan are valid REGARDLESS of
>> any proselytizing any one individual or group may do. What reasons?
>> Compassion. Refusing to participate in the torture and killing of
>> animals. Having respect for all sentient beings. Understanding that
>> animals feel and experience the same emotional and physical things
>> humans do. And so on.
>
> You're participating plenty.
No, you're self-deluded plenty, bloody psycho troll.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:CHd9m.20135$8l4....@newsfe10.iad...
>> MorrisonAndBoyd wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
>>>>> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
>>>>> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the
>>>>> best choice.
>>>
>>>> For whom?
>>>
>>> For anyone with a heart. Anyone who cares about sentient beings,
>>> even if they're not the two-legged kind.
>>
>> You're suffering from the prototypical vegan delusion.
>
> Such a nice decent fellow, our ditch. What a joke.
Joke is right. I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless
monsters for his own gratification.
[..]
>>>> You have turned a decent lifestyle alternative into a religion, and
>>>> by doing so so corrupted it that it has lost whatever positive value
>>>> it had.
>>>
>>> That's ludicrous. The reasons for being v*gan are valid REGARDLESS
>>> of any proselytizing any one individual or group may do. What
>>> reasons? Compassion. Refusing to participate in the torture and
>>> killing of animals. Having respect for all sentient beings.
>>> Understanding that animals feel and experience the same emotional and
>>> physical things humans do. And so on.
>>
>> You're participating plenty.
>
> No, you're self-deluded plenty, bloody psycho troll.
Thanks for the demonstration of how a nice decent human being behaves.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:CHd9m.20135$8l4....@newsfe10.iad...
>>> MorrisonAndBoyd wrote:
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>>> 'Vegan - Vegetarian Solutions . . .
>>>>>> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE) ..
>>>>>> There are many reasons why the Vegan - Vegetarian lifestyle is the
>>>>>> best choice.
>>>>
>>>>> For whom?
>>>>
>>>> For anyone with a heart. Anyone who cares about sentient beings,
>>>> even if they're not the two-legged kind.
>>>
>>> You're suffering from the prototypical vegan delusion.
>>
>> Such a nice decent fellow, our ditch. What a joke.
>
> Joke is right. I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless
> monsters for his own gratification.
You are a heartless monster, and your evasion's noted, dishonest troll.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless
>> monsters for his own gratification.
>
> You are a heartless monster
I am not.
Narayan Archak
> 'Vegan- Vegetarian Solutions . . .
> . . . for a Sustainable Environment (VSSE)
> ..
> choice. There are many podcasts that focus on the Animal Cruelty/Animal
> Rights reasons while others add the health and environmental reasons.
> will focus on the Environmental Reasons.
>
Here is some more (organized) information on why to be vegan
http://trailofview.com/trail/vegan
O.pearl
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gc5bm.45324$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
Tell us about the 'necessary suffering' you support, lip-service dodge.
'Animal welfare
Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and well-being of
animals.
Common Misuse: When those engaged in the use and killing of animals for
profit say that they are concerned about the "welfare" of the animals they
are exploiting, they cannot help but contradict themselves. Typically, the
use of animals for profit includes several if not all of the following:
confinement, social deprivation, mutilation, reproductive manipulation,
indignity and premature death. Were one human to carry such acts out on
another human for the purposes of making a profit, it would be hard for
anyone to accept claims that the perpetrator is concerned for the well-being
or welfare of the person being harmed. The situation is no different in the
case of humans using and killing animals for profit claiming to be concerned
for their welfare.
O.pearl
"Narayan Archak" <naraya...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a3207918-93d2-4376...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
----
Very good. Shared. Thank you.
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:gc5bm.45324$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>
>>>> I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless monsters for
>>>> his own gratification.
>>>
>>> You are a heartless monster
>>
>> I am not.
>
> Tell us about the 'necessary suffering' you support, lip-service dodge.
You first.
> 'Animal welfare
>
> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and well-being
> of animals.
>
> Common Misuse:[..]
> http://www.humanemyth.org/glossary/1024.htm
More mind control. Ball was right, AR is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a
totalitarian regime in waiting.
This extreme AR group does not own the language and does not have the
authority to declare what is misuse and what is common use.
Animal Welfare measures, as promoted by groups like PeTA, or as enacted
into law in many places, do improve the lives of animals, whether those
animals are being "exploited" or not. There is currently no other term
to describe such activities.
Their objection to the broad use of the term "Animal Rights" at least
made some sense, this does not.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>>
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:gc5bm.45324$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>> I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless monsters for
>>>>> his own gratification.
>>>>
>>>> You are a heartless monster
>>>
>>> I am not.
>>
>> Tell us about the 'necessary suffering' you support, lip-service dodge.
>
> You first.
>> 'Animal welfare
>>
>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and well-being
>> of animals.
>>
>> Common Misuse:[..]
'Animal welfare
Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and well-being of
animals.
Common Misuse: When those engaged in the use and killing of animals for
profit say that they are concerned about the "welfare" of the animals they
are exploiting, they cannot help but contradict themselves. Typically, the
use of animals for profit includes several if not all of the following:
confinement, social deprivation, mutilation, reproductive manipulation,
indignity and premature death. Were one human to carry such acts out on
another human for the purposes of making a profit, it would be hard for
anyone to accept claims that the perpetrator is concerned for the well-being
or welfare of the person being harmed. The situation is no different in the
case of humans using and killing animals for profit claiming to be concerned
for their welfare.
>> http://www.humanemyth.org/glossary/1024.htm
>
>
> More mind control.
No. Fact.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ttIbm.56420$eS5....@newsfe25.iad...
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gc5bm.45324$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless monsters for
>>>>>> his own gratification.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a heartless monster
>>>>
>>>> I am not.
>>>
>>> Tell us about the 'necessary suffering' you support, lip-service dodge.
>>
>> You first.
>
> I don't support any suffering.
denial
> I'm not a heartless monster. You are.
smug self-righteousness, your drug of choice
>
>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>
>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>> well-being of animals.
>>>
>>> Common Misuse:[..]
>
> 'Animal welfare
>
> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and well-being
> of animals.
right, all animals
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:ttIbm.56420$eS5....@newsfe25.iad...
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gc5bm.45324$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless monsters for
>>>>>>> his own gratification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a heartless monster
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us about the 'necessary suffering' you support, lip-service dodge.
>>>
>>> You first.
>>
>> I don't support any suffering.
>
> denial
Not at all.
>> I'm not a heartless monster. You are.
>
> smug self-righteousness, your drug of choice
Projection.
>>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>>
>>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>>> well-being of animals.
>>>>
>>>> Common Misuse:[..]
>>
>> 'Animal welfare
>>
>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and well-being
>> of animals.
>
> right, all animals
'Common Misuse: When those engaged in the use and killing of animals for
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:VKIbm.17767$8B7....@newsfe20.iad...
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ttIbm.56420$eS5....@newsfe25.iad...
>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gc5bm.45324$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless monsters
>>>>>>>> for his own gratification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are a heartless monster
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us about the 'necessary suffering' you support, lip-service
>>>>> dodge.
>>>>
>>>> You first.
>>>
>>> I don't support any suffering.
>>
>> denial
>
> Not at all.
Don't be ridiculous.
>
>>> I'm not a heartless monster. You are.
>>
>> smug self-righteousness, your drug of choice
>
> Projection.
I'm not placing myself on a moral pedestal like ARAs do. I'm just a
regular person.
>>>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>>>
>>>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>>>> well-being of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Common Misuse:[..]
>>>
>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>
>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>> well-being of animals.
>>
>> right, all animals
>
> 'Common Misuse:
Not misuse. Animal welfare applies to all animals. The fact that you
have chosen to be offended that they exist does not mean they don't
benefit from improved living conditions.
Which animals do you suppose "AW" applies to?
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:VKIbm.17767$8B7....@newsfe20.iad...
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ttIbm.56420$eS5....@newsfe25.iad...
>>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gc5bm.45324$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless monsters
>>>>>>>>> for his own gratification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are a heartless monster
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell us about the 'necessary suffering' you support, lip-service
>>>>>> dodge.
>>>>>
>>>>> You first.
>>>>
>>>> I don't support any suffering.
>>>
>>> denial
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> Don't be ridiculous.
You're the one being totally ridiculous.
>>>> I'm not a heartless monster. You are.
>>>
>>> smug self-righteousness, your drug of choice
>>
>> Projection.
>
> I'm not placing myself on a moral pedestal like ARAs do. I'm just a
> regular person.
Hah. You're dripping with smug self-righteous arrogance. How many
times have we seen you try to justify the monstrous heartless abuse of
non-human animals with your 'humans are superior to animals' shtick?
>>>>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>>>>> well-being of animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Common Misuse:[..]
>>>>
>>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>>
>>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>>> well-being of animals.
>>>
>>> right, all animals
>>
>> 'Common Misuse:
>
> Not misuse. Animal welfare applies to all animals. The fact that you
> have chosen to be offended that they exist does not mean they don't
> benefit from improved living conditions.
'Common Misuse: When those engaged in the use and killing of animals for
profit say that they are concerned about the "welfare" of the animals they
are exploiting, they cannot help but contradict themselves. Typically, the
use of animals for profit includes several if not all of the following:
confinement, social deprivation, mutilation, reproductive manipulation,
indignity and premature death. Were one human to carry such acts out on
another human for the purposes of making a profit, it would be hard for
anyone to accept claims that the perpetrator is concerned for the well-being
or welfare of the person being harmed. The situation is no different in the
case of humans using and killing animals for profit claiming to be concerned
for their welfare.
http://www.humanemyth.org/glossary/1024.htm
> Which animals do you suppose "AW" applies to?
Which humans do you suppose "human welfare" applies to?
Dutch
I don't justify the abuse of animals.
>>>>>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>>>>>> well-being of animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Common Misuse:[..]
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>>>
>>>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>>>> well-being of animals.
>>>>
>>>> right, all animals
>>>
>>> 'Common Misuse:
>>
>> Not misuse. Animal welfare applies to all animals. The fact that you
>> have chosen to be offended that they exist does not mean they don't
>> benefit from improved living conditions.
>
> 'Common Misuse
<snip repeated error>
Animal welfare is animal welfare, the animals benefit whether it offends
you that they exist or not.
Tell PeTA that their campaigns don't promote animal welfare.
>> Which animals do you suppose "AW" applies to?
>
> Which humans do you suppose "human welfare" applies to?
Losers like you.
Now answer the question dingbat. If AW as applied to livestock is a
"misuse" of the phrase then which animals should it apply to?
O.pearl
'Abuse is defined as any thing that is harmful, injurious, or offensive.
..'
http://www.answers.com/abuse
>>>>>>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>>>>>>> well-being of animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Common Misuse:[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Animal welfare
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Work carried out with the intent of improving the health and
>>>>>> well-being of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> right, all animals
>>>>
>>>> 'Common Misuse:
>>>
>>> Not misuse. Animal welfare applies to all animals. The fact that you
>>> have chosen to be offended that they exist does not mean they don't
>>> benefit from improved living conditions.
>>
>> 'Common Misuse
> <snip repeated error>
Repeated evasion.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> I don't justify the abuse of animals.
>
> 'Abuse is defined as any thing that is harmful, injurious, or offensive.
> ..'
> http://www.answers.com/abuse
You have chosen a meaning so broad and vague as to be essentially
meaningless.
Let's face it, we live in different realities, mine is the sane world,
yours is the world according the The Watchtower of AR Doctrine.
O.pearl
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:9Llcm.75583$9P.3...@newsfe08.iad...
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>
>>> I don't justify the abuse of animals.
>>
>> 'Abuse is defined as any thing that is harmful, injurious, or offensive.
>> ..'
>> http://www.answers.com/abuse
>
> You have chosen a meaning so broad and vague as to be essentially
> meaningless.
>
> Let's face it, we live in different realities, mine is the sane world,
False. Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJRdi3m7fZQ
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:9Llcm.75583$9P.3...@newsfe08.iad...
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> I don't justify the abuse of animals.
>>>
>>> 'Abuse is defined as any thing that is harmful, injurious, or
>>> offensive. ..'
>>> http://www.answers.com/abuse
>>
>> You have chosen a meaning so broad and vague as to be essentially
>> meaningless.
>>
>> Let's face it, we live in different realities, mine is the sane world,
>
> False.
Not false, you live in the completely irrational world that thinks
speciesism is like racism.
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJRdi3m7fZQ
I only click on links from trusted sources.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>>
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:9Llcm.75583$9P.3...@newsfe08.iad...
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> I don't justify the abuse of animals.
>>>>
>>>> 'Abuse is defined as any thing that is harmful, injurious, or
>>>> offensive. ..'
>>>> http://www.answers.com/abuse
>>>
>>> You have chosen a meaning so broad and vague as to be essentially
>>> meaningless.
The meaning is clear, and it's certainly not "meaningless", dodge.
>>> Let's face it, we live in different realities, mine is the sane world,
>>
>> False.
>
> Not false, you live in the completely irrational world that thinks
> speciesism is like racism.
'Commonalities of Oppression: Speciesism, Racism, and Sexism
..
There are important parallels between speciesism and sexism and racism
in the elevation of white male rationality to the touchstone of moral worth.
The arguments European colonialists used to legitimate exploiting Africans
- that they were less than human and inferior to white Europeans in ability
to reason - are the very same justifications humans use to trap, hunt,
confine, and kill animals. Once western norms of rationality were defined
as the essence of humanity and social normality, by first using non-human
animals as the measure of alterity, it was a short step to begin viewing odd,
different, exotic, and eccentric peoples and types as non- or sub-human.
Thus, the same criterion created to exclude animals from humans was
also used to ostracize blacks, women, and numerous other groups from
"humanity." The oppression of blacks, women, and animals alike was
grounded in an argument that biological inferiority predestined them for
servitude. In the major strain of western thought, alleged rational beings
(i.e., elite, white, western males) pronounce that the Other (i.e., women,
people of color, animals) is deficient in rationality in ways crucial to their
nature and status, and therefore are deemed and treated as inferior,
subhuman, or nonhuman. Whereas the racist mindset creates a hierarchy
of superior/inferior on the basis of skin color, and the sexist mentality splits
men and women into greater and lower classes of beings, the speciesist
outlook demeans and objectifies animals by dichotomizing the biological
continuum into the antipodes of humans and animals. As racism stems from
a hateful white supremacism, and sexism is the product of a bigoted male
supremacism, so speciesism stems from and informs a violent *human
supremacism* -- namely, the arrogant belief that humans have a natural or
God-given right to use animals for any purpose they devise or, more
generously, within the moral boundaries of welfarism and stewardship,
which however was Judaic moral baggage official Christianity left behind.
By the nineteenth century, exploiting a corrupt understanding of Darwin's
natural selection theory, Social Darwinists promoted the pernicious
ideology of "Might is Right" in order to frame class domination as
something natural and inevitable rather than contingent and subject to
change. A variant of Social Darwinism was used by Hitler and German
Nazis to justify their genocidal campaigns'. Ultimately derived from
speciesism, the Might is Right view continues to prop up human barbarity
toward animals, and it has sedimented into a bland, unreflective "common
sense" consent to human supremacism and the ongoing pogrom against
animals.
..........'
http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/JCAS/Journal_Articles_download/Issue_7/bestpatterson.doc
> Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJRdi3m7fZQ
>
> I only click on links from trusted sources.
YouTube is a trusted source. Listen, and see what you support, dodge.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:G%pcm.37764$0z7....@newsfe07.iad...
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9Llcm.75583$9P.3...@newsfe08.iad...
>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't justify the abuse of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Abuse is defined as any thing that is harmful, injurious, or
>>>>> offensive. ..'
>>>>> http://www.answers.com/abuse
>>>>
>>>> You have chosen a meaning so broad and vague as to be essentially
>>>> meaningless.
>
> The meaning is clear, and it's certainly not "meaningless", dodge.
>
>>>> Let's face it, we live in different realities, mine is the sane world,
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> Not false, you live in the completely irrational world that thinks
>> speciesism is like racism.
>
> 'Commonalities of Oppression: Speciesism, Racism, and Sexism
<snip utter bullshit>
Racism and sexism are judgments based on irrelevant differences. It's
like making a distinction in moral consideration based on black dogs vs
white dogs, or males cats vs female cats. It's erroneous.
The idea that speciesism is the same kind of incorrect judgment is
clearly misguided. We should give different different moral
consideration to gorillas vs fruit flies. To ignore species when giving
moral consideration is to court insanity. Even you and the idiots who
wrote that piece don't actually do it, you're entranced in your own
moral and logical confusion.
>> I only click on links from trusted sources.
>
> YouTube is a trusted source.
YouTube isn't the source, you are. Anyone can post videos to Youtube,
they don't verify them.
> Listen, and see what you support, dodge.
I've seen a video of a vicious assault in a schoolyard, am I supposed to
support banning schools?
frl...@flash.net
(snip)
> Joke is right. I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless
> monsters for his own gratification.
>
Is a "heartless monster" a person who acknowledges the cruelty of
confinement farming of pigs, but purchases commercially-produced pork
anyway? How about someone who hires himself out as dog-catcher to a
animal shelter that sells homeless pets to research facilities? This
is you.
Feralpower!
Dutch
> On Jul 26, 1:04 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Joke is right. I'm not the one accusing everyone of being heartless
>> monsters for his own gratification.
>>
> Is a "heartless monster" a person who acknowledges the cruelty of
> confinement farming of pigs, but purchases commercially-produced pork
> anyway?
I know there's animal suffering associated with pig farming but there's
animal suffering involved with all commercial agriculture. The amount of
pork I eat in a year you could hold in one hand.
> How about someone who hires himself out as dog-catcher to a
> animal shelter that sells homeless pets to research facilities? This
> is you.
The real story of my days at the animal shelter is much different than
you portray. In those days before neutering there were so many stray
dogs that we had to destroy 5 to 10 a week just to make room in the
kennels. It seemed like a time at the university research lab was a
chance for a few of those meaningless deaths to make a difference. The
practice ended a couple of years after I started. Also during those
years I became a friend of the animal advocates who came around to visit
the dogs. By the time I left I was the shelter manager and the place was
well on it's way to becoming the first no-kill shelter in this region.
It is now more like a doggy hotel than a pound.
>
> Feralpower!
Good to see you, hope you're well. We just adopted a dog from the local
SPCA, our first dog since our Amber died 10 years ago. We also have 5
rescue cats.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:G%pcm.37764$0z7....@newsfe07.iad...
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:9Llcm.75583$9P.3...@newsfe08.iad...
>>>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't justify the abuse of animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Abuse is defined as any thing that is harmful, injurious, or
>>>>>> offensive. ..'
>>>>>> http://www.answers.com/abuse
>>>>>
>>>>> You have chosen a meaning so broad and vague as to be essentially
>>>>> meaningless.
>>
>> The meaning is clear, and it's certainly not "meaningless", dodge.
>>
>>>>> Let's face it, we live in different realities, mine is the sane world,
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>
>>> Not false, you live in the completely irrational world that thinks
>>> speciesism is like racism.
>>
>> 'Commonalities of Oppression: Speciesism, Racism, and Sexism
>
> <snip
Restore.
'Commonalities of Oppression: Speciesism, Racism, and Sexism
> Racism and sexism are judgments based on irrelevant differences.
So is speciesism.
O.pearl
> The idea that speciesism is the same kind of incorrect judgment is
> clearly misguided. We should give different different moral
> consideration to gorillas vs fruit flies. To ignore species when giving
> moral consideration is to court insanity.
'Throughout most of documented history, humans have denied
other animals legal rights and recognition as legal persons with two
justifications: the "theological basis" and a "secular expression of
species pride."9
Since international law today broadly draws its germination from
Europe, both of the above reasons for excluding other animals
from legal entitlement can be traced in part to the Judaeo-Christian
tradition, in which the Bible explains in the book of Genesis, inter
alia, that the Earth and all Earth's nonhuman inhabitants are man's
to rule.10
Although, like the Judaeo-Christian tradition, other dominant world
religions generally preach compassion and responsibility toward
other animals, they all profess man's inherent existential superiority.11
This is influenced by the much more pervasive roots of the secular
aspect of speciesism, which conspire to determine that other
species are inferior with several different explanations.12 What the
explanations all have in common is the claim that other animals either
lack or are deficient in qualities for which humans claim pride; for
example, human reason, language, and use of symbols, humor,
reflective capacity, and self-awareness.13 Our tendency to infer these
differences between us and other creatures has created a heuristic
riddle, to which our answer has been to shift human supremacist
claims from one reputed human-only asset to another, as sciences
like biology, genetics, and anthropology have revealed evidence that
one "uniquely human" trait after another turns out to be not so unique.14
The law has not kept up, and continues to validate our value-laden
misconceptions.
John Maxcy Zane eloquently reprimands such legal conservatism:
The time has long gone by when one should apologize for running
counter to human conceptions that are founded upon human ignorance,
inherited prejudice, or crass stupidity. If the purpose were to write a
work upon geography, it would not be necessary to begin with an
extended demonstration of the spherecity of the earth, although a few
centuries ago a man could, with entire legality, have been burned at
the stake for asserting such a proposition.15
...'
http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/vol11_p195.pdf
O.pearl
> "O.pearl" <pri...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:wUycm.29663$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
---
> Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJRdi3m7fZQ
---
>>> I only click on links from trusted sources.
>>
>> YouTube is a trusted source.
>
> YouTube isn't the source, you are. Anyone can post videos to Youtube,
> they don't verify them.
What are you talking about? Are youseriously alleging that I'd post
a dangerous link? Any idea how desperate you look to evade this?
>> Listen, and see what you support, dodge.
>
> I've seen a video of a vicious assault in a schoolyard, am I supposed to
> support banning schools?
And you have the cheek to accuse others of making false comparisons?
Sheeeesh. Like I said... you're a laugh a minute, dodge. A real joke.
Dutch
>
> So is speciesism.
Do you give the same moral consideration to a head louse that you would
to a chimpanzee?
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:h6Icm.91565$eS5....@newsfe25.iad...
>
>> The idea that speciesism is the same kind of incorrect judgment is
>> clearly misguided. We should give different different moral
>> consideration to gorillas vs fruit flies. To ignore species when
>> giving moral consideration is to court insanity.
>
> 'Throughout most of documented history, humans have
believed absurd things and pursued false gods.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>> I only click on links from trusted sources.
>>>
>>> YouTube is a trusted source.
>>
>> YouTube isn't the source, you are. Anyone can post videos to Youtube,
>> they don't verify them.
>
> What are you talking about?
I am talking about clicking on links provided by people who are
untrustworthy. That's you, untrustworthy.
> Are youseriously alleging that I'd post a
> dangerous link?
No, but I am sure you would not post a link unless it was inflammatory
and misleading.
> Any idea how desperate you look to evade this?
Any idea how little I care how I look to you?
>>> Listen, and see what you support, dodge.
>>
>> I've seen a video of a vicious assault in a schoolyard, am I supposed
>> to support banning schools?
>
> And you have the cheek to accuse others of making false comparisons?
False in what way? Assuming that your clip shows something shocking like
a worker in a slaughterhouse abusing an animal to show that
slaughterhouses should be abolished, how is that different than showing
abuse in a schoolyard and concluding that schoolyards should be abolished?
> Sheeeesh. Like I said... you're a laugh a minute, dodge. A real joke.
I'm serious, and you're not laughing, nor should you be.
Don H
# It may be somewhat late in the day to grant Animal (and Arboreal) Rights,
as the species Homo Sapiens, the Mad Ape, is probably headed for extinction,
by, say, 2050 AD.
Our world population is currently about 6.5 billion, predicted to rise
to nine, and the Human Plague is chomping up the ecology of finite planet
Earth at a colossal rate.
Non-human species are being wiped out in ruthless fashion, directly or
indirectly, by us, and we undermine our ecological base, at our peril.
Giant squid now abound (as sharks are decimated), as do jellyfish (bony
fishes massacred), but I don't think abolishing Domestic Livestock is the
way to go, as our Vested Interest in them would also go, and they'd suffer
same fate as "wild" animals.
We humans have a disproportionately large brain, and this
over-specialisation may prove as much an evolutionary defect as advantage.
Only Humans are mad enough to believe in a God which no one ever sees,
hears, etc, and we'll even go to war over niceties of doctrine.
Our dentition and gut indicate we are doomed to be Omnivorous, but it is
unfortunate that a God of Love created a Universe in which most Life Preys
on Other Life.
Ed
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in messagenews:h6Icm.91565$eS5....@newsfe25.iad...
The justification for regarding other species as "fair game" is, and
always has been, "because we can". Even for Vegans, it is the
justification they need for killing plants.
If there were such a thing as a universal right to life surely it
would apply to all living things, to corn and sunflowers as much as to
rats and crayfish. I propose that there is no such right except as
each species is willing to grant it to other species. In some sense
such granting is completely arbitrary, aesthetic rather than moral.
O.pearl
>> http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/vol11_p195.pdf
>
> # It may be somewhat late in the day to grant Animal (and Arboreal) Rights,
> as the species Homo Sapiens, the Mad Ape, is probably headed for extinction,
> by, say, 2050 AD.
UNLESS "the Mad Ape" as you put it, gets the message that we're not
separate, but *part of* a global interdependent ecological community.
'"No argument or sermon could be more eloquent for the ecological approach,"
wrote Walter Taylor, ESA president in 1935, "than some of these concrete
happenings in very recent times," including "convulsive" changes in species
compositions across the Earth; losses of soil and its fertility; pollution of lands
and waters; and the global exploitation of and trade in energy supplies, which
new modes of transportation had made possible. It was increasingly obvious,
he believed, that to counter human-induced transformations of unprecedented
violence, rapidity, and scope we needed "a new Declaration of Interdependence"
among soils, waters, plants, and animals (including people) that took into account
how changes in one place affected other places. What was needed, in other
words, was popularization of a more ecological viewpoint. This question of how
to convey ecological knowledge to a larger public and its policymakers looms
more urgently than ever.
...'
http://eco.confex.com/eco/2009/techprogram/S4035.HTM
> Our world population is currently about 6.5 billion, predicted to rise
> to nine, and the Human Plague is chomping up the ecology of finite planet
> Earth at a colossal rate.
Yet NOT humans *per se*, but the domesticated species bred for human use.
This is truly essential reading: http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html .
> Non-human species are being wiped out in ruthless fashion, directly or
> indirectly, by us, and we undermine our ecological base, at our peril.
Indeed.
> Giant squid now abound (as sharks are decimated), as do jellyfish (bony
> fishes massacred), but I don't think abolishing Domestic Livestock is the
> way to go, as our Vested Interest in them would also go, and they'd suffer
> same fate as "wild" animals.
Wild animals have been driven to the brink because of domestic "livestock".
To illustrate (see link above for global persective):
'Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes in plant
and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most of the West.
These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as the biggest single
perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering that it was the only
significant land use over most of the West.
One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West was that
of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous expedition across the
northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific Northwest from 1804 to 1806
(Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of the unconquered West are of a world
we can scarcely imagine: landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush
vegetation; highly productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant,
dark, fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of the
Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in every direction
Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and so jintle that we could
approach them near with great ease." Another states, We saw a great number
of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and
wolves.
..
In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports nearly
this variety and density of large wild animals.
..
Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk, deer,
bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly and black bears,
wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats, river otters, fish, porcupines,
wild turkeys and other "game" birds, waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other
rodents, most insects, and the vast majority of wild animals were all many times
more abundant then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe
a great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation, willows
and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes, chokecherries,
currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries, "red" and "yellow" berries,
service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy,
honeysuckle, mints, and more, a large number being edible. Most of these plants
have been depleted through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years
and are today comparatively scarce.
..'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html
> We humans have a disproportionately large brain, and this
> over-specialisation may prove as much an evolutionary defect as advantage.
Can't see the wood for the trees kinda thing.
> Only Humans are mad enough to believe in a God which no one ever sees,
> hears, etc, and we'll even go to war over niceties of doctrine.
'A Changing Worldview
One of the most important aspects of these forces for change is the apparent
emergence of a new worldview... On the other hand, there are many indications
of the possible emergence of a trans-modern picture of reality differing both
from the scientific worldview and the traditional religious worldview.
..
The core of the current challenge to the scientific worldview can be taken to
be "consciousness," which has come to be a code word for a wide range of
human experience, including conscious awareness or subjectivity, intentionality,
selective attention, intuition, creativity, relationship of mind to healing, spiritual
sensibility, and a range of anomalous experience and phenomena.
..'
http://twm.co.nz/Harm_wldview.html
Very interesting article.
> Our dentition and gut indicate we are doomed to be Omnivorous, but it is
> unfortunate that a God of Love created a Universe in which most Life Preys
> on Other Life.
True carnivores have an important role, but humans are biological Frugivores.
See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm , et al.
"Regarding food, man is most adept at gardening and being a caretaker
of plants and orchards."
This is what we really ought to be doing ::::
O.pearl
--- Gathering fruits, grains, nuts and legumes doesn't "kill plants".
Even leafy greens can be carefully harvested without uprooting
the main plant. As for carrots and tubers.. ok, but can they suffer?
For the vegan, it's "because I must" (eat to live), no "because we can"
(exploit others.. specifically, other sentient, thinking, feeling beings). ---
If there were such a thing as a universal right to life surely it
would apply to all living things, to corn and sunflowers as much as to
rats and crayfish. I propose that there is no such right except as
each species is willing to grant it to other species. In some sense
such granting is completely arbitrary, aesthetic rather than moral.
-----
'Right to survival
When talking about children, the right to life can often mean the
right to survival. Human rights law already forbids the use of the
death penalty for children. However, child rights treaties impose
another obligation on states to meet the basic needs of the child
in terms of nutrition, health, food, shelter etc. to enable the child's
survival.
..'
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=427
Nature doesn't need to be imposed upon to meet the basic needs
of natural fauna and flora. These needs are all met in accordance
with the natural support of all life. Yes, some individuals do perish
feeding predators, but humans too can meet untimely ends by those
who do not respect their "right to life" as established in human law.
.
O.pearl
All life is due moral consideration, but the case of disease-causing
parasites is a matter of self-defence, and a human threatening my
life would get similar moral consideration to a nonhuman attacker.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>
>>>>> I only click on links from trusted sources.
>>>>
>>>> YouTube is a trusted source.
>>>
>>> YouTube isn't the source, you are. Anyone can post videos to Youtube,
>>> they don't verify them.
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> I am talking about clicking on links provided by people who are
> untrustworthy. That's you, untrustworthy.
You've no valid reason to say that. Desperate unethical liar. That's you.
>> Are you seriously alleging that I'd post a
>> dangerous link?
>
> No, but I am sure you would not post a link unless it was inflammatory
> and misleading.
Yet more false accusations.
>> Any idea how desperate you look to evade this?
>
> Any idea how little I care how I look to you?
To *EVERYONE*, dodge. And you -should- care very much indeed.
>>>> Listen, and see what you support, dodge.
>>>
>>> I've seen a video of a vicious assault in a schoolyard, am I supposed
>>> to support banning schools?
>>
>> And you have the cheek to accuse others of making false comparisons?
>
> False in what way? Assuming that your clip shows something shocking like
> a worker in a slaughterhouse abusing an animal to show that
> slaughterhouses should be abolished, how is that different than showing
> abuse in a schoolyard and concluding that schoolyards should be abolished?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!
>> Sheeeesh. Like I said... you're a laugh a minute, dodge. A real joke.
>
> I'm serious, and you're not laughing, nor should you be.
Oh yes, we're ALL laughing at you, ditch. Believe it!!!!! What a show.
O.pearl
"O.pearl" <pri...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:...
> As for carrots and tubers..
Just a note to say that potatoes can also be harvested without killing the plant.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:HBldm.81361$9P.7...@newsfe08.iad...
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Racism and sexism are judgments based on irrelevant differences.
>>>
>>> So is speciesism.
>>
>> Do you give the same moral consideration to a head louse that you
>> would to a chimpanzee?
>
> All life is due moral consideration,
Not to the same degree. A fly that lives for a few hours and has almost
no sentient capacity is not the moral equivalent of an intelligent
animal. Species matters, it summarizes a lot about the capacity of a
creature.
> but the case of disease-causing
> parasites is a matter of self-defence
Calling the animal by a pejorative and accusing it of threatening your
life is justification. Most small creatures are not a lethal threat to
us. Head lice are not deadly. Jain monks probably live with lice, they
are insane.
> and a human threatening my
> life would get similar moral consideration to a nonhuman attacker.
Humans can spread disease to other humans, should we eradicate
lice-infested beggars?
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:_Mldm.100469$qx1....@newsfe04.iad...
>> O.pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> I only click on links from trusted sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> YouTube is a trusted source.
>>>>
>>>> YouTube isn't the source, you are. Anyone can post videos to
>>>> Youtube, they don't verify them.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about?
>>
>> I am talking about clicking on links provided by people who are
>> untrustworthy. That's you, untrustworthy.
>
> You've no valid reason to say that. Desperate unethical liar. That's you.
I have plenty of reasons to mistrust you, and no reason to trust you.
You strive to use manipulation and emotion to deprive me of my rights.
>
>>> Are you seriously alleging that I'd post a dangerous link?
>>
>> No, but I am sure you would not post a link unless it was inflammatory
>> and misleading.
>
> Yet more false accusations.
I am sure is the truth, otherwise you wouldn't post it. Describe the
video and I'll tell you.
>>> Any idea how desperate you look to evade this?
>>
>> Any idea how little I care how I look to you?
>
> To *EVERYONE*, dodge. And you -should- care very much indeed.
You don't know how anything looks "to everyone" dear. Even normal people
don't know that, but you particularly.
And no, I should not care, at all.
>
>>>>> Listen, and see what you support, dodge.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen a video of a vicious assault in a schoolyard, am I
>>>> supposed to support banning schools?
>>>
>>> And you have the cheek to accuse others of making false comparisons?
>>
>> False in what way? Assuming that your clip shows something shocking
>> like a worker in a slaughterhouse abusing an animal to show that
>> slaughterhouses should be abolished, how is that different than
>> showing abuse in a schoolyard and concluding that schoolyards should
>> be abolished?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!
Is that the best you can do? Explain why we should react totally
differently to different clips showing abuse. In the case of schools, we
should attempt to stop the abuse, but in the case of animal facilities
we should shut them down completely. If that's not your point, then what is?
>
>>> Sheeeesh. Like I said... you're a laugh a minute, dodge. A real joke.
>>
>> I'm serious, and you're not laughing, nor should you be.
>
> Oh yes, we're ALL laughing at you, ditch. Believe it!!!!! What a show.
I'm sure it's comforting for you to imagine this cheering section behind
you, but believe me, it's imaginary.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:HBldm.81361$9P.7...@newsfe08.iad...
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Racism and sexism are judgments based on irrelevant differences.
>>>>
>>>> So is speciesism.
>>>
>>> Do you give the same moral consideration to a head louse that you would to a chimpanzee?
>>
>> All life is due moral consideration,
>
> Not to the same degree. A fly that lives for a few hours and has almost no sentient capacity is not the moral equivalent of an
> intelligent animal. Species matters, it summarizes a lot about the capacity of a creature.
So what do you really know about flies' sentient capacity or intelligence?
Hmmm? I heard a mad loud buzzing in the other cottage when cleaning
the other day. A mad frantic loud unmistakably very distressed buzzing
which compelled me to seek the source. A large fly caught in a spider's
web... attempting to escape the predator initiating the process of killing.
Ergo, that fly was consciously aware of what was happening and made
a desperate effort to survive, life being as important to that fly as to you.
> > but the case of disease-causing
>> parasites is a matter of self-defence
>
> Calling the animal by a pejorative and accusing it of threatening your life is justification.
It's a matter of fact...
> Most small creatures are not a lethal threat to us. Head lice are not deadly. Jain monks probably live with lice, they are insane.
Projection, and unbelievable ignorance.
'Results 1 - 10 of about 960,000 for lice blood disease
Lice (Pediculosis) : Bureau of Communicable Disease : NYC DOHMH
Both young and adult head lice require blood for survival and growth, ....
The three diseases transmitted by body lice are epidemic typhus, trench fever, ...
www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cd/cdped.shtml - Cached - Similar
Division of Parasitic Diseases - Body Lice Fact Sheet
Includes insect information, symptoms, and treatment.
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/.../lice/factsht_body_lice.htm - Cached - Similar
Scientists unraveling lice genome to halt blood-sucking pest
Research aimed at understanding how lice feed off humans may lead to
new methods to control the blood-sucking pest that can transmit fatal diseases. ...
www.innovations-report.de/html/.../bericht-23053.html - Cached - Similar
Body Lice (pediculus humanus corporis) - OmniMedicalSearch.com
4 May 2009 ... Body lice feed off small amounts of blood that is sucked
which can cause ... for Disease Control, body lice can spread diseases
such as typhus, ...
www.omnimedicalsearch.com/...diseases/body-lice.html - Cached - Similar
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de S�o Paulo - Blood ...
The infection leads to Chagas disease, a chronic consumptive ailment
affecting the .... The estimated number of T. cruzi in blood sucking lice
www.scielo.br/cgi-bin/fbpe/fbtext?pid=S0036... - Cached - Similar
by ER ARGA�ARAZ - 2001 - Cited by 13 - Related articles - All 9 versions
Pubic Lice Information and Pictures
A louse lives for about 6 weeks but dies within 24 hours without a blood
meal; Female lice lay ... Lice have been known to spread diseases such
as typhus. ...
herpes-coldsores.com/std/pubic_lice.htm - Cached - Similar
Acinetobacter baumannii in human body louse.(Dispatches ...
Magazine article from: Emerging Infectious Diseases ; To the Editor:
Lice are obligate blood-feeding insects; three lice species (Pediculus ...
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-122552748.html - Cached - Similar
Lice -- Encylopedic Reference of Parasitology
The disease is prevalent in Europe, Africa and South America, but
incidence is declining. ... If the lice suck blood within the first ten
days of illness, ...
parasitology.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/login/n/.../0768.html -
Sucking louse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They can cause localised skin irritations and are vectors of several
blood-borne diseases. Children appear particularly susceptible to
attracting lice, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucking_louse - Cached - Similar
Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Pubic Lice, Crabs | Pubic Lice
Lice need to ingest human blood in order to survive. Feeding can
also cause inflammation if your ...
www.micronutra.com/...lice/sexually-transmitted-diseases-pubic-lice-crabs -
.....
http://tinyurl.com/lsme9f
'Results 1 - 10 of about 74,200 for lice natural repellent. (0.08 seconds)
All Natural Lice Remedy
I discovered that there are many herbs that are natural repellents to lice,
and I started learning how to formulate them in a way that could safely and ...
www.eves-best.com/all-natural-lice-remedy.htm - Cached - Similar
Home Lice Remedies - Looking for information about lice treatment ...
Eucalyptus, lavender, neem, rose geranium, rosemary, and tea tree oils
all make natural lice repellents. Add 10 drops of the oil of your choice
to one ounce ...
www.licetreatment.com/headlicerepellent.php - Cached - Similar
Everything you ever wanted to know - What Really Works 'The ...
Use Nad's Natural Lice comb to comb the hair and remove lice and eggs. ...
Quassia - this is an infusion of woodchip and a natural insect repellent. ...
www.whatreallyworks.co.uk/start/kidszone.asp?article_ID... -
Head Lice Home Treatment And Products from Licenders
natural head lice repellent. PROFESSIONAL LICE REPELLENT Holidays
bring warmth, family... and sometimes lice! When families get together, ...
www.licenders.com/ - Cached - Similar
Head Lice Treatment - Natural Lice Remedy - Easy Nit Removal ...
Our LiceKiller head lice treatment is safe and natural and guaranteed to work.
... The oil can be used as an insect repellent and for the relief of insect ...
www.licekiller.com/ - Cached - Similar
Natural Insect Repellents with Aromatherapy Oils: Kill Ants ...
Natural Flea and Tick Repellent for Pets - and for Human Lice. Essential
oils make a natural flea and tick repellent for pets. Peppermint, lemongrass ...
aromatherapy.suite101.com/.../natural_insect_repellents_with_aromatherapy_oils -
HEAD LICE & NIT TREATMENT PACK-Natural-NO COMBING rp$50
- eBay ...
2 Aug 2009 ... *Neem Oil is one of the strongest natural insect repellent/
pesticide specifically effective on head lice that kills them instantly. ...
cgi.ebay.com.au/HEAD-LICE-NIT-TREATMENT-PACK-Natural-
NO-COMBING-rp-50_W0QQitemZ250476038315QQcmdZVie... -
X.it - Head Lice Repellent - Aromatherapy Spray - (75ml)
The Total Hair Care Product as well as providing this natural repellent
feature, ... *Head lice feed on blood and generally stay very close to the scalp, ...
www.allcures.com/shared/product.asp?id=83195 - Cached - Similar
Chinese Whispers - Natural head lice repellent pack | Head Lice ...
Chinese Whispers is a 100% natural, safe and non-toxic way to repel
head lice.This unique formulation disrupts the reproductive cycle of lice
so they cannot ...
www.pharmacyonweb.co.nz/...Lice/...Natural...lice-repellent.../flypage.tpl.html -
Natural Remedies for Lice, Natural Lice Cure, Head Lice Remedy ...
Spray Repellent, our All Natural Oil repellent, a handy detangler comb
AND 10 great tips for avoiding head lice this summer. ...
www.happyheadsproducts.com/products.php - Cached - Similar
.....
http://tinyurl.com/lbzzho
>> and a human threatening my
>> life would get similar moral consideration to a nonhuman attacker.
>
> Humans can spread disease to other humans, should we eradicate lice-infested beggars?
Ridiculous ignoramus.
O.pearl
> O.pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:_Mldm.100469$qx1....@newsfe04.iad...
>>> O.pearl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YouTube is a trusted source.
>>>>>
>>>>> YouTube isn't the source, you are. Anyone can post videos to
>>>>> Youtube, they don't verify them.
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>
>>> I am talking about clicking on links provided by people who are
>>> untrustworthy. That's you, untrustworthy.
>>
>> You've no valid reason to say that. Desperate unethical liar. That's you.
>
> I have plenty of reasons to mistrust you, and no reason to trust you.
Nonsense.
> You strive to use manipulation and emotion to deprive me of my rights.
More BS. And what "rights" are those? Give us another laugh, dodge.
...