The fantasy world of Pro Hunt deviants
Malcolm
Your argument not here? Tell us and we'll give you our response
mailto:in...@league.uk.com
Hunting is necessary to control deer populations
NONSENSE!
There are 1.25 million deer in Britain. Of these 300,000 a year are
culled and approximately 150 are hunted with dogs. Only 2,500 of the
total deer population live in areas which are hunted with dogs.
Therefore, the vast majority, more than 99% of deer in this country,
live in areas where hunting with dogs does not take place. And there
is no difference between the health of these herds and the minority
which are hunted.
Hunting is necessary to control foxes
NONSENSE!
A recent scientific study published in the scientific journal nature
proved that hunting plays no part in the control of fox numbers. In
1km square areas across the country fox faeces were counted to assess
the size of the fox population in three consecutive years. The second
count showed numbers to be virtually the same as the first count after
a year of full hunting. The third count was also virtually the same as
the first two after a year in which hunting had been suspended due to
the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease. So with or without hunting,
fox numbers stay the same. Their populations are regulated by the
availability of food supply and territory, not by hunting.
It's our civil right to go hunting/ a ban on hunting would breach our
civil liberties
NONSENSE!
There is no right to inflict cruelty on wild animals. It is insulting
to the millions of people around the world who have fought for rights
such as the right to vote, the right to a fair trial and the right to
peaceful protest, to add to this list the right to torture small
animals. The hunters claim they are fighting for their liberty. What
about everyone else's liberty to peacefully enjoy the countryside
without hunts rampaging through gardens, over roads and railway lines
and causing huge disruption. What about the liberty of people to
express their opposition to hunting without facing of intimidation and
abuse for doing so?
We would all have to shoot our horses if hunting were banned
NONSENSE!
Of the 600,000 horses in this country, less than 7% ever go hunting.
Hunting is a very small part of the total equestrian sporting
activity. And if hunts converted to drag hunting where they follow an
artificial scent all horses could continue to be kept and used.
We would have to put down all the hounds if hunting were banned
NONSENSE!
Hounds can be retrained to go drag hunting, to follow an artificial
scent so that the hunts can continue and the hounds kept without
torturing wild animals. But hunters crying crocodile tears over the
possibility of having to shoot their hounds is quite stunning in its
hypocrisy. Hunts routinely shoot hounds when they become too slow to
keep up with the pack, usually at the age of six, and only half way
through their natural life. Also hunts breed more puppies each year
than they need to replace the older hounds that they shoot. Any puppy
which doesn't show a liking or talent for hunting is routinely shot.
Even if hunts refused to convert to drag hunting and shot every single
one of their hounds, this would be as many hounds destroyed as would
take place in just a couple of years of hunting as it is now.
A ban on hunting would destroy the important social role in rural
communities that hunting provides
NONSENSE!
The importance of hunting to rural communities is massively overstated
and there will be no ban on point to points, pony clubs, puppy show,
hunt balls, other social activities and, importantly, drag hunting.
All the hunts' activities can continue except chasing and killing wild
animals.
Hunting is important to the rural economy/ jobs would be lost if
hunting were banned
NONSENSE!
If all hunts simply closed and did not convert to drag hunting there
could be a gross loss of between 1,000 and 3,000 jobs. However, unless
those who go hunting now simply burn the money they would have spent
on hunting, they will spend that money in other areas of the rural
economy, creating jobs in other areas. Therefore any net loss of jobs
would be minimal, but if hunts convert to drag hunting, the economic
impact to the rural economy would be virtually nil.
A hunted animal always either escapes or is killed, if this is
replaced by shooting, more animals will be wounded and die a horrible
extended death from gangrene
NONSENSE!
Foxes which do escape from the hunt after a long chase may die of
trauma long after the hunt. Currently far more foxes are shot than
hunted and there is no evidence of large numbers of foxes dying after
being wounded. Professional and competent shooters will kill their
target either instantly or despatch it very quickly thereafter in the
vast majority of cases. Where an animal is wounded but able to run
away, the previous hunting bill would have allowed scenting dogs to be
used to quickly find and despatch that animal in the most humane
manner.
A ban on hunting would be townies dictating to country people how to
run their lives
NONSENSE!
A majority of people in the countryside support a ban on hunting. It
is country people who experience at first hand the havoc, disruption
and intimidation by hunts and are therefore more strongly opposed to
it. This is not a town versus country issue, it's cruelty versus
humanity.
The police have enough trouble dealing with crime in rural areas
already without having to deal with illegal hunting too/ a ban would
be impossible to enforce
NONSENSE!
The police currently use some of their stretched resources in rural
areas in policing hunts to protect protestors from often violent
hunters and to deal with some of the wrong and illegal activities of a
minority of extremists who oppose hunting. If hunters abide by a new
law banning hunting and convert to drag hunting, police time spent on
hunting would be reduced. Only if hunters refuse to abide by the law
would the current level of policing hunts need to be maintained.
Banning any activity which harms no one else would be wrong
NONSENSE!
If the people who argue this really believed it then they would be
leading campaigns to bring back bear baiting, cock fighting, whaling,
the ivory trade, and to repeal all animal welfare legislation giving
people the right to cruelly mistreat any animal as long as they don't
affect any people while doing so.
It has long been accepted that laws protecting animal welfare are
perfectly legitimate and are almost universally accepted. A ban on
hunting would give wild animals the protection from cruelty that
domestic animals currently enjoy.
A ban on hunting would inevitably lead to bans on shooting and
fishing
NONSENSE!
The reason that hunting should be banned is that a large majority of
the public, and a large majority of Members of Parliament have been
convinced that this is the right thing to do. Shooting and fishing are
completely separate issues and could only be reformed or abolished
with a similar will from the public and from MPs. Angling is the
biggest sport in the country in terms of the numbers of people who
take part. Anyone who suggests that a majority in the country or in
Parliament wishes to ban fishing is clearly living in cloud cuckoo
land.
The fox is killed by a quick nip to the back of the neck
NONSENSE!
When the hounds catch a fox above ground, they will bite at the
nearest part of the fox available, usually the hind legs or rear
quarters. Many post mortems on hunted foxes have shown extensive and
massive injuries to the abdomen, lungs, heart and hind quarters but
have found no evidence of injury to the head or neck. The fox will die
quickly, often in a matter of seconds or a minute or two, but death is
very rarely instant. This only deals with the actual kill at the point
where the fox has been chased and suffered sometimes for hours
beforehand, causing immense cruelty.
Hunting weeds out the old and the sick helping to keep a healthy
population
NONSENSE!
About 40% of foxes killed by hunts are cubs killed during the cub
hunting season - hardly old and sick. In stag hunting, old or sick
stags do not provide a long and enjoyable chase. Stag hunts use a hunt
servant known as a 'harbourer' who's task is to find a strong fit stag
which will give the hounds and riders a long chase often lasting 5
hours or more and covering more than 20 miles. No old or sick stag
could flee for its life for this long and over these distances.
Foxes do immense damage to farming and kill large numbers of newborn
lambs
NONSENSE!
A recent study from the University of York has found that lamb losses
to fox predation is 0.4% of lambs born, or one in 250. The vast
majority of lambs lost die of malnutrition, hypothermia and disease.
The cost of carrying out fox control far outweighs the minimal losses
to fox predation. Half of our farmland is grazed by cattle, where
foxes are no trouble. The other half is predominantly arable; foxes
kill three of the major pests to arable farmers - rabbits, voles and
mice. So over much of Britain, foxes are actually a benefit to
farmers.
Foxes sometimes kill all the chickens in a hen house just for the fun
of it without eating them
NONSENSE!
Foxes are not unique in killing more, sometimes much more, than they
can eat at the time. This entirely natural phenomenon known as surplus
killing, is widespread among other carnivorous animals such as wolves
lions and tigers. If a predator is able to catch an animal it will do
so, even when it is not hungry, because the meal can be saved for
another day when food is short. When this happens with foxes in a hen
house it is an unfortunate but entirely natural response to an
artificial situation.
Nature is 'red in tooth and claw' hunting is simply a part of nature
NONSENSE!
Foxes are at the top of the food chain and have never been hunted by
other predators over long distances. When wolves were present in this
country they may have chased scavenging foxes away from their food and
occasionally caught and killed one. For wolves to chase a small animal
such as a fox over long distances in the way that hounds do would not
give sufficient 'reward' for their expenditure of energy. If foxhounds
had to rely simply on the foxes which they catch for food, they would
starve very quickly indeed. With stags and deer, wolves would pick off
the old and weak, catching a large animal for minimal effort, if a
stag were able to maintain a head start on a pack of wolves for more
than ten or fifteen seconds, wolves would give up and look for other
prey. Stag hunts can last for five hours and more covering over 20
miles. This situation would never exist in the wild and cannot be
described as natural.
Licensing hunting would mean that hunts would have to stick to rigid
standards, eliminating the worst cruelty, this would be a fair
compromise.
NONSENSE!
Some hunts already operate under licence, when hunting on Forestry
Commission or Ministry of Defence land. And they regularly break the
conditions of these licences. There is no reason to think that they
would stick to the conditions of a new national scheme. But even if
they did, the chase and the kill in hunting is inherently cruel. A
licence allowing hunts to continue the chase, and to kill animals with
hounds would simply licence individuals to carry out cruelty. This is
clearly unacceptable, only a total ban will do. There is no
compromise, either hunts continue, whether under licence or not, or it
is banned, there is no middle way. You can't compromise on cruelty.
Hunting is not in the same category as bear bating, cock fighting,
and dog fighting in which an audience paid to witness the spectacle.
In hunting participants are rarely present for the kill so there is no
bloodlust.
NONSENSE!
Cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting are setting one animal on
another for the purpose of entertainment. So is hunting. It doesn't
matter whether people are present for, or revel in the killing of an
animal, the cruelty exists whether people are there to watch it or
not. And if so few hunters ever see the kill, and are not interested
in it, then they should convert to drag hunting where no kill takes
place.
Just because you do not like what we do is insufficient reason for
banning our activity. For a ban you have to show that it is injurious
to the public good and you have singularly failed to do so.
NONSENSE!
We do not call for a ban on hunting with dogs because we do not like
it. We want this activity to end because it is cruel and exists for no
other reason that entertainment. This is an affront to public morals
in the same way that allowing cock fighting or bear baiting would be.
Therefore there is plenty of justification for a ban.
There are far more important things for the government to be dealing
with, like health, education and housing. MPs shouldn't be wasting
their time on hunting.
NONSENSE!
There are indeed many more important issues that the Government must
deal with. But this does not mean that they cannot also ban hunting,
which is important to many people. Our parliamentary system allows
many issues to be discussed during one session of Parliament. Nobody
in 2000, for example, argued that fur farming was the most important
issue facing the country, but it was still banned. The Act which
banned fur farming was one of 45 pieces of legislation passed in that
Parliamentary session. The other 44 Acts of Parliament in the year
2000 included Acts on education, health, crime, local government,
Northern Ireland, warm homes and energy conservation, countryside and
rights of way etc. etc. etc.
Dear Supporter:
The long-awaited Third Reading of the Government's Hunting Bill has
been announced for 30th June.
This is a critical vote for the future of hunting with dogs.
The Government's Hunting Bill, bans deer hunting, hare coursing and
hare hunting. CRUCIALLY HOWEVER, as it stands, IT DOES NOT BAN FOX
HUNTING.
Your MP has the power to end this cruel sport once and for all so
please contact him/her TODAY and ask him/her to vote for AN AMENDMENT
WHICH WOULD ban fox hunting.
You can contact your MP by:
Visiting www.faxyourmp.com
Phoning the House of Commons on 020 7219 3000
Writing to your MP at House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Many thanks again for your valuable support for Britain's wildlife.
With your help we can put an end to this cruel sport once and for all.
Campaigning to Protect Hunted Animals (CPHA)
(RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports, IFAW
--
So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?
I understand.
/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
usual suspect
<snip (not that I agree with the previous points)>
> It's our civil right to go hunting/ a ban on hunting would breach our
> civil liberties
>
> NONSENSE!
> There is no right to inflict cruelty on wild animals. It is insulting
> to the millions of people around the world who have fought for rights
> such as the right to vote, the right to a fair trial and the right to
> peaceful protest, to add to this list the right to torture small
> animals.
It is already their right. You are trying to take it away from them and
give it to small animals.
> The hunters claim they are fighting for their liberty.
And they are correct.
> What about everyone else's liberty to peacefully enjoy the countryside
> without hunts rampaging through gardens, over roads and railway lines
> and causing huge disruption.
I love it when city slickers ride out into the country and take
exception to country ways. "City ways" are one of the reasons why
country people do not share the need to "get away" for the weekend by
running into town.
> What about the liberty of people to
> express their opposition to hunting without facing of intimidation and
> abuse for doing so?
How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without intimidation,
abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
<snip (again, not that I agree with previous points)>
> A ban on hunting would destroy the important social role in rural
> communities that hunting provides
>
> NONSENSE!
> The importance of hunting to rural communities is massively overstated
> and there will be no ban on point to points, pony clubs, puppy show,
> hunt balls, other social activities and, importantly, drag hunting.
The lack of importance of hunting to urban communities should be reason
enough for you to lay off the country folk, their customs, and their
traditions.
> All the hunts' activities can continue except chasing and killing wild
> animals.
How many other areas of their lives are you prepared to dictate?
<snip (again, not that I agree with previous points)>
> A ban on hunting would be townies dictating to country people how to
> run their lives
>
> NONSENSE!
> A majority of people in the countryside support a ban on hunting. It
> is country people who experience at first hand the havoc, disruption
> and intimidation by hunts and are therefore more strongly opposed to
> it. This is not a town versus country issue, it's cruelty versus
> humanity.
No, it's about forcing one's will upon others.
<snip (not that I agree with those snipped points)>
> A ban on hunting would inevitably lead to bans on shooting and
> fishing
>
> NONSENSE!
> The reason that hunting should be banned is that a large majority of
> the public, and a large majority of Members of Parliament have been
> convinced that this is the right thing to do. Shooting and fishing are
> completely separate issues and could only be reformed or abolished
> with a similar will from the public and from MPs. Angling is the
> biggest sport in the country in terms of the numbers of people who
> take part. Anyone who suggests that a majority in the country or in
> Parliament wishes to ban fishing is clearly living in cloud cuckoo
> land.
Many of the ninnies who want to prevent hunts also oppose angling. At
least that's the case here. The argument is also valid given the
propensity for further and broader incremental change over time.
<snip>
I live in central Texas. We have a problem (more like a crisis) with
deer overpopulation and feral hog overpopulation. The feral hogs have
become a nuisance to farmers and ranchers. The feral hog population is
so high statewide now that they're hunted year round.
The anti-hunting people here have come up with some very stupid ideas
for controlling the deer overpopulation. None of their solutions is
reasonable (e.g., we're not going to relocate humans out of territory
deer have "reclaimed"), and they oppose hunts in the urban and suburban
areas most devastated. The result of their opposition to any
urban/suburban hunting is a frequent occurrence of auto-deer collisions
which often kill the deer and occasionally injure or kill humans.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:Mal...@malcsplace.com> wrote:
> Your argument not here? Tell us and we'll give you our response
Pete, without innocent hunters to vent your spleen on you'd turn inward and
pine away.
Cheerio,
--
Malcolm
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <b7c227602fcdf375...@free.teranews.com>, Malcolm
><URL:mailto:Mal...@malcsplace.com> wrote:
>
>> Your argument not here? Tell us and we'll give you our response
>
>Pete, without innocent hunters to vent your spleen on you'd turn inward and
>pine away.
Ah poor Michael. Speaking of pining, do you pine the loss of your
other sockpuppet, GeTravis (one of them). Life can be quite
frustrating when you are always on the defensive. LOL
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:3F00E0AE...@earth.man...
> Malcolm wrote:
> <snip (not that I agree with the previous points)>
> > It's our civil right to go hunting/ a ban on hunting would breach our
> > civil liberties
> >
> > NONSENSE!
> > There is no right to inflict cruelty on wild animals. It is insulting
> > to the millions of people around the world who have fought for rights
> > such as the right to vote, the right to a fair trial and the right to
> > peaceful protest, to add to this list the right to torture small
> > animals.
>
> It is already their right. You are trying to take it away from them and
> give it to small animals.
>
> > The hunters claim they are fighting for their liberty.
>
> And they are correct.
>
> > What about everyone else's liberty to peacefully enjoy the countryside
> > without hunts rampaging through gardens, over roads and railway lines
> > and causing huge disruption.
>
> I love it when city slickers ride out into the country and take
> exception to country ways. "City ways" are one of the reasons why
> country people do not share the need to "get away" for the weekend by
> running into town.
I have always lived in the country
>
> > What about the liberty of people to
> > express their opposition to hunting without facing of intimidation and
> > abuse for doing so?
>
> How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without intimidation,
> abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
Hunters have no rights.
>
> <snip (again, not that I agree with previous points)>
> > A ban on hunting would destroy the important social role in rural
> > communities that hunting provides
> >
> > NONSENSE!
> > The importance of hunting to rural communities is massively overstated
> > and there will be no ban on point to points, pony clubs, puppy show,
> > hunt balls, other social activities and, importantly, drag hunting.
>
> The lack of importance of hunting to urban communities should be reason
> enough for you to lay off the country folk, their customs, and their
> traditions.
Like inbreeding? and killing everthing that moves.
>
> > All the hunts' activities can continue except chasing and killing wild
> > animals.
>
> How many other areas of their lives are you prepared to dictate?
As many as it takes for them to be forced to be decent people
>
> <snip (again, not that I agree with previous points)>
> > A ban on hunting would be townies dictating to country people how to
> > run their lives
> >
> > NONSENSE!
> > A majority of people in the countryside support a ban on hunting. It
> > is country people who experience at first hand the havoc, disruption
> > and intimidation by hunts and are therefore more strongly opposed to
> > it. This is not a town versus country issue, it's cruelty versus
> > humanity.
>
> No, it's about forcing one's will upon others.
If 'The others' have evil ways, they must be brought in to line with decent
standards
>
> <snip (not that I agree with those snipped points)>
> > A ban on hunting would inevitably lead to bans on shooting and
> > fishing
> >
> > NONSENSE!
> > The reason that hunting should be banned is that a large majority of
> > the public, and a large majority of Members of Parliament have been
> > convinced that this is the right thing to do. Shooting and fishing are
> > completely separate issues and could only be reformed or abolished
> > with a similar will from the public and from MPs. Angling is the
> > biggest sport in the country in terms of the numbers of people who
> > take part. Anyone who suggests that a majority in the country or in
> > Parliament wishes to ban fishing is clearly living in cloud cuckoo
> > land.
>
> Many of the ninnies who want to prevent hunts also oppose angling. At
> least that's the case here. The argument is also valid given the
> propensity for further and broader incremental change over time.
If your only pleasure is dictated by cruelty and killing, you are a sick
person.
>
> <snip>
>
> I live in central Texas. We have a problem (more like a crisis) with
> deer overpopulation and feral hog overpopulation. The feral hogs have
> become a nuisance to farmers and ranchers. The feral hog population is
> so high statewide now that they're hunted year round.
In England we have people overpopulation crisis.
What do you suggest?
martin sage
that it raises more controversy than other "abuses" of animals. I think
that keeping pets in towns is one of the worst animal abuses perpetrated
by humans but because most people do it, a counter campaign is unlikely
to ever get support.
--
martin sage
usual suspect
>>I love it when city slickers ride out into the country and take
>>exception to country ways. "City ways" are one of the reasons why
>>country people do not share the need to "get away" for the weekend by
>>running into town.
>
> I have always lived in the country
You're more of an exception to the rule. At least you would be in my nation.
>>How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without intimidation,
>>abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
>
> Hunters have no rights.
They're entitled to the same rights you have. If you don't like hunting,
don't hunt.
>>The lack of importance of hunting to urban communities should be reason
>>enough for you to lay off the country folk, their customs, and their
>>traditions.
>
> Like inbreeding?
You live in the country. Are you the result of inbreeding?
> and killing everthing that moves.
Hyperbole.
>>How many other areas of their lives are you prepared to dictate?
>
> As many as it takes for them to be forced to be decent people
Decent according to your own aesthetic standards. Would they ever force
you to be "decent" according to their own? No, I don't think so.
>>No, it's about forcing one's will upon others.
>
> If 'The others' have evil ways, they must be brought in to line with decent
> standards
Yes, a hallmark of totalitarianism. At least you've yet to suggest a
need for re-education camps, gulags, etc.
>>Many of the ninnies who want to prevent hunts also oppose angling. At
>>least that's the case here. The argument is also valid given the
>>propensity for further and broader incremental change over time.
>
> If your only pleasure is dictated by cruelty and killing, you are a sick
> person.
In avoiding my point, you say something which supports my assertion. I
can deal with your off-point. For many hunters and anglers, the pleasure
is derived from the eating.
>>I live in central Texas. We have a problem (more like a crisis) with
>>deer overpopulation and feral hog overpopulation. The feral hogs have
>>become a nuisance to farmers and ranchers. The feral hog population is
>>so high statewide now that they're hunted year round.
>
> In England we have people overpopulation crisis.
> What do you suggest?
Tougher immigration laws and enforcement.
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Ray wrote:
> >>I love it when city slickers ride out into the country and take
> >>exception to country ways. "City ways" are one of the reasons why
> >>country people do not share the need to "get away" for the weekend by
> >>running into town.
> >
> > I have always lived in the country
>
> You're more of an exception to the rule. At least you would be in my
nation.
>
> >>How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without intimidation,
> >>abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
> >
> > Hunters have no rights.
>
> They're entitled to the same rights you have. If you don't like hunting,
> don't hunt.
My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life of
an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
>
> >>The lack of importance of hunting to urban communities should be reason
> >>enough for you to lay off the country folk, their customs, and their
> >>traditions.
> >
> > Like inbreeding?
>
> You live in the country. Are you the result of inbreeding?
Not to the best of my knowledge.
>
> > and killing everthing that moves.
>
> Hyperbole.
Truth.
>
> >>How many other areas of their lives are you prepared to dictate?
> >
> > As many as it takes for them to be forced to be decent people
>
> Decent according to your own aesthetic standards. Would they ever force
> you to be "decent" according to their own? No, I don't think so.
No, because their standards are lower than mine.
>
> >>No, it's about forcing one's will upon others.
At least my will or hobby does not involve killing. If that were the case I
would not consider it a 'right'
> >
> > If 'The others' have evil ways, they must be brought in to line with
decent
> > standards
>
> Yes, a hallmark of totalitarianism. At least you've yet to suggest a
> need for re-education camps, gulags, etc.
They need teaching decent ways, that's for certain. They are simply bullies
inflicting their whim on less fortunate beings.
>
> >>Many of the ninnies who want to prevent hunts also oppose angling. At
> >>least that's the case here. The argument is also valid given the
> >>propensity for further and broader incremental change over time.
I am one such ninnie, that involves killing.
> >
> > If your only pleasure is dictated by cruelty and killing, you are a sick
> > person.
>
> In avoiding my point, you say something which supports my assertion. I
> can deal with your off-point. For many hunters and anglers, the pleasure
> is derived from the eating.
Be honest, how many hunters do you know who kill in order to sustain their
life. The do it for pleasure. They have a need to prove that they are
superior to animals.
>
> >>I live in central Texas. We have a problem (more like a crisis) with
> >>deer overpopulation and feral hog overpopulation. The feral hogs have
> >>become a nuisance to farmers and ranchers. The feral hog population is
> >>so high statewide now that they're hunted year round.
The farmers have yet to learn to live with nature. Thet are motivated by
financial greed. Always have been.
> >
> > In England we have people overpopulation crisis.
> > What do you suggest?
>
> Tougher immigration laws and enforcement.
Only partly, we are also overpopulated by our own kind.
>
Oz
>My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life of
>an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
Being an omnivore of course I do have the right to kill and eat meat,
just like any other omnivore (bears, say).
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.
usual suspect
>>They're entitled to the same rights you have. If you don't like hunting,
>>don't hunt.
>
> My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life of
> an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
Denying the antecedent.
>>>>The lack of importance of hunting to urban communities should be reason
>>>>enough for you to lay off the country folk, their customs, and their
>>>>traditions.
>>>
>>>Like inbreeding?
>>
>>You live in the country. Are you the result of inbreeding?
>
> Not to the best of my knowledge.
Your royal family are urbanites AND inbreds.
>>>and killing everthing that moves.
>>
>>Hyperbole.
>
> Truth.
Hyperbole. You move in the country. You've not been shot at, have you?
>>Decent according to your own aesthetic standards. Would they ever force
>>you to be "decent" according to their own? No, I don't think so.
>
> No, because their standards are lower than mine.
I'm sure they think the same of you and your standards. I know I do
since I place a higher value on humans than on animals.
>>>>No, it's about forcing one's will upon others.
>
> At least my will or hobby does not involve killing. If that were the case I
> would not consider it a 'right'
Your diet does. Since our diets are similar (I don't eat eggs like you
do), my diet does as well.
>>Yes, a hallmark of totalitarianism. At least you've yet to suggest a
>>need for re-education camps, gulags, etc.
>
> They need teaching decent ways, that's for certain. They are simply bullies
> inflicting their whim on less fortunate beings.
You're a totalitarian trying to inflict your aesthetic sensibilities on
higher beings.
>>>>Many of the ninnies who want to prevent hunts also oppose angling. At
>>>>least that's the case here. The argument is also valid given the
>>>>propensity for further and broader incremental change over time.
>
> I am one such ninnie, that involves killing.
At least you're not in denial.
>>>If your only pleasure is dictated by cruelty and killing, you are a sick
>>>person.
>>
>>In avoiding my point, you say something which supports my assertion. I
>>can deal with your off-point. For many hunters and anglers, the pleasure
>>is derived from the eating.
>
> Be honest, how many hunters do you know who kill in order to sustain their
> life. The do it for pleasure. They have a need to prove that they are
> superior to animals.
I grew up in a hunting family, and most of my family still hunt (I still
shoot and practice my archery). I also have friends who hunt deer, hogs
(year round), and fowl. My brothers and friends fill their freezers with
game. I'd guess half or more of their meat comes from game they harvest.
Make it more than half since they also donate meat to food banks and
other organizations.
> The farmers have yet to learn to live with nature. Thet are motivated by
> financial greed. Always have been.
Farming may have transcendental qualities, but it is still a business.
Many farmers HAVE caught on to the fact that some practices are
sustainable and some aren't.
>>>In England we have people overpopulation crisis.
>>>What do you suggest?
>>
>>Tougher immigration laws and enforcement.
>
> Only partly, we are also overpopulated by our own kind.
Actually, look at your census data. We're both in the same boat. Our
'native' populations have been right at the break-even point for the
last thirty years. The increases in population for both the US and UK
are attributable to both legal and illegal immigration.
Ray
"Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:p721G6DTVYA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
> Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
>
> >My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life
of
> >an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
>
> Being an omnivore of course I do have the right to kill and eat meat,
> just like any other omnivore (bears, say).
Amazing the way you people twist things in order to keep within your own
evil agenda. You can and will kill what you like. You have no respect for
the lives of other living creatures.
Dare you tackle a bear on a 1/1 basis No. In my book that makes you a
coward.
Nothing more to be said.
Oz
>
>"Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:p721G6DTVYA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
>> Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
>>
>> >My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life
>of
>> >an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
>>
>> Being an omnivore of course I do have the right to kill and eat meat,
>> just like any other omnivore (bears, say).
>
>Amazing the way you people twist things in order to keep within your own
>evil agenda.
Oh, you mean tell the truth?
>You can and will kill what you like. You have no respect for
>the lives of other living creatures.
Probably more respect than you do.
>Dare you tackle a bear on a 1/1 basis No. In my book that makes you a
>coward.
No, it makes me smart.
>Nothing more to be said.
Indeed, you clearly have no argument to offer.
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Ray wrote:
> >>They're entitled to the same rights you have. If you don't like hunting,
> >>don't hunt.
> >
> > My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life
of
> > an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
>
> Denying the antecedent.
Stating the truth.
>
> >>>>The lack of importance of hunting to urban communities should be
reason
> >>>>enough for you to lay off the country folk, their customs, and their
> >>>>traditions.
> >>>
> >>>Like inbreeding?
> >>
> >>You live in the country. Are you the result of inbreeding?
> >
> > Not to the best of my knowledge.
>
> Your royal family are urbanites AND inbreds.
No argument with you on that point. The Queen is ugly, Phil the Greek is a
killer and the remainder are a complete waste of space.
>
> >>>and killing everthing that moves.
> >>
> >>Hyperbole.
> >
> > Truth.
>
> Hyperbole. You move in the country. You've not been shot at, have you? Not
yet!
The law protects me. There is no such law for animals.
You don't 'Hunt' them they are there for the taking. Change the word to
kill.
>
> > The farmers have yet to learn to live with nature. Thet are motivated by
> > financial greed. Always have been.
>
> Farming may have transcendental qualities, but it is still a business.
> Many farmers HAVE caught on to the fact that some practices are
> sustainable and some aren't.
>
> >>>In England we have people overpopulation crisis.
> >>>What do you suggest?
> >>
> >>Tougher immigration laws and enforcement.
> >
> > Only partly, we are also overpopulated by our own kind.
>
> Actually, look at your census data. We're both in the same boat. Our
> 'native' populations have been right at the break-even point for the
> last thirty years. The increases in population for both the US and UK
> are attributable to both legal and illegal immigration.
You try to make this a racist issue, sorry I'm not playing. Immigration is
only part of the problem.
We will never agree
Conclusion - You are a killer, I am not.
>
Malcolm
>Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
>>
>>"Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:p721G6DTVYA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
>>> Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
>>>
>>> >My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life
>>of
>>> >an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
>>>
>>> Being an omnivore of course I do have the right to kill and eat meat,
>>> just like any other omnivore (bears, say).
>>
>>Amazing the way you people twist things in order to keep within your own
>>evil agenda.
>
>Oh, you mean tell the truth?
Ha that'll be the day.
>>You can and will kill what you like. You have no respect for
>>the lives of other living creatures.
>
>Probably more respect than you do.
You don't even have respect for yourself, let alone any other
creature.
>>Dare you tackle a bear on a 1/1 basis No. In my book that makes you a
>>coward.
>
>No, it makes me smart.
No, it makes you a coward, criteria for you goal must include killing
an animal that cannot fight back.
>>Nothing more to be said.
>
>Indeed, you clearly have no argument to offer.
Just as well, you never could handle argument. Right about now is when
you skulk off and do a dimbo on us?
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Malcolm wrote:
> <snip (not that I agree with the previous points)>
> >
snip
>
> How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without intimidation,
> abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
How can you hunt peacefully? That's an oxymoron.
snip
usual suspect
>>Denying the antecedent.
>
> Stating the truth.
It may be truth in La-la land, but not in reality. :-)
>>Your royal family are urbanites AND inbreds.
>
> No argument with you on that point. The Queen is ugly, Phil the Greek is a
> killer and the remainder are a complete waste of space.
Prince Philip has to be the funniest Briton ever:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ausref/Story/0,2763,184377,00.html
http://www.spicyquotes.com/html/Prince_Philip_Duke_of_Edinburgh_Faux-pas.html
http://www.robhoran.com/news/News_Detail.asp?News_ID=99
http://media.guardian.co.uk/radio/story/0,12636,909838,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1848813.stm
http://www.rocknroll.force9.co.uk/advice/princephillipthegreek.html
(among others)
>>>Truth.
>>
>>Hyperbole. You move in the country. You've not been shot at, have you?
>
> The law protects me. There is no such law for animals.
Animals are not people. Humans are part of nature. Animals are part of
nature.
>>I grew up in a hunting family, and most of my family still hunt (I still
>>shoot and practice my archery). I also have friends who hunt deer, hogs
>>(year round), and fowl. My brothers and friends fill their freezers with
>>game. I'd guess half or more of their meat comes from game they harvest.
>>Make it more than half since they also donate meat to food banks and
>>other organizations.
>
> You don't 'Hunt' them they are there for the taking. Change the word to
> kill.
*I* don't hunt. I have no problem with others hunting for whatever
reason, particularly since I know firsthand what happens when an
ecosystem doesn't have enough predators. Certain populations explode,
move outward, and eventually conflict with urban life. The result is not
good for either animal or man or automobile.
I've no problem with saying that deer are shot or killed. It doesn't
cause me to emote however it's expressed. I'm not a misanthrope who
equates animal lives with human lives.
>>>>Tougher immigration laws and enforcement.
>>>
>>>Only partly, we are also overpopulated by our own kind.
>>
>>Actually, look at your census data. We're both in the same boat. Our
>>'native' populations have been right at the break-even point for the
>>last thirty years. The increases in population for both the US and UK
>>are attributable to both legal and illegal immigration.
>
> You try to make this a racist issue, sorry I'm not playing. Immigration is
> only part of the problem.
Bullshit. Our populations would be at fairly static levels were it not
for immigration. If you suggest your country is overpopulated, you
should take a look at why your population continues to increase way out
of proportion to your birth and death rates. The answer lies in your
immigration policy.
The same is true here. Our problem with illegal immigration across our
southern borders is not a racial issue, it's an immigration issue (among
other issues like law enforcement, healthcare, overcrowded schools,
etc., because our courts say we cannot treat people who are here in
violation of our laws as lawbreakers). You're probably oblivious to the
fact that Europeans account for the most sizable share of our legal
immigrants. They also account for a rather hefty chunk of our illegal
immigrants, particularly through overstaying visas.
> We will never agree
Fine.
> Conclusion - You are a killer, I am not.
Potkettleblack.
usual suspect
>>How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without intimidation,
>>abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
>
> How can you hunt peacefully? That's an oxymoron.
Only in your misanthropic worldview. You can't force others to deny our
species' role in nature and adopt your peculiar sense of aesthetics.
martin sage
<aco...@btopenworld.com> writes
>Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
>
>>My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life of
>>an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
So of course you would tolerate rats and mice running around in your
house?
--
martin sage
Ray
> Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
> >
> >"Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:p721G6DTVYA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
> >> Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
> >>
> >> >My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the
life
> >of
> >> >an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
> >>
> >> Being an omnivore of course I do have the right to kill and eat meat,
> >> just like any other omnivore (bears, say).
> >
> >Amazing the way you people twist things in order to keep within your own
> >evil agenda.
>
> Oh, you mean tell the truth?
You do not know the meaning of the word
>
> >You can and will kill what you like. You have no respect for
> >the lives of other living creatures.
>
> Probably more respect than you do.
How do you work that out killer
>
> >Dare you tackle a bear on a 1/1 basis No. In my book that makes you a
> >coward.
>
> No, it makes me smart.
>
> >Nothing more to be said.
>
> Indeed, you clearly have no argument to offer.
No argument involved. I am not on the defensive.
As I said, nothing more to be said, which was a polite way of saying bugger
off. I will have no truck with you timewasters.
pearl
Our species role in nature? Were humans *natural* role that of
a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
to grasp and kill prey, nor carnivores' high concentration of protein
digesting enzymes and stomach acid and their short intestinal tract,
etc.
Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore- species that eat
predominantly raw fruits, succulent fruit-like vegetables, roots,
shoots, nuts and seeds. This is apparent in our physiology down
to every last detail, as well as from results of nutritional studies.
Most people not brought up to witness killing, and thus desensitised
to the experience, when asked if they could kill animals reply with
an emphatic NO. Were we natural predators, nobody would have
a second thought about it, and lil' herbert would tear into his pet rabbit,
before you could say 'make sure she has access to fresh water at all times'.
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Why?
>
Ray
"martin sage" <mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:edl7XtAeUcA$Ew...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk...
I would have a serious word with my cats.
Answer your question. Right FO
usual suspect
>>Only in your misanthropic worldview. You can't force others to deny our
>>species' role in nature and adopt your peculiar sense of aesthetics.
>
> Our species role in nature?
Species'. Possessive.
> Were humans *natural* role that of
> a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
> not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
> to grasp and kill prey, nor carnivores' high concentration of protein
> digesting enzymes and stomach acid and their short intestinal tract,
> etc.
We (well, some of us anyway) made quantum leaps through cognitive
abilities and the use of tools -- including weapons to kill and knives
to cut into smaller pieces so we could chew with our smaller canines.
> Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore- species that eat
> predominantly raw fruits, succulent fruit-like vegetables, roots,
> shoots, nuts and seeds. This is apparent in our physiology down
> to every last detail, as well as from results of nutritional studies.
Hardly.
> Most people not brought up to witness killing, and thus desensitised
> to the experience, when asked if they could kill animals reply with
> an emphatic NO. Were we natural predators, nobody would have
> a second thought about it, and lil' herbert would tear into his pet rabbit,
> before you could say 'make sure she has access to fresh water at all times'.
Non sequitur. Wouldn't one need exposure to be DEsensitized?
You must not be around young children much if you think they lack
predatory instincts. That goes for little girls as well as the
testosterone set.
Oz
>
>"Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:s5nUW2EXjbA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
>> Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
>> >
>> >"Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>> >news:p721G6DTVYA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
>> >> Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
>> >>
>> >> >My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the
>life
>> >of
>> >> >an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
>> >>
>> >> Being an omnivore of course I do have the right to kill and eat meat,
>> >> just like any other omnivore (bears, say).
>> >
>> >Amazing the way you people twist things in order to keep within your own
>> >evil agenda.
>>
>> Oh, you mean tell the truth?
>
>You do not know the meaning of the word
You certainly don't.
>> >You can and will kill what you like. You have no respect for
>> >the lives of other living creatures.
>>
>> Probably more respect than you do.
>
>How do you work that out killer
Try hunting stuff, understanding how it thinks, then you will give them
respect.
>> >Dare you tackle a bear on a 1/1 basis No. In my book that makes you a
>> >coward.
>>
>> No, it makes me smart.
>>
>> >Nothing more to be said.
>>
>> Indeed, you clearly have no argument to offer.
>
>No argument involved. I am not on the defensive.
Correct, you have lost the argument.
>As I said, nothing more to be said, which was a polite way of saying bugger
>off. I will have no truck with you timewasters.
and you know it.
Osprey
"Ray" <camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bdss9i$aic$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Nice answer;-) LOL
Osprey
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
"Our species role in nature"! LOL. You've been reading too many Ward M Clark
comics.
Nature is by definition is the power that creates and regulates the world;
all the natural phenomena created by this power, including plants, animals,
landscape, etc as distinct from people; the power of growth; the established
order of things; the cosmos; the external world, especially as untouched by
man. (Cut and paste job!)
Hunting, or the lack of it has nothing to do with aesthetics.
You didn't answer my question "How can you hunt peacefully?"
>
Pat Bryant
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Ray wrote:
> >>They're entitled to the same rights you have. If you don't like hunting,
> >>don't hunt.
> >
> > My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the life
of
> > an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
>
> Denying the antecedent.
>
> >>>>The lack of importance of hunting to urban communities should be
reason
> >>>>enough for you to lay off the country folk, their customs, and their
> >>>>traditions.
> >>>
> >>>Like inbreeding?
> >>
> >>You live in the country. Are you the result of inbreeding?
> >
> > Not to the best of my knowledge.
>
> Your royal family are urbanites AND inbreds.
>
> >>>and killing everthing that moves.
> >>
> >>Hyperbole.
> >
> > Truth.
>
> Hyperbole. You move in the country. You've not been shot at, have you?
Not by me he hasn't - I wouldn't have missed!
Pat
Christina Websell
pearl <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:bdsjgr$hm7$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:3F01C3EA...@earth.man...
> > Zakhar wrote:
> > >>How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without
intimidation,
> > >>abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
> > >
> > > How can you hunt peacefully? That's an oxymoron.
> >
> > Only in your misanthropic worldview. You can't force others to deny our
> > species' role in nature and adopt your peculiar sense of aesthetics.
>
> Our species role in nature? Were humans *natural* role that of
> a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
> not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
> to grasp and kill prey, nor carnivores' high concentration of protein
> digesting enzymes and stomach acid and their short intestinal tract,
> etc.
>
> Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore- species that eat
> predominantly raw fruits, succulent fruit-like vegetables, roots,
> shoots, nuts and seeds. This is apparent in our physiology down
> to every last detail, as well as from results of nutritional studies.
I feel a debate coming on ;-) Okay, lets say for the sake of argument, that
all humans become vegetarian. So now you have a whole load of animals who
might now have no purpose. Cattle, sheep, pigs, turkeys to name but a few.
Cattle, yes, milk, but to produce it means a calf. You might say drink soya
milk, as far as I can see it is all contaminated with GM. We mainly eat the
males calves grown on to a big size.and often the females not wanted for
herd replacement. Pigs then. Now why would anyone want to keep a pig except
to eat? Sheep, well you can use the wool, but I doubt it would be economic
to keep them just for that. Turkeys, well. I rest my case. Can anyone
give a home to a pet bullock? I think not.
So there you have a scenario in which there will be no food animals, and
they will die out. Everyone will eat vegetables. You have forgotten though,
that to grow these vegetables, organically, you will need animal manure.
There will not be any. The veggies will have outlawed the animals which
produced the manure.
In a human's gut there are flora to suggest we are omnivores.
>
> Most people not brought up to witness killing, and thus desensitised
> to the experience, when asked if they could kill animals reply with
> an emphatic NO.
I do not deny that most people would not like to kill an animal for food,
they prefer to get it from the local supermarket.
However, if there was ever something like a nuclear accident, the survivors
would need to feed themselves how they could and I fear we are rearing a
generation who have been so indocrinated that they would not be able to.do
so.
Ray
"Pat Bryant" <patrici...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:bdt1vt$lsd$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Watch it, that sounds rather like a threat. It also sounds like you need a
good seeing to:-) Shove that up your 12 Bore.
Ray
"Osprey" <osp...@earby.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bdt0sk$114ptp$1...@ID-98222.news.dfncis.de...
Dutch
>
> "Osprey" <osp...@earby.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
> > > > So of course you would tolerate rats and mice running around in your
> > > > house?
> > > > --
> > > > martin sage
> > >
> > > I would have a serious word with my cats.
> > > Answer your question. Right FO
> >
> >
> > Nice answer;-) LOL
> >
> > Osprey
> >
> >
> Cheers Osprey.
What, he's not a time waster?
usual suspect
>>Only in your misanthropic worldview. You can't force others to deny our
>>species' role in nature and adopt your peculiar sense of aesthetics.
>
> "Our species role in nature"! LOL. You've been reading too many Ward M Clark
> comics.
Species'. Possessive.
We are part of nature. Only spiteful misanthropes have a problem with
that concept.
> Nature is by definition is the power that creates and regulates the world;
> all the natural phenomena created by this power, including plants, animals,
> landscape, etc as distinct from people; the power of growth; the established
> order of things; the cosmos; the external world, especially as untouched by
> man. (Cut and paste job!)
Just as I thought. Misanthropy.
> Hunting, or the lack of it has nothing to do with aesthetics.
The hateful opposition of it, though, has everything to do with aesthetics.
> You didn't answer my question "How can you hunt peacefully?"
Have *you* ever hunted? It's a transcendental experience to kill or
harvest your own food. It's man partaking in and communing with nature,
being self-sufficient, and fulfilling his destiny. It's a brush with
man's past in the present. It keeps man close to the earth, and the
earth's bounty close to man.
It's not like going to a sterile fluorescently-lit grocery store and
buying anything -- meat, grain, fruit, vegetable or otherwise -- outside
its own element. Stores are most unnatural, of recent origin, and part
of a convenience-based era of interdependence. This new age of shopping
relies on scales of labor, modes of production, and means of
transportation which are far from peaceful: intensive farming, itinerant
labor, trucks, trains, high-volume cooling and heating, and the energy
required to powered all that.
swamp
wrote:
>Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore
Egads, here we go again.
She maintains this viewpoint despite the *fact* we digest, process,
and derive nutrition from animal fats and proteins quite well, and the
*fact* we'd be severely malnourished on a frugivorous diet.
--swamp
usual suspect
>>Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore
>
> Egads, here we go again.
>
> She maintains this viewpoint despite the *fact* we digest, process,
> and derive nutrition from animal fats and proteins quite well, and the
> *fact* we'd be severely malnourished on a frugivorous diet.
I wonder if she likes Cher's song "If I Could Turn Back Time." It sure
seems to be her line.
It's devolutionary to ignore where we are now and point back at our most
ancient ancestors and suggest our diet should be like theirs. Even our
closest primate cousins eat meat, even though they have similarly tiny
canines and also lack of claws.
We don't need devolutionary, retro-frugivore diet propaganda. The
pseudo-science is on the side of the retro-frugivores. Let them delude
themselves.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I am not going to get into the debate about hunting, but I am amazed
> that it raises more controversy than other "abuses" of animals. I think
> that keeping pets in towns is one of the worst animal abuses perpetrated
> by humans but because most people do it, a counter campaign is unlikely
> to ever get support.
In reality it's nothing to do with animals. Look at who's involved, the
stereotypes they invoke (and check the steretypes against fact) and draw
your own conclusions.
Cheerio,
--
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:3F01C3EA.3040208@earth.m
> Our species role in nature? Were humans *natural* role that of
> a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
> not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
We're not obligate predators Lotus, we're omnivores. Whilst we can, just
about, get by on a purely vegetable diet we have evolved to take advantage
of whatever foos source presents itself and to thrive on a mixed diet.
The traditional meat and two veg meal is a good example - although not,
maybe as sometimes cooked ;-)
> Most people not brought up to witness killing, and thus desensitised
> to the experience,
Would be seriously handicapped if denied access to a supermarket.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote:
> > How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without intimidation,
> > abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
>
> How can you hunt peacefully? That's an oxymoron.
Unless you hunt peacefully and in harmony with the environment you will be
unsuccessful. A good hunter knows far more about the quarry and it's
surroundings than any non-hunter can imagine. A good hunter cares more for
the quarry and its environment than a non hunter, (s)he has to or the hunt
will fail.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Watch it, that sounds rather like a threat. It also sounds like you need a
> good seeing to:-) Shove that up your 12 Bore.
And there ina nutshell is your moral stance.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Hunters have no rights.
When I was at University there was an active political group who's slogan
was 'Free speech for all - except racists and fascists.'
They never saw their inconsistency.
Hunters even allow their quarry has rights, anti-hunters arrogate all to
themselves.
Go figure.
Benfez
whatever bigoted, half witted excuses for arguments that you wish. It will
not negate the fact that we are Omnivores. In order to be an omnivore we
nurture animals. In oder to do this we grow food for them and we protect
them. As previously mentioned, the trouble with you townies is that the
sterile shopping centre is the closest you ever come to nature. No wonder
you're such a sickly, allergy ridden tribe. No challenges to the immune
system or the survival instinct. You should really try to learn about the
subject which you seem so desperate to misrepresent.
"Malcolm" <Mal...@malcsplace.com> wrote in message
news:0c51e7257e397da2...@free.teranews.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:37:43 +0100, Oz <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
> >>
> >>"Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> >>news:p721G6DTVYA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
> >>> Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
> >>>
> >>> >My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the
life
> >>of
> >>> >an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
> >>>
> >>> Being an omnivore of course I do have the right to kill and eat meat,
> >>> just like any other omnivore (bears, say).
> >>
> >>Amazing the way you people twist things in order to keep within your own
> >>evil agenda.
> >
> >Oh, you mean tell the truth?
>
> Ha that'll be the day.
>
> >>You can and will kill what you like. You have no respect for
> >>the lives of other living creatures.
> >
> >Probably more respect than you do.
>
> You don't even have respect for yourself, let alone any other
> creature.
>
> >>Dare you tackle a bear on a 1/1 basis No. In my book that makes you a
> >>coward.
> >
> >No, it makes me smart.
>
> No, it makes you a coward, criteria for you goal must include killing
> an animal that cannot fight back.
>
> >>Nothing more to be said.
> >
> >Indeed, you clearly have no argument to offer.
>
> Just as well, you never could handle argument. Right about now is when
> you skulk off and do a dimbo on us?
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, you dont like reasoned,
> well thought out, civil debate?
>
> I understand.
>
> /´¯/)
> /¯../
> /..../
> /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
> /'/.../..../......./¨¯\
> ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
> \.................'...../
> ''...\.......... _.·´
> \..............(
> \.............\..
Oz
and we have been eating meat for 5,000,000 - 10,000,000 years.
and chimps still do.
Oz
>Unless you hunt peacefully and in harmony with the environment you will be
>unsuccessful. A good hunter knows far more about the quarry and it's
>surroundings than any non-hunter can imagine. A good hunter cares more for
>the quarry and its environment than a non hunter,
absolutely true, as all hobdens know instinctively.
BAC
"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant02025...@half-baked-idea.co.uk...
> In article <bdsjgr$hm7$1...@kermit.esat.net>, pearl
> <URL:mailto:t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:3F01C3EA.3040208@earth.m
>
>
> > Most people not brought up to witness killing, and thus desensitised
> > to the experience,
>
> Would be seriously handicapped if denied access to a supermarket.
>
If unable to procure food through 'normal' means, humans frequently abandon
religious and social taboos, with, for example, documented cases of
cannibalism amongst 'civilised' survivors of shipwrecks. Usually after
they've failed to catch sufficient fish, gather enough nuts, etc.
Malcolm
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bdri97$h43$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>, Ray
><URL:mailto:camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Hunters have no rights.
>
>When I was at University there was an active political group who's slogan
>was 'Free speech for all - except racists and fascists.'
>
>They never saw their inconsistency.
Given the fact that you are a racist, closet faggot fascist, was it
any wonder? did they know about your convictions for unhealthy acts
with pre-teens? I hardly think asking a child to go naked so that you
could explain fishing tactics to them is "normal" behaviour for most
of us.
martin sage
<camco...@btopenworld.com> writes
Are you saying it is OK to keep cats to catch rats and mice? How is that
different from hunting?
--
martin sage
BAC
It is not perceived as a pastime of the upper classes?
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:Mal...@malcsplace.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 03:34:05 +0100, Derek Moody
> <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <bdri97$h43$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>, Ray
> ><URL:mailto:camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hunters have no rights.
> >
> >When I was at University there was an active political group who's slogan
> >was 'Free speech for all - except racists and fascists.'
> >
> >They never saw their inconsistency.
>
> Given the fact that you are a racist, closet faggot fascist, was it
Two bundles of wood but only one axe?
> any wonder? did they know about your convictions for unhealthy acts
> with pre-teens? I hardly think asking a child to go naked so that you
> could explain fishing tactics to them is "normal" behaviour for most
> of us.
Just remind me when and in which court(s) the alleged convictions occurred.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
> >>Only in your misanthropic worldview. You can't force others to deny our
> >>species' role in nature and adopt your peculiar sense of aesthetics.
> >
> > "Our species role in nature"! LOL. You've been reading too many Ward M
Clark
> > comics.
>
> Species'. Possessive.
FO. Stick your grammar up your arse. It's a sign a weak mind.
>
> We are part of nature. Only spiteful misanthropes have a problem with
> that concept.
>
> > Nature is by definition is the power that creates and regulates the
world;
> > all the natural phenomena created by this power, including plants,
animals,
> > landscape, etc as distinct from people; the power of growth; the
established
> > order of things; the cosmos; the external world, especially as untouched
by
> > man. (Cut and paste job!)
>
> Just as I thought. Misanthropy.
Crap.
>
> > Hunting, or the lack of it has nothing to do with aesthetics.
>
> The hateful opposition of it, though, has everything to do with
aesthetics.
Crap.
>
> > You didn't answer my question "How can you hunt peacefully?"
>
> Have *you* ever hunted? It's a transcendental experience to kill or
> harvest your own food.
LOL.
>It's man partaking in and communing with nature,
> being self-sufficient, and fulfilling his destiny. It's a brush with
> man's past in the present. It keeps man close to the earth, and the
> earth's bounty close to man.
Stop stop. You're creasing me up. You are just like Ward M Clark - full of
shit.
>
> It's not like going to a sterile fluorescently-lit grocery store and
> buying anything -- meat, grain, fruit, vegetable or otherwise -- outside
> its own element. Stores are most unnatural, of recent origin, and part
> of a convenience-based era of interdependence. This new age of shopping
> relies on scales of labor, modes of production, and means of
> transportation which are far from peaceful: intensive farming, itinerant
> labor, trucks, trains, high-volume cooling and heating, and the energy
> required to powered all that.
You're overly proud of that melodramatic lochia.
You still didn't answer my question "How can you hunt peacefully?"
>
Zakhar
> In article <k9jMa.44867$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net>, Zakhar
> <URL:mailto:nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote:
>
> > > How about the right of hunters to hunt peacefully, without
intimidation,
> > > abuse, or harrassment of anti-hunters?
> >
> > How can you hunt peacefully? That's an oxymoron.
>
> Unless you hunt peacefully and in harmony with the environment you will be
> unsuccessful. A good hunter knows far more about the quarry and it's
> surroundings than any non-hunter can imagine. A good hunter cares more
for
> the quarry and its environment than a non hunter, (s)he has to or the hunt
> will fail.
What comic did you read that from?
Do you care for a quarry by sticking arrows in it? Does a Captain of a
trawler care about the sea bed?
pearl
> dingbat (wassup usual? feeling a tad insecure I see) wrote:
> >>Only in your misanthropic worldview. You can't force others to deny our
> >>species' role in nature and adopt your peculiar sense of aesthetics.
> >
>
> Species'. Possessive.
I know. Missed it.
> > Were humans
- and that. Humans' possessive. tsk tsk.
> > *natural* role that of
> > a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
> > not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
> > to grasp and kill prey, nor carnivores' high concentration of protein
> > digesting enzymes and stomach acid and their short intestinal tract,
> > etc.
>
> We (well, some of us anyway) made quantum leaps through cognitive
> abilities and the use of tools -- including weapons to kill and knives
> to cut into smaller pieces so we could chew with our smaller canines.
And we're an unusual class of bird as well, 'cos we fly in airplanes, right?
> > Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore- species that eat
> > predominantly raw fruits, succulent fruit-like vegetables, roots,
> > shoots, nuts and seeds. This is apparent in our physiology down
> > to every last detail, as well as from results of nutritional studies.
>
> Hardly.
Let's see your evidence.
> > Most people not brought up to witness killing, and thus desensitised
> > to the experience, when asked if they could kill animals reply with
> > an emphatic NO. Were we natural predators, nobody would have
> > a second thought about it, and lil' herbert would tear into his pet rabbit,
> > before you could say 'make sure she has access to fresh water at all times'.
>
> Non sequitur. Wouldn't one need exposure to be DEsensitized?
Sequitur. To clarify- brought up witnessing killing.
> You must not be around young children much if you think they lack
> predatory instincts. That goes for little girls as well as the
> testosterone set.
Children _never_ bite into their animal companion's throat then eat it.
Will you _ever_ quit bullshitting?
Dutch
[..]
> Children _never_ bite into their animal companion's throat then eat
it.
They are not capable of it. Infant apes do not know how to feed
themselves, they must be taught to eat, to fish for termites and forage
for fruit and other food. Apes have evolved to learn feeding behaviour
from adults, as part of the socialization process. Besides, any kid who
tries to bite into a pet, and no doubt many try, would quickly learn
that animals posess self-defense mechanisms.
> Will you _ever_ quit bullshitting?
Will you?
usual suspect
>>Species'. Possessive.
>
> I know. Missed it.
>
>>>Were humans
>
> - and that. Humans' possessive. tsk tsk.
pearl - 1
suspect - 1
At the end of the first half, the score is tied.
<snip of incessant non sequiturs>
> Children _never_ bite into their animal companion's throat then eat it.
I was a year to a year and a half old. My mother left me in our backyard
on a blanket while she ran in to get our lunch. When she came back, I
was covered in blood and laughing. I was also holding half a snake. It
wasn't exactly a pet (cut with the PC crap; they're called pets), but I
did bite its fucking head off. I count that as my first hunt.
Like most of my friends, I had to be told how to treat pets kindly and
lovingly. Would I have ever eaten them? I don't know, probably not, but
I'm pretty sure I'd do *some* harm. I've seen how my nieces, nephews,
and other young children are around animals -- and enough times to know
that my experiences are not unique. I know that very rough play, even to
the point of turning fatal (especially for smaller pets), occurs
frequently between children and small pets.
<snip of ad hominem>
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote:
>
> "Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ant02020...@half-baked-idea.co.uk...
> Do you care for a quarry by sticking arrows in it?
If you are hunting with arrows you will need to take especial care or you
will lose many and waste far too much time following up.
> Does a Captain of a
> trawler care about the sea bed?
Strangely, yes. If a skipper is released from the pressure of the money men
ashore he will fish very differently and over different ground as he knows
that properly cared for the sea bed will yield more in later years.
pearl
news:3f020cd2$0$13743$afc38c87@vipnews...
>
> pearl <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:bdsjgr$hm7$1...@kermit.esat.net...
<...>
> > Our species' role in nature? Were humans' *natural* role that of
> > a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
> > not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
> > to grasp and kill prey, nor carnivores' high concentration of protein
> > digesting enzymes and stomach acid and their short intestinal tract,
> > etc.
> >
> > predominantly raw fruits, succulent fruit-like vegetables, roots,
> > shoots, nuts and seeds. This is apparent in our physiology down
> > to every last detail, as well as from results of nutritional studies.
>
> all humans become vegetarian. So now you have a whole load of animals who
> might now have no purpose. Cattle, sheep, pigs, turkeys to name but a few.
> Cattle, yes, milk, but to produce it means a calf. You might say drink soya
> milk, as far as I can see it is all contaminated with GM. We mainly eat the
> males calves grown on to a big size.and often the females not wanted for
> herd replacement. Pigs then. Now why would anyone want to keep a pig except
> to eat? Sheep, well you can use the wool, but I doubt it would be economic
> to keep them just for that. Turkeys, well. I rest my case. Can anyone
> give a home to a pet bullock? I think not.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the human population would become
veg*n (vegan/vegetarian) overnight. Animals are bred to meet demand.
As the demand drops, presumably gradually, less animals need be bred.
> So there you have a scenario in which there will be no food animals, and
> they will die out. Everyone will eat vegetables. You have forgotten though,
> that to grow these vegetables, organically, you will need animal manure.
> There will not be any. The veggies will have outlawed the animals which
> produced the manure.
Actually, animal manure is not necessary in the garden. Compost
made entirely of plant matter will do an equally good job.
No outlawing. Some domesticated animals will still be around I'm sure.
> In a human's gut there are flora to suggest we are omnivores.
[PDF] Clausen Carpet Solutions Dual
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
.. www.clausencarpet.com DU AL * SANITIZING
/ DEODORIZING CARPET CLEANER KILLS
PUTREFACTIVE BACTERIA REGISTERED BY ...
www.clausencarpet.com/dual.pdf
Putrefactive bacteria are present all over the place. Put your finger
in your mouth, there ya go- you've just ingested putrefactive bacteria.
'The intestinal microflora number in the trillions and are comprised
of 100 to 400 different bacterial species. Maintaining the delicate
balance of intestinal microflora is critical, because microbial balance
is the key factor that determines whether substances in the intestine
are converted into compounds that are beneficial or detrimental to
the host. If an imbalance occurs in favor of intestinal bacteria that
express virulent properties, many manifestations of ill health may
result.
..
The intestinal microflora are far from static. It is a highly
active society of organisms, possessing a diverse complex of
enzymes that perform extremely varied functions. Microbial
balance is the key factor that determines whether substances in
the intestine are converted into compounds that are beneficial or
detrimental to the host. Figure 1 illustrates the importance of
intestinal microbial balance by depicting some primary intestinal
bacteria, some of the compounds they produce, and their effect
on the host. If an imbalance occurred in favor of intestinal bacteria
that expressed virulent properties, many manifestations of ill
health and accelerated aging would be experienced. Moving the
intestinal bacterial population in the opposite direction, one
where the resident microflora manifest healthful properties,
would be much more likely to produce and help maintain a
state of good health.
Figure 1. The Importance of Intestinal Microbial Balance
Some Primary Bacteria Involved & Their Properties
The numbers that follow the name of the bacteria identify its
properties as defined in the first column. (below)
Predominantly Healthful Properties
Bifidobacteria: 1,2,3,4
Lactobacillus: 3
Eubacterium: 3
Combination of Healthful & Virulent
Bacteroidaceae: 1,2,3,4,5,7,8
Peptococcaceae: 3,8
Escherichia coli: 4,5,6,7,8
Streptococcus: 3.8
Predominantly Virulent Properties
Veillonella: 8
Clostridium perfringens: 7,8
Proteus: 7,8
Some Functions of
the Intestinal Microflora.................................................Effects on the Host
Healthful Properties
1. Produces vitamins, SCFAs, and protein that
are partly absorbed and utilized by the host. --------- Helps maintain good health.
2. Supplements the digestive and absorptive process. --Helps maintain good health.
3. Helps protect the host from overgrowth and
infection by exogenous organisms such as pathogenic
bacteria and yeasts. --- Helps maintain good health.
4. Supports the immune system. ------ Helps maintain good health.
Virulent Properties
5. Produces certain putrefactive substances
(ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, amines, phenols,
indoles, etc.) and secondary bile acids. ---
..... These substances may cause diarrhea, constipation,
and growth inhibition. They may also injure the .....
6. Produces other toxins. -----------
..... intestine directly and be partially absorbed,potentially
contributing throughout the host's life to aging and
geriatric diseases such as arteriosclerosis, hyperten-
sion, liver disorders, autoimmune diseases, and
immunosuppression.
7. Produces carcinogens. --------- May produce cancer.
8. Stimulates pathogenicity ------------
May contribute to the establishment of a pathologic condition,
i.e., spontaneous infections such as diarrhea, gastroenteritis,
superinfection (cerebromeningitis, endocarditis,septicemia,
urinary tract infection, brainabscess, liver abscess,
pulmonary abscess).
http://acudoc.com/Intestinal_Health.PDF
''According to Harper's Biochemistry, the putrefaction bacteria
in the large intestine convert amino acids from undigested protein
into toxic amines or ptomaines, such as cadaverine (from lysine),
agmatine (from arginine), tyramine (from tyroseine), putrescine
(from orithine) and histamine (from histidine). And these amines
are "powerful vasopressor substances". Tryptophan undergoes a
series of reactions to form indole and methylindole (skatole), which
produces the distinctive putrefying faecal smell of a high protein diet.
The sulphur-containing amino acids (cysteine and methionine) are
transformed into mercaptans such as ethyl and methyl mercaptan
as well as hydrogen sulphide (H2S). All these compounds are very
poisonous and unpleasant. Phosphatidylcholine, only found in meats,
breaks down into choline and the related toxic amines such as neurine.
This is evidence that meat is not well digested. Herbivores do not
produce putrid excrement, but "dung" instead, some still contains
sufficient nutrients to warrant eating again, as with rabbits.
However, a meal of fruit with similar food energy value would yield
about 2.6 g of protein of which 0.4 g would be wasted. A high protein
food at least doubles the quantity of protein that is potentially subject
to putrefication in the bowels. Worse still, the reason that plant protein
is less digestible is because it is found in the tough cellulose walls of
plant cells which pass through the gut undigested if not sufficiently
masticated. These proteins are not available as soil for putrefying
bacteria in the bowel. Animal protein wastes are highly bioavailable
to putrefying bowel bacteria since they have no cellulose cell wall.
It seems that only putrefying bacteria benefit from the "highly digestible"
animal proteins.'
http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm
> > Most people not brought up to witness killing, and thus desensitised
> > to the experience, when asked if they could kill animals reply with
> > an emphatic NO.
>
> I do not deny that most people would not like to kill an animal for food,
> they prefer to get it from the local supermarket.
Right. This alone is powerful evidence that humans aren't killers by nature.
> However, if there was ever something like a nuclear accident, the survivors
> would need to feed themselves how they could and I fear we are rearing a
> generation who have been so indocrinated that they would not be able to.do
> so.
The paleontological evidence suggests that human' dependence on meat
came about in places or at times when preferred plant foods were scarce.
We should give animals due thanks for allowing our continued survival
when we really needed it. NOW, in order to survive, we MUST stop
raising billions of hungry, thirsty herbivores, granivores, and omnivores.
Livestock farming is a primary cause of soil erosion, deforestation, water
pollution and global warming. The entire global ecosphere is severely
buckling under the pressure, and widespread mass-extinctions under way.
Were we to readopt our natural evolutionary diet, that would mean
reforestation, replanting of woodlands, and orchards. The vast areas
of land currently grazed could be allowed to become once again natural
habitat allowing recovery of wild species, and healthy balance restored.
Oz
>> unsuccessful. A good hunter knows far more about the quarry and it's
>> surroundings than any non-hunter can imagine. A good hunter cares more
>for
>> the quarry and its environment than a non hunter, (s)he has to or the hunt
>> will fail.
>
>What comic did you read that from?
Real life, but you wouldn't know about that.
>Do you care for a quarry by sticking arrows in it?
Of course, as fast and painless a kill as possible.
Not that derek mentioned care.
>Does a Captain of a
>trawler care about the sea bed?
He should, and if he owned rights to it he would.
But he doesn't, so he doesn't.
pearl
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:10:33 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore
>
> Egads, here we go again.
Stay clear of it if you've no interest in it.
> She maintains this viewpoint despite the *fact* we digest, process,
> and derive nutrition from animal fats and proteins quite well,
'quite' well? See other post, re; putrefactive bacteria.
> and the *fact* we'd be severely malnourished on a frugivorous diet.
Stating it's a *fact* (with emphasis), doesn't make your statement true.
pearl
> swamp wrote:
> >>Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore
> >
> > Egads, here we go again.
> >
> > She maintains this viewpoint despite the *fact* we digest, process,
> > and derive nutrition from animal fats and proteins quite well, and the
> > *fact* we'd be severely malnourished on a frugivorous diet.
>
> I wonder if she likes Cher's song "If I Could Turn Back Time." It sure
> seems to be her line.
Our physiology remains that of a, 60 million years in the making, frugivore.
> It's devolutionary to ignore where we are now and point back at our most
> ancient ancestors and suggest our diet should be like theirs.
Indeed. Our ancient ancestors had to rely on animals at times in
order to survive in harsh conditions. We for the most part don't.
> Even our
> closest primate cousins eat meat, even though they have similarly tiny
> canines and also lack of claws.
Our closest primate cousins are similarly frugivores. They too tend to
eat significant quantities of animal matter when plant foods are scarce.
> We don't need devolutionary, retro-frugivore diet propaganda. The
> pseudo-science is on the side of the retro-frugivores. Let them delude
> themselves.
Retro-meatarian propaganda. You're deluded.
usual suspect
<snip>
>>I do not deny that most people would not like to kill an animal for food,
>>they prefer to get it from the local supermarket.
>
> Right. This alone is powerful evidence that humans aren't killers by nature.
I think it has a lot more to do with conditioning and living in such a
sterile, urban-centric era. Evidence from the preceding generations
shows that people, including wives, were quite comfortable beheading a
chicken for an evening supper. As we've lost touch with our agrarian
roots, we've lost touch with who and what we are. This is why veganism
(the movement) has any popularity in an otherwise enlightened civilization.
You'll find that people in many parts of the world have no qualms about
the public slaughtering of animals for feasts. I've spent a lot of time
in South and Central America and observed this to be true not only for
feasts but for daily life. (Oh, I know how you Brits and Irish are about
such "primitive" cultures, but the world is so much bigger than a couple
of muddy islands.)
>>However, if there was ever something like a nuclear accident, the survivors
>>would need to feed themselves how they could and I fear we are rearing a
>>generation who have been so indocrinated that they would not be able to.do
>>so.
>
> The paleontological evidence suggests that human' dependence on meat
> came about in places or at times when preferred plant foods were scarce.
No! See previous threads about this.
> We should give animals due thanks for allowing our continued survival
> when we really needed it. NOW, in order to survive, we MUST stop
> raising billions of hungry, thirsty herbivores, granivores, and omnivores.
Animals are ingrates. Express your thanks to one and it'll either stare
at you like you're crazy (well, in your case you *are*) or move along as
if nothing happened.
Animals procreate at will. It's up to us as the predators we are to
maintain homeostasis by hunting them. Otherwise they overpopulate areas
and cause the kinds of problems you ascribe solely to man's evolution
and progress.
> Livestock farming is a primary cause of soil erosion, deforestation, water
> pollution and global warming. The entire global ecosphere is severely
> buckling under the pressure, and widespread mass-extinctions under way.
INTENSIVE agriculture is such a cause, but it is not the only one. Other
sustainable practices exist. The planet can handle enough livestock to
keep everyone happy and healthy.
> Were we to readopt our natural evolutionary diet, that would mean
> reforestation, replanting of woodlands, and orchards. The vast areas
> of land currently grazed could be allowed to become once again natural
> habitat allowing recovery of wild species, and healthy balance restored.
No it wouldn't. This utopian picture you paint has no basis in reality,
not even in our not-so-glorious, un-evolved, fruigivorous past. A
DEvolutionary retro-frugivore diet will not restore us or our world. It
is a Luddite denial of who we ARE, which is fitting given its inherent
misanthropic basis.
usual suspect
>>I wonder if she likes Cher's song "If I Could Turn Back Time." It sure
>>seems to be her line.
>
> Our physiology remains that of a, 60 million years in the making, frugivore.
Omnivore.
>>It's devolutionary to ignore where we are now and point back at our most
>>ancient ancestors and suggest our diet should be like theirs.
>
> Indeed. Our ancient ancestors had to rely on animals at times in
> order to survive in harsh conditions. We for the most part don't.
Where's your evidence for either assertion?
> Our closest primate cousins are similarly frugivores. They too tend to
> eat significant quantities of animal matter when plant foods are scarce.
They eat meat regardless of the availability of plant foods.
>>We don't need devolutionary, retro-frugivore diet propaganda. The
>>pseudo-science is on the side of the retro-frugivores. Let them delude
>>themselves.
>
> Retro-meatarian propaganda. You're deluded.
"Meatarian" is not a word, but something unthoughtfully coined by people
caught up in pseudo-science. As for delusions, when was the last time
you heard from Adama of Telos? Hmmmmmmmm?
pearl
> In article <bdsjgr$hm7$1...@kermit.esat.net>, pearl
> <URL:mailto:t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:3F01C3EA.3040208@earth.m
>
> > Our species role in nature? Were humans *natural* role that of
> > a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
> > not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
>
> We're not obligate predators Lotus, we're omnivores.
Natural OMNIvores are well equipped to catch, kill and digest
animal matter efficiently, and without adverse effects. We aren't.
> Whilst we can, just about, get by on a purely vegetable diet
No. Humans *thrive* when eating an adequate quantity of a
variety of high-quality plant-foods.
'Thirty years ago, the longevos, or long-living people of Vilcabamba,
were a legend in university gerontology departments, a phenomenon
to be bracketed with the centenarians of the Caucasus, Georgia and
northern Kashmir. Like the Abkhazians and the Hunza, the
Vilcabambans were an isolated mountain people subsisting on a
meat-free diet of grains, fruit and vegetables. '
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,894728,00.html
> we have evolved to take advantage
> of whatever foos source presents itself and to thrive on a mixed diet.
We evolved as frugivores for 60 million years, and we've still no
meat-eating adaptations. True, we are able to derive nutrients
from meat, but at a price. Meat supported us in times of scarcity.
> The traditional meat and two veg meal is a good example - although not,
> maybe as sometimes cooked ;-)
Are you suggesting eating raw meat? ;)
> > Most people not brought up to witness killing, and thus desensitised
> > to the experience,
>
> Would be seriously handicapped if denied access to a supermarket.
Indeed.
pearl
> swamp <sw...@adelphia.net> writes
> >On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:10:33 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Our natural dietary niche is that of a frugivore
> >
> >Egads, here we go again.
> >
> >She maintains this viewpoint despite the *fact* we digest, process,
> >and derive nutrition from animal fats and proteins quite well, and the
> >*fact* we'd be severely malnourished on a frugivorous diet.
>
> and we have been eating meat for 5,000,000 - 10,000,000 years.
Evidence for that?
> and chimps still do.
'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets
was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75
days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made
direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and
leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate
honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too
limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.
In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour
study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed
"no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although
they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81).
In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967,
Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures
of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees
did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).
Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed
meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete,
or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the
chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes
change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the
Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima,
revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees
ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood."
(p.87).
From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati
Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published
in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates,
avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools
that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found
the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only
14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal
foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal
variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding
preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps
groups are 'vegetarian', while other are not. But see the Kortlandt
observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters.
..
Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is
undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling
populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below
in his evidence.
# the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive
systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated cases
# the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
# rarity of pertinent field observations
# the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey
animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments
of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to
be much more common)
Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that
the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides
both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems
wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting
and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer
nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of
low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says
that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course,
to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have
never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter
that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
..'
http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm
usual suspect
> Natural OMNIvores are well equipped to catch, kill and digest
> animal matter efficiently, and without adverse effects. We aren't.
Yes we are. We have guns, arrows, spears, nets, traps. We have knives,
food processors, and other means of cutting or grinding meat into even
the most revolting textures (e.g., bologna, potted meat). Most humans
digest meat quite well, though I don't run around looking myself.
>>Whilst we can, just about, get by on a purely vegetable diet
>
> No. Humans *thrive* when eating an adequate quantity of a
> variety of high-quality plant-foods.
Thrive is subjective, and diet is relative.
<snip>
>>we have evolved to take advantage
>>of whatever foos source presents itself and to thrive on a mixed diet.
>
> We evolved as frugivores for 60 million years, and we've still no
> meat-eating adaptations. True, we are able to derive nutrients
> from meat, but at a price. Meat supported us in times of scarcity.
Meat-eating adaptations: see above. We all agree that intensive
agriculture has pitfalls, but we would still require intensive
agriculture if all six-billion of us went vegan.
>>The traditional meat and two veg meal is a good example - although not,
>>maybe as sometimes cooked ;-)
>
> Are you suggesting eating raw meat? ;)
Many people enjoy dishes like steak tartar. Sashimi (raw fish) with or
in sushi, or even by itself, also has a wide appeal.
<snip>
pearl
> blinded-by-the-light wrote:
> >>I wonder if she likes Cher's song "If I Could Turn Back Time." It sure
> >>seems to be her line.
> >
> > Our physiology remains that of a, 60 million years in the making, frugivore.
>
> Omnivore.
Your evidence?
> >>It's devolutionary to ignore where we are now and point back at our most
> >>ancient ancestors and suggest our diet should be like theirs.
> >
> > Indeed. Our ancient ancestors had to rely on animals at times in
> > order to survive in harsh conditions. We for the most part don't.
>
> Where's your evidence for either assertion?
You provided a link to it yourself just recently;
'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of
correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which
existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted
and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time.
Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide
temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind)
dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards
an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality
during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested
areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species.
The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these behavioral
adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
in the diet, to augment plant resources.'
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch12/chap12.htm
> > Our closest primate cousins are similarly frugivores. They too tend to
> > eat significant quantities of animal matter when plant foods are scarce.
>
> They eat meat regardless of the availability of plant foods.
All do, at all times? Your proof of that?
<...>
(Away for the rest of the evening.)
Jim Webster
please note, if you want to go through all this rubbish again, why you only
have to search on google groups looking for the name Lotus and you will get
the lot. It was never very convincing that time either.
Jim Webster
usual suspect
<snip>
Street-walking tonight?
Christina Websell
> "Christina Websell" <christin...@zoom.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3f020cd2$0$13743$afc38c87@vipnews...
> >
> > pearl <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:bdsjgr$hm7$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> <...>
> veg*n (vegan/vegetarian) overnight.
I don't think it is unfortunate. As I already said, the purpose of some
animals is, whether you like it or not, mainly to be eaten by meat-eating
humans.
>Animals are bred to meet demand.
> As the demand drops, presumably gradually, less animals need be bred.
I still fail to see why you think this would a good thing. These animals
then, would be less and less common.
>
> > So there you have a scenario in which there will be no food animals,
and
> > they will die out. Everyone will eat vegetables. You have forgotten
though,
> > that to grow these vegetables, organically, you will need animal manure.
> > There will not be any. The veggies will have outlawed the animals which
> > produced the manure.
>
> Actually, animal manure is not necessary in the garden. Compost
> made entirely of plant matter will do an equally good job.
I haven't found that to be the case in my own garden. Plants fed on the
compost with animal manure mixed in always do better. Not just myself
though. My uncle will drive for nearly three hours to come and get my
powdered chicken manure. He has an organic allotment. He sprinkles this on
around the broccoli and says the effect is spectacular. He refuses to tell
the other allotment holders his secret. It's hard to get animal manure
there (near London)
>
> No outlawing. Some domesticated animals will still be around I'm sure.
Cats, dogs, hamsters etc, yes. Count the people you know who could (or
would) keep a cow, a sheep, a pig as a pet.
.
> Livestock farming is a primary cause of soil erosion, deforestation, water
> pollution and global warming.
Livestock farming provides a living for a lot of people. It does not seem
to cause soil erosion, deforestation or water pollution in Britain, AFAIK.
As for global warming, surely you aren't serious in suggesting livestock
farming causes that? Is it methane you are thinking of? Plenty of methane
produced by vegetarians ;-)
I do not have a problem with people being vegetarian or vegan, that is their
choice. I never tell them they ought to eat meat. When my veggie or vegan
friends come here for a meal, we all eat *their* choice of food. If I go to
their place, we also eat *their* choice. What I do have a problem with is
people who do not eat meat telling me that I shouldn't. Because it's my
choice. Why can't so many vegetarians respect my view, like I do theirs?
Tina
Malcolm
Jims on the run again. That's what you get when you use make believe
kill filters bought from Oz.
Your wife must love you, no staying power.
Zakhar
> In article <8LEMa.46446$xd5.2...@stones.force9.net>, Zakhar
> <URL:mailto:nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ant02020...@half-baked-idea.co.uk...
>
> > Do you care for a quarry by sticking arrows in it?
>
> If you are hunting with arrows you will need to take especial care or you
> will lose many and waste far too much time following up.
IOW no.
>
> > Does a Captain of a
> > trawler care about the sea bed?
>
> Strangely, yes. If a skipper is released from the pressure of the money
men
> ashore he will fish very differently and over different ground as he knows
> that properly cared for the sea bed will yield more in later years.
IOW no.
Zakhar
> Zakhar <nos...@donotuse123.com> writes
> >
> >"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Unless you hunt peacefully and in harmony with the environment you will
be
> >> unsuccessful. A good hunter knows far more about the quarry and it's
> >> surroundings than any non-hunter can imagine. A good hunter cares more
> >for
> >> the quarry and its environment than a non hunter, (s)he has to or the
hunt
> >> will fail.
> >
> >What comic did you read that from?
>
> Real life, but you wouldn't know about that.
A Ward M Clark comic is your type of read, would be my guess.
>
> >Do you care for a quarry by sticking arrows in it?
>
> Of course, as fast and painless a kill as possible.
Hunters don't care about how painless it is, they may care how quick for
expeditious reasons.
> Not that derek mentioned care.
I quote Derek:
"A good hunter *cares* more for the quarry and its environment than a non
hunter.."
>
> >Does a Captain of a
> >trawler care about the sea bed?
>
> He should, and if he owned rights to it he would.
> But he doesn't, so he doesn't.
So we agree that there are hunters who don't care about the environment.
usual suspect
<snip of broken record>
>>Of course, as fast and painless a kill as possible.
>
> Hunters don't care about how painless it is, they may care how quick for
> expeditious reasons.
I think most hunters care about both issues. It's also fair to say
you're talking about the same thing when addressing either issue since a
wounded animal in pain is one which is going to pose problems. Every
deer hunter I've known has deeply regretted a "gut shot" which resulted
in an endless blood trail and no dead deer to be found. Such regret has
had everything to do with wounding an animal, not about not having a
dead deer.
<snip>
> So we agree that there are hunters who don't care about the environment.
It's safer to generalize that no group is entirely monolithic; there are
a few bad apples in every barrel. The overwhelming majority of hunters
do care about the environment.
Malcolm
Crap, only to the extent it provides them with deviant pleasure.
Pedophiles care dearly about their victims too, derek moody has often
claimed this.
I see a wood, I admire it for it's beauty, the sheer wonder of it all,
only a weirdo would want to kill what lives in the wood, for pleasure.
get real.
You may fool the dumb kooks.
Zakhar
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
> <snip of broken record>
The record of common sense and logic has been broken in your mind for far
too long.
> >>Of course, as fast and painless a kill as possible.
> >
> > Hunters don't care about how painless it is, they may care how quick for
> > expeditious reasons.
>
> I think most hunters care about both issues.
Hunters do not aim a shot, hook, trap, electrocute, harpoon or snare animals
with an aim of minimising pain. The aim is to kill the animal, pain or not.
>It's also fair to say
> you're talking about the same thing when addressing either issue since a
> wounded animal in pain is one which is going to pose problems.
Problems like being attacked and wasting time finding the kill.
>Every
> deer hunter I've known has deeply regretted a "gut shot" which resulted
> in an endless blood trail and no dead deer to be found.
I'm sure they don't like to waste bullets, and have a long pointless walk.
>Such regret has
> had everything to do with wounding an animal, not about not having a
> dead deer.
>
> <snip>
> > So we agree that there are hunters who don't care about the environment.
>
> It's safer to generalize that no group is entirely monolithic; there are
> a few bad apples in every barrel. The overwhelming majority of hunters
> do care about the environment.
If they did you could provide evidence.
>
usual suspect
>><snip of broken record>
>
> The record of common sense and logic has been broken in your mind for far
> too long.
Meaning your never-ending prattle about obscure comics.
Skip-skip-skip-skip...
>>I think most hunters care about both issues.
>
> Hunters do not aim a shot, hook, trap, electrocute, harpoon or snare animals
> with an aim of minimising pain. The aim is to kill the animal, pain or not.
Kill QUICKLY. Their goal is not to cause pain, and most hunters I know
go out of their way to insure a fast kill.
>>It's also fair to say
>>you're talking about the same thing when addressing either issue since a
>>wounded animal in pain is one which is going to pose problems.
>
> Problems like being attacked and wasting time finding the kill.
Not like being attacked since wounded animals usually don't hang around
the scene of predation. More like what I said:
>>Every
>>deer hunter I've known has deeply regretted a "gut shot" which resulted
>>in an endless blood trail and no dead deer to be found.
>
> I'm sure they don't like to waste bullets, and have a long pointless walk.
They also don't like causing pain, regardless of your impious assertions.
>>Such regret has
>>had everything to do with wounding an animal, not about not having a
>>dead deer.
You useless dolt. You could've at least cheaply assailed me on this one
as you did the others.
>>>So we agree that there are hunters who don't care about the environment.
>>
>>It's safer to generalize that no group is entirely monolithic; there are
>>a few bad apples in every barrel. The overwhelming majority of hunters
>>do care about the environment.
>
> If they did you could provide evidence.
Hunters and anglers fund most of our conservation programs with license
fees and taxes. Such fees and taxes were promoted by hunters and anglers
to provide habitat for their favored species and for some they do not
favor. Such fees and taxes have been in existence long before
organizations like PETA came along and started trying to mind other
peoples' lives. In Texas, hunting and fishing license fees also help
support a very large state park system enjoyed by everyone in the state.
Texans can also buy special license plates for vehicles to further
support conservation efforts:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/plate/whitetail_deer.htm
Additionally, many hunting groups mount conservation efforts. Ducks
Unlimited and other such groups are very pro-active in conservation
efforts. Healthy ecosystems equate to healthy animals.
http://www.ducks.org/conservation/Projects/index.asp
http://tinyurl.com/fvxg
Finally, hunters also donate a lot of meat to food relief organizations
for distribution to the needy.
http://www.tnugent.com/about_tnusa/hunters_hungry.shtml
http://www.fhfh.org/cgi-bin/aff_tx.asp
Now when will you present your own to refute this? :-p
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote:
>
> "Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:iyFn0KBdyxA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
> > Zakhar <nos...@donotuse123.com> writes
> >
> > >Do you care for a quarry by sticking arrows in it?
> >
> > Of course, as fast and painless a kill as possible.
>
> Hunters don't care about how painless it is, they may care how quick for
> expeditious reasons.
Painless too - for equally expeditious reasons if you like. Stressed meat is
often tough and an animal in pain is likely to broadcast a warning to others
thus reducing the day's bag.
> > Not that derek mentioned care.
>
> I quote Derek:
>
> "A good hunter *cares* more for the quarry and its environment than a non
> hunter.."
Oh yes, every time.
> > >Does a Captain of a
> > >trawler care about the sea bed?
> >
> > He should, and if he owned rights to it he would.
> > But he doesn't, so he doesn't.
>
> So we agree that there are hunters who don't care about the environment.
Probably. Only those with extensive technological assistance can afford to
disregard it though, for a while. Those who care for it will always do
better in the long run.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ant02025...@half-baked-idea.co.uk...
> > In article <bdsjgr$hm7$1...@kermit.esat.net>, pearl
> > <URL:mailto:t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:3F01C3EA.3040208@ear
> th.m
> >
> > > Our species role in nature? Were humans *natural* role that of
> > > a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
> > > not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
> >
> > We're not obligate predators Lotus, we're omnivores.
>
> Natural OMNIvores are well equipped to catch, kill and digest
> animal matter efficiently, and without adverse effects. We aren't.
No, wer'e evolved to take advantage of any food source that presents itself.
> > Whilst we can, just about, get by on a purely vegetable diet
>
> No. Humans *thrive* when eating an adequate quantity of a
> variety of high-quality plant-foods.
So do a great many animals. An adequate supply of high-quality plant foods
is rare and seasonal in the extreme in nature.
> > we have evolved to take advantage
> > of whatever foos source presents itself and to thrive on a mixed diet.
>
> We evolved as frugivores for 60 million years, and we've still no
> meat-eating adaptations. True, we are able to derive nutrients
> from meat, but at a price. Meat supported us in times of scarcity.
And plenty.
> > The traditional meat and two veg meal is a good example - although not,
> > maybe as sometimes cooked ;-)
>
> Are you suggesting eating raw meat? ;)
No, just that decent cooking skills are too low on the school curriculum.
--
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote:
>
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:3F035785...@earth.man...
> > Zakhar wrote:
> > <snip of broken record>
> > wounded animal in pain is one which is going to pose problems.
>
> Problems like being attacked and wasting time finding the kill.
Attacked is unlikely. Wasted time and effort is all too likely, spoiled
meat is even worse. You owe it to your quarry to make good use of it's
carcase. Even if you are destroying vermin which you don't intend to eat
you owe it a quick and certain death.
> >Every
> > deer hunter I've known has deeply regretted a "gut shot" which resulted
> > in an endless blood trail and no dead deer to be found.
>
> I'm sure they don't like to waste bullets, and have a long pointless walk.
That too. The worst part is following up after a bad hunter (to whom
bullets are cheap) has injured a beast but not completed the job.
> > a few bad apples in every barrel. The overwhelming majority of hunters
> > do care about the environment.
>
> If they did you could provide evidence.
Look around. Almost all of the woodland and covert you see has been
preserved by and for hunting in one form or another.
You may call it enlightened self-interest if you wish but it's a great deal
more than any anti-hunting group ever managed.
Oz
>
>"Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:iyFn0KBdyxA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
>> Zakhar <nos...@donotuse123.com> writes
>> >
>> >"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> Unless you hunt peacefully and in harmony with the environment you will
>be
>> >> unsuccessful. A good hunter knows far more about the quarry and it's
>> >> surroundings than any non-hunter can imagine. A good hunter cares more
>> >for
>> >> the quarry and its environment than a non hunter, (s)he has to or the
>hunt
>> >> will fail.
>> >
>> >What comic did you read that from?
>>
>> Real life, but you wouldn't know about that.
>
>A Ward M Clark comic is your type of read, would be my guess.
Que?
>> >Do you care for a quarry by sticking arrows in it?
>>
>> Of course, as fast and painless a kill as possible.
>
>Hunters don't care about how painless it is, they may care how quick for
>expeditious reasons.
>
>> Not that derek mentioned care.
>
>I quote Derek:
>
>"A good hunter *cares* more for the quarry and its environment than a non
>hunter.."
Quite. I doubt you care about animals, only yourself.
Malcolm
<above...@earth.man> wrote:
>Zakhar wrote:
>>><snip of broken record>
>>
>> The record of common sense and logic has been broken in your mind for far
>> too long.
>
>Meaning your never-ending prattle about obscure comics.
>
>Skip-skip-skip-skip...
Playing Hopscotch?
>>>I think most hunters care about both issues.
>>
>> Hunters do not aim a shot, hook, trap, electrocute, harpoon or snare animals
>> with an aim of minimising pain. The aim is to kill the animal, pain or not.
>
>Kill QUICKLY.
Wishful thinking.
> Their goal is not to cause pain, and most hunters I know
>go out of their way to insure a fast kill.
They may well do that, in reality the facts are very different,
hunting is very hit and miss, more often a miss of the target area by
a good 12 inches, whilst many hunters would like to think they are
Davey Crockett, the reality is most shots are done on the run with
very little time for a calm, steady shot, the reality is, most shots
are a miss, either completely or by a foot or more, which often leaves
the animal mortally wounded, requiring two or three further shots,
assuming you manage to find the injured beast.
>>>It's also fair to say
>>>you're talking about the same thing when addressing either issue since a
>>>wounded animal in pain is one which is going to pose problems.
>>
>> Problems like being attacked and wasting time finding the kill.
>
>Not like being attacked since wounded animals usually don't hang around
>the scene of predation. More like what I said:
>
>>>Every
>>>deer hunter I've known has deeply regretted a "gut shot" which resulted
>>>in an endless blood trail and no dead deer to be found.
>>
>> I'm sure they don't like to waste bullets, and have a long pointless walk.
>
>They also don't like causing pain, regardless of your impious assertions.
They simply don't care, it's the nature of the beast, you cannot want
to kill something and then claim you care for it, it's crap.
>>>Such regret has
>>>had everything to do with wounding an animal, not about not having a
>>>dead deer.
>
>You useless dolt. You could've at least cheaply assailed me on this one
>as you did the others.
>
>>>>So we agree that there are hunters who don't care about the environment.
>>>
>>>It's safer to generalize that no group is entirely monolithic; there are
>>>a few bad apples in every barrel. The overwhelming majority of hunters
>>>do care about the environment.
>>
>> If they did you could provide evidence.
>
>Hunters and anglers fund most of our conservation programs with license
>fees and taxes.
Hunters and anglers pay a license fee because they are forced too.
>Such fees and taxes were promoted by hunters and anglers
>to provide habitat for their favored species and for some they do not
>favor.
Pedophiles will often go to great expense to build themselves a
secluded love nest to bring their victims home to. Big deal?
> Such fees and taxes have been in existence long before
>organizations like PETA came along and started trying to mind other
>peoples' lives. In Texas, hunting and fishing license fees also help
>support a very large state park system enjoyed by everyone in the state.
> Texans can also buy special license plates for vehicles to further
>support conservation efforts:
>http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/plate/whitetail_deer.htm
>
>Additionally, many hunting groups mount conservation efforts. Ducks
>Unlimited and other such groups are very pro-active in conservation
>efforts. Healthy ecosystems equate to healthy animals.
>http://www.ducks.org/conservation/Projects/index.asp
>http://tinyurl.com/fvxg
>
>Finally, hunters also donate a lot of meat to food relief organizations
>for distribution to the needy.
>http://www.tnugent.com/about_tnusa/hunters_hungry.shtml
>http://www.fhfh.org/cgi-bin/aff_tx.asp
What a load of twaddle, perverts lining up their own little dens for
their perverted hobby. They reckon the taxes received from crime of
one sort and another, contribute 25% of gross national income in the
modern world, because even criminals pay their taxes sometimes, and do
some good for society.
Blood money is blood money, stop deluding yourself.
Malcolm
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <NtIMa.46520$xd5.2...@stones.force9.net>, Zakhar
><URL:mailto:nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Oz" <aco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:iyFn0KBdyxA$Ew...@btopenworld.com...
>> > Zakhar <nos...@donotuse123.com> writes
>
>> >
>> > >Do you care for a quarry by sticking arrows in it?
>> >
>> > Of course, as fast and painless a kill as possible.
>>
>> Hunters don't care about how painless it is, they may care how quick for
>> expeditious reasons.
>
>Painless too - for equally expeditious reasons if you like. Stressed meat is
>often tough
So what, stressed meat is a very valuable resource in many countries,
in fact most meat is stressed, from farm animal to wild animal. stop
trying to impress people with claimed connoisseur tastes you goon.
> and an animal in pain is likely to broadcast a warning to others
>thus reducing the day's bag.
Ha ha and the crack of a rifle isn't, or the scream of an animal being
hit isn't? this just goes to show how deluded the mind of a pervert
is, do you take the same approach when visiting male friends in public
toilets, do you gag each other?
>> > Not that derek mentioned care.
>>
>> I quote Derek:
>>
>> "A good hunter *cares* more for the quarry and its environment than a non
>> hunter.."
>
>Oh yes, every time.
Lie. You would not know the meaning of the word, except in your case,
care in the community, which us tax payers must pay for.
>> > >Does a Captain of a
>> > >trawler care about the sea bed?
>> >
>> > He should, and if he owned rights to it he would.
>> > But he doesn't, so he doesn't.
>>
>> So we agree that there are hunters who don't care about the environment.
>
>Probably. Only those with extensive technological assistance can afford to
>disregard it though, for a while. Those who care for it will always do
>better in the long run.
As will a pedophile who grooms his victims for two or three years,
have you also groomed victims on the net Mr Moody? how long would you
consider grooming victims for?
Would you like a pedo license where your victims are confined and you
just turn up one day and say I'll have him, him and him? is that your
idea of care?
Charles Francis
<camco...@btconnect.com> writes
>> Being an omnivore of course I do have the right to kill and eat meat,
>> just like any other omnivore (bears, say).
>
>Amazing the way you people twist things in order to keep within your own
>evil agenda.
Ha! There is nothing quite like the dishonesty of a vegetarian who
cannot recognise or understand the way of nature.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Charles Francis
<camco...@ntlworld.com> writes
>> > > house?
>> > > --
>> > > martin sage
>> >
>> > I would have a serious word with my cats.
A vegetarian who keeps cats, and is thus responsible for the slaughter
of mice. Keeping a cat is no less hunting than going out with the
hounds. If they want to ban fox hunting, they had better ban moggies, as
well as any dog fast enough to catch a rabbit.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Charles Francis
writes
>Were we to readopt our natural evolutionary diet, that would mean
>reforestation, replanting of woodlands, and orchards. The vast areas
>of land currently grazed could be allowed to become once again natural
>habitat allowing recovery of wild species, and healthy balance restored.
Good idea. Lets start by slaughtering the 95% or more of the worlds
population necessary to allow this sort of ecosystem. Starting with
everyone we don't like.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Keith Williams
news:e16f550b5435e1db...@free.teranews.com...
>
> They may well do that, in reality the facts are very different,
> hunting is very hit and miss, more often a miss of the target area by
> a good 12 inches,
Bullets grouped 1" at 150m...........
> whilst many hunters would like to think they are
> Davey Crockett, the reality is most shots are done on the run with
> very little time for a calm, steady shot,
Can not vouch for our colonial cousins but not in the UK. The only time
I would shoot at a running deer would be if a safe shot presented
itself on a wounded animal.
99.9% of these wounded deer are caused by road traffic accidents or the
poachers crossbow, dog or gun.
> the reality is, most shots
Kill............
> are a miss, either completely or by a foot or more, which often
leaves
> the animal mortally wounded, requiring two or three further shots,
> assuming you manage to find the injured beast.
>
Any one who has shot an amount of live quarry and said they have
killed 100% with a single shot is a liar......Shit happens.
Last season my count was 30/30 deer with a single shot. It's called
respect for your quarry mixed with a little luck.
Like I said before think before you spout off on a subject you clearly
know nothing about...
Keith.
Malcolm
<Keith.Wi...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"Malcolm" <Mal...@malcsplace.com> wrote in message
>news:e16f550b5435e1db...@free.teranews.com...
>>
>> They may well do that, in reality the facts are very different,
>> hunting is very hit and miss, more often a miss of the target area by
>> a good 12 inches,
>
>Bullets grouped 1" at 150m...........
At the fairground with corks maybe, how does that translate in the
real world, how many wild animals have stood still and allowed you to
group your shots? it just goes to show the simpleton mentality.
>> whilst many hunters would like to think they are
>> Davey Crockett, the reality is most shots are done on the run with
>> very little time for a calm, steady shot,
>
>Can not vouch for our colonial cousins but not in the UK. The only time
>I would shoot at a running deer would be if a safe shot presented
>itself on a wounded animal.
Liar.
>99.9% of these wounded deer are caused by road traffic accidents or the
>poachers crossbow, dog or gun.
That pretty much covers everything then, but you didn't mention lumps
of ice falling from planes! was there a point to your silly statement?
Do you know what day it is?
>> the reality is, most shots
>
>Kill............
Miss by miles.
>> are a miss, either completely or by a foot or more, which often
>leaves
>> the animal mortally wounded, requiring two or three further shots,
>> assuming you manage to find the injured beast.
>>
>
> Any one who has shot an amount of live quarry and said they have
>killed 100% with a single shot is a liar
We know that already.
>Last season my count was 30/30 deer with a single shot. It's called
>respect for your quarry mixed with a little luck.
Liar, unless they were penned in and doped up.
>Like I said before think before you spout off on a subject you clearly
>know nothing about...
Obviously more then you do, did you aquire your lack of skill from
spiderman comics?
Ray
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:gRpMa.362018$Vi5.9...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> >
> > "Osprey" <osp...@earby.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
>
> > > > > So of course you would tolerate rats and mice running around in
your
> > > > > house?
> > > > > --
> > > > > martin sage
> > > >
> > > > I would have a serious word with my cats.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nice answer;-) LOL
> > >
> > > Osprey
> > >
> > >
> > Cheers Osprey.
>
> What, he's not a time waster?
>
>
"Dutch" I am not a timewaster,
You take 10kb to say the same amount of crap I can manage in a couple of
words. So who wastes the most time?.
Ray
"Charles Francis" <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5N+jGbn+9A$Ew...@clef.demon.co.uk...
Hey "Dutch" Reading this? To Charles Francis I say "Bollocks". No time
wasted there!
Ray
"martin sage" <mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:toXn69BWzpA$Ew...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk...
> In article <bdss9i$aic$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>, Ray
> <camco...@btopenworld.com> writes
> >
> >"martin sage" <mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:edl7XtAeUcA$Ew...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <p721G6DTVYA$Ew...@btopenworld.com>, Oz
> >> <aco...@btopenworld.com> writes
> >> >Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >>My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the
life
> >of
> >> >>an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
> >>
> >> So of course you would tolerate rats and mice running around in your
> >> --
> >> martin sage
> >
> >I would have a serious word with my cats.
>
> different from hunting?
> --
> martin sage
Here we are another one who can't even take instructions given in an earlier
post. You have a word with him "Dutch".
Ray
"BAC" <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7FxMa.18$xW3....@news.dircon.co.uk...
>
> "martin sage" <mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:toXn69BWzpA$Ew...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <bdss9i$aic$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>, Ray
> > <camco...@btopenworld.com> writes
> > >
> > >"martin sage" <mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:edl7XtAeUcA$Ew...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk...
> > >> In article <p721G6DTVYA$Ew...@btopenworld.com>, Oz
> > >> <aco...@btopenworld.com> writes
> > >> >Ray <camco...@btconnect.com> writes
> > >> >
> > >> >>My so called 'rights' do not give me the 'Moral Right' to take the
> life
> > >of
> > >> >>an animal, that is why I am a vegetarian.
> > >>
> > >> So of course you would tolerate rats and mice running around in your
> > >> house?
> > >> --
> > >> martin sage
> > >
> > >I would have a serious word with my cats.
> > >Answer your question. Right FO
> >
> > Are you saying it is OK to keep cats to catch rats and mice? How is that
> > different from hunting?
>
>
> "Upper Classes"? Michael Saunby hunts. Hardly call him upper class:-)
Ray
> In article <4JoMa.1327$nP...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, Ray
> <URL:mailto:camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Watch it, that sounds rather like a threat. It also sounds like you need
a
> > good seeing to:-) Shove that up your 12 Bore.
>
> And there ina nutshell is your moral stance.
Perfectly in keeping with the stupid comments of "Pat".
Keith Williams
"Malcolm" <Mal...@malcsplace.com> wrote in message
news:595de2692bc7867a...@free.teranews.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:57:03 +0000 (UTC), "Keith Williams"
> <Keith.Wi...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >"Malcolm" <Mal...@malcsplace.com> wrote in message
> >news:e16f550b5435e1db...@free.teranews.com...
> >>
> >> They may well do that, in reality the facts are very different,
> >> hunting is very hit and miss, more often a miss of the target area
by
> >> a good 12 inches,
> >
> >Bullets grouped 1" at 150m...........
>
> At the fairground with corks maybe, how does that translate in the
> real world, how many wild animals have stood still and allowed you to
> group your shots? it just goes to show the simpleton mentality.
There you go proving your ignorance again.....the rifle is zeroed on a
target...Jeeze!
And as for animals standing still, figures that you have never sat
quiet in the countryside before.......I bet you are the type that talks
loudly, wears bright clothes, let your dog run wild and then moans
about the lack of wildlife...
> >> whilst many hunters would like to think they are
> >> Davey Crockett, the reality is most shots are done on the run with
> >> very little time for a calm, steady shot,
> >
> >Can not vouch for our colonial cousins but not in the UK. The only
time
> >I would shoot at a running deer would be if a safe shot presented
> >itself on a wounded animal.
>
> Liar.
Not a word.
>
> >99.9% of these wounded deer are caused by road traffic accidents or
the
> >poachers crossbow, dog or gun.
>
> That pretty much covers everything then, but you didn't mention lumps
> of ice falling from planes! was there a point to your silly
statement?
Just to counter your drivel about missed shots........
>
> Do you know what day it is?
>
> >> the reality is, most shots
> >
> >Kill............
>
> Miss by miles.
:-))
>
> >> are a miss, either completely or by a foot or more, which often
> >leaves
> >> the animal mortally wounded, requiring two or three further shots,
> >> assuming you manage to find the injured beast.
> >>
> >
> > Any one who has shot an amount of live quarry and said they have
> >killed 100% with a single shot is a liar
>
> We know that already.
Very rare though.
>
> >Last season my count was 30/30 deer with a single shot. It's called
> >respect for your quarry mixed with a little luck.
>
> Liar, unless they were penned in and doped up.
Got a freezer full.........want some.
>
> >Like I said before think before you spout off on a subject you
clearly
> >know nothing about...
>
> Obviously more then you do, did you aquire your lack of skill from
> spiderman comics?
>
Dream on......go and learn about a subject before wasting anybody
else's time having to correct your lies
Zip.
Ray
> <URL:mailto:camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Hunters have no rights.
>
> When I was at University there was an active political group who's slogan
> was 'Free speech for all - except racists and fascists.'
>
> They never saw their inconsistency.
>
> Hunters even allow their quarry has rights, anti-hunters arrogate all to
> themselves.
>
> Go figure.
Go on then I'll fall for it.
"What rights do hunters give thier 'quarry'
I hope this does not include a % breakdown of the foxes that actually
escape.
>
Oz
>A vegetarian who keeps cats, and is thus responsible for the slaughter of mice.
And all those pretty little birds.
>Keeping a cat is no less hunting than going out with the hounds. If they want to
>ban fox hunting, they had better ban moggies, as well as any dog fast enough to
>catch a rabbit.
Quite so.
Then they had better start trying to convert foxes to vegetarianism.
Derek
"Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message news:NtIMa.46520$xd5.2...@stones.force9.net...
>
[..]
> I quote Derek:
>
> "A good hunter *cares* more for the quarry and its environment than a non
> hunter.."
>
usual suspect
<snip>
>>Kill QUICKLY.
>
> Wishful thinking.
No.
>>Their goal is not to cause pain, and most hunters I know
>>go out of their way to insure a fast kill.
>
> They may well do that, in reality the facts are very different,
> hunting is very hit and miss, more often a miss of the target area by
> a good 12 inches, whilst many hunters would like to think they are
> Davey Crockett, the reality is most shots are done on the run with
> very little time for a calm, steady shot, the reality is, most shots
> are a miss, either completely or by a foot or more, which often leaves
> the animal mortally wounded, requiring two or three further shots,
> assuming you manage to find the injured beast.
Apples and oranges. Most hunters here, particularly of deer and
migratory game birds, practice still-hunting. I can recall only one
animal, a deer, I had to shoot a second time in my life as a hunter. Oh
yeah, I bowhunted exclusively.
>>They also don't like causing pain, regardless of your impious assertions.
>
> They simply don't care, it's the nature of the beast, you cannot want
> to kill something and then claim you care for it, it's crap.
According to...? You -- an anti-hunt activist?
Face it, most hunting, at least here in the US, is not done for "sport."
It's done for meat. It's also done to control certain species'
populations. You anti-hunters do not realize the amount of damage deer
do to an ecosystem and to each other when their population explodes
unchecked. Your utopian notions are quickly dispelled by the scene of
animals that starve to death and/or extend their range into urban areas
where they lose their fear of humans, dogs, and cars.
>>Hunters and anglers fund most of our conservation programs with license
>>fees and taxes.
>
> Hunters and anglers pay a license fee because they are forced too.
To. Our licensing scheme was the result of lobbying on the part of
hunters and anglers to create funds for conservation efforts. Fact.
>>Such fees and taxes were promoted by hunters and anglers
>>to provide habitat for their favored species and for some they do not
>>favor.
>
> Pedophiles will often go to great expense to build themselves a
> secluded love nest to bring their victims home to. Big deal?
Non sequitur.
>>Finally, hunters also donate a lot of meat to food relief organizations
>>for distribution to the needy.
>>http://www.tnugent.com/about_tnusa/hunters_hungry.shtml
>>http://www.fhfh.org/cgi-bin/aff_tx.asp
>
> What a load of twaddle, perverts lining up their own little dens for
> their perverted hobby. They reckon the taxes received from crime of
> one sort and another, contribute 25% of gross national income in the
> modern world, because even criminals pay their taxes sometimes, and do
> some good for society.
Actually, your post is the source of twaddle -- particularly the
nonsense about "taxes received from crime." It's not a perverted hobby.
For many it's a necessity. Many of the deer that go into that hunger
program are culled for agricultural purposes (yeah, collateral deaths
for the wheat for your bread or your tin of beans).
It's a noble, selfless effort to provide sustenance to those in need
from the collateral deaths that occur to grow your food. Speaking of
which, what have YOU done to feed a hungry person, other than yourself
or a member of your own family, lately?
> Blood money is blood money, stop deluding yourself.
You need to worry about your own delusions, as I have none.
pearl
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>
> [..]
> > Children _never_ bite into their animal companion's throat then eat
> it.
>
> They are not capable of it.
I know. Usual suspect's story is a complete fabrication.
> Infant apes do not know how to feed
> themselves, they must be taught to eat,
Human babies will try eating most things (but not other animals).
> to fish for termites and forage
> for fruit and other food. Apes have evolved to learn feeding behaviour
> from adults, as part of the socialization process. Besides, any kid who
> tries to bite into a pet, and no doubt many try, would quickly learn
> that animals posess self-defense mechanisms.
Truly carnivorous (meat-eating) animals aren't that easily deterred.
> > Will you _ever_ quit bullshitting?
>
> Will you?
I don't. Will you?
pearl
> blinded-by-the-light wrote:
> <snip>
> >>I do not deny that most people would not like to kill an animal for food,
> >>they prefer to get it from the local supermarket.
> >
> > Right. This alone is powerful evidence that humans aren't killers by nature.
>
> I think it has a lot more to do with conditioning and living in such a
> sterile, urban-centric era. Evidence from the preceding generations
> shows that people, including wives, were quite comfortable beheading a
> chicken for an evening supper.
Brought up witnessing it, -desensitised to the act, like I said.
> As we've lost touch with our agrarian
> roots, we've lost touch with who and what we are. This is why veganism
> (the movement) has any popularity in an otherwise enlightened civilization.
That's right, veganism is a primary route to reconnecting with what we are.
> You'll find that people in many parts of the world have no qualms about
> the public slaughtering of animals for feasts. I've spent a lot of time
> in South and Central America and observed this to be true not only for
> feasts but for daily life.
You'll find that people in many parts of the world have no qualms about
the public murdering of thousands of innocent people for greed and power
too, so are we natural born murderers then? Is murder a normal part of
human behaviour or is it considered aberrant and pathological in society?
> (Oh, I know how you Brits and Irish are about
> such "primitive" cultures, but the world is so much bigger than a couple
> of muddy islands.)
Or your currently severely drought-stricken country.
"The nutrient composition of the traditional rural Asian diet is very
similar to the Mediterranean diet in that both are largely plant-based
and both pyramids recommend that meat be consumed no more
than once a month or more often in very small amounts," said T.
Colin Campbell, Cornell professor of nutritional biochemistry, co-chair
of the conference and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project.
"However, the Asian diet, which is significantly lower in total fat,
may prove to be an even more healthful diet," he added.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec95/asianpyramid.ssl.html
['Some analyses of data from China Study I, which was conducted
among thousands of rural families in mainland China, linked that
population's low incidence of such Western health problems as
cardiovascular disease, some cancers, obesity and diabetes to
plant-based diets that were low in animal products.
..
Both surveys afford an opportunity to investigate the effect of
dietary change from the typical plant-based diet of rural China
to a Western-style diet that includes more animal-based foods,
as consumed in urban China and in Taiwan. "Even small increases
in the consumption of animal-based foods was associated with
increased disease risk," Campbell told a symposium at the
epidemiology congress, pointing to several statistically significant
correlations from the China studies:
Plasma cholesterol in the 90-170 milligrams per deciliter range
is positively associated with most cancer mortality rates. Plasma
cholesterol is positively associated with animal protein intake
and inversely associated with plant protein intake.
Breast cancer is associated with dietary fat (which is associated
with animal protein intake) and inversely with age at menarche
(women who reach puberty at younger ages have a greater risk
of breast cancer).
For those at risk for liver cancer (for example, because of chronic
infection with hepatitis B virus) increasing intakes of animal-based
foods and/or increasing concentrations of plasma cholesterol are
associated with a higher disease risk.
Cardiovascular diseases are associated with lower intakes of
green vegetables and higher concentrations of apo-B (a form
of so-called bad blood cholesterol), which is associated with
increasing intakes of animal protein and decreasing intakes of
plant protein.
Colorectal cancers are consistently inversely associated with
intakes of 14 different dietary fiber fractions (although only one
is statistically significant). Stomach cancer is inversely associated
with green vegetable intake and plasma concentrations of beta-
carotene and vitamin C obtained only from plant-based foods.
Western-type diseases, in the aggregate, are highly significantly
correlated with increasing concentrations of plasma cholesterol,
which are associated in turn with increasing intakes of animal-
based foods.
Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading
to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:
The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.
Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
food.
The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating, salting
and processing - the greater will be the benefit.
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html ]
> >>However, if there was ever something like a nuclear accident, the survivors
> >>would need to feed themselves how they could and I fear we are rearing a
> >>generation who have been so indocrinated that they would not be able to.do
> >>so.
> >
> > The paleontological evidence suggests that human' dependence on meat
> > came about in places or at times when preferred plant foods were scarce.
>
> No! See previous threads about this.
Yes! See previous (and current) threads about this.
> > We should give animals due thanks for allowing our continued survival
> > when we really needed it. NOW, in order to survive, we MUST stop
> > raising billions of hungry, thirsty herbivores, granivores, and omnivores.
>
> Animals are ingrates. Express your thanks to one and it'll either stare
> at you like you're crazy (well, in your case you *are*) or move along as
> if nothing happened.
If we express our thanks not only by thought, but by deed, and
begin treating animals with kindness as opposed to brutality, they
would certainly appreciate it, whether they thank us for it or not.
> Animals procreate at will. It's up to us as the predators we are
NOT
> to maintain homeostasis by hunting them. Otherwise they overpopulate areas
> and cause the kinds of problems
You kill natural predators to protect livestock. Stop doing that- no problems.
> you ascribe solely to man's evolution and progress.
De-evolution and retardation more like.
> > Livestock farming is a primary cause of soil erosion, deforestation, water
> > pollution and global warming. The entire global ecosphere is severely
> > buckling under the pressure, and widespread mass-extinctions under way.
>
> INTENSIVE agriculture is such a cause, but it is not the only one. Other
> sustainable practices exist. The planet can handle enough livestock to
> keep everyone happy and healthy.
Nope. See; http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html .
> > Were we to readopt our natural evolutionary diet, that would mean
> > reforestation, replanting of woodlands, and orchards. The vast areas
> > of land currently grazed could be allowed to become once again natural
> > habitat allowing recovery of wild species, and healthy balance restored.
>
> No it wouldn't.
Yes it would.
> This utopian picture you paint has no basis in reality,
> not even in our not-so-glorious, un-evolved, fruigivorous past.
Of course it did, in our glorious evolving frugivorous past.
Yet we've nearly destroyed it all in the past 100 years or
so in our not-so-glorious, un-evolved omnivorous present.
> A
> DEvolutionary retro-frugivore diet will not restore us or our world. It
> is a Luddite denial of who we ARE, which is fitting given its inherent
> misanthropic basis.
lol. Try cramming in a few more baseless, false ad-hominems.
pearl
news:bdvhib$csb$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> please note, if you want to go through all this rubbish again, why you only
> have to search on google groups looking for the name Lotus and you will get
> the lot. It was never very convincing that time either.
Jim said it, so it must be true. LOL.
pearl
news:3f034cef$0$13743$afc38c87@vipnews...
>
> pearl <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:bdvbom$e6a$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > "Christina Websell" <christin...@zoom.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3f020cd2$0$13743$afc38c87@vipnews...
> > >
> > > pearl <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:bdsjgr$hm7$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > <...>
> > Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the human population would become
> > veg*n (vegan/vegetarian) overnight.
>
> I don't think it is unfortunate. As I already said, the purpose of some
> animals is, whether you like it or not, mainly to be eaten by meat-eating
> humans.
Says who? The animals? Nature? You?
> >Animals are bred to meet demand.
> > As the demand drops, presumably gradually, less animals need be bred.
>
> I still fail to see why you think this would a good thing. These animals
> then, would be less and less common.
So ....?
Their wild counterparts would again have the natural habitat necessary
to re-establish their populations. Isn't that a good (much better) thing?
> > > So there you have a scenario in which there will be no food animals, and
> > > they will die out. Everyone will eat vegetables. You have forgotten though,
> > > that to grow these vegetables, organically, you will need animal manure.
> > > There will not be any. The veggies will have outlawed the animals which
> > > produced the manure.
> >
> > Actually, animal manure is not necessary in the garden. Compost
> > made entirely of plant matter will do an equally good job.
>
> I haven't found that to be the case in my own garden. Plants fed on the
> compost with animal manure mixed in always do better. Not just myself
> though. My uncle will drive for nearly three hours to come and get my
> powdered chicken manure. He has an organic allotment. He sprinkles this on
> around the broccoli and says the effect is spectacular. He refuses to tell
> the other allotment holders his secret. It's hard to get animal manure
> there (near London)
Alright, although others have reported excellent results without.
Anyway, with wild animals once again being prevalent (as in my
suggested scenario), it would be an easy thing to locate a few
piles of manure.
I've seen a study of a community of vegans who manured the garden
with their own recycled excrement (bear in mind that an herbivores'
excrement, or dung, is very different to a carnivorous animals' poo).
> > No outlawing. Some domesticated animals will still be around I'm sure.
>
> Cats, dogs, hamsters etc, yes. Count the people you know who could (or
> would) keep a cow, a sheep, a pig as a pet.
Plenty. Or goats, or chickens, or ponies, or a couple of donkeys..
> > Livestock farming is a primary cause of soil erosion, deforestation, water
> > pollution and global warming.
>
> Livestock farming provides a living for a lot of people.
So would an commensurate increase in sustainable horticulture.
> It does not seem
> to cause soil erosion, deforestation or water pollution in Britain, AFAIK.
Britain is no different in many respects to anywhere else.
See; http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
> As for global warming, surely you aren't serious in suggesting livestock
> farming causes that? Is it methane you are thinking of? Plenty of methane
> produced by vegetarians ;-)
Vegetarian animals- billions of them. Also the past and ongoing clearing
(and often burning) of vast areas of forest for grazing and feed crops.
> I do not have a problem with people being vegetarian or vegan, that is their
> choice. I never tell them they ought to eat meat. When my veggie or vegan
> friends come here for a meal, we all eat *their* choice of food. If I go to
> their place, we also eat *their* choice. What I do have a problem with is
> people who do not eat meat telling me that I shouldn't. Because it's my
> choice. Why can't so many vegetarians respect my view, like I do theirs?
Why don't you respect the animals' view (choice) like you do your own?
pearl
news:cLjfPpccD+A$Ew...@clef.demon.co.uk...
Indeed, anything but you and the people you like quitting the meat habit..
pearl
news:ant03033...@half-baked-idea.co.uk...
> In article <bdvh39$gb8$2...@kermit.esat.net>, pearl wrote..
<..>
> > >
> > > > Our species role in nature? Were humans *natural* role that of
> > > > a predator, we'd have the appropriate physiology. But humans do
> > > > not have the claws and fangs natural predators possess necessary
> > >
> > > We're not obligate predators Lotus, we're omnivores.
> >
> > Natural OMNIvores are well equipped to catch, kill and digest
> > animal matter efficiently, and without adverse effects. We aren't.
>
> No, wer'e evolved to take advantage of any food source that presents itself.
No, we're evolved to eat a frugivorous diet. We can avail of
nutrients present in animal matter, but unlike meat-eating species,
we suffer adverse effects when it is eaten in significant amounts.
> > > Whilst we can, just about, get by on a purely vegetable diet
> >
> > No. Humans *thrive* when eating an adequate quantity of a
> > variety of high-quality plant-foods.
>
> So do a great many animals. An adequate supply of high-quality plant foods
> is rare and seasonal in the extreme in nature.
So let's apply our ingenuity and manual dexterity toward implementing
technological aids to extend growing seasons. We can use polytunnels
(which enable humidity-control and protection from pests, disease, wind,
and frost), solar-powered grow-lamps, etc, to supplement other crops.
> > > we have evolved to take advantage
> > > of whatever foos source presents itself and to thrive on a mixed diet.
> >
> > We evolved as frugivores for 60 million years, and we've still no
> > meat-eating adaptations. True, we are able to derive nutrients
> > from meat, but at a price. Meat supported us in times of scarcity.
>
> And plenty.
And we are paying the price.
> > > The traditional meat and two veg meal is a good example - although not,
> > > maybe as sometimes cooked ;-)
> >
> > Are you suggesting eating raw meat? ;)
>
> No, just that decent cooking skills are too low on the school curriculum.
'1001 Vegan Delights' - Monday & Thursday 11.00-12.00 ..
Sounds scrummy. ;)