"Avowedly vegan"
Mike
Some people may view veganism — a term coined in the 1940s in
England — as an unnecessarily extreme type of vegetarianism.
Since it is most often associated with animal rights activists, the
health benefits of the lifestyle often are overlooked.
at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040426-092921-1606r.htm
William Bligh
This meant giving up on all diary products and eggs. I've always been fit and
healthy while on my vegetarian diet, but since giving up on the milk and eggs
my breathing and overall stamina has improved dramatically. If it weren't for
my concern regarding animals and their rights I would probably wouldn't be
as healthy as I feel today.
ipse dixit
>I went fully vegan a little over 2 months ago after years of being vegetarian.
>This meant giving up on all diary products and eggs. I've always been fit and
>healthy while on my vegetarian diet, but since giving up on the milk and eggs
>my breathing and overall stamina has improved dramatically. If it weren't for
>my concern regarding animals and their rights I would probably wouldn't be
>as healthy as I feel today.
Healthy mind (morally speaking), healthy body, as
they say.
Ray
Avowedly Vegan
By Jen Waters
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Saurabh Dalal of Lanham loves pizza, frequently ordering it with green
peppers, black olives, onions and tomatoes. While many people indulge in the
Italian cuisine for its high-calorie cheese, Mr. Dalal, 38, does without the
dairy product.
Because he has been a vegan since 1991 - practicing a strict form of
vegetarianism - Mr. Dalal avoids eating all meat and animal products. He is
president of the Vegetarian Society of D.C., which has about 900 members and
holds events throughout the area.
Even though Mr. Dalal practices the diet for ethical and religious
reasons, he also is pleased with the added health benefits. He says he has
had more energy since becoming a vegan, which he attributes to the intake of
natural foods.
"There are so many problems today in terms of heart disease and cancer
and hypertension," he says. "I feel it has helped me in terms of keeping in
shape. ... I have a family history of diabetes. I think it's much better to
follow a vegan diet."
[ Some people may view veganism - a term coined in the 1940s in England -
as an unnecessarily extreme type of vegetarianism. Since it is most often
associated with animal rights activists, the health benefits of the
lifestyle often are overlooked.] Persons who are vegans do not eat animal
products, including meat, seafood, eggs and dairy products.
The diet is known to decrease risks of cancer, heart disease,
osteoporosis and high blood pressure, says Paige Allen, a registered
dietitian at the Washington Hospital Center in Northwest. Studies on the
subject were published in 1999 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
and in 2003 in the Journal of the American Dietetics Association.
"It's not a fad diet," Ms. Allen says. "It's a healthy way to eat. ...
They tend to have higher intakes in fiber, and tend to be lower in saturated
fats and cholesterol. ... They eat a lot of fruits and vegetables."
People who become vegans usually convert early in life, she says. As
people become older, their patterns are more established, and it can be
harder to change.
Once becoming vegans, persons usually investigate the contents of all
foods before eating them. For instance, gelatin would not be acceptable
because it contains animal products.
Vegans also might be careful about how their food is cooked. If meat is
cooked on a backyard grill, true vegans would not eat vegetables warmed on
the same grill. In addition to not consuming meat, vegans typically won't
wear animal products, either, such as leather or fur, for instance.
Even though people give up many foods on a vegan diet, they usually
acquire a taste for alternatives such as soy milk or rice milk, Ms. Allen
says. Vegan desserts and ice cream also are available.
However, Ms. Allen stresses that vegans need to make sure they are
eating balanced diets. A potato-chip-and-soda diet may meet vegan standards,
but it is not healthy.
Certain plants, such as legumes, have protein, but check with your
physician or nutritionist to be sure your food plan is providing you with
complete proteins (not proteins lacking any of the amino acids) when
replacing meat. Calcium also is found in green leafy vegetables, beans and
fortified orange juice. Green leafy vegetables and legumes, such as beans,
peas and lentils, have iron as well.
Vegans should take a daily multivitamin, as well as extra vitamin B12
and vitamin D. There are supplements made to fit vegan food standards, she
says.
"Children and pregnant and breast-feeding women need to be a little more
careful as far as being sure they are getting all the vitamins, minerals,
protein and calories they need," Ms. Allen says. "Also, children have been
shown to do fine on a vegan diet, but you have to be very careful to make
sure they are getting all the nutrients they need."
Even though balancing a vegan diet can be tricky, most of the people who
come to eat at the Vegetable Garden restaurant in Rockville want to follow
better eating habits, says owner Jack Sun. The majority of his customers are
not committed vegans, but they frequent his vegan restaurant trying to
establish a healthier diet.
About 10 years ago, Mr. Sun had heart problems that led to bypass
surgery. He has since changed his diet. Some of his friends suggested he
share his knowledge of veganism with others through a specialized
restaurant.
"I became a vegan because I wanted to live longer," he says. "Our
produce is organic. We don't use artificial color. We are all natural. We
use organic sea salt and soy sauce. It's all healthy."
Even though Krissi Vandenberg became a vegan because of her ethical
beliefs, she is pleased that she also benefits from the good eating habits.
She is executive director of Vegan Action, a nonprofit education
organization in Richmond. The association offers a third-party certification
service for vegan products.
She quotes statistical information from the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit advocacy group in Northwest, when asked to
publicly discuss health matters related to veganism.
For instance, some studies show that people with diabetes can improve
their health by eating an "unrefined, vegan diet." Also, for some women who
suffer from menstrual pain, other studies show that diets without animal
products and a minimum of vegetable oils might reduce their symptoms.
"People tend to stay a vegetarian or vegan longer since they are eating
a healthy, fulfilling diet," she says. "Once the political aspects start to
wane or subside, sometimes people say, 'I'm not doing this anymore for the
activist aspect.' Instead, they recognize the health benefits and are
interested in maintaining a vegan diet primarily for health reasons."
A vegan diet is much more interesting and varied that most people would
expect, says Erik Marcus of Ithaca, N.Y., who is publisher of Vegan.com, a
Web site devoted to providing vegan news and information. He has been a
vegan for 17 years and has written a book called "Vegan: The New Ethics of
Eating."
"I'm just finishing grilling up some broccoli in a George Foreman grill
that I will top with a bit of soy margarine," he says. "Later I will be
making a loaf of vegan bread in my bread machine. My typical day might start
with a glass of soy milk and some nuts, a Clif Bar and fruit."
William Bligh
as I used to believe. Milk keeps the veal industry alive and eggs are
produced from birds which suffer terribly. Adding these two products
to my -no- list improves my health and ensures I don't have anything
to do with the animal side of farming at all.
usual suspect
> Diary products and eggs aren't byproducts of the farming industry
> as I used to believe. Milk keeps the veal industry alive
Good. The demand for veal is increasing again.
> and eggs are
> produced from birds which suffer terribly.
No, they are not. You've apparently been watching propaganda video taken of the
most extreme cases of abuse. Such cases are not the norm in agriculture, and in
most cases the videos you've seen have been used to prosecute bad operators.
"Birds which suffer terribly" don't lay good eggs. Stop pretending that farmers
don't care about good products -- those are the ones that make them the most money.
http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/eggprod/default.htm
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~mdarre/poultrypages/diseasefactsheet.html
http://ulisse.cas.psu.edu/ext/Comeggs.html
> Adding these two products
> to my -no- list improves my health
Not necessarily. Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are you
getting all the essential amino acids?
> and ensures I don't have anything
> to do with the animal side of farming at all.
It doesn't mean you have no blood on your hands. Many more animals die as a
result of your vegan diet than would if you were to eat a diet of homegrown
vegetables and grazed ruminants (including game).
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
The reality of your "cruelty-free" diet:
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
<...>
William Bligh
>William Bligh TOP-POSTED:
>> Diary products and eggs aren't byproducts of the farming industry
>> as I used to believe. Milk keeps the veal industry alive
>
>Good. The demand for veal is increasing again.
>
>> and eggs are
>> produced from birds which suffer terribly.
>
>No, they are not. You've apparently been watching propaganda video taken of the
>most extreme cases of abuse. Such cases are not the norm in agriculture, and in
>most cases the videos you've seen have been used to prosecute bad operators.
>
>"Birds which suffer terribly" don't lay good eggs. Stop pretending that farmers
>don't care about good products -- those are the ones that make them the most money.
>http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/eggprod/default.htm
>http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~mdarre/poultrypages/diseasefactsheet.html
And you expect me to eat eggs from birds which carry all those deseases
and antibiotics? No thanks.
>http://ulisse.cas.psu.edu/ext/Comeggs.html
Did you actually go to that site and read how dangerous eggs are?
<The Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program (PEQAP) is a voluntary
industry program intended to minimize Salmonella enteritidis (SE) contamination
of chicken eggs.>
Why take the risk, and why put birds through all that pain and suffering?
They would die within a week if they weren't forced alive with powerful
antibiotics. We don't have the right to make birds suffer like that.
>> Adding these two products
>> to my -no- list improves my health
>
>Not necessarily. Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are you
>getting all the essential amino acids?
>
I've noticed a marked improvement in my breathing and general fitness since
giving up on eggs and diary. I've been a vegetarian for years and thought I
couldn't be doing any better, but since adding two more products to my -no- list
I can only say I was mistaken all that time.
>> and ensures I don't have anything
>> to do with the animal side of farming at all.
>
>It doesn't mean you have no blood on your hands. Many more animals die as a
>result of your vegan diet than would if you were to eat a diet of homegrown
>vegetables and grazed ruminants (including game).
>
>http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
I don't accept that Davis' findings answers the opening question on that web
page. <Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?> The question itself
is problematic because it assumes the answerer doesn't object to the death of
the mouse. To answer the question from a vegan's position, it isn't right to kill
the mouse or the cow.
>The reality of your "cruelty-free" diet:
>http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
>
><...>
A warning would have been nice before linking me directly to that picture.
rick etter
"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gf8a905ggaema2q7b...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 May 2004 12:54:03 GMT, usual suspect <sup...@our.troops>
wrote:
snippage...
> >http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
>
> I don't accept that Davis' findings answers the opening question on that
web
> page. <Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?> The question
itself
> is problematic because it assumes the answerer doesn't object to the death
of
> the mouse.
===================
You don't, nor does anyother usenet vegan object to theirs deaths
ultimately. You make the claim, but your actions tell the truth. You care
nothing about killing animals, you just don't like others to do it and eat
them.
To answer the question from a vegan's position, it isn't right to kill
> the mouse or the cow.
==================
Yet you do, so the question is still valid. Why is it ok to kill 10, 100,
1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep from killing one cow
to eat?
The vegans position is only that they don't eat meat themselves. They make
no choices that really reduce their bloody footprints. They focus only on
what they think others are doing, and ignore their own impact.
>
> >The reality of your "cruelty-free" diet:
> >http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
> >
> ><...>
> A warning would have been nice before linking me directly to that picture.
================
Why? Afraid to see what your mono-culture crop production can do? Add to
that the ones that are poisoned, the ones that are left to starve, and the
ones that are left to be eating alive by predators. All because you are
interfering in the natural habitat where they live.
>
William Bligh
>
>"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gf8a905ggaema2q7b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 02 May 2004 12:54:03 GMT, usual suspect <sup...@our.troops>
>wrote:
>
>snippage...
>
>
>> >http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
>>
>> I don't accept that Davis' findings answers the opening question on that
>web
>> page. <Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?> The question
>itself
>> is problematic because it assumes the answerer doesn't object to the death
>of
>> the mouse.
>===================
>You don't, nor does anyother usenet vegan object to theirs deaths
>ultimately. You make the claim, but your actions tell the truth. You care
>nothing about killing animals, you just don't like others to do it and eat
>them.
>
I assume the question heading that web page is aimed at the vegan.
Vegans object to the senseless killing of animals, so why do you
and the questioner assume vegans don't object to the killing of that
mouse? It's a bad question.
>
>To answer the question from a vegan's position, it isn't right to kill
>> the mouse or the cow.
>==================
>Yet you do, so the question is still valid. Why is it ok to kill 10, 100,
>1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep from killing one cow
>to eat?
>The vegans position is only that they don't eat meat themselves. They make
>no choices that really reduce their bloody footprints. They focus only on
>what they think others are doing, and ignore their own impact.
>
The question itself is wrong, somehow, because it assumes the answerer
already accepts the death of a mouse.
>>
>> >The reality of your "cruelty-free" diet:
>> >http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
>> >
>> ><...>
>> A warning would have been nice before linking me directly to that picture.
>================
>Why? Afraid to see what your mono-culture crop production can do? Add to
>that the ones that are poisoned, the ones that are left to starve, and the
>ones that are left to be eating alive by predators. All because you are
>interfering in the natural habitat where they live.
>
>
>>
>
Forwarding links to graphic pictures <without warning> is an attempt to shock.
It's a stupid thing to do because it leaves me with no alternative but to ignore
any future links from the sender, and that stunts the discussion in the long run.
screedmonkey1
man kills animals, deal with it treehugger
rick etter
No, they do not. The object to the killing of animals that are going to be
eaten. They make no objections about the animals they kill. If fact, the
ones here on usenet kill animals for no more reason than their
entertainment. Sounds pretty much like the definition of a 'senseless'
killing to me, doesn't it to you?
so why do you
> and the questioner assume vegans don't object to the killing of that
> mouse?
================
It's not an assumption, it's a fact of their own actions. Mouthing the
words does not take precedent over the actions you really take.
It's a bad question.
======================
No it's not. I just explained that to you. Should I try more slowly this
time?
>
>
> >
> >To answer the question from a vegan's position, it isn't right to kill
> >> the mouse or the cow.
> >==================
> >Yet you do, so the question is still valid. Why is it ok to kill 10,
100,
> >1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep from killing one
cow
> >to eat?
> >The vegans position is only that they don't eat meat themselves. They
make
> >no choices that really reduce their bloody footprints. They focus only
on
> >what they think others are doing, and ignore their own impact.
> >
> The question itself is wrong, somehow, because it assumes the answerer
> already accepts the death of a mouse.
=======================
That's already a given, fool. Try reading a little slower. No 'vegan' here
on usenet objects to the death of any animal except the ones they think
*others* are killing. It's proven in the fact that they are here, posting
their inane propaganda to usenet. All for no more reason than their
entertainment, that is, unless they really just like killing animals
senselessly. Is that why you're here, killer?
> >>
> >> >The reality of your "cruelty-free" diet:
> >> >http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
> >> >
> >> ><...>
> >> A warning would have been nice before linking me directly to that
picture.
> >================
> >Why? Afraid to see what your mono-culture crop production can do? Add
to
> >that the ones that are poisoned, the ones that are left to starve, and
the
> >ones that are left to be eating alive by predators. All because you are
> >interfering in the natural habitat where they live.
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> Forwarding links to graphic pictures <without warning> is an attempt to
shock.
=====================
No, it's an attempt at educating the terminally ignorant.
> It's a stupid thing to do because it leaves me with no alternative but to
ignore
> any future links from the sender, and that stunts the discussion in the
long run.
================
I see, so anyone that posts the truth to you is going to be ignored? Well
where's the news in that, hypocrite? vegans have been ignoring the truth
for years.
What's once more mean to them? Of course, it means the death and sufferings
of millions upon millions of more animals, but it's already proven that the
vegans here don't care about that.
rick etter
"screedmonkey1" <scr...@chimpy.net> wrote in message
news:c73ucs$ifj$9...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
snippage....
>
>
> man kills animals, deal with it treehugger
================
As a troll, you're a pretty stupid one, aren't you?
screedmonkey1
am I? Are you a scientologist?
ipse dixit
>On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:10:40 GMT, "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gf8a905ggaema2q7b...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 02 May 2004 12:54:03 GMT, usual suspect <sup...@our.troops>wrote:
>>> >http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
>>>
>>> I don't accept that Davis' findings answers the opening
>>> question on that web page. <Why is it right to kill the
>>> mouse and not the cow?> The question itself is
>>> problematic because it assumes the answerer doesn't
>>> object to the death of the mouse.
>>===================
>>You don't, nor does anyother usenet vegan object to theirs deaths
>>ultimately. You make the claim, but your actions tell the truth. You care
>>nothing about killing animals, you just don't like others to do it and eat
>>them.
>>
>I assume the question heading that web page is aimed at the vegan.
>Vegans object to the senseless killing of animals, so why do you
>and the questioner assume vegans don't object to the killing of that
>mouse? It's a bad question.
It's a loaded question which carries a presupposition.
Not matter which way you answer for the cow's
death, you will be accepting the death of the mouse.
The question is specious.
Plurium Interrogationum:
A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous
thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or
questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with
that presumption. The question "Have you stopped
beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten
your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have
a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten
your wife, then the question is loaded. Since this
example is a yes/no question, there are only the
following two direct answers:
1.. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which
entails "I was beating my wife."
2.. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which
entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten
your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of
the question. So, a loaded question is one which you
cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood
or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the
proper response to such a question is not to answer it
directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject
the question.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
The question should be rejected on the basis that it
invokes a logical fallacy.
>>> To answer the question from a vegan's position, it isn't right to kill
>>> the mouse or the cow.
Exactly! Answering the question directly would imply
a falsehood or a statement that you deny, namely that
you accept the death of the mouse.
William Bligh
Thanks for that URL. I had a feeling the question was wrong. Vegans
object to killing animals, so I knew the rest of that web page had to be
taken lightly. I suppose you're going to tell me I don't object, but all I
can do is repeat that I do.
William Bligh
rick etter
> For your information, I do object to field deaths
So you claim. Your actions betray you though, fool. Your words are empty.
Your actions are what kills.
> and I'm not a killer.
=============================
Yes, you are. You prove that with inane post you make, killer.
ipse dixit
I'm not going to tell you you don't object to field deaths
( collateral deaths) or that you're a killer, Billy. That's
the task for meatarians here who want you to feel guilty
for what the farmer does. They can't bear the thought
that your choices don't include the deliberate killing of
animals while theirs does, so they will try to blame you
for what the farmer does to level the death score.
Instead of using methods to control vermin such as
better storage facilities and proper guards on the heavy
machinery used for ground work, farmers intentionally
use pesticides which kill wildlife indiscriminately instead
because it's cheaper.
It's a fact, despite Davis' wild exaggerations, that some
animals die collaterally during crop production, and the
desperate, guilt-ridden anti-vegans here use this rather
unfortunate state of affairs to claim your purchase from
farmers shows a contempt for the rights of these animals
you claim hold rights. As soon as you admit personal
responsibility for the actions of these farmers, which is
illogical since farmers are autonomous moral agents, they
then have a strong argument in that your philosophy on
shared moral responsibility makes you a willing accomplice,
and that you're a hypocrite to continue buying from farmers
which kill animals on your behalf.
ipse dixit
>"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:msbd90dua6fp68kdb...@4ax.com...
>>
>> For your information, I do object to field deaths
>=================
>So you claim.
That's correct; he does claim that and with good
reason: he's an ethical vegan who objects to the
deaths of animals for human benefit.
>> and I'm not a killer.
>=============================
>Yes, you are.
No, he isn't. Not unless he's a farmer himself.
William Bligh
I'm a hotelier currently studying hotel and catering management.
When my parents give it all over to me I intend to turn them into
vegan establishments for vegan-only customers. I don't farm.
ipse dixit
"establishments"? What type of establishments and how many
do you parents run or own -- if you don't mind my asking?
rick etter
You don't have to be a farmer to be a killer, hypocrite.
So, you encourage people to travel, consuming even more of the fruits of the
petro-chemical industry. What a hoot! "ethical' vegan, my a**.
ipse dixit
>"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8nhf90tc9m3d35q7a...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 04 May 2004 10:27:03 +0100, ipse dixit <f@chance> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 04 May 2004 00:08:25 GMT, "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>> >>"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:msbd90dua6fp68kdb...@4ax.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> For your information, I do object to field deaths
>> >>=================
>> >>So you claim.
>> >
>> >That's correct; he does claim that and with good
>> >reason: he's an ethical vegan who objects to the
>> >deaths of animals for human benefit.
>> >
>> >>> and I'm not a killer.
>> >>=============================
>> >>Yes, you are.
>> >
>> >No, he isn't. Not unless he's a farmer himself.
>>
>> I'm a hotelier currently studying hotel and catering management.
>> When my parents give it all over to me I intend to turn them into
>> vegan establishments for vegan-only customers. I don't farm.
>=====================
>You don't have to be a farmer to be a killer, hypocrite.
That's true: meatarians kill animals by instructing others
to do it for them, but they're no less a killer for doing so.
Every rotting piece of corpse you buy and put into your
mouth instructs farmers to kill more healthy young animals
for no more than your disgusting tastes, killer. Vegans, on
the other hand don't instruct farmers to kill, and that's why
they're commonly referred to as ethical vegans.
>So, you encourage people to travel, consuming even more of the fruits of the
>petro-chemical industry. What a hoot! "ethical' vegan, my a**.
Your view of veganism confirms the general ignorance
of all meatarians; that unless no animals die in the World
no one can be vegan. How sad, but what a gift you are
to those who argue in favour of veganism.
Ron
> "William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:msbd90dua6fp68kdb...@4ax.com...
> > For your information, I do object to field deaths
> =================
> So you claim. Your actions betray you though, fool. Your words are empty.
> Your actions are what kills.
>
Post some pics of this supposed carnage in the fields etter.
Tripod or other free servers are available for such activity.
Vaine
> to my -no- list improves my health
Not necessarily. Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are
you
getting all the essential amino acids?"
Most farmers inject hormones into cows and hens to give a better "crop" of
eggs and milk. These hormones cause medical problems for these animals, most
of the "side effects" result in shortened life, extreme fatique, nerve
damage, nausea, and Anemia(lowered rate of red blood cells in the body and
lowered ratio of oxygen, happens to a women with aids, farmers must
administer HIV medicine to counter this effect.) These hormones, transfer to
the human body after digesting the milk, eggs. Even in this small amount,
they may harm a women while on her period causeing many health problems, and
men by lowering sperm count.
The second thing--
"Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are you getting all
the essential amino acids?"
I get all them at twice the needed rate and more from a pill that is free of
any products from animals.
"It doesn't mean you have no blood on your hands. Many more animals
die as a result of your vegan diet than would if you were to eat a diet of
homegrown vegetables and grazed ruminants (including game)."
That site that you got that from is bullshit, more animals live because of
crops being grown,
most farmers allow these rats and rabbits ect, to graze on the crop, the
farmers industrial
and small, see it as free natural feralizer, although there is a heightened
loss of flies because
of the rodents, the ratio of vegan to normal meat dieters animal death is
aboot 30-to-10,000
the 30 is natural while the 10k is separated aboot 9.6k non-natural to 300
semi-natural 100 natural.
So vegan"ism" is better for the world.
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
news:Lb6lc.52122$Dn1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
rick etter
"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message
news:v40g90hbco5aa681r...@4ax.com...
Wow, what a coincidence, so are you! Even your pal Aristotle told you so,
in english too!!
rick etter
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:436a5d81.04050...@posting.google.com...
> "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<Z9Blc.6107$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:msbd90dua6fp68kdb...@4ax.com...
> > > For your information, I do object to field deaths
> > =================
> > So you claim. Your actions betray you though, fool. Your words are
empty.
> > Your actions are what kills.
> >
>
>
>
> Post some pics of this supposed carnage in the fields etter.
Why? Real numbers don't mean anything to you? Oh, right, you don't have
the comprehension to understand numbers, do you. Read the sites I've
already posted fool, they deal with real animals, and real counts. Like
this one...
http://www.eco-vie.com/ENN_PEI_FishKill.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
but, since you insist, killer...
http://pested.unl.edu/pic33.gif
from the page: http://pested.unl.edu/pat4.htm
>
> Tripod or other free servers are available for such activity.
>
>
snippage...
rick etter
"Vaine" <sharon...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%JVlc.559629$Po1.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> "> Adding these two products
> > to my -no- list improves my health
> Not necessarily. Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are
> you
> getting all the essential amino acids?"
>
> Most farmers inject hormones into cows and hens to give a better "crop" of
> eggs and milk.
But nowhere near "all" farmers do. And, the market is growing for the no
hormone/antibiotic meats.
These hormones cause medical problems for these animals, most
> of the "side effects" result in shortened life, extreme fatique, nerve
> damage, nausea, and Anemia(lowered rate of red blood cells in the body and
> lowered ratio of oxygen, happens to a women with aids, farmers must
> administer HIV medicine to counter this effect.) These hormones, transfer
to
> the human body after digesting the milk, eggs
=====================
As in soy products. Why do so many vegans use this 'argument' about some
meats, when all don't contain it, and then push soy products as a
substitute. Soy does has hormone-like characteristics. Why would anyone in
their right mind want to feed that crap to kids and pre-teens, much less
themselves?
. Even in this small amount,
> they may harm a women while on her period causeing many health problems,
and
> men by lowering sperm count.
>
> The second thing--
> "Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are you getting all
> the essential amino acids?"
> I get all them at twice the needed rate and more from a pill that is free
of
> any products from animals.
==================
That little pill may not contain any bits of animals in it, but animals
surely died in the production and processing of the pill, and it's
container. I'm sure those containers, and the pills are lot tested for
safety and sterlility. All that fuss for something you could get from the
death of just one animal. Or better yet, you could get it from just not
washing your hands. Think of the water you'd save 'for the animals'.
>
>
> "It doesn't mean you have no blood on your hands. Many more animals
> die as a result of your vegan diet than would if you were to eat a diet of
> homegrown vegetables and grazed ruminants (including game)."
>
> That site that you got that from is bullshit, more animals live because of
> crops being grown,
=======================
Yes... Meaning more die.... guess you lost already, eh?
> most farmers allow these rats and rabbits ect, to graze on the crop,
==================
No, they don't. That's why monsanto and others sell over a billion pounds
of pesticides a year.
the
> farmers industrial
> and small, see it as free natural feralizer,
========================
ROTFLMAO Yes, because of their dead bodies! crops provide an unnatural,
overly abundent, easy source of food and cover for many samll animals,
that's true.
However, all this unnatural food and cover provides for the breeding of
large, unnatural numbers. At the end of the crop cycle, boom, the farmer
removes all this easy food and cover, right when the population densities
are at their greatest. many of these animals are killed in the
mechanization, during spraying operations, and then at harveting. Of the
ones that survive that, many are then left to starve and die of predation.
The surrounding area will not support their numbers as it will already be at
its natural carry numbers. So, yeah, fertilize away....
although there is a heightened
> loss of flies because
====================
So, you want to talk about bugs too? Let's do? Unless you consider them
mineral or plant, I guess you'd have to place them in the animal category,
meaning you must kill 100s of billions of more animals than many meat
eaters.
> of the rodents, the ratio of vegan to normal meat dieters animal death is
> aboot 30-to-10,000
> the 30 is natural while the 10k is separated aboot 9.6k non-natural to 300
> semi-natural 100 natural.
==================
Does that really say anything? The only thing you need to remember is that
a vegan diet does not automatically cause no/less/ fewer animals to suffer
and die than all meat-included diets. In fact, you've never proven that it
does that when compared to 'any' meat-included diet.
>
> So vegan"ism" is better for the world.
====================
No, it is not automatically better. That's just another sham statement you
cannot back up.
usual suspect
>>>Diary products and eggs aren't byproducts of the farming industry
>>>as I used to believe. Milk keeps the veal industry alive
>>
>>Good. The demand for veal is increasing again.
>>
>>>and eggs are
>>>produced from birds which suffer terribly.
>>
>>No, they are not. You've apparently been watching propaganda video taken of the
>>most extreme cases of abuse. Such cases are not the norm in agriculture, and in
>>most cases the videos you've seen have been used to prosecute bad operators.
>>
>>"Birds which suffer terribly" don't lay good eggs. Stop pretending that farmers
>>don't care about good products -- those are the ones that make them the most money.
>>http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/eggprod/default.htm
>>http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~mdarre/poultrypages/diseasefactsheet.html
>
> And you expect me to eat eggs from birds which carry all those deseases
> and antibiotics? No thanks.
You *nitwit*! You can use whatever criteria you wish to justify your diet, but
this one doesn't stand scrutiny. Most chickens are healthy. The eggs they lay
are not infected with any disease. If you don't like the conditions in which
most chickens are raised, you can still eat your eggs and support farmers who
raise cage-free hens or other alternatives. The same is true of other livestock
products, including dairy (organic, goat, etc.) and meat (free-range, grass-fed,
wild game, etc.). You've only shown yourself to be an extremist by adopting an
all or nothing approach.
>>http://ulisse.cas.psu.edu/ext/Comeggs.html
>
> Did you actually go to that site
Yes.
> and read how dangerous eggs are?
Compared to what, city slicker? You should rest a little easier about food
safety given the amount of time and money put into disease management instead of
playing Chicken Little. Oh yeah, perhaps you should also educate yourself on the
little details of food-borne pathogens so you'd know that produce causes more
disease than meat.
http://www.nfpa-food.org/science/wp_ecoli.html
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/ift3-toc.html
http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/newspaper/nov18b03.html
> <The Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program (PEQAP) is a voluntary
> industry program intended to minimize Salmonella enteritidis (SE) contamination
> of chicken eggs.>
>
> Why take the risk,
No risk if you properly cook eggs.
> and why put birds through all that pain and suffering?
For food.
> They would die within a week
Ipse dixit. Are you a veterinarian?
> if they weren't forced alive with powerful
> antibiotics.
Myth. Most chickens are NOT force-fed medications or hormones. You can find
antibiotic-free chickens AND eggs at better grocery stores.
> We don't have the right to make birds suffer like that.
They don't suffer when given antibiotics. Antibiotics fight infections and make
for healthier organisms.
>>>Adding these two products
>>>to my -no- list improves my health
>>
>>Not necessarily. Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are you
>>getting all the essential amino acids?
>
> I've noticed a marked improvement in my breathing and general fitness since
> giving up on eggs and diary.
That answers neither question. Try again.
> I've been a vegetarian for years
So have I. I know the sources of my nutrients.
> and thought I
> couldn't be doing any better, but since adding two more products to my -no- list
> I can only say I was mistaken all that time.
Save your testimony for a tent revival. This isn't one. Answer my questions.
>>>and ensures I don't have anything
>>>to do with the animal side of farming at all.
>>
>>It doesn't mean you have no blood on your hands. Many more animals die as a
>>result of your vegan diet than would if you were to eat a diet of homegrown
>>vegetables and grazed ruminants (including game).
>>
>>http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
>
> I don't accept that Davis' findings answers the opening question on that web
> page.
Why not?
> <Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?> The question itself
> is problematic
No, it isn't. It's one not addressed by the rantings of activists like Regan.
> because it assumes the answerer doesn't object to the death of
> the mouse.
Correct. You don't object to the death of rodents, birds, fish, reptiles, or
amphibians, so long as you don't actually have to eat them; the deaths of such
animals are part of agriculture and most are intentional (some, like the deer
whose picture you objected to seeing are less intentional). You only object to
the consumption of animal flesh. Never mind the fact that the death of one cow
can provide 3200 meals (800 lbs of flesh divided into 4-ounce servings). How
many meals are provided from the deaths which occur to feed you seitan, tofu,
and vegetables?
> To answer the question from a vegan's position, it isn't right to kill
> the mouse or the cow.
Other than not eating them, what are you doing to prevent the deaths of mice,
rats, snakes, deer, birds, frogs, turtles, or fish?
>>The reality of your "cruelty-free" diet:
>>http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
>>
>><...>
>
> A warning would have been nice before linking me directly to that picture.
I said it was the reality of your diet. Don't shoot the messenger, numbnuts.
usual suspect
<...>
> To answer the question from a vegan's position, it isn't right to kill
>>the mouse or the cow.
>
> ==================
> Yet you do, so the question is still valid. Why is it ok to kill 10, 100,
> 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep from killing one cow
> to eat?
You mean, the one cow that can feed a whole family for a year. Imagine the
scales of animal justice weighing one death (the cow) versus hundreds or
thousands of mice and snakes and fish and birds and so on. What is it about the
one that makes it so sacred and what is it about the others that make them
acceptable?
> The vegans position is only that they don't eat meat themselves. They make
> no choices that really reduce their bloody footprints. They focus only on
> what they think others are doing, and ignore their own impact.
Not only that, but they blame everyone else for them. Buck-passers.
>>>The reality of your "cruelty-free" diet:
>>>http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
>>>
>>><...>
>>
>>A warning would have been nice before linking me directly to that picture.
>
> ================
> Why? Afraid to see what your mono-culture crop production can do?
It's a pretty rich complaint given the fact that these idiots parade around 30
year-old pics of calves in crates, chickens without beaks, etc., as though such
abuses are the norm.
> Add to
> that the ones that are poisoned, the ones that are left to starve, and the
> ones that are left to be eating alive by predators. All because you are
> interfering in the natural habitat where they live.
Those animal-hating vegans just have to eat tofu and wear cotton: two of the
deadliest crops on earth as far as animals are concerned.
usual suspect
<...>
> I assume the question heading that web page is aimed at the vegan.
> Vegans object to the senseless killing of animals,
No, they don't.
> so why do you
> and the questioner assume vegans don't object to the killing of that
> mouse?
Because your diet continues to kill mice, rats, birds, fish, snakes, frogs,
deer, rabbits, skunks, etc.
> It's a bad question.
No, it's a damn good one!
<...>
>>Yet you do, so the question is still valid. Why is it ok to kill 10, 100,
>>1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep from killing one cow
>>to eat?
>>The vegans position is only that they don't eat meat themselves. They make
>>no choices that really reduce their bloody footprints. They focus only on
>>what they think others are doing, and ignore their own impact.
>
> The question itself is wrong, somehow,
No, not at all.
> because it assumes the answerer
> already accepts the death of a mouse.
Why do you continue eating a diet based on grains, soy, legumes, and
commercially-grown vegetables and fruits?
<...>
> Forwarding links to graphic pictures <without warning> is an attempt to shock.
No, and it was qualified that it showed the reality of your so-called
"cruelty-free" diet.
> It's a stupid thing to do
No, it's brilliant. It shines the light of truth on your brazen and defenseless
lies.
> because it leaves me with no
...defense. It shows how hollow the nature of vegan propaganda really is.
> alternative but to ignore
> any future links from the sender, and that stunts the discussion in the long run.
The discussion is stunted when one chooses to ignore reality to preserve one's
dogma. That's your right, but don't blame me for your shortcomings and failures.
usual suspect
> For your information, I do object to field deaths
No, you do not.
> and I'm not a killer.
Go back and look at the picture of that sliced up fawn. Put some furry faces on
your "cruelty-free" diet and you'll figure out it's not.
<...>
usual suspect
<...>
>>No, he isn't. Not unless he's a farmer himself.
>
> I'm a hotelier currently studying hotel and catering management.
> When my parents give it all over to me I intend to turn them into
> vegan establishments for vegan-only customers.
You'll run the business into the red. Do your parents know of your extreme niche
marketing ideas?
> I don't farm.
You should. It would help reduce your excessive animal-killing footprint.
usual suspect
> "> Adding these two products
> > to my -no- list improves my health
> Not necessarily. Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are
> you
> getting all the essential amino acids?"
>
> Most farmers inject hormones into cows and hens to give a better "crop" of
> eggs and milk.
Liar, at least with respect to your claims about the use of hormones in poultry.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits the use of hormones in
the raising of hogs or poultry in the United States. Therefore all pork
and poultry products that carry the “no hormones administered” label
only represent the regulations that are already in place for pork and
poultry and should not be taken to mean that the manufacturer is doing
anything beyond USDA requirements for conventional pork and poultry
products.
http://www.eco-labels.org/label.cfm?LabelID=114
> These hormones cause medical problems for these animals,
Not in ALL animals to which they're administered.
> most
> of the "side effects" result in shortened life, extreme fatique, nerve
> damage, nausea, and Anemia(lowered rate of red blood cells in the body and
> lowered ratio of oxygen, happens to a women with aids, farmers must
> administer HIV medicine to counter this effect.)
Ipse dixit. Where did you get this disinformation?
> These hormones, transfer to
> the human body after digesting the milk, eggs.
Ipse dixit regarding milk, a *complete* *fucking* *lie* about eggs since
chickens are not given hormones. Ever!!!
Somatotropin, a growth hormone, is a new animal drug under investigation
for use in lactating dairy cows. The specific form of the drug is bovine
somatotropin (BST), which is prepared by micro-biological fermentation,
a process of bioengineering. When BST is administered to lactating cows
to improve productivity, the natural levels of the hormone (six parts
per billion) in the milk have remained essentially unchanged. Milk from
cows treated with BST has been declared safe for human consumption and,
under proper herd management, BST will enhance milk production.
http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/B1084-W.HTML#Hormones
Despite FDA approval in 1985, several consumer groups have expressed
concern over the unforeseen medical problems, traces of antibiotics in
milk and meat products and the effect of the increase of insulin-like
growth factor (IGF-1). Some consumers doubt the credibility of
government organizations, thus doubting FDA reports. Another health
concern pertains to penicillin-based drugs (bactum-lactam), the most
commonly used, to treat mastitis. The FDA will have to monitor the
illegal use of these drugs to prevent allergic reactions in humans.
IGF-1 is present in the human dietary process and is identical to cow
IGF-1. Both rbST and IGF-1 are orally inactive. Consumers fear the
potential carcinogenic affects of higher concentrations of IGF-1 in
milk. IGF-1 stimulates intestinal cell growth, thus increased the risk
of abnormal intestinal growth. The levels of IGF-1 are 100-1000 times
lower than endogenous blood levels in humans, therefore, if IGF-1 is not
completely digested, there will be insignificant physiological effects
on humans and infants.
http://www.american.edu/TED/bst.htm
BST Human Safety is Verified by Five Independent Authorities
http://www.msue.msu.edu/msue/imp/modda/11119206.html
Etc.
> Even in this small amount,
> they may harm a women while on her period causeing many health problems, and
> men by lowering sperm count.
According to whom?
> The second thing--
> "Where do you get your calcium, zinc, iron, B12, etc.? Are you getting all
> the essential amino acids?"
> I get all them at twice the needed rate and more from a pill that is free of
> any products from animals.
Guess you're not a "back to nature" type. Pills aren't very natural.
> "It doesn't mean you have no blood on your hands. Many more animals
> die as a result of your vegan diet than would if you were to eat a diet of
> homegrown vegetables and grazed ruminants (including game)."
>
> That site that you got that from is bullshit, more animals live because of
> crops being grown,
Not when they're harvested. When the cover (grains, legumes, vegetables) is
cleared, the animals are vulnerable to predation. Don't just watch the buzzards
circling over the fields, watch the hawks and other birds of prey, too.
> most farmers allow these rats and rabbits ect, to graze on the crop,
Do they? Then why do they put out poisons and traps?
> the
> farmers industrial
> and small, see it as free natural feralizer, although there is a heightened
> loss of flies because
> of the rodents, the ratio of vegan to normal meat dieters animal death is
> aboot 30-to-10,000
> the 30 is natural while the 10k is separated aboot 9.6k non-natural to 300
> semi-natural 100 natural.
According to whom? You pulled this out of your smelly ass.
> So vegan"ism" is better for the world.
Only for some cows and pigs. Not for mice, birds, snakes, frogs, turtles,
skunks, rats, deer....
<...>
usual suspect
<...>
> These hormones cause medical problems for these animals, most
>>of the "side effects" result in shortened life, extreme fatique, nerve
>>damage, nausea, and Anemia(lowered rate of red blood cells in the body and
>>lowered ratio of oxygen, happens to a women with aids, farmers must
>>administer HIV medicine to counter this effect.) These hormones, transfer
>
> =====================
> As in soy products. Why do so many vegans use this 'argument' about some
> meats, when all don't contain it, and then push soy products as a
> substitute. Soy does has hormone-like characteristics. Why would anyone in
> their right mind want to feed that crap to kids and pre-teens, much less
> themselves?
Rat pups, exposed to high doses of the plant estrogen coumestrol
(found in sunflower seeds and oil and alfalfa sprouts) through
their mother's milk, suffered permanent reproductive problems:
female pups when grown did not ovulate, and males had altered
mounting behavior and fewer ejaculations (2).
[Whitten, P., C. Lewis and F. Naftolin. 1993. A Phytoestrogen
diet induces the premature anovulatory syndrome in lactationally
exposed female rats. Biology of Reproduction 49:1117-21.]
Neonatal and immature rats exposed to coumestrol experienced
estrogen-related responses, such as premature estrous cycles.
Coumestrol also interrupted ovarian cycles in adult female rats
(3).
[Barrett, J. 1996. Phytoestrogens: Friends or Foes?
Environmental Health Perspectives 104:478-82.]
Newborn rats exposed to the phytoestrogen genistein (a compound
found in soy products), experienced altered hormone secretions
and the onset of puberty may have been delayed because female
rats were exposed to the compound as fetuses (3).
[Ibid.]
“In males, levels of 17B-estradiol and testosterone were not
affected, but levels of 3a, 17B- androstanediol glucuronide (a
metabolite of dihydrotestosterone) and dehydroepiandrosterone
sulfate were decreased by 13% and 14%, respectively, after 2-4
weeks of daily soya ingestion.”
[Supported by USPHS CA56273, CA65628, CA45181, John Sealy
Memorial Endowment Fund for Biomedical Research, American
Institute for Cancer Research grant 95B119, and NIH NCRR GCRC
grant M01 RR00073]
All above lifted from:
http://www.cheapbodybuildingsupplements.com/articles/soyestrogen.shtml
Additionally, see:
http://www.t-mag.com/articles/185soy.html
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/satter6.htm
<...>
rick etter
You seem to be on the run, little one. Why is that?
"rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hkWlc.7275$Hs1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
G0rge0us Ge0rge
wrote:
>
>"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:436a5d81.04050...@posting.google.com...
>> "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:<EoVmc.11638$Hs1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> > "Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:436a5d81.04050...@posting.google.com...
>> > > "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<igDmc.10396$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > You seem to be on the run, little one. Why is that?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > etter were those fish killed by a combine?
>> > >
>> > > I want you to post pics of combines killing bunnies, gophers, mice,
>etc.
>> > > ==========================
>> > I see you are dodging and running. Those deaths are the result of
>filed
>> > actions fool. They would not have happened without crop production.
>Too
>> > bad for you, killer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Filed actions"....? What the fu........!?
>>
>> Could you please pull your head out of the bag of glue *before* you
>> attempt to post? ....Thank you.
>
>Continuing your dodge now with typo spews. Typical for a brainless loon.
>You can't 'see' field in there fool? Naw, didn't think so, killer.
You dopey meat eating fuckin shit magnet fester, since when has filed
been field!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're almost as silly as that blowjob
noballs.
Hurry up and die you're boring the arse off my mistresses.
.
*************************************************************************************
Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.
- Sir Winston Churchill
The Eagle Has Landed.
/T /I
/ |/ | .-~/
T\ Y I |/ / _
/T | \I | I Y.-~/
I l /I T\ | | l | T /
T\ | \ Y l /T | \I l \ ` l Y
__ | \l \l \I l __l l \ ` _. |
\ ~-l `\ `\ \ \\ ~\ \ `. .-~ |
\ ~-. "-. ` \ ^._ ^. "-. / \ |
.--~-._ ~- ` _ ~-_.-"-." ._ /._ ." ./
>--. ~-. ._ ~>-" "\\ 7 7 ]
^.___~"--._ ~-{ .-~ . `\ Y . / |
<__ ~"-. ~ /_/ \ \I Y : |
^-.__ ~(_/ \ >._: | l______
^--.,___.-~" /_/ ! `-.~"--l_ / ~"-.
(_/ . ~( /' "~"--,Y -=b-. _)
(_/ . \ : / l c"~o \
\ / `. . .^ \_.-~"~--. )
(_/ . ` / / ! )/
/ / _. '. .': / '
~(_/ . / _ ` .-<_
/_/ . ' .-~" `. / \ \ ,z=.
~( / ' : | K "-.~-.______//
"-,. l I/ \_ __{--->._(==.
//( \ < ~"~" //
/' /\ \ \ ,v=. ((
.^. / /\ " }__ //===- ` Roy!/ASC
/ / ' ' "-.,__ {---(==-
.^ ' : T ~" ll
/ . . . : | :! \\
(_/ / | | j-" ~^
>>>>> So, you dont like reasoned,
>>>>> well thought out, civil debate?
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> /´¯/)
>>>>> /¯../
>>>>> /..../
>>>>> /´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
>>>>> /'/.../..../......./¨¯\
>>>>> ('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
>>>>> \.................'...../
>>>>> ''...\.......... _.·´
>>>>> \..............(
>>>>> \.............\..
GOOD SIGS wanted. APPLY WITHIN.
Dutch
"G0rge0us Ge0rge" <GE0RGEc...@NUTZ.CA> wrote
> Hurry up and die you're boring the arse off my mistresses.
Pictures of goats bums on your computer screen can't get bored.
Ron
> You seem to be on the run, little one. Why is that?
>
etter were those fish killed by a combine?
I want you to post pics of combines killing bunnies, gophers, mice, etc.
>
rick etter
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:436a5d81.04050...@posting.google.com...
> "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
>
> > You seem to be on the run, little one. Why is that?
> >
>
>
>
>
> etter were those fish killed by a combine?
>
> I want you to post pics of combines killing bunnies, gophers, mice, etc.
I see you are dodging and running. Those deaths are the result of filed
actions fool. They would not have happened without crop production. Too
bad for you, killer.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched din-din, little boy....
Ron
> "Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:436a5d81.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<igDmc.10396$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> >
> > > You seem to be on the run, little one. Why is that?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > etter were those fish killed by a combine?
> >
> > I want you to post pics of combines killing bunnies, gophers, mice, etc.
> > ==========================
> I see you are dodging and running. Those deaths are the result of filed
> actions fool. They would not have happened without crop production. Too
> bad for you, killer.
"Filed actions"....? What the fu........!?
Could you please pull your head out of the bag of glue *before* you
attempt to post? ....Thank you.
rick etter
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:436a5d81.04050...@posting.google.com...
> "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<EoVmc.11638$Hs1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:436a5d81.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > > "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<igDmc.10396$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > >
> > > > You seem to be on the run, little one. Why is that?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > etter were those fish killed by a combine?
> > >
> > > I want you to post pics of combines killing bunnies, gophers, mice,
etc.
> > > ==========================
> > I see you are dodging and running. Those deaths are the result of
filed
> > actions fool. They would not have happened without crop production.
Too
> > bad for you, killer.
>
>
>
>
> "Filed actions"....? What the fu........!?
>
> Could you please pull your head out of the bag of glue *before* you
> attempt to post? ....Thank you.
Continuing your dodge now with typo spews. Typical for a brainless loon.
You can't 'see' field in there fool? Naw, didn't think so, killer.
Now, as for anything you've posted, where is it hypocrite? Come on, defend
your vegan religion, killer.
William Bligh
I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
that farmers intentionally kill them. If an animal gets snagged up in the
machinery then that's just an accident. You can't say it was intentional
or done to increase profits.
ipse dixit
>I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
>I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
>that farmers intentionally kill them.
They use pesticides which intentionally kill small animals
around farmsteads.
>If an animal gets snagged up in the
>machinery then that's just an accident.
Yes, if you believe accidents occur.
>You can't say it was intentional
>or done to increase profits.
The field deaths (collateral deaths) associated with heavy
machinery aren't caused to increase his profits, but his use
of pesticides certainly is.
[Remember, each rat on your farm is probably costing
you, the producer, at least $25 annually. Can you afford
them on your farm?]
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/86-036.htm#Why
ipse dixit
Concealing or scrambling one's email address is a good idea
on these animal related forums, else you're likely to be mail-
bombed at the rate of hundreds per day.
usual suspect
> I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
Alternatives that avoid CDs like home-grown produce are available to him and to
you, yet neither you nor Dreck is willing to foot the bill in either time or
money (or both) for those alternatives. Instead, people like you and Dreck have
the audacity to blame farmers for the deaths of animals occurring in the
production of your food. Are you willing to pay a farmer twice as much for
hand-tilled, hand-harvested foods? If not, you have NO grounds for blaming
farmers for methods they employ to produce food at a price YOU are willing to pay.
> I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
> that farmers intentionally kill them.
You idiot! Why the fuck do you think farmers (organic and conventional alike)
apply pesticides? Why the fuck do you think warehouses and granaries are forced
to control vermin through the use of poisons and traps?
> If an animal gets snagged up in the
> machinery then that's just an accident.
Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice and other prey are left
vulnerable to predation following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to find
carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks and other predators circle overhead
and pick off animals exposed after the fields are cleared. The clearing of the
fields is no accident; it's necessary so you can eat.
> You can't say it was intentional
Why not?
> or done to increase profits.
Dreck says it is, but the miserly dole scrounger refuses to grow his own or pay
farmers enough to use methods consistent with his peculiar (hyper)sensitivities
about dead animals. BTW, and speaking of profits, have you told your parents you
intend to convert their establishment into a vegan one? Are they for that, or
would that kind of disturbing news make it likely that they'd sell it to someone
else who's not into extreme niche marketing?
<...>
William Bligh
>William Blight wrote:
>> I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
>
>Alternatives that avoid CDs like home-grown produce are available to him and to
>you, yet neither you nor Dreck is willing to foot the bill in either time or
>money (or both) for those alternatives. Instead, people like you and Dreck have
>the audacity to blame farmers for the deaths of animals occurring in the
>production of your food. Are you willing to pay a farmer twice as much for
>hand-tilled, hand-harvested foods? If not, you have NO grounds for blaming
>farmers for methods they employ to produce food at a price YOU are willing to pay.
>
If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
I blame them if what they do offends me?
>> I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
>> that farmers intentionally kill them.
>
>You idiot! Why the fuck do you think farmers (organic and conventional alike)
>apply pesticides? Why the fuck do you think warehouses and granaries are forced
>to control vermin through the use of poisons and traps?
>
I wasn't thinking. Ipse Dixit has already cleared that up for me, thank you.
>> If an animal gets snagged up in the
>> machinery then that's just an accident.
>
>Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice and other prey are left
>vulnerable to predation following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to find
>carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks and other predators circle overhead
>and pick off animals exposed after the fields are cleared. The clearing of the
>fields is no accident; it's necessary so you can eat.
Mice and voles are killed by hawks all the time. I don't see anything
wrong in that. It's called the food chain. Look it up, but don't call me
silly names - okay?
>
>> You can't say it was intentional
>
>Why not?
>
>> or done to increase profits.
>
>Dreck says it is,
Who's Dreck? I've never read any of his books. I've read The Animal
Rights Debate by Cohen and Regan, and a few articles from Singer on
the net, but I've never read anything from Dreck.
but the miserly dole scrounger refuses to grow his own or pay
>farmers enough to use methods consistent with his peculiar (hyper)sensitivities
>about dead animals. BTW, and speaking of profits, have you told your parents you
>intend to convert their establishment into a vegan one? Are they for that, or
>would that kind of disturbing news make it likely that they'd sell it to someone
>else who's not into extreme niche marketing?
>
><...>
We have more than just one hotel. When I pass my exams in hotel
management and catering I'll be taking one of them for myself. My parents
will always manage our largest one but I'll be given a free hand to do what I
want when I'm given my own.The first thing I'll do is double the chef's wages,
and then get someone in to rip out all the leather and wool from everywhere
before opening it under a new name and management.
Dutch
> I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their
killer.
No, your hired agent is their killer.
> I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
> that farmers intentionally kill them.
Farmers kill many, many animals intentionally.
> If an animal gets snagged up in the
> machinery then that's just an accident.
An accident in human terms is something unfortunate that happens despite
herculean efforts to avoid it. So it's not "just an accident".
> You can't say it was intentional
In relation to human terms it would be called wanton disregard for life,
which is right up there with intentional.
> or done to increase profits.
Of course it is, to avoid killing animals farmers would have to stop using
chemicals and stop using mechanization, perform every step of the process
manually. The cost would be prohibitive.
You're lving in a fantasy world.
William Bligh
>"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their
>killer.
>
>No, your hired agent is their killer.
>
I agree.
Dutch
"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
> The field deaths (collateral deaths) associated with heavy
> machinery aren't caused to increase his profits,
The use of heavy machinery makes farming financially viable, which is just
another way of saying it increases profits.
usual suspect
<...>
>>>I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
>>
>>Alternatives that avoid CDs like home-grown produce are available to him and to
>>you, yet neither you nor Dreck is willing to foot the bill in either time or
>>money (or both) for those alternatives. Instead, people like you and Dreck have
>>the audacity to blame farmers for the deaths of animals occurring in the
>>production of your food. Are you willing to pay a farmer twice as much for
>>hand-tilled, hand-harvested foods? If not, you have NO grounds for blaming
>>farmers for methods they employ to produce food at a price YOU are willing to pay.
>
> If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
> I blame them if what they do offends me?
Because you're doing nothing to compensate them to farm in a manner consistent
with your pseudo-values, or even growing your own. Your offense only goes so
far. You still purchase on the basis of price rather than method.
>>>I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
>>>that farmers intentionally kill them.
>>
>>You idiot! Why the fuck do you think farmers (organic and conventional alike)
>>apply pesticides? Why the fuck do you think warehouses and granaries are forced
>>to control vermin through the use of poisons and traps?
>
> I wasn't thinking.
I know you weren't.
> Ipse Dixit has already cleared that up for me, thank you.
He only clouds issues.
>>>If an animal gets snagged up in the
>>>machinery then that's just an accident.
>>
>>Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice and other prey are left
>>vulnerable to predation following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to find
>>carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks and other predators circle overhead
>>and pick off animals exposed after the fields are cleared. The clearing of the
>>fields is no accident; it's necessary so you can eat.
>
> Mice and voles are killed by hawks all the time.
More so when fields are cleared during harvest. No cover, easy pickings.
> I don't see anything wrong in that. It's called the food chain.
The same is true when humans eat meat.
> Look it up,
Fuck yourself.
> but don't call me silly names - okay?
I'll call you whatever I want, especially after you lamely tell me to look up
stuff. Twat! Twat! Twat! Twat! Twat! Twat! Twat!
>>>You can't say it was intentional
>>
>>Why not?
Answer me.
>>>or done to increase profits.
>>
>>Dreck says it is,
>
> Who's Dreck?
The lame fat fuck you call "ipse dixit." His name is Dreck.
> I've never read any of his books.
He can barely read one himself, much less write one.
> I've read The Animal
> Rights Debate by Cohen and Regan, and a few articles from Singer on
> the net, but I've never read anything from Dreck.
Be grateful then. Most of Dreck's work is shit-stirring.
> but the miserly dole scrounger refuses to grow his own or pay
>>farmers enough to use methods consistent with his peculiar (hyper)sensitivities
>>about dead animals. BTW, and speaking of profits, have you told your parents you
>>intend to convert their establishment into a vegan one? Are they for that, or
>>would that kind of disturbing news make it likely that they'd sell it to someone
>>else who's not into extreme niche marketing?
>>
>><...>
>
> We have more than just one hotel. When I pass my exams in hotel
> management and catering I'll be taking one of them for myself. My parents
> will always manage our largest one but I'll be given a free hand to do what I
> want when I'm given my own.The first thing I'll do is double the chef's wages,
> and then get someone in to rip out all the leather and wool from everywhere
> before opening it under a new name and management.
Answer the question I asked. Do your parents know of these peculiar plans or not?
William Bligh
>William Blight wrote:
><...>
>>>>I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
>>>
>>>Alternatives that avoid CDs like home-grown produce are available to him and to
>>>you, yet neither you nor Dreck is willing to foot the bill in either time or
>>>money (or both) for those alternatives. Instead, people like you and Dreck have
>>>the audacity to blame farmers for the deaths of animals occurring in the
>>>production of your food. Are you willing to pay a farmer twice as much for
>>>hand-tilled, hand-harvested foods? If not, you have NO grounds for blaming
>>>farmers for methods they employ to produce food at a price YOU are willing to pay.
>>
>> If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
>> I blame them if what they do offends me?
>
>Because you're doing nothing to compensate them to farm in a manner consistent
>with your pseudo-values, or even growing your own. Your offense only goes so
>far. You still purchase on the basis of price rather than method.
>
That doesn't stop me from blaming them. They should be more careful and store
what they harvest in rodent-proof containers which would stop any risk of pest
infestations. Poisoning an animal violates its rights, but making it move on
somewhere else for its food doesn't. What happens to all the dead rodents that
die from intentional poisoning? They just lay there and rot, and then get mixed
up with all our food. Better hygiene standards will go a long way in any
business.
>>>>I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
>>>>that farmers intentionally kill them.
>>>
>>>You idiot! Why the fuck do you think farmers (organic and conventional alike)
>>>apply pesticides? Why the fuck do you think warehouses and granaries are forced
>>>to control vermin through the use of poisons and traps?
>>
>> I wasn't thinking.
>
>I know you weren't.
>
>> Ipse Dixit has already cleared that up for me, thank you.
>
>He only clouds issues.
>
>>>>If an animal gets snagged up in the
>>>>machinery then that's just an accident.
>>>
>>>Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice and other prey are left
>>>vulnerable to predation following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to find
>>>carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks and other predators circle overhead
>>>and pick off animals exposed after the fields are cleared. The clearing of the
>>>fields is no accident; it's necessary so you can eat.
>>
>> Mice and voles are killed by hawks all the time.
>
>More so when fields are cleared during harvest. No cover, easy pickings.
>
I can understand your concern, but you have to get used to the fact that hawks
need to eat to survive. You can't blame them for the easy pickings. It's nature.
>> I don't see anything wrong in that. It's called the food chain.
>
>The same is true when humans eat meat.
>
If I want to do something, that is a first-order desire, but if want not to want
to do something then that is a second-order desire. Animals don't have
second-order desires. They eat and do what comes naturally to their first-order
desires. We have second-order desires that, God willing are given to us to give
moral consideration to what we want and do. I believe animals have rights, so it
would be morally wrong for me to kill them. My second-order desires take me
out of the food chain and lets me choose my own diet.
>> Look it up,
>
>Fuck yourself.
>
Calm down. There's no need to get like that over this.
I don't think that's any of your business.
Ray
"William Bligh" <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:5voca0h8ap2e8lmlg...@4ax.com...
You will find that the subject of accidental deaths (CD's) is grossly
overstated on these newsgroups. It is the main tool of those who seek
vengeance on those who try to lead a decent life. I have always acknowledged
that we are all guilty of causing CDs but as you correcrly indicate such
deaths are accidental.
As a new poster to these groups you will be the subject of a great deal of
abuse, you have already had a taste.
Again, this is another ploy designed by the anti animal rights brigade. They
do not like anyone posting to the groups with the intention of exposing
their lies and deceptions. Use their venom to fuel your response. They will
berate you for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar. Anything to make you
feel small, I enjoy their personal comments and abuse which I receive on a
daily basis. it's not my fault that the spelling checker on OE is lousy.
Please note the warning of 'Ipse Dixit' and disguise your true e-mail
address, at best you will notice a sudden increase in spam, as for a mail
bomb, that's another story.
Ray
rick etter
> I object to the field deaths
Your actions speak louder than your empty words, killer. You know animals
are in those fields, the farmer knows that animals are in those fields, yet
*neither* of you take any actions to eliminate or reduce the death and
suffering of those animals.
and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
====================
The person who hires a killer is still just as guilty, killler.
> I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
> that farmers intentionally kill them.
========================
Why then are tons of poisons sold every year? Just to keep Dow in business?
No, they are used to deliberately target and kill animals just to keep your
veggies clean, cheap, and convenient, killer.
If an animal gets snagged up in the
> machinery then that's just an accident. You can't say it was intentional
> or done to increase profits.
====================
Yes, you can, since both of you know that animals are there. Besides, the
die from more than just being sliced, diced, shredded and dismembered.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.
rick etter
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 17:38:58 GMT, usual suspect <sup...@our.troops>
wrote:
>
> >William Blight wrote:
> >> I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their
killer.
> >
> >Alternatives that avoid CDs like home-grown produce are available to him
and to
> >you, yet neither you nor Dreck is willing to foot the bill in either time
or
> >money (or both) for those alternatives. Instead, people like you and
Dreck have
> >the audacity to blame farmers for the deaths of animals occurring in the
> >production of your food. Are you willing to pay a farmer twice as much
for
> >hand-tilled, hand-harvested foods? If not, you have NO grounds for
blaming
> >farmers for methods they employ to produce food at a price YOU are
willing to pay.
> >
> If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
> I blame them if what they do offends me?
Because *YOU* continue to reward them for producing your cheap, convenient
veggies that way. *YOU* are too lazy and convenience oriented to make any
changes that would even start to live up yto your supposed ideals.
>
>
> >> I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
> >> that farmers intentionally kill them.
> >
> >You idiot! Why the fuck do you think farmers (organic and conventional
alike)
> >apply pesticides? Why the fuck do you think warehouses and granaries are
forced
> >to control vermin through the use of poisons and traps?
> >
> I wasn't thinking. Ipse Dixit has already cleared that up for me, thank
you.
>
>
> >> If an animal gets snagged up in the
> >> machinery then that's just an accident.
> >
> >Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice and other prey are left
> >vulnerable to predation following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to
find
> >carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks and other predators circle
overhead
> >and pick off animals exposed after the fields are cleared. The clearing
of the
> >fields is no accident; it's necessary so you can eat.
>
> Mice and voles are killed by hawks all the time. I don't see anything
> wrong in that. It's called the food chain.
=============================
Then exlpain why it would be wrong for us to eat cows, chickens and pigs.
Sounds like it's natural to me, you know, that food chain thingy... the
only truly 'unnatural' foods you're throwing into the mix is your massive
amounts of mono-culture crops. Where are they in 'nature?'
The problem for you is that this food-chain thing happens as a part of
nature, and you are upsetting that nature with mono-culture crops. Your
fields provide easily available food and cover that allows those mice and
voles, and many other animals, to reproduce in far greater than natural
numbers. Then, just when those populations are the greatest, you go and
remove all that easy food and cover. The animals that do not die from the
mechinazation start to die from starvation and predation. They can't all
just scurry off into the surrounding area because that area would already be
at its natural carry capacity.
Look it up, but don't call me
> silly names - okay?
======================
As long as you spew this ignorant crap of yours, you keep showing yourself
for the silly person you are. Ignorant, stupid, hypocritical, and silly.
=============================
LOL What a hoot! And replace these items with what fool? Products of the
petro-chemical industry imported from god only knows from where around the
world? You truly are this stupid and blind, aren't you? How many animals
are the leather and wool in use causing death and suffering to now? How
many are you willing to kill just to make some hairbrained change in the
name of your ignorance?
rick etter
Of course not. That's the easy way out for you, right killer?
They should be more careful and store
> what they harvest in rodent-proof containers which would stop any risk of
pest
> infestations.
==================
*You* won't pay the prices to make those kind of changes.
Poisoning an animal violates its rights, but making it move on
> somewhere else for its food doesn't.
=====================
Really? Then why are you posting to usenet if killing animals is a
violation of the 'rights'?
====================
*YOU* are to blame for the unnatural numbers of animals that were in those
fields. The natural habitat would not have supported the numbers, plus you
missed the point. *you* are deliberately setting up these animals to be
preyed on by hawks. In a natural habitat the animals at least have a
chance, in your harvested fields you've left them without cover and food.
You caused their increased numbers, then you cause their increased number of
deaths.
>
> >> I don't see anything wrong in that. It's called the food chain.
> >
> >The same is true when humans eat meat.
> >
> If I want to do something, that is a first-order desire, but if want not
to want
> to do something then that is a second-order desire. Animals don't have
> second-order desires. They eat and do what comes naturally to their
first-order
> desires. We have second-order desires that, God willing are given to us to
give
> moral consideration to what we want and do. I believe animals have rights,
==================
No, you don't. You prove that with each of your inane posts to usenet,
hypocrite.
so it
> would be morally wrong for me to kill them. My second-order desires take
me
> out of the food chain and lets me choose my own diet.
======================
*you* are not out of the food chain you ignorant fool. You've just changed
the types and numbers of animals you kill for your food.
>
> >> Look it up,
> >
> >Fuck yourself.
> >
> Calm down. There's no need to get like that over this.
======================
You stupidity is grating....
rick etter
"Ray" <r...@syntax.com> wrote in message
news:c86fqv$18e$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
No, you and the rest of the braindead vegans try to pretend that they don't
exist in any real numbers...
It is the main tool of those who seek
> vengeance on those who try to lead a decent life. I have always
acknowledged
> that we are all guilty of causing CDs but as you correcrly indicate such
> deaths are accidental.
=======================
No ray-boy, they are not, and he, nor you have ever shown that they are
'accidental.'
As long as both you and the farmer know that animals are in those fields,
and neither of you take any actions to keep from killing them, they are not
Dutch
How exactly will he find that, are you going to produce the data?
> It is the main tool of those who seek
> vengeance on those who try to lead a decent life.
Are you implying that I don't lead a decent life because I consume animal
products?
Yes, you probably are, because that's exactly the self-righteous attitude I
have come to expect from you.
> I have always acknowledged
> that we are all guilty of causing CDs but as you correcrly indicate such
> deaths are accidental.
He already conceded that cds are only partially accidental, and in no way
*as* accidental as human casualties.
> As a new poster to these groups you will be the subject of a great deal of
> abuse, you have already had a taste.
Get out the world's smallest violin, I think we need some background
music...
> Again, this is another ploy designed by the anti animal rights brigade.
No ploy Ray, just facts that make you squirm awkwardly.
> They
> do not like anyone posting to the groups with the intention of exposing
> their lies and deceptions.
No lies, no deceptions, just uncomfortable truths and brutal honesty.
> Use their venom to fuel your response. They will
> berate you for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar. Anything to make you
> feel small, I enjoy their personal comments and abuse which I receive on a
> daily basis. it's not my fault that the spelling checker on OE is lousy.
The spell checker on OE is fine, you're just incompetent.
> Please note the warning of 'Ipse Dixit' and disguise your true e-mail
> address, at best you will notice a sudden increase in spam, as for a mail
> bomb, that's another story.
His email address is now nos...@thankyou.com, pay attention.
ipse dixit
>"William Bligh" <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote in message news:gslca01jn08oqlm1m...@4ax.com...
>> If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
>> I blame them if what they do offends me?
>======================
>Because *YOU* continue to reward them for producing your cheap, convenient
>veggies
And that is all he rewards him for: his veg.
> that way.
William doesn't reward him for farming in any
particular way. He rewards him for his veg, and
only his veg.
[..]
>> >> If an animal gets snagged up in the
>> >> machinery then that's just an accident.
>> >
>> >Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice
>> >and other prey are left vulnerable to predation
>> >following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to
>> >find carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks
>> >and other predators circle overhead and pick
>> >off animals exposed after the fields are cleared.
>> >The clearing of the fields is no accident; it's
>> > necessary so you can eat.
Still hung up about natural predation being cruel, I
see, "usual". Explain what's wrong in hawks eating
their prey, and tell us why it's so cruel.
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>> Mice and voles are killed by hawks all the time. I don't see anything
>> wrong in that. It's called the food chain.
Hey, "usual", did you look that up, dummy?
[..]
>> > BTW, and speaking of profits, have you told your parents
>> > you intend to convert their establishment into a vegan one?
>> > Are they for that, or would that kind of disturbing news
>> > make it likely that they'd sell it to someone else who's not
>> > into extreme niche marketing?
>> >
>> We have more than just one hotel. When I pass my exams
>> in hotel management and catering I'll be taking one of them
>> for myself. My parents will always manage our largest one
>> but I'll be given a free hand to do what I want when I'm
>> given my own.The first thing I'll do is double the chef's
>> wages, and then get someone in to rip out all the leather and
>> wool from everywhere before opening it under a new name
>>and management.
>=============================
>LOL What a hoot! And replace these items with what fool?
Non-animal products and furniture, most likely. Can't you read?
ipse dixit
>William Blight wrote:
>>
>> I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
>
>Alternatives that avoid CDs like home-grown produce are available to him and to
>you,
Show where these CD-free alternatives exist, liar.
>Instead, people like you and Dreck have
>the audacity to blame farmers for the deaths of animals occurring in the
>production of your food.
As William says, "If farmers are killing them intentionally
and for profit why shouldn't I blame them if what they do
offends me?
>> or done to increase profits.
>
>Dreck says it is
They do kill them for profit, as I've repeatedly shown;
[Remember, each rat on your farm is probably costing
you, the producer, at least $25 annually. Can you afford
them on your farm?]
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/86-036.htm#Why
>, but the miserly dole scrounger
I don't claim any benefits. I've even given you the
telephone number of my local social security office
and my personal particulars to find out for yourself,
but no, you'd rather continue lying instead, wouldn't
you, Christian?
>refuses to grow his own or pay
>farmers enough to use methods consistent with his peculiar (hyper)sensitivities
>about dead animals.
How can one be sure that using a different farmer
will reduce collateral deaths? Exchanging one farmer
for another is a senseless waste of time.
rick etter
"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message
news:b7eea0t4h8mugkbur...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:33:12 GMT, "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> >"William Bligh" <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:gslca01jn08oqlm1m...@4ax.com...
> [..]
> >> If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
> >> I blame them if what they do offends me?
> >======================
> >Because *YOU* continue to reward them for producing your cheap,
convenient
> >veggies
>
> And that is all he rewards him for: his veg.
Nope. He rewards him for taking any actions that keeps prices within what
you and he are willing to pay for. You reward him for *not* living up to
your supposed ethics, fool. You are culpable. Even your pal Aristotle has
told you that you are, killer.
> > that way.
>
> William doesn't reward him for farming in any
> particular way. He rewards him for his veg, and
> only his veg.
==================
Nope. Because if his 'ethics' and ignorant belief that animals have rights,
he'd do something to ensure that the products he uses and buys does not come
at the expense of dead animals. He, and you, make no such effort. Your
'beliefs' are just so many empty words.
>
> [..]
> >> >> If an animal gets snagged up in the
> >> >> machinery then that's just an accident.
> >> >
> >> >Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice
> >> >and other prey are left vulnerable to predation
> >> >following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to
> >> >find carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks
> >> >and other predators circle overhead and pick
> >> >off animals exposed after the fields are cleared.
> >> >The clearing of the fields is no accident; it's
> >> > necessary so you can eat.
>
> Still hung up about natural predation being cruel, I
> see, "usual". Explain what's wrong in hawks eating
> their prey, and tell us why it's so cruel.
==================
I see your comprehension is still lacking, eh killer? Show in there where I
said anything about predation being cruel. Come on, it's your strawman,
surely you can point it out, hypocrite. Of course, you're too stupid and
ignorant to even know I didn't write what you just responded too, aren't you
fool? Is this your new dishonesty tactic, killer? Insert parts from other
posts that were not in the reply I made? You truly are one stupid fool...
====================
Don't you have a brain? The items he has now are killing NO animals.
Anything product he buys to replace them WILL kill animals. So much for his
supposed beliefs. they are as empty and ignorant as yours, killer.
rick etter
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:10adosc...@news.supernews.com...
> Unless a statement can be supported by concrete evidence there always
> remains a weakness. It is this weakness that you and Rick exploit.
> >
> > > It is the main tool of those who seek
> > > vengeance on those who try to lead a decent life.
> >
> > Are you implying that I don't lead a decent life because I consume
animal
> > products?
>
> 'better' person. As a lapsed vegetarian you know full well that it is
> possible to lead a full healthy life without meat or it's derivatives. Why
> kill when there is no need?
====================
Then why do you kill, fool? You cannot live without killing. You haven't
even measured, or tried to measure your impact. You have no idea what your
toll on animals is. You don't care, and that's the point. All you care
about is following a simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat.
> >
> > Yes, you probably are, because that's exactly the self-righteous
attitude
> I
> > have come to expect from you.
>
> Any expressions of such an attitude is in defense of the critique from
your
> side, contsantly telling me that my AR standpoint is wrong.
==================
Because it is, fool. It's ignorant and stupid. And to top it off, you
prove that it is with each inane post you make to usenet, hypocrite.
> >
> > > I have always acknowledged
> > > that we are all guilty of causing CDs but as you correcrly indicate
such
> > > deaths are accidental.
> >
> > He already conceded that cds are only partially accidental, and in no
way
> > *as* accidental as human casualties.
>
> That is because he is a sound ARA and always tells the truth. We all
> acknowlege that cds will happen, but we must be vigilant and keep them to
a
> minimum. Buying 'organic' is a good starter.
==================
No, it isn't. Organic does not equate to cruelty-free you ignorant fool.
>
> >
> > > As a new poster to these groups you will be the subject of a great
deal
> of
> > > abuse, you have already had a taste.
> >
> > Get out the world's smallest violin, I think we need some background
> > music...
>
> Play another tune, you *know* that new AR posters to these groups are
always
> given a hard time, few survive the first week. The prime reason why we
have
> the same people calling each other the same names ad nauseam, that's no
way
> to run a newsgroup.
>
> I've been around for about 4 years, but during my first couple of weeks I
> nearly packed the job in because I took the personal issues seriously.
> Fortunately I was encouraged to persevere by a seasoned poster ( I won't
> give his name 'cos he's easily embarrassed). Others are not so lucky.
> >
> > > Again, this is another ploy designed by the anti animal rights
brigade.
> >
> > No ploy Ray, just facts that make you squirm awkwardly.
>
> I see few facts, but plenty of lies.
> >
> > > They
> > > do not like anyone posting to the groups with the intention of
exposing
> > > their lies and deceptions.
> >
> > No lies, no deceptions, just uncomfortable truths and brutal honesty.
>
> You mean like throwing birds into a bonfire was a painless way of
disposal?
> I did have problems with that "truth".
> >
> > > Use their venom to fuel your response. They will
> > > berate you for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar. Anything to make
> you
> > > feel small, I enjoy their personal comments and abuse which I receive
on
> a
> > > daily basis. it's not my fault that the spelling checker on OE is
lousy.
> >
> > The spell checker on OE is fine, you're just incompetent.
>
> The spel checker on OE is crap, let's see what it does with the word
spell.
> [The spelling check is complete]
> Thought so, another lie.
> >
> > > Please note the warning of 'Ipse Dixit' and disguise your true e-mail
> > > address, at best you will notice a sudden increase in spam, as for a
> mail
> > > bomb, that's another story.
> >
> > His email address is now nos...@thankyou.com, pay attention.
>
> Yes sir.
> >
> >
>
>
rick etter
"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:19:01 GMT, "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net>
> >>
> >> I object to the field deaths
> >======================
> >Your actions speak louder than your empty words, killer.
>
> to see whose "actions speak louder than words", go
> and follow a farmer around while he lays down his
> poisons.
\=====================
I'm talking to and about the persons who hire the killers, fool. That's you
and billy-boy. You are culpable, just ask your pal, Ari.
>
> >and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
> >====================
> >The person who hires a killer is still just as guilty, killler.
>
> He hires a farmer to produce veg, not a killer to
> poison animals. If the farmer poisons animals while
> going about his business, then he is fully responsible
> for them.
==================
At your demand, hypocrite. You could make other choices, you choose to
select this option.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.
> [..]
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message news:d5fea0tfp59igb8v5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:19:01 GMT, "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8rcca0d527e00bug2...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> I object to the field deaths
>> >======================
>> >Your actions speak louder than your empty words, killer.
>>
>> He's not the culprit who kills them, so if you're looking
>> to see whose "actions speak louder than words", go
>> and follow a farmer around while he lays down his
>> poisons.
>\=====================
>I'm talking to and about the persons who hire the killers, fool.
We don't hire killers. Meatarians do, but vegans don't.
>> >and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
>> >====================
>> >The person who hires a killer is still just as guilty, killler.
>>
>> He hires a farmer to produce veg, not a killer to
>> poison animals. If the farmer poisons animals while
>> going about his business, then he is fully responsible
>> for them.
>==================
>At your demand, hypocrite.
I don't demand any such thing. All I demand is my veg.
usual suspect
>>>>>I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
>>>>
>>>>Alternatives that avoid CDs like home-grown produce are available to him and to
>>>>you, yet neither you nor Dreck is willing to foot the bill in either time or
>>>>money (or both) for those alternatives. Instead, people like you and Dreck have
>>>>the audacity to blame farmers for the deaths of animals occurring in the
>>>>production of your food. Are you willing to pay a farmer twice as much for
>>>>hand-tilled, hand-harvested foods? If not, you have NO grounds for blaming
>>>>farmers for methods they employ to produce food at a price YOU are willing to pay.
>>>
>>>If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
>>>I blame them if what they do offends me?
>>
>>Because you're doing nothing to compensate them to farm in a manner consistent
>>with your pseudo-values, or even growing your own. Your offense only goes so
>>far. You still purchase on the basis of price rather than method.
>
> That doesn't stop me from blaming them.
It should. Why do you plan to remove leather and wool from your parents' hotel?
You didn't kill the steers or shear the sheep, so your clientele cannot hold YOU
responsible. Or can they? And that analogy doesn't even get into the issues of
how many MORE animals you'll kill by replacing that perfectly useful and
functional stuff with synthetics and natural fibers. Do you not understand how
much pollution is caused by refining of synthetics? Do you not know how many
chemicals are applied to cotton and other fiber crops? All that pollution kills
animals and humans. You really don't care about animals (or people), you just
have an irrational, knee-jerk reaction against animal parts.
> They should be more careful and store
> what they harvest in rodent-proof containers which would stop any risk of pest
> infestations.
Will your local health inspectors accept rodent-proof containers as an excuse so
you won't have to apply pesticides or engage in pro-active pest management in
your hotel? I think not!
> Poisoning an animal violates its rights,
Get ready to explain that to the health inspector, Blight.
> but making it move on somewhere else for its food doesn't.
Too bad your health codes don't share that view.
> What happens to all the dead rodents that
> die from intentional poisoning?
In fields? They're often eaten by predators and/or scavengers.
> They just lay there and rot,
Not really. Some do, but most are eaten.
> and then get mixed
> up with all our food. Better hygiene standards will go a long way in any
> business.
Which is why your delusions about animal rights will be impaled up the arse
during your first health inspection.
>>>>>I agree with you there, but what I don't agree with is your assumption
>>>>>that farmers intentionally kill them.
>>>>
>>>>You idiot! Why the fuck do you think farmers (organic and conventional alike)
>>>>apply pesticides? Why the fuck do you think warehouses and granaries are forced
>>>>to control vermin through the use of poisons and traps?
>>>
>>>I wasn't thinking.
>>
>>I know you weren't.
You still aren't, btw.
>>>Ipse Dixit has already cleared that up for me, thank you.
>>
>>He only clouds issues.
>>
>>
>>>>>If an animal gets snagged up in the
>>>>>machinery then that's just an accident.
>>>>
>>>>Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice and other prey are left
>>>>vulnerable to predation following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to find
>>>>carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks and other predators circle overhead
>>>>and pick off animals exposed after the fields are cleared. The clearing of the
>>>>fields is no accident; it's necessary so you can eat.
>>>
>>>Mice and voles are killed by hawks all the time.
>>
>>More so when fields are cleared during harvest. No cover, easy pickings.
>
> I can understand your concern,
I'm not concerned. I don't operate under AR delusions like you do.
> but you have to get used to the fact that hawks
> need to eat to survive. You can't blame them for the easy pickings. It's nature.
Cattle, poultry, sheep, and swine are also easy pickings. It's nature, too.
>>>I don't see anything wrong in that. It's called the food chain.
>>
>>The same is true when humans eat meat.
>
> If I want to do something, that is a first-order desire, but if want not to want
> to do something then that is a second-order desire.
Shove your benighted sophistry.
> Animals don't have
> second-order desires. They eat and do what comes naturally to their first-order
> desires. We have second-order desires that, God willing are given to us to give
> moral consideration to what we want and do.
Since you invoked God, He told us we could eat meat.
> I believe animals have rights,
Why? On what grounds?
> so it
> would be morally wrong for me to kill them.
You kill them indirectly. When you take over a hotel (and run it into the red),
you will kill them directly.
> My second-order desires take me
> out of the food chain and lets me choose my own diet.
You're still in the food chain, and your dietary choices still cause animals to
suffer and die.
>>>Look it up,
>>
>>Fuck yourself.
>
> Calm down. There's no need to get like that over this.
I am calm. Fuck yourself.
Twat!
Answer me.
I think it's their business. Why can't you tell me whether they know or approve
of your plan to increase overhead right off the bat and engage in niche
marketing to people with peculiar diets? I cannot imagine they'd approve, since
they appear to know something about the profit margins of the hospitality
industry. In ANY business, doubling labor costs is an unwise move unless one's
revenue stream can handle it; you're also talking about major renovations on top
of that. Why are you doubling the chef's wages -- are you already sleeping with
him or just trying to?
usual suspect
<...>
> You will find that the subject of accidental deaths (CD's) is grossly
> overstated on these newsgroups.
Prove it.
> It is the main tool of those who seek
> vengeance on those who try to lead a decent life.
You mean a deceitful life, as in, "my diet causes no suffering" without any proof.
> I have always acknowledged
> that we are all guilty of causing CDs but as you correcrly indicate such
> deaths are accidental.
How is the intentional application of poison "accidental," Ray?
> As a new poster to these groups you will be the subject of a great deal of
> abuse, you have already had a taste.
It's not abuse; as Blight noted, he was not thinking.
> Again, this is another ploy designed by the anti animal rights brigade. They
> do not like anyone posting to the groups with the intention of exposing
> their lies and deceptions.
What lies and deceptions?
> Use their venom to fuel your response. They will
> berate you for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar. Anything to make you
> feel small, I enjoy their personal comments and abuse which I receive on a
> daily basis. it's not my fault that the spelling checker on OE is lousy.
I'm curious, how many errors does it actually catch in your posts? I know how
many get by, but does it catch any?
> Please note the warning of 'Ipse Dixit' and disguise your true e-mail
> address, at best you will notice a sudden increase in spam, as for a mail
> bomb, that's another story.
Wise advice.
usual suspect
<...>
>>>>Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice
>>>>and other prey are left vulnerable to predation
>>>>following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to
>>>>find carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks
>>>>and other predators circle overhead and pick
>>>>off animals exposed after the fields are cleared.
>>>>The clearing of the fields is no accident; it's
>>>>necessary so you can eat.
>
> Still hung up about natural predation being cruel, I
> see, "usual".
No, not what you *see*, but what you *read into* what I wrote.
> Explain what's wrong in hawks eating
> their prey,
Not a thing at all; the point was that harvesting, a necessary part of feeding
fat trolls like you and Blight, causes deaths other than from combines. As
Blight noted in an earlier post, he's not thinking. I'm helping him do that now.
> and tell us why it's so cruel.
Where did I write in the above that it is, shit-stirring bluefoot?
<...>
usual suspect
<...>
> He hires a farmer to produce veg, not a killer to
> poison animals.
He hires one and the same. He could pay more for his produce (either cash to a
farmer or in his own time), but he wants cheap veg and doesn't mind such
shortcuts. Neither do you.
> If the farmer poisons animals while
> going about his business, then he is fully responsible
> for them.
Nope, those who are only willing to pay him the most meager wages to grow the
cheapest vegetables are fully responsible. You can ante up and have him grow
without pesticides and to pick by hand (you've got to pay for the extra time
that would take), but you choose cheap veg instead so the blood is on your own
fat hands.
usual suspect
<...>
>>He already conceded that cds are only partially accidental, and in no way
>>*as* accidental as human casualties.
>
> acknowlege that cds will happen, but we must be vigilant and keep them to a
> minimum. Buying 'organic' is a good starter.
How? Organic causes at least as much death and destruction to wildlife. Maybe more.
[M]any of the widely used synthetic pesticides are based on natural
plant-defense chemicals. Synthetic versions of pyrethrum (known as
pyrethroids) make it possible to protect a crop with one or two sprays
instead of spraying natural pyrethrum five to seven times at higher
volumes.
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1107
If your goal is to minimize harm done to wildlife, why support a farmer who
applies 5-7x at higher volumes than a farmer who protects his crop with 1-2
applications? BTW, the produce from the conventional farmer is tested for
residues. You don't get the same assurance of residue levels from the organic
produce; it's not necessarily safer for you.
<...>
ipse dixit
>ipse dixit wrote:
><...>
>> He hires a farmer to produce veg, not a killer to
>> poison animals.
>
>He hires one and the same.
Ipse dixit. I only hire a farmer to produce veg for me.
If he kills animals while doing it then he is guilty of
their deaths.
>He could pay more for his produce (either cash to a
>farmer or in his own time),
So you admit that the farmer causes them, and that
he could reduce them if the cash was right, so why
should I or anyone be held blameworthy for his
deaths and extortion now we know these facts about
him?
>> If the farmer poisons animals while
>> going about his business, then he is fully responsible
>> for them.
>
>Nope, those who are only willing to pay him the most meager wages to grow the
>cheapest vegetables are fully responsible.
Are you going to claim that the farmer, an autonomous
moral agent, can be compelled externally to act against
his free will to act differently? If not, because I know
you can't, then he remains fully responsible for his own
autonomous actions, buck passer.
William Bligh
>William Blight wrote:
>
>>>>>>I object to the field deaths and I'm glad you don't think I'm their killer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Alternatives that avoid CDs like home-grown produce are available to him and to
>>>>>you, yet neither you nor Dreck is willing to foot the bill in either time or
>>>>>money (or both) for those alternatives. Instead, people like you and Dreck have
>>>>>the audacity to blame farmers for the deaths of animals occurring in the
>>>>>production of your food. Are you willing to pay a farmer twice as much for
>>>>>hand-tilled, hand-harvested foods? If not, you have NO grounds for blaming
>>>>>farmers for methods they employ to produce food at a price YOU are willing to pay.
>>>>
>>>>If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
>>>>I blame them if what they do offends me?
>>>
>>>Because you're doing nothing to compensate them to farm in a manner consistent
>>>with your pseudo-values, or even growing your own. Your offense only goes so
>>>far. You still purchase on the basis of price rather than method.
>>
>> That doesn't stop me from blaming them.
>
>It should.
It doesn't.
Why do you plan to remove leather and wool from your parents' hotel?
By the time I get to refurbishing it it will be mine. It will only cater for
vegan guests, so refurbishing it will be essential.
>You didn't kill the steers or shear the sheep, so your clientele cannot hold YOU
>responsible. Or can they? And that analogy doesn't even get into the issues of
>how many MORE animals you'll kill by replacing that perfectly useful and
>functional stuff with synthetics and natural fibers. Do you not understand how
>much pollution is caused by refining of synthetics? Do you not know how many
>chemicals are applied to cotton and other fiber crops? All that pollution kills
>animals and humans. You really don't care about animals (or people), you just
>have an irrational, knee-jerk reaction against animal parts.
>
Avoiding animal products to the best of one's ability is a large part in
veganism. There's no way I can run a vegan establishment while the
furniture and fittings are made from animal parts.
And then gave us a second-order desire not to.
>> I believe animals have rights,
>
>Why? On what grounds?
>
On the basis that human infants, young children, and the (seriously) deranged or
enfeebled of all ages are paradigm cases of human moral patients. To the extent
that the case can be made for describing and explaining the behaviour of a human
being (by reference to their beliefs and desires), to that extent, assuming that
we have further reasons for denying that the human in question has the abilities
necessary for moral agency, we have reason to regard that human as a moral
patient. Any position that denies that we have direct duties to those moral
patients with whom we have been and will continue to be concerned (normal
mammalian animals, age one or more, and those human moral patients like these
animals in the relevant respects) is rationally defective.
Tom Regan The Animal Rights Debate page 288.
usual suspect
<...>
>>>He hires a farmer to produce veg, not a killer to
>>>poison animals.
>>
>>He hires one and the same.
>
> Ipse dixit. I only hire a farmer to produce veg for me.
You don't pay him enough for him NOT to cut corners.
> If he kills animals while doing it then he is guilty of
> their deaths.
You're guilty of not paying him enough to farm in a manner consistent with your
own values.
>>He could pay more for his produce (either cash to a
>>farmer or in his own time),
>
> So you admit that the farmer causes them, and that
> he could reduce them if the cash was right,
The farmer's role is predicated on the price you're willing to pay for his goods.
> so why
> should I or anyone be held blameworthy for his
> deaths and extortion now we know these facts about
> him?
It isn't extortion. The farmer is not a charity. You hire him to raise produce
at a price which you're willing to pay. You will not foot the bill for him to
lose part of his crop to pests, nor will you pay him to sow and harvest his crop
by hand. You have no grounds for complaint about his method since you're the one
unwilling to put your money where your big fat mouth is.
>>>If the farmer poisons animals while
>>>going about his business, then he is fully responsible
>>>for them.
>>
>>Nope, those who are only willing to pay him the most meager wages to grow the
>>cheapest vegetables are fully responsible.
>
> Are you going to claim that the farmer, an autonomous
> moral agent, can be compelled externally to act against
> his free will to act differently?
Any such external compulsion is economic. The farmer's methods are more in line
with free markets than free will. If there's enough demand, and if the price the
farmer can get at market is high enough, he will farm in a manner consistent
with market demand.
> If not, because I know
> you can't, then he remains fully responsible for his own
> autonomous actions, buck passer.
You're failing to note that his actions aren't entirely autonomous. The autonomy
the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the free market
in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of prevailing market
conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people concerned about pesticide
use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do that if there's a market
for such effort so he can profit from it.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > "Ray" <r...@syntax.com> wrote
> > > "William Bligh" <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote
[..]
> > > You will find that the subject of accidental deaths (CD's) is grossly
> > > overstated on these newsgroups.
> >
> > How exactly will he find that, are you going to produce the data?
>
> Impossible Dutch, that is why I stated it is one of your favourite tools.
> Unless a statement can be supported by concrete evidence there always
> remains a weakness. It is this weakness that you and Rick exploit.
Exploiting a weakness is not the same as exaggerating. Your claim that we
are exaggerating is unsupportable. I believe that you are exaggerating in
the other direction, because I have seen the effects of monoculture crops. I
believe you do so because you desperately want to maintain the vegan
illusion of an animal-friendly compassionate lifestyle.
> > > It is the main tool of those who seek
> > > vengeance on those who try to lead a decent life.
> >
> > Are you implying that I don't lead a decent life because I consume
animal
> > products?
>
> Not at all, but if you value the sanctity of life you would certainly be a
> 'better' person.
That's just sanctimonious rhetoric, vegans are not living according to any
"sanctity of life" principle and are not better people. Your cotton
underwear is just as steeped in the deaths of animals as your leather boots.
You're thinking in two dimensions.
> As a lapsed vegetarian you know full well that it is
> possible to lead a full healthy life without meat or it's derivatives.
That is highly questionable. I believe that a vegetarian diet is not always
possible or practical for everyone. My wife for example was exhibiting clear
failure to thrive until we put meat back in our diets. In her usual colorful
way of speaking, she said, "I used to be rough & ready denim, now I feel
like old lace." When we put meat back into our diets her tough, resilient,
energetic demin feeling returned.
> Why
> kill when there is no need?
There *IS* a need to kill animals. Apart from hand-tended gardens, all food
production kills animals.
> > Yes, you probably are, because that's exactly the self-righteous
attitude
> I
> > have come to expect from you.
>
> Any expressions of such an attitude is in defense of the critique from
your
> side, contsantly telling me that my AR standpoint is wrong.
It's only wrong when you take it beyond the personal belief level and
attempt to make into a necessary formula for moral living.
> > > I have always acknowledged
> > > that we are all guilty of causing CDs but as you correcrly indicate
such
> > > deaths are accidental.
> >
> > He already conceded that cds are only partially accidental, and in no
way
> > *as* accidental as human casualties.
>
> That is because he is a sound ARA and always tells the truth.
I'm sorry, but those are not compatible. ARAs almost always twist the truth.
> We all
> acknowlege that cds will happen, but we must be vigilant and keep them to
a
> minimum. Buying 'organic' is a good starter.
Do whatever you like, just don't push your sentimental mythology on me.
> > > As a new poster to these groups you will be the subject of a great
deal
> of
> > > abuse, you have already had a taste.
> >
> > Get out the world's smallest violin, I think we need some background
> > music...
>
> Play another tune, you *know* that new AR posters to these groups are
always
> given a hard time, few survive the first week.
Not by me. Personally I wish some antis would tone down the rhetoric so
people would not be scared off so quickly.
> The prime reason why we have
> the same people calling each other the same names ad nauseam, that's no
way
> to run a newsgroup.
Some people keep repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum.
> I've been around for about 4 years, but during my first couple of weeks I
> nearly packed the job in because I took the personal issues seriously.
> Fortunately I was encouraged to persevere by a seasoned poster ( I won't
> give his name 'cos he's easily embarrassed). Others are not so lucky.
You have in my opinion used your time here pretty wisely. I don't agree with
most of your opinions, but you seem to be developing your 'verbal' skills,
and I think that's what it's all about.
> > > Again, this is another ploy designed by the anti animal rights
brigade.
> >
> > No ploy Ray, just facts that make you squirm awkwardly.
>
> I see few facts, but plenty of lies.
There are facts you refuse to acknowledge.
>
> > > They
> > > do not like anyone posting to the groups with the intention of
exposing
> > > their lies and deceptions.
> >
> > No lies, no deceptions, just uncomfortable truths and brutal honesty.
>
> You mean like throwing birds into a bonfire was a painless way of
disposal?
> I did have problems with that "truth".
I wouldn't call that a truth, I'd call it a dubious opinion.
> > > Use their venom to fuel your response. They will
> > > berate you for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar. Anything to make
> you
> > > feel small, I enjoy their personal comments and abuse which I receive
on
> a
> > > daily basis. it's not my fault that the spelling checker on OE is
lousy.
> >
> > The spell checker on OE is fine, you're just incompetent.
>
> The spel checker on OE is crap, let's see what it does with the word
spell.
> [The spelling check is complete]
> Thought so, another lie.
Highlight all before checking.
> > > Please note the warning of 'Ipse Dixit' and disguise your true e-mail
> > > address, at best you will notice a sudden increase in spam, as for a
> mail
> > > bomb, that's another story.
> >
> > His email address is now nos...@thankyou.com, pay attention.
>
> Yes sir.
> >
> >
>
>
usual suspect
<...>
>>>>>If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
>>>>>I blame them if what they do offends me?
>>>>
>>>>Because you're doing nothing to compensate them to farm in a manner consistent
>>>>with your pseudo-values, or even growing your own. Your offense only goes so
>>>>far. You still purchase on the basis of price rather than method.
>>>
>>>That doesn't stop me from blaming them.
>>
>>It should.
>
> It doesn't.
Because you're a hypocrite. You whine and bitch about certain problems but your
own behavior and consumption only encourage those problems.
>>Why do you plan to remove leather and wool from your parents' hotel?
>
> By the time I get to refurbishing it it will be mine. It will only cater for
> vegan guests, so refurbishing it will be essential.
Do you think marketing to vegans will increase profitability or diminish it?
>>You didn't kill the steers or shear the sheep, so your clientele cannot hold YOU
>>responsible. Or can they? And that analogy doesn't even get into the issues of
>>how many MORE animals you'll kill by replacing that perfectly useful and
>>functional stuff with synthetics and natural fibers. Do you not understand how
>>much pollution is caused by refining of synthetics? Do you not know how many
>>chemicals are applied to cotton and other fiber crops? All that pollution kills
>>animals and humans. You really don't care about animals (or people), you just
>>have an irrational, knee-jerk reaction against animal parts.
>
> Avoiding animal products to the best of one's ability is a large part in
> veganism.
It ignores the reality, though. That leather you want to replace doesn't avoid
any more death. Replacing the leather causes more death -- wildlife which dies
as a result of farming natural fibers like cotton (the deadliest crop on the
planet for animals and people) or hemp (which is equally lethal as it's
clear-cut without concern for animals living in hemp fields), or from pollution
from the refining of synthetic fibers. Sheep usually aren't killed for their
wool; it's a renewable resource.
> There's no way I can run a vegan establishment while the
> furniture and fittings are made from animal parts.
Sure there is. Those items still have useful life, are already paid for, and the
animals from which they were taken have no more use for the leather or wool.
IOW, you're only going to kill more animals to replace the stuff from
already-dead animals. Killer.
>>>They should be more careful and store
>>>what they harvest in rodent-proof containers which would stop any risk of pest
>>>infestations.
>>
>>Will your local health inspectors accept rodent-proof containers as an excuse so
>> you won't have to apply pesticides or engage in pro-active pest management in
>>your hotel? I think not!
>>
>>
>>>Poisoning an animal violates its rights,
>>
>>Get ready to explain that to the health inspector, Blight.
>>
>>
>>>but making it move on somewhere else for its food doesn't.
>>
>>Too bad your health codes don't share that view.
>>
>>
>>>What happens to all the dead rodents that
>>>die from intentional poisoning?
>>
>>In fields? They're often eaten by predators and/or scavengers.
>>
>>
>>>They just lay there and rot,
>>
>>Not really. Some do, but most are eaten.
>>
>>
>>>and then get mixed
>>>up with all our food. Better hygiene standards will go a long way in any
>>>business.
>>
>>Which is why your delusions about animal rights will be impaled up the arse
>>during your first health inspection.
No arguments against the above, Billy-boy? How do you plan to get around health
codes and inspections?
Not universally. Many people have first- and second-order desires to eat meat.
>>>I believe animals have rights,
>>
>>Why? On what grounds?
>
> On the basis that human infants, young children, and the (seriously) deranged or
> enfeebled of all ages are paradigm cases of human moral patients.
Fine for humans. Why for animals?
> To the extent
> that the case can be made for describing and explaining the behaviour of a human
> being (by reference to their beliefs and desires), to that extent, assuming that
> we have further reasons for denying that the human in question has the abilities
> necessary for moral agency, we have reason to regard that human as a moral
> patient. Any position that denies that we have direct duties to those moral
> patients with whom we have been and will continue to be concerned (normal
> mammalian animals, age one or more, and those human moral patients like these
> animals in the relevant respects) is rationally defective.
Rationally defective on what grounds? A cow is not a boy, retarded or otherwise.
> Tom Regan The Animal Rights Debate page 288.
Can you answer for yourself yet?
>>>so it
>>>would be morally wrong for me to kill them.
>>
>>You kill them indirectly. When you take over a hotel (and run it into the red),
>>you will kill them directly.
>>
>>
>>>My second-order desires take me
>>>out of the food chain and lets me choose my own diet.
>>
>>You're still in the food chain, and your dietary choices still cause animals to
>>suffer and die.
>>
>>
>>>>>Look it up,
>>>>
>>>>Fuck yourself.
>>>
>>>Calm down. There's no need to get like that over this.
>>
>>I am calm. Fuck yourself.
>>
>>
>>>>>but don't call me silly names - okay?
>>>>
>>>>I'll call you whatever I want, especially after you lamely tell me to look up
>>>>stuff. Twat! Twat! Twat! Twat! Twat! Twat! Twat!
>>
>>Twat!
>>
>>
>>>>>>>You can't say it was intentional
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why not?
>>>>
>>>>Answer me.
>>
>>Answer me.
Answer me, dammit.
Answer the bloody questions.
Dutch
> William Blight wrote:
> > What happens to all the dead rodents that
> > die from intentional poisoning?
>
> In fields? They're often eaten by predators and/or scavengers.
..who in turn get sick. Poisoned insects kill a lot of birds.
ipse dixit
>daft dog-beating dole scrounger wrote:
><...>
>>>>He hires a farmer to produce veg, not a killer to
>>>>poison animals.
>>>
>>>He hires one and the same.
>>
>> Ipse dixit. I only hire a farmer to produce veg for me.
>
>You don't pay him enough for him NOT to cut corners.
>
What I pay him has nothing to do with the animals
he kills. How absurd. If I paid him £100 for a bag
of spuds with a history of collateral deaths behind it,
does that extra money change who killed them or
make me any more or less responsible for them?
>> If he kills animals while doing it then he is guilty of
>> their deaths.
>
>You're guilty of not paying him enough to farm in a manner consistent with your
>own values.
I pay him what I pay him, and if he kills animals
while providing me with what I pay for, then he is
responsible for them whether I pay £1 or £100.
>>>He could pay more for his produce (either cash to a
>>>farmer or in his own time),
>>
>> So you admit that the farmer causes them, and that
>> he could reduce them if the cash was right,
>
>The farmer's role is predicated on the price you're willing to pay for his goods.
I don't see that that refutes my above comment, so
I can take it as given you're in agreement with it.
Farmers cause them. They could cause less but won't
unless they can extort monies from me. I get it now.
>> so why
>> should I or anyone be held blameworthy for his
>> deaths and extortion now we know these facts about
>> him?
>
>It isn't extortion.
What you're suggesting IS extortion. Unless people pay
farmers more money he'll kill animals whether they like
it or not.
>>>>If the farmer poisons animals while
>>>>going about his business, then he is fully responsible
>>>>for them.
>>>
>>>Nope, those who are only willing to pay him the most meager wages to grow the
>>>cheapest vegetables are fully responsible.
>>
>> Are you going to claim that the farmer, an autonomous
>> moral agent, can be compelled externally to act against
>> his free will to act differently?
>
>Any such external compulsion is economic.
A moral agent cannot be compelled externally or use
the excuse that he was in order to escape blame for
his wrongdoing.
[According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two
distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the
action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it
must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or
possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally.]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/#2
> The farmer's methods are more in line
>with free markets than free will.
I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
>> If not, because I know
>> you can't, then he remains fully responsible for his own
>> autonomous actions, buck passer.
>
>You're failing to note that his actions aren't entirely autonomous.
Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.
usual suspect
>>>What happens to all the dead rodents that
>>>die from intentional poisoning?
>>
>>In fields? They're often eaten by predators and/or scavengers.
>
> ..who in turn get sick. Poisoned insects kill a lot of birds.
Thanks for noting that. I meant to add something about the chain of such
poisoning, which also includes fish and humans.
Dutch
> daft dog-beating dole scrounger wrote:
> <...>
> > their deaths.
>
> You're guilty of not paying him enough to farm in a manner consistent with
your
> own values.
Conservatively speaking, this irrefutable logic has been presented to him
100 times, and it has never registered.
usual suspect
<...>
> I can take it as given you're in agreement with it.
You're wrong on both parts. The only thing you can take is your shit-stirring
and shove it.
<...>
>>>so why
>>>should I or anyone be held blameworthy for his
>>>deaths and extortion now we know these facts about
>>>him?
>>
>>It isn't extortion.
>
> What you're suggesting IS extortion.
No, it is not. Perhaps you should look up the word in a dictionary. Farmers
aren't saying, "Pay us more or the animals die."
> Unless people pay
> farmers more money he'll kill animals whether they like
> it or not.
Farmers are not committing extortion or blackmail.
<...>
>>>Are you going to claim that the farmer, an autonomous
>>>moral agent, can be compelled externally to act against
>>>his free will to act differently?
>>
>>Any such external compulsion is economic.
>
> A moral agent cannot be compelled externally or use
> the excuse that he was in order to escape blame for
> his wrongdoing.
Is it *wrongdoing*? It may seem that way to you, but not to most consumers.
<...>
>>The farmer's methods are more in line
>>with free markets than free will.
>
> I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
I noted as much about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your snip about it.
>>>If not, because I know
>>>you can't, then he remains fully responsible for his own
>>>autonomous actions, buck passer.
>>
>>You're failing to note that his actions aren't entirely autonomous.
>
> Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.
Note your snip, asshole. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop
taking things out of context to make a pretext.
RESTORE:
The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the
free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of
prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do
that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it.
END RESTORE
What part of *that* do you specifically object?
usual suspect
>>>If he kills animals while doing it then he is guilty of
>>>their deaths.
>>
>>You're guilty of not paying him enough to farm in a manner consistent with
> your
>>own values.
>
> Conservatively speaking,
Too conservatively, lol...
> this irrefutable logic has been presented to him
> 100 times, and it has never registered.
I know, and I suspect it never will register. He's lucky anyone responds to his
shit-stirring posts anymore.
Ray
"rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IGKpc.2319$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ray" <r...@syntax.com> wrote in message
> news:c87ojk$eq1$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:10adosc...@news.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Ray" <r...@syntax.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c86fqv$18e$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > > "William Bligh" <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:5voca0h8ap2e8lmlg...@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:32:57 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote
<Snip>
> ====================
> Then why do you kill, fool? You cannot live without killing.
I have never stated otherwise.
You haven't
> even measured, or tried to measure your impact.
The impact of one person is very small, but collectively it's certain to
make a difference. That apart, it's the principal that is important to me.
You have no idea what your
> toll on animals is.
Correct, neither have you.
You don't care, and that's the point.
I care a hell of a lot Rick
All you care
> about is following a simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat.
Nothing simple about it, and certainly no rules, It's the way I have
*chosen* to live.
<snip>
> > >
> > > > ==================
> Because it is, fool. It's ignorant and stupid. And to top it off, you
> prove that it is with each inane post you make to usenet, hypocrite.
I know what you're getting at - Grid towers, production of electricity and
the like.
Here you have a point. In the UK we have been looking at alternative ways to
produce electricity.
The government have, in their wisdom, decided to invest in wind turbines. I
don't know if you have these in the States, I hope not because they are a
complete waste of time and money.
I do have the figures to hand, but the KWH that each turbine produces is
pathetic. Each turbine kills thousands of birds every year - they fly into
the turbine blades. Just mentioned this so you can put it on your list.
But again my use of electricity during posting on usenet will make no
difference to this. You will use far more power transporting animals down to
the slaughterhouse.
<snip>
> ==================
> No, it isn't. Organic does not equate to cruelty-free you ignorant fool.
The weedkillers and pesticides so freely sprayed on crops causes great harm
to the eco- system. We are already seeing species of insects and birds
eradicated because of this and the greedy farmers digging up hedges so as to
enlarge the fields. The birds have nowhere to nest and those who do are
poisoned by all the chemical crap sprayed on their food.
Tidy up your own backyard Rick, then come back with something concrete on
which to build your delusions.
<snip>
Ray
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
news:DwMpc.117747$Dn1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Ray wrote:
> <...>
> >>He already conceded that cds are only partially accidental, and in no
way
> >>*as* accidental as human casualties.
> >
> > That is because he is a sound ARA and always tells the truth. We all
> > acknowlege that cds will happen, but we must be vigilant and keep them
to a
> > minimum. Buying 'organic' is a good starter.
>
> How? Organic causes at least as much death and destruction to wildlife.
Maybe more.
No way.
>
> [M]any of the widely used synthetic pesticides are based on natural
> plant-defense chemicals. Synthetic versions of pyrethrum (known as
> pyrethroids) make it possible to protect a crop with one or two
sprays
> instead of spraying natural pyrethrum five to seven times at higher
> volumes.
>
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1107
Send this link to the greedy farmers. I post from experience of what we have
already seen in the UK. The farmers are fucking up the eco-system.
>
> If your goal is to minimize harm done to wildlife, why support a farmer
who
> applies 5-7x at higher volumes than a farmer who protects his crop with
1-2
> applications? BTW, the produce from the conventional farmer is tested for
> residues. You don't get the same assurance of residue levels from the
organic
> produce; it's not necessarily safer for you.
If the residue is not tested on organic produce, how can you assume that it
is not safer?
>
> <...>
>
ipse dixit
>ipse dixit wrote:
><...>
>> I don't see that that refutes my above comment, so
>> I can take it as given you're in agreement with it.
>
>You're wrong on both parts.
Which is why you snipped it all out, yeah right. It
would've been so much better for you if you'd left
what I wrote in and attacked it instead of snipping
it away and leaving a weak refutation in it's stead.
It only proves you aren't capable, so why do it?
>>>>so why
>>>>should I or anyone be held blameworthy for his
>>>>deaths and extortion now we know these facts about
>>>>him?
>>>
>>>It isn't extortion.
>>
>> What you're suggesting IS extortion. Unless people pay
>> farmers more money he'll kill animals whether they like
>> it or not.
>
>Farmers are not committing extortion or blackmail.
The way you put it, they are. You're claiming that
unless I pay them more money they won't stop
cutting corners and killing animals. That's extortion.
>>>>Are you going to claim that the farmer, an autonomous
>>>>moral agent, can be compelled externally to act against
>>>>his free will to act differently?
>>>
>>>Any such external compulsion is economic.
>>
>> A moral agent cannot be compelled externally or use
>> the excuse that he was in order to escape blame for
>> his wrongdoing.
>
>Is it *wrongdoing*? It may seem that way to you, but not to most consumers.
You're dodging my point in that a moral agent cannot
be compelled externally or use the excuse that he was
in order to escape blame for his wrongdoing. "Economic
compulsion" doesn't exonerate him. Paid assassins aren't
exonerated because they were compelled by "economic
compulsion", idiot.
>>>The farmer's methods are more in line
>>>with free markets than free will.
>>
>> I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
>
>I noted as much
Good.
Ray
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
> Ray wrote:
> <...>
> > You will find that the subject of accidental deaths (CD's) is grossly
> > overstated on these newsgroups.
>
> Prove it.
>
> > It is the main tool of those who seek
> > vengeance on those who try to lead a decent life.
>
> You mean a deceitful life, as in, "my diet causes no suffering" without
any proof.
Stop twisting, I have already stated that it impossible to arrive at any
true figures.
If you can prove that I have ever stated 'my diet causes no suffering' I
would like a glance. I can not make such a claim, I am a vegetarian *not* a
vegan.
Do a 'Google'. BTW. Did you ever find an instance where I called a female
poster a c---? No, thought not, because I never have.
Any chance of an apology?
You are very good at casting wild claims about what people have/have not
said, but when asked to produce evidence, you always fail.
>
> > I have always acknowledged
> > that we are all guilty of causing CDs but as you correcrly indicate such
> > deaths are accidental.
>
> How is the intentional application of poison "accidental," Ray?
To the best of my knowledge no poison is used in the production of organic
food.
>
> > As a new poster to these groups you will be the subject of a great deal
of
> > abuse, you have already had a taste.
>
> It's not abuse; as Blight noted, he was not thinking.
Blight? Point proven
>
> > Again, this is another ploy designed by the anti animal rights brigade.
They
> > do not like anyone posting to the groups with the intention of exposing
> > their lies and deceptions.
>
> What lies and deceptions?
Perhaps one or two above eh?
>
> > Use their venom to fuel your response. They will
> > berate you for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar. Anything to make
you
> > feel small, I enjoy their personal comments and abuse which I receive on
a
> > daily basis. it's not my fault that the spelling checker on OE is lousy.
>
> I'm curious, how many errors does it actually catch in your posts? I know
how
> many get by, but does it catch any?
Obviously not you sardonic person. I've already proved to Dutch that OE6
has a bad spell checker. I entered spel and that got by, then you wonder why
I'm an ignorant pillock. Your're in computing/IT, do you know of a mailer
offering the same spell/grammar facilities as 'Word'?
usual suspect
<...>
>> You don't care, and that's the point.
>
> I care a hell of a lot Rick
About beer, but not about animals killed in making it.
<...>
>>Because it is, fool. It's ignorant and stupid. And to top it off, you
>>prove that it is with each inane post you make to usenet, hypocrite.
>
> I know what you're getting at - Grid towers, production of electricity and
> the like.
> Here you have a point. In the UK we have been looking at alternative ways to
> produce electricity.
> The government have, in their wisdom, decided to invest in wind turbines. I
> don't know if you have these in the States, I hope not because they are a
> complete waste of time and money.
Rick is in Canada. We have wind turbines all over North America.
> I do have the figures to hand, but the KWH that each turbine produces is
> pathetic.
Depends where they're located and how many are connected to the grid.
> Each turbine kills thousands of birds every year - they fly into
> the turbine blades. Just mentioned this so you can put it on your list.
I believe it's already on the list.
<...>
>>No, it isn't. Organic does not equate to cruelty-free you ignorant fool.
>
> The weedkillers and pesticides so freely sprayed on crops causes great harm
> to the eco- system. We are already seeing species of insects and birds
> eradicated because of this and the greedy farmers digging up hedges so as to
> enlarge the fields. The birds have nowhere to nest and those who do are
> poisoned by all the chemical crap sprayed on their food.
That includes the application of organic pesticides. Organic doesn't mean "no
pesticide," it means "no synthetic pesticide."
<...>
rick etter
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:29:41 GMT, usual suspect <sup...@our.troops>
wrote:
snippage...
> >> I believe animals have rights,
> >
> >Why? On what grounds?
> >
> On the basis that human infants, young children, and the (seriously)
deranged or
> enfeebled of all ages are paradigm cases of human moral patients. To the
extent
> that the case can be made for describing and explaining the behaviour of a
human
> being (by reference to their beliefs and desires), to that extent,
assuming that
> we have further reasons for denying that the human in question has the
abilities
> necessary for moral agency, we have reason to regard that human as a moral
> patient. Any position that denies that we have direct duties to those
moral
> patients with whom we have been and will continue to be concerned (normal
> mammalian animals, age one or more, and those human moral patients like
these
> animals in the relevant respects) is rationally defective.
> Tom Regan The Animal Rights Debate page 288.
> ======================
It bullsh**. The problem is that human babies, young children and the
'enfeebled' all have within them the potential for being a person. No
animal has that. No matter how much you pretend, an cow, mouse, horse or
chicken will never be a person, and will never be cababke of the reciprocity
required of 'moral agents'.. babies, children and the 'enfeebled' are.
Your inability to describe for yourself your reasoning is noted. That's
because you have nothing. Nothing except a sim[ple rule for your simple
mind, eat no meat.
You care that you kill animals by the truckload, as long as you don't see
them on your plates.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.
snippage....
usual suspect
<...>
>>> Buying 'organic' is a good starter.
>>
>>How? Organic causes at least as much death and destruction to wildlife.
>>Maybe more.
>
> No way.
Way. Did you read the entire article linked below? Click on the author's name on
that page and read his other articles about organic. Or just read the whole
article from the link. It starts,
IF you buy organic food because you think it's free of the
cancer-causing pesticides used on other farms, think again. "Organic"
farmers routinely spray their crops with naturally occurring pesticides
- and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified pyrethrum,
a top organic pesticide, as a "likely human carcinogen."
Feeling paranoid yet? Well, in fact, the EPA made that call in secret,
almost two years ago! The revelation about pyrethrum, with other recent
findings, calls into question the superiority of organic farming.
For decades, activists have claimed that organic food is healthier and
kinder to the environment than "chemically farmed" food. Organic
farmers, for example, didn't use synthetic pesticides.
What most people don't realize - and activists try to hide - is that
organic farmers are allowed to use a wide array of natural chemicals as
pest killers. Moreover, these natural poisons pose the same theoretical
(but remote) dangers as the synthetic pesticides so hated by organic
devotees.
Last year, we learned that rotenone, a natural insecticide squeezed from
roots of tropical plants, causes symptoms of Parkinson's disease in
rats. Now we learn of the EPA's pyrethrum decision.
Did you know your organic food can be laced with pyrethrum and rotenone, Ray? Do
you know what those pesticides do to wildlife when applied 2-7x more often than
their synthetic counterparts?
Read up on it and decide for yourself.
>> [M]any of the widely used synthetic pesticides are based on natural
>> plant-defense chemicals. Synthetic versions of pyrethrum (known as
>> pyrethroids) make it possible to protect a crop with one or two
> sprays
>> instead of spraying natural pyrethrum five to seven times at higher
>> volumes.
>
> http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1107
>
> Send this link to the greedy farmers.
It's something that should be read by consumers, including you, so you'll have
both sides of the discussion. Clearly organic does NOT mean pesticide-free, and
clearly the additional applications required (at higher volumes, no less) has an
effect on wildlife. If you want to minimize CDs, perhaps you should investigate
the whole organic versus conventional and sort out the truth from the propaganda.
> I post from experience of what we have
> already seen in the UK. The farmers are fucking up the eco-system.
If you want to blame them, it starts with you. You must accept blame for not
growing your own produce and for demanding inexpensive produce without blemishes.
>>If your goal is to minimize harm done to wildlife, why support a farmer
> who
>>applies 5-7x at higher volumes than a farmer who protects his crop with
> 1-2
>>applications? BTW, the produce from the conventional farmer is tested for
>>residues. You don't get the same assurance of residue levels from the
> organic
>>produce; it's not necessarily safer for you.
>
> If the residue is not tested on organic produce, how can you assume that it
> is not safer?
You have the question backward. How can you assume it IS safer when the ORGANIC
pesticides used, as noted in the article which I linked, are known carcinogens
and linked to degenerative diseases like Parkinson's? Find yourself a link of
accepted organic pesticides. Study them yourself. Then decide if you want your
produce -- organic or conventional -- tested for pesticide residues. One is, one
isn't. It's your body. You can pollute it with tested levels of synthetic or
untested levels of non-synthetic poisons as you see fit.
rick etter
"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:09:24 GMT, "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:33:12 GMT, "rick etter"
<ett...@earthlink.net>wrote:news:gslca01jn08oqlm1m...@4ax.com...
> >> [..]
> >> >> If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why
shouldn't
> >> >> I blame them if what they do offends me?
> >> >Because *YOU* continue to reward them for producing your cheap,
> >> >convenient veggies
> >>
> >> And that is all he rewards him for: his veg.
> >> =======================
> >Nope. He rewards him for taking any actions that keeps prices within
what
> >you and he are willing to pay for.
>
> If that had any truth to it, then we all reward slavers
> who use child labour in coffee and cocoa plantations
> in third-world countries, but the problem for you is that
> we don't reward those slavers for how they produce
> those goods, or the slavers who produce clothing items
> which find their way onto the general market, either.
===============
Strawman twits. I notice you can't refute your own culpability. Whta a
hoot!!
The
> customer of unethical goods simply doesn't know anything
> of their history and so cannot be blamed in any way because
> he buys in good faith.
==================
But you do know, hypocrite.
Of course, if you can prove my clothing,
> coffee or food has an unethical history to it I shall take those
> goods back and demand a refund.
================
No you won't, because you already know that such is the case, killer.
>
> >> William doesn't reward him for farming in any
> >> particular way. He rewards him for his veg, and
> >> only his veg.
> >==================
> >Nope. Because if his 'ethics' and ignorant belief that animals have
rights,
> >he'd do something to ensure that the products he uses and buys does not
come
> >at the expense of dead animals.
>
> Then, likewise if you truly believed in human rights you
> would ensure all your food and clothing had a rights-
> violation-free history to it as well.You don't. You buy
> indiscriminately, so according to your rule you don't
> live up to your ethical standard either. Can you see
> how your inconsistency here belies your claim with
> respect to vegans yet, or are you going to spend
> another 5 years repeating your error?
======================
Strawman twits. see you can't deny your culpability, killer...
>
> >He, and you, make no such effort. Your
> >'beliefs' are just so many empty words.
>
> [According to the National Safety Council, agriculture
> and mining are the two most hazardous occupations in
> the country. In 1996, 21 accidental deaths occurred per
> 100,000 agricultural workers, compared with a national
> average of 4 deaths per 100,000 workers for all industries.
> A recent survey of 2,000 Kentucky farmers found that
> each year one of every eight farm families experiences
> an accident requiring medical attention.]
> http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/he282.htm
>
> Are we to assume those farmers have no rights,
> and are we to assume that those who continue to
> buy from these farmers aren't living up to their
> ethical standards?
=====================
Strawman twits. I see that you canniot deny your culpability.
Your analogies are as stupid as ever, fool. No one goes out of their way to
deliberate kill farmers to increase their production. You demand that
animals die all the time with your cheap veggies.
\
>
> >> >> >> If an animal gets snagged up in the
> >> >> >> machinery then that's just an accident.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Here's another scenario, silly twat: field mice
> >> >> >and other prey are left vulnerable to predation
> >> >> >following harvest. Vultures circle overhead to
> >> >> >find carrion (your so-called accidents). Hawks
> >> >> >and other predators circle overhead and pick
> >> >> >off animals exposed after the fields are cleared.
> >> >> >The clearing of the fields is no accident; it's
> >> >> > necessary so you can eat.
> >>
> >> Still hung up about natural predation being cruel, I
> >> see, "usual". Explain what's wrong in hawks eating
> >> their prey, and tell us why it's so cruel.
> >==================
> >I see your comprehension is still lacking, eh killer? Show in there
where I
> >said anything about predation being cruel.
>
> Before you get carried all away with yourself, "usual
> suspect" wrote that paragraph I responded to.
=====================
I know that fool, but *you* inserted in a reply to me, stupid. Why? I'd
say because you just dishonest. Maybe it's just stupidity, but I'm holding
out for dishonesty.
>
> > Come on, it's your strawman,
> >surely you can point it out, hypocrite.
>
> You've made an error. My response was to "usual
> suspect".
=====================
yet why did you insert it in a reply to me fool? If you want to reply to
Usual, replty to his post. Or were you afraid he might actually see it
there, so you thought you'd dishonestly hide in a reply to me. Either way,
you're ignorant and dishonest, killer.
>
> >Of course, you're too stupid and
> >ignorant to even know I didn't write what you just responded too, aren't
you
> >fool?
>
> If you look at the ">>" you'll see I was responding
> to "usual suspect", and if you read what I wrote more
> carefully you'll see I even mentioned his name: "usual".
> Learn to read, dummy.
=================
I did, fool. That still doesn't explain why you tyhought it necessary to
insert that in a reply to me, unless you didn't want him to actually catch
the stupidity you were writing.
>
> >Is this your new dishonesty tactic, killer? Insert parts from other
> >posts that were not in the reply I made? You truly are one stupid
fool...
>
> You've made an error, and you owe me an apology.
---==============
Not hardly fool. You dishonestly added parts of other posts in your reply
to me.
>
> >> [start Mmhsb]
> >> > natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
> >> [usual suspect]
> >> Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
> >> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>
> There's the rest of my response to him. Learn to
> read, dummy.
==================
I can, you don't know how to post killer. None of these replies were in the
post you peplied to. You dishonestly added them so that maybe Usual
wouldn't catch the stupidity your writing.
>
> >> >> Mice and voles are killed by hawks all the time. I don't see
anything
> >> >> wrong in that. It's called the food chain.
> >>
> >> Hey, "usual", did you look that up, dummy?
>
> And that.
>
> >> >> > BTW, and speaking of profits, have you told your parents
> >> >> > you intend to convert their establishment into a vegan one?
> >> >> > Are they for that, or would that kind of disturbing news
> >> >> > make it likely that they'd sell it to someone else who's not
> >> >> > into extreme niche marketing?
> >> >> >
> >> >> We have more than just one hotel. When I pass my exams
> >> >> in hotel management and catering I'll be taking one of them
> >> >> for myself. My parents will always manage our largest one
> >> >> but I'll be given a free hand to do what I want when I'm
> >> >> given my own.The first thing I'll do is double the chef's
> >> >> wages, and then get someone in to rip out all the leather and
> >> >> wool from everywhere before opening it under a new name
> >> >>and management.
> >> >=============================
> >> >LOL What a hoot! And replace these items with what fool?
> >>
> >> Non-animal products and furniture, most likely. Can't you read?
> >====================
> >Don't you have a brain?
>
> I think so, so yes, I do have one.
>
usual suspect
<...>
>>Farmers are not committing extortion or blackmail.
>
> The way you put it, they are. You're claiming that
> unless I pay them more money they won't stop
> cutting corners and killing animals. That's extortion.
You're simplistically restating what's actually been written, which you're wont
to do so you can stir shit and (think you can) score cheap points. You fail to
compensate them for the amount of manual labor required to farm in a manner
consistent with YOUR (not their) values. You choose cheap food; they have to
turn a profit, so they apply pesticides and use machinery. Tough shit, Dreck.
>>>>>Are you going to claim that the farmer, an autonomous
>>>>>moral agent, can be compelled externally to act against
>>>>>his free will to act differently?
>>>>
>>>>Any such external compulsion is economic.
>>>
>>>A moral agent cannot be compelled externally or use
>>>the excuse that he was in order to escape blame for
>>>his wrongdoing.
>>
>>Is it *wrongdoing*? It may seem that way to you, but not to most consumers.
>
> You're dodging my point
No, I am not. Your point is specious.
> in that a moral agent cannot
> be compelled externally or use the excuse that he was
> in order to escape blame for his wrongdoing. "Economic
> compulsion" doesn't exonerate him.
I believe it does -- not to mention the fact that it's YOU who you doesn't want
animals to suffer or die in the course of food production. The farmer doesn't
mind, nor do most people.
> Paid assassins aren't
> exonerated because they were compelled by "economic
> compulsion", idiot.
The farmer is not a paid assassin. The deaths and injuries to animals are
collateral.
>>>>The farmer's methods are more in line
>>>>with free markets than free will.
>>>
>>>I hate to disappoint you, but I have to take you out of context again.
>>
>>I knew that you would, asshole. I guess I win again.
>
> You do. I'm such a shit. Good on you, Usual.
That's Mr Suspect to you, windbag. And you have a choice now: you can stop
fucking with my posts or stop complaining when others do what you did to my last
post. Two can play at that game, Dreck.
usual suspect
<...>
>>>You will find that the subject of accidental deaths (CD's) is grossly
>>>overstated on these newsgroups.
>>
>>Prove it.
>
> Disprove it.
It's your claim. Why is it "grossly overstated"? How do you know?
<...>
> If you can prove that I have ever stated 'my diet causes no suffering' I
> would like a glance. I can not make such a claim, I am a vegetarian *not* a
> vegan.
Vegans cause suffering and death to animals, too, and on at least the same scale
as anyone else (if not more so, as Professor Davis' research demonstrated).
> Do a 'Google'. BTW. Did you ever find an instance where I called a female
> poster a c---? No, thought not, because I never have.
>
> Any chance of an apology?
Any chance of one from you after your outburst in which you said I called
England "shitty" (something I'd never say)?
> You are very good at casting wild claims about what people have/have not
> said, but when asked to produce evidence, you always fail.
When have I failed to produce anything?
>>>I have always acknowledged
>>>that we are all guilty of causing CDs but as you correcrly indicate such
>>>deaths are accidental.
>>
>>How is the intentional application of poison "accidental," Ray?
>
> To the best of my knowledge no poison is used in the production of organic
> food.
Then your knowledge is founded in either ignorance or denial. I have shown you
elsewhere in this thread that pesticides ARE used in organic farming, and that
organic farmers often apply poisons 2-7x more often in heavier volumes. I have
also shown you that two of the organic poisons used, pyrethrum and rotenone, are
not good for humans; the former is a human carcinogen and the latter is linked
to Parkinson's. Feel free to study the issue yourself. Your well-being may
depend on it.
<...>
> Obviously not you sardonic person. I've already proved to Dutch that OE6
> has a bad spell checker. I entered spel and that got by, then you wonder why
> I'm an ignorant pillock. Your're in computing/IT,
Am I? That's news to me.
> do you know of a mailer
> offering the same spell/grammar facilities as 'Word'?
Try Netscape.
<...>
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:IGKpc.2319$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Ray" <r...@syntax.com> wrote in message
> > news:c87ojk$eq1$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10adosc...@news.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Ray" <r...@syntax.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:c86fqv$18e$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "William Bligh" <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:5voca0h8ap2e8lmlg...@4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:32:57 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >"William Bligh" <billy...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> <Snip>
Ah, taking dishonesty lessons from Twits I see. Why did you feel the need
to snip the question out of context, hypocrite?
Here, let me refresh your ignorance with the post...
****
ray the idiot>>>> Not at all, but if you value the sanctity of life you
would certainly be a
> 'better' person. As a lapsed vegetarian you know full well that it is
> possible to lead a full healthy life without meat or it's derivatives.
Not at all, but if you value the sanctity of life you would certainly be a
> 'better' person. As a lapsed vegetarian you know full well that it is
> possible to lead a full healthy life without meat or it's derivatives. Why
> kill when there is no need?
Me>>> Then why do you kill, fool? You cannot live without killing. You
haven't
even measured, or tried to measure your impact. You have no idea what your
toll on animals is. You don't care, and that's the point. All you care
about is following a simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat.
****
>
> > ====================
> > Then why do you kill, fool? You cannot live without killing.
>
> I have never stated otherwise.
================
Now, discuss the question in context fool. Or can you? Remember, you're
the one that wrote "...Why kill when there is no need?..."
>
>
> You haven't
> > even measured, or tried to measure your impact.
>
> The impact of one person is very small, but collectively it's certain to
> make a difference. That apart, it's the principal that is important to me.
======================
No, it's not. Youprove that with each inane post you make, killer.
>
> You have no idea what your
> > toll on animals is.
>
> Correct, neither have you.
====================
Yet you're the one that claims vegans care, and to somehow cause less death
and suffering. Show the proof, fool.
>
>
> You don't care, and that's the point.
>
> I care a hell of a lot Rick
================
No, you don't. You prove that with each inane post to usenet. You have no
'need' to post, you do so for entertainment. Remember, you're the one that
wrote "...Why kill when there is no need?..."
>
> All you care
> > about is following a simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat.
>
> Nothing simple about it, and certainly no rules, It's the way I have
> *chosen* to live.
================
And you've yet to show any valid reason that has anything to do with animal
death and suffering.
>
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > ==================
> > Because it is, fool. It's ignorant and stupid. And to top it off, you
> > prove that it is with each inane post you make to usenet, hypocrite.
>
> I know what you're getting at - Grid towers, production of electricity and
> the like.
> Here you have a point. In the UK we have been looking at alternative ways
to
> produce electricity.
> The government have, in their wisdom, decided to invest in wind turbines.
I
> don't know if you have these in the States, I hope not because they are a
> complete waste of time and money.
=====================
they also have the nick-name of 'bird-blenders'.
>
> I do have the figures to hand, but the KWH that each turbine produces is
> pathetic. Each turbine kills thousands of birds every year - they fly into
> the turbine blades. Just mentioned this so you can put it on your list.
=====================
It's already been on and off my lists before.
>
> But again my use of electricity during posting on usenet will make no
> difference to this. You will use far more power transporting animals down
to
> the slaughterhouse.
==================
I suggest you look into the power requirementsa of even a small router farm,
hypocrite. If no-one ever lives up to their stated beliefs, then you will
never get the change you want. You continue to drive the demand for more
and more power and communications. It takes a step by *each* person to
make a difference, but as long as you are willing to not take those steps,
you prove the hypocricy of your beliefs
>
> <snip>
>
> > ==================
> > No, it isn't. Organic does not equate to cruelty-free you ignorant
fool.
>
> The weedkillers and pesticides so freely sprayed on crops causes great
harm
> to the eco- system.
======================
So? Organics also spray pesticides and herbicides. Many of which have
never been fully tested as synthetics have.
Some are even more toxic than the synthetics.
We are already seeing species of insects and birds
> eradicated because of this and the greedy farmers digging up hedges so as
to
> enlarge the fields. The birds have nowhere to nest and those who do are
> poisoned by all the chemical crap sprayed on their food.
>
> Tidy up your own backyard Rick, then come back with something concrete on
> which to build your delusions.
================
I have killer. *you* have done nothing but flap your gums and focus only on
what you think others are doing. You've already admitted that your beliefs
mean nothing compared to your convenience and entertainment, killer.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
ipse dixit
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message news:QDTpc.102864$NR5....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> ipse dixit wrote:
> <...>
> >>Farmers are not committing extortion or blackmail.
> >
> > The way you put it, they are. You're claiming that
> > unless I pay them more money they won't stop
> > cutting corners and killing animals. That's extortion.
>
> You're simplistically restating what's actually been written
Which is that farmers intentionally kill animals
collaterally while producing veg, and that they
are responsible for them rather than to whom
he sells his produce. You've also claimed that
unless I pay him more he won't stop killing them,
and that proves two things;
1) he kills them intentionally and could reduce them
if he wanted to.
2) consumers of his produce aren't responsible for
his death toll and shouldn't feel guilty by not giving
in to his extortion demands.
> >>>>>Are you going to claim that the farmer, an autonomous
> >>>>>moral agent, can be compelled externally to act against
> >>>>>his free will to act differently?
> >>>>
> >>>>Any such external compulsion is economic.
> >>>
> >>>A moral agent cannot be compelled externally or use
> >>>the excuse that he was in order to escape blame for
> >>>his wrongdoing.
> >>
> >>Is it *wrongdoing*? It may seem that way to you, but not to most consumers.
> >
> > You're dodging my point in that a moral agent cannot
> > be compelled externally or use the excuse that he was
> > in order to escape blame for his wrongdoing. "Economic
> > compulsion" doesn't exonerate him.
>
> I believe it does
Then your belief is fundamentally flawed, because no
amount of "economic compulsion" allows a paid killer
off the hook.
> > Paid assassins aren't
> > exonerated because they were compelled by "economic
> > compulsion", idiot.
>
> The farmer is not a paid assassin.
You're claiming he kills on my behalf for money,
and that, stupid, is what paid assissins do.
> >>>>The farmer's methods are more in line
> >>>>with free markets than free will.
> >>>
> >>>I hate to disappoint you, but I have to take you out of context again.
> >>
> >>I knew that you would, asshole. I guess I win again.
> >
> > You do. I'm such a shit. Good on you, Usual.
>
> That's Mr Suspect to you, windbag.
I didn't write that above sentence. You edited
my post before replying to it. And you call
yourself an honest Christian? Hah! Why do you
copy everything Jonathan Ball does all the time?
Haven't you got a mind of your own?
usual suspect
<...>
>>>>>I hate to disappoint you, but I have to take you out of context again.
>>>>
>>>>I knew that you would, asshole. I guess I win again.
>>>
>>>You do. I'm such a shit. Good on you, Usual.
>>
>>That's Mr Suspect to you, windbag.
>
> my snipping is getting out of hand. I wish I could stop beating my
> dog Bob. He's afraid of me, and so is my wife. I've got to stop watching
> pornos, too. My wrist hurts as much as my back and my blue foot, and Belinda
> keeps catching me masturbating. I feel so insufferable and loathsome.
That's because you ARE insufferable and loathsome. You need some help, you fat
tosser.
ipse dixit
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message news:LP1qc.114820$hR1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> ipse dixit wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>>I hate to disappoint you, but I have to take you out of context again.
> >>>>
> >>>>I knew that you would, asshole. I guess I win again.
> >>>
> >>>You do. I'm such a shit. Good on you, Usual.
> >>
> >>That's Mr Suspect to you, windbag.
> >
> > I'm sorry. Jon and Dutch have really stomped my fat arse lately and I guess
> > my snipping is getting out of hand. I wish I could stop beating my
> > dog Bob. He's afraid of me, and so is my wife. I've got to stop watching
> > pornos, too. My wrist hurts as much as my back and my blue foot, and Belinda
> > keeps catching me masturbating. I feel so insufferable and loathsome.
I never wrote that paragraph. You've edited my previous
post and responded to it unethically. And you did exactly
the same in the last post to that as well. You're copying Jon's little
unethical tactic, you know, the one HE uses when he can't
tackle the original material given by his opponent. And you
call yourself and honest Christian?
> That's because you ARE insufferable and loathsome. You need some help, you fat
> tosser.
Your opinion of me means nothing, but what IS interesting
is your unethical behaviour on usenet. Editing your opponent's
posts to suit before replying to them shows you're a liar
and incapable of dealing with me properly. That suits me fine.
usual suspect
<...>
>>>>>>>I hate to disappoint you, but I have to take you out of context again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I knew that you would, asshole. I guess I win again.
>>>>>
>>>>>You do. I'm such a shit. Good on you, Usual.
>>>>
>>>>That's Mr Suspect to you, windbag.
>>>
>>>I'm sorry. Jon and Dutch have really stomped my fat arse lately and I guess
>>>my snipping is getting out of hand. I wish I could stop beating my
>>>dog Bob. He's afraid of me, and so is my wife. I've got to stop watching
>>>pornos, too. My wrist hurts as much as my back and my blue foot, and Belinda
>>>keeps catching me masturbating. I feel so insufferable and loathsome.
>
>>tosser.
>
I agree. So do others.
> Editing your posts to suit before replying to them shows me to be a liar
> and incapable of dealing with you properly.
I agree. You really should stop that, Nash.
> If you see fit to ignore me, that suits me fine.
I think I shall. I'm tired of your undocumented snips, deliberately taking
others out of context, and other forms of childish shit-stirring. It makes all
your righteous objections when others return the favor so pale in comparison.
You lousy hypocrite.
usual suspect
<...>
> I think I shall. I'm tired of your undocumented snips, deliberately
> taking others out of context, and other forms of childish shit-stirring.
> It makes all your
PHONY
> righteous objections when others return the favor so
> pale in comparison. You lousy hypocrite.
That's better.
ipse dixit
>ipse dixit wrote:
><...>
>>>>>>>>I hate to disappoint you, but I have to take you out of context again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I knew that you would, asshole. I guess I win again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You do. I'm such a shit. Good on you, Usual.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's Mr Suspect to you, windbag.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry. Jon and Dutch have really stomped my fat arse lately and I guess
>>>>my snipping is getting out of hand. I wish I could stop beating my
>>>>dog Bob. He's afraid of me, and so is my wife. I've got to stop watching
>>>>pornos, too. My wrist hurts as much as my back and my blue foot, and Belinda
>>>>keeps catching me masturbating. I feel so insufferable and loathsome.
>>
>>>That's because you ARE insufferable and loathsome. You need some help, you fat
>>>tosser.
>>
>> Your opinion of me shows that I have some growing up to do.
>
>I agree. So do others.
I didn't write that above sentence. You edited my reply
again.
>> Editing your posts to suit before replying to them shows me to be a liar
>> and incapable of dealing with you properly.
>
>I agree. You really should stop that, Nash.
Google shows that it is you rather than I who's editing
their opponent's posts before replying to them. I can't
help but win in my efforts to prove you're a mere troll.
That last sentence you replied to wasn't mine either.
Is this all you're left with: unethical editing and general
troll-like behaviour in place of any real argument against
the ethical vegan? It seems to me, with your help, that
the ethical vegan has no genuine challenge against him.
William Bligh
On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:18:50 GMT, usual suspect <sup...@our.troops> wrote:
>William Blight wrote:
><...>
>>>>>>If farmers are killing them intentionally and for profit why shouldn't
>>>>>>I blame them if what they do offends me?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you're doing nothing to compensate them to farm in a manner consistent
>>>>>with your pseudo-values, or even growing your own. Your offense only goes so
>>>>>far. You still purchase on the basis of price rather than method.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't stop me from blaming them.
>>>
>>>It should.
>>
>> It doesn't.
>
>Because you're a hypocrite. You whine and bitch about certain problems but your
>own behavior and consumption only encourage those problems.
>
>>>Why do you plan to remove leather and wool from your parents' hotel?
>>
>> By the time I get to refurbishing it it will be mine. It will only cater for
>> vegan guests, so refurbishing it will be essential.
>
>Do you think marketing to vegans will increase profitability or diminish it?
>
I think there's a growing population of vegans who might prefer to stay in vegan
establishments rather than non-vegan ones. Its success will depend upon how
vegan I can run it and how many prefer to stay somewhere that caters to their
particular lifestyle.
>>>You didn't kill the steers or shear the sheep, so your clientele cannot hold YOU
>>>responsible. Or can they? And that analogy doesn't even get into the issues of
>>>how many MORE animals you'll kill by replacing that perfectly useful and
>>>functional stuff with synthetics and natural fibers. Do you not understand how
>>>much pollution is caused by refining of synthetics? Do you not know how many
>>>chemicals are applied to cotton and other fiber crops? All that pollution kills
>>>animals and humans. You really don't care about animals (or people), you just
>>>have an irrational, knee-jerk reaction against animal parts.
>>
>> Avoiding animal products to the best of one's ability is a large part in
>> veganism.
>
>It ignores the reality, though. That leather you want to replace doesn't avoid
>any more death. Replacing the leather causes more death -- wildlife which dies
>as a result of farming natural fibers like cotton (the deadliest crop on the
>planet for animals and people) or hemp (which is equally lethal as it's
>clear-cut without concern for animals living in hemp fields), or from pollution
>from the refining of synthetic fibers. Sheep usually aren't killed for their
>wool; it's a renewable resource.
>
>> There's no way I can run a vegan establishment while the
>> furniture and fittings are made from animal parts.
>
>Sure there is. Those items still have useful life, are already paid for, and the
>animals from which they were taken have no more use for the leather or wool.
>IOW, you're only going to kill more animals to replace the stuff from
>already-dead animals. Killer.
>
What is this logic that arrests every movement for fear that an accident
will occur? People and animals die in industrial accidents all the time. We
have to accept that fact every time we start the car to get to work.
>>>>They should be more careful and store
>>>>what they harvest in rodent-proof containers which would stop any risk of pest
>>>>infestations.
>>>
>>>Will your local health inspectors accept rodent-proof containers as an excuse so
>>> you won't have to apply pesticides or engage in pro-active pest management in
>>>your hotel? I think not!
>>>
>>>
>>>>Poisoning an animal violates its rights,
>>>
>>>Get ready to explain that to the health inspector, Blight.
>>>
>>>
>>>>but making it move on somewhere else for its food doesn't.
>>>
>>>Too bad your health codes don't share that view.
>>>
>>>
>>>>What happens to all the dead rodents that
>>>>die from intentional poisoning?
>>>
>>>In fields? They're often eaten by predators and/or scavengers.
>>>
>>>
>>>>They just lay there and rot,
>>>
>>>Not really. Some do, but most are eaten.
>>>
>>>
>>>>and then get mixed
>>>>up with all our food. Better hygiene standards will go a long way in any
>>>>business.
>>>
>>>Which is why your delusions about animal rights will be impaled up the arse
>>>during your first health inspection.
>
>No arguments against the above, Billy-boy? How do you plan to get around health
>codes and inspections?
>
Are you going to try telling me something about hotel inspectors? lol
And many have first- and second-order desires not to. ;-)
>>>>I believe animals have rights,
>>>
>>>Why? On what grounds?
>>
>> On the basis that human infants, young children, and the (seriously) deranged or
>> enfeebled of all ages are paradigm cases of human moral patients.
>
>Fine for humans. Why for animals?
>
Because animals with sentience have all the characteristics necessary to
qualify as moral patients, in my opinion.
>> To the extent
>> that the case can be made for describing and explaining the behaviour of a human
>> being (by reference to their beliefs and desires), to that extent, assuming that
>> we have further reasons for denying that the human in question has the abilities
>> necessary for moral agency, we have reason to regard that human as a moral
>> patient. Any position that denies that we have direct duties to those moral
>> patients with whom we have been and will continue to be concerned (normal
>> mammalian animals, age one or more, and those human moral patients like these
>> animals in the relevant respects) is rationally defective.
>
>Rationally defective on what grounds? A cow is not a boy, retarded or otherwise.
>
When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger,
and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. ~Ingrid Newkirk
>> Tom Regan The Animal Rights Debate page 288.
>
>Can you answer for yourself yet?
>
I'm reading the book at the moment.
I have answered them.
usual suspect
>>>>>>>>>I hate to disappoint you, but I have to take you out of context again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I knew that you would, asshole. I guess I win again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You do. I'm such a shit. Good on you, Usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's Mr Suspect to you, windbag.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sorry. Jon and Dutch have really stomped my fat arse lately and I guess
>>>>>my snipping is getting out of hand. I wish I could stop beating my
>>>>>dog Bob. He's afraid of me, and so is my wife. I've got to stop watching
>>>>>pornos, too. My wrist hurts as much as my back and my blue foot, and Belinda
>>>>>keeps catching me masturbating. I feel so insufferable and loathsome.
>>>
>>>>That's because you ARE insufferable and loathsome. You need some help, you fat
>>>>tosser.
>>>
>>>Your opinion of me shows that I have some growing up to do.
>>
>>I agree. So do others.
>
> from a louse like me.
Who does? Surely no one in this group does. I doubt your family expects much of
you, either, given your history.
>>>Editing your posts to suit before replying to them shows me to be a liar
>>>and incapable of dealing with you properly.
>>
>>I agree. You really should stop that, Nash.
>
> I'm a failure. If it weren't for wanking, I'd have no pleasure in life.
> All I am left with is my unethical editing and general
> troll-like behaviour in place of any real argument against
> you, Jon, and Dutch.
It's your problem, fatso. You should stop fucking with everyone else's posts and
then whining like a baby when they do the same to yours.
usual suspect
<...>
>>>>Why do you plan to remove leather and wool from your parents' hotel?
>>>
>>>By the time I get to refurbishing it it will be mine. It will only cater for
>>>vegan guests, so refurbishing it will be essential.
>>
>>Do you think marketing to vegans will increase profitability or diminish it?
>
> I think there's a growing population of vegans who might prefer to stay in vegan
> establishments rather than non-vegan ones. Its success will depend upon how
> vegan I can run it and how many prefer to stay somewhere that caters to their
> particular lifestyle.
Don't you think you should do some marketing assessments FIRST, before radically
changing a business model which has served your family quite well already? We
have a saying here: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Vegans who need
accomodations can manage in a clean room with clean linens. You can have a few
menu items to satisfy everyone. Better talk it over with mum and dad before you
fuck it all up.
<...>
>>Sure there is. Those items still have useful life, are already paid for, and the
>>animals from which they were taken have no more use for the leather or wool.
>>IOW, you're only going to kill more animals to replace the stuff from
>>already-dead animals. Killer.
>
> What is this logic that arrests every movement for fear that an accident
> will occur? People and animals die in industrial accidents all the time. We
> have to accept that fact every time we start the car to get to work.
It's not an industrial accident, you selfish polluter.
<...>
>>>>Which is why your delusions about animal rights will be impaled up the arse
>>>>during your first health inspection.
>>
>>No arguments against the above, Billy-boy? How do you plan to get around health
>>codes and inspections?
>
> Are you going to try telling me something about hotel inspectors? lol
I know a health inspector. I get to hear lots of interesting stories about
hotels and restaurants. You will *intentionally* kill vermin in order to remain
open unless your hotel is in some third-world country without health inspections.
<...>
>>>>>>Answer the question I asked. Do your parents know of these peculiar plans or not?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think that's any of your business.
>>>>
>>>>I think it's their business. Why can't you tell me whether they know or approve
>>>>of your plan to increase overhead right off the bat and engage in niche
>>>>marketing to people with peculiar diets? I cannot imagine they'd approve, since
>>>>they appear to know something about the profit margins of the hospitality
>>>>industry. In ANY business, doubling labor costs is an unwise move unless one's
>>>>revenue stream can handle it; you're also talking about major renovations on top
>>>>of that. Why are you doubling the chef's wages -- are you already sleeping with
>>>>him or just trying to?
>>
>>Answer the bloody questions.
>
> I have answered them.
No, you haven't.