What are meat eaters doing ...
dh...@nomail.com
>... in a vegan NG?
Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
along who cares about the fact. There's also the fact that eating
meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
contribute to anything for farm animals.
>Despite trolling.
>
>Nothing?
No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
for animals should NOT become vegans, and that fact should
certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups. But who
is going to do it? Vegans? We know very well that they won't
do it, and also that they are opposed to anyone else doing it.
So it's left up to non-vegans to do it, which means that meat
eaters are likely to be the ones who do it.
>Ok, I forgot x-posting to several groups.
Good suggestion. Let's encourage as many people to
keep these things in mind a we can. The idea that veganism
helps or saves animals is absurd, so let's try to prevent more
people from developing the false impression that it does.
>Get a life then :-))
Think harder about your life choices maybe? :-)
>cojote aka becky
dustbird
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
>
> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
> for animals should NOT become vegans
A diet of meat is the source of animal abuse and animal slaughter by
callous commercial enterprises. The mass slaughter of cows, chickens, and
hogs is hideous and revolting.
Do human beings need meat in their diet? Some day it is part of our
evolutionary metabolism, that primitive men were hunters. However, primitive
man would eat nuts, fruits, seeds, and high-fiber foods most of the time.
After a hunt, he would gorge, and be full for a few days. Maybe then we are
so constituted as not to have to eat meat.
Later men cultivated crops and began to eat vegetables and foods
higher in carbohydrates, such as bread. Isn't there some question as to
whether the human body is adapted to this Johnny-come-lately diet?
But assume people need meat occasionally. Then they could own their
own cow, chicken, or pig, and slaughter one, perhaps for special occasions.
Not so long ago people used to do just that.If they lived in a town, perhaps
they could form a co-op to buy the meat from a rancher, or, for that matter,
the dairy and egg products.
So, on that assumption, or on the assumption that people do not need
meat in that diet, and all slaughter was legally prohibited, what would
happen to the animals? They couldn't be slaughtered, and it would not be
profitable for ranchers to feed them and care for them, so breeding would
have to be drastically reduced, so that there were only a relatively few
food animals.and . The most humane solution would be to continue to care for
the animals, but to stop breeding until the population was reduced or even
eliminated. But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a species, so some sort
of reversionary or evolutionary breeding might take place that would fit the
surviving animals to live independently in their natural habitats. And to
ensure there are natural habitats, it would make sense to breed the human
population down to much smaller numbers. This could probably be done
humanely withsome sort of combination of advanced birth control medication
and social legislation that would apply to the rich as well as to the poor.
So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.
Jonathan Ball
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>
>
>>... in a vegan NG?
>
>
> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> along who cares about the fact.
But then, the intelligent and *honest* pro-meat posters
point out that the *typical* vegetarian diet involves
much LESS death than the typical meat-including diet.
> There's also the fact that eating
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
There's also the fact that your "fact" has no ethical
meaning. "Contributing to life for animals" does not
earn you any ethical credits. You are not considered
to have done an ethical good deed by causing any
animals to "get to experience life".
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> who cares about that.
Anyone who intends to eat meat should be encouraged to
select types of meat that come from animals who were
well treated while alive, and humanely slaughtered. NO
ONE should be encouraged to include meat in their diet,
merely to cause animals to "get to experience life".
> Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> contribute to anything for farm animals.
No, it is a MORALLY flawed attempt to eliminate animal
suffering. It will, however, almost certainly lead to
*reduced* animal suffering.
>
>
>>Despite trolling.
>>
>>Nothing?
>
>
> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> nothing to improve life for animals,
It does do something to reduce animal suffering. It
doesn't reduce it as much as its proponents say it
does, but it does reduce it.
> promote longer lives for animals,
It doesn't claim to do that.
> and least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals.
It shouldn't attempt to do that. "Contributing to the
experience of life for animals" is not a morally good deed.
Thanks for the added ammunition, though. As I have
said all along, Fuckwit, you think that causing animals
to live _per se_ is a good thing. You're a morally
bankrupt fuckwit.
> People who want to contribute to decent lives
> for animals should NOT become vegans,
Non sequitur.
> and that fact should
> certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF71721...@whitehouse.not...
> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>... in a vegan NG?
> >
> >
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
>
> But then, the intelligent and *honest* pro-meat posters
> point out that the *typical* vegetarian diet involves
> much LESS death than the typical meat-including die
>
I wonder if "Rick Etter" would care to comment on some of the above points?
I doubt it.
>
>
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> along who cares about the fact.
you can NOT provide ANY scientific evidence to support your hollow claims.
Have you forgotten that I have challenged you for SEVERAL YEARS to present
some credible data, on an equitable basis, to support your empty meatarian
propagandist claims, but you can NOT?
Since you know you can not support this claim, and you persist in
posting it, the only conclusion possible is that you are intentionally
lying. Another noBalls, perhaps? Somewhat more civilized, but still a
lying propagandist.
You also repeatedly cross-post to totally irrelevant ngs, thus showing
your utter contempt for ng protocol, and lack of ethical integrity.
> ... and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, ...
Decent lives??
All domestic animals are genetic mutants created by humans for their
selfish economic purposes; most could not survive in the wild.
Your cattle brethren are tortured with red hot irons to brand them and
burn out their horns; they have their testicles cut off. They are so sick
that they are loaded with antibiotics and other chemicals and drugs just too
keep them alive long enough to kill. And how about those growth hormones?
Many are kept in filthy feed lots, wallowing in their own shit - no exercise
or freedom of movement. Calves are caged and kept immobile to produce veal.
Dairy cows are generally caged and get no fresh air, sunshine, or
xercise -- and they are kept pregnant constantly until they die. Chickens
are debeaked to keep them from killing each other due to the tortuous
population density they are forced to endure. Domestic animals are fed
totally-unnatural diets.
IF someone forced YOU to endure these tortures, would you say: Thanks
for the "decent life"?
> It does nothing to improve life for animals, ...
Torturing them as farm animals, killing, and eating them DOES? How does
cutting off a bull's balls improve his life? By making him more like
noBalls?
> ... least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals.
Torturing farm animals for human profit certainly does NOT contribute
anything positive to their lives.
> So it's left up to non-vegans to do it, which means that meat
> eaters are likely to be the ones who do it.
Meat-eaters have NO interest in the welfare of the animals they cause to
be born, tortured, killed, and eaten.
> Good suggestion. Let's encourage as many people to
> keep these things in mind a we can.
No, let's be good Internet citizens and respect off-topic conventions.
> The idea that veganism
> helps or saves animals is absurd, ...
It certainly reduces the number of animals that are forced to be born
tortured, brutalized, killed, and eaten. Eating aninmals neither "helps or
saves animals".
Laurie
JonahTDB
I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
Cole Smith
>
> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> along who cares about the fact.
Can you give me an example of such a vegetable? And I hope in doing so
you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> There's also the fact that eating
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> who cares about that.
That's a rather odd ideology you've got there. Couldn't it also be
said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
brought into the world?
> Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> contribute to anything for farm animals.
I disagree. I don't think that the goal of veganism is to simply
contribute to the well-being of farm animals. Rather, it seems more
likely that vegans wish to eliminate the entire concept of farm
animals. I don't know about you, but to me it seems pointess to
contribute to a system in which you are opposed to.
> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals.
I don't understand. Can you explain why veganism does nothing to
improve the lives of animals?
rick etter
"Cole Smith" <co...@earthdome.com> wrote in message
news:94faf4a5.0306...@posting.google.com...
> dh...@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
wrote:
> >
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
>
> Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
the vegan delite of all delights, tofu. vegans will go to great lenghts to
make it look and taste just like meat. Problem is, the production and
processing of the soy into tofu causes far more death and suffering than
eationg grass fed beef or game. I get 100s of 1000s of calories from the
death of one cow. How many animals do you suppose died to produce 100s of
a1000s of calories of tofu substitute? far more than one, killer. Besides,
it's the vegan loon claim that their diet causes no/less/fewer amounts of
animal death and suffering. A claim that you, not any other vegan has ever
proven.
And I hope in doing so
> you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
=====================
Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters. that
they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That neither
you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets that
cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and delusions,
but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.
rick etter
"Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote in message
news:vfetfvl...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
> You may, indeed, "point out" your groundless pro-cowboy propaganda,
but
> you can NOT provide ANY scientific evidence to support your hollow claims.
Really? How many animals died for many meals from one deer? Come on, take
a guess. You cannot claim less than one for any monoculture crop you care
to mention.
your crops use pesticides
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
the processing, transportation and storage of you crops all use energy. You
can get all the grass fed beef you need locally. The same cannot be said
for a variety of veggies that you import from around the world. Importation
that causes environmental damage and animal deaths. Imports that you buy
just for your own selfish convenience and pleasure.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
> Have you forgotten that I have challenged you for SEVERAL YEARS to present
> some credible data, on an equitable basis, to support your empty meatarian
> propagandist claims, but you can NOT?
==================
Same as you have presented, eh hypocrite?
> Since you know you can not support this claim, and you persist in
> posting it, the only conclusion possible is that you are intentionally
> lying. Another noBalls, perhaps? Somewhat more civilized, but still a
> lying propagandist.
=================
LOL You should know about that, oh master of the ignorant [propaganda
spew...
rest of spew snipped...
Jonathan Ball
Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
"veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
my attack on it is 100% honest. It is a ridiculous
rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
ethics behind "veganism".
My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
of "veganism" itself.
Jonathan Ball
> dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
>
>>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>>
>> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
>>deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
>>along who cares about the fact.
>
>
> Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
Rice.
> And I hope in doing so
> you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
No, it isn't. But the *typical* "vegan" doesn't know
the methods by which his righteous vegetables are
produced. In truth...HE DOESN'T CARE.
"vegans" follow a binary rule that has nothing to do
with ethics: Don't Eat Meat. But that rule does not
take into consideration the animals killed in the
course of producing vegetables. In point of fact,
"vegans" simply have no answer to the problem of
collateral animal deaths in agriculture, except to
dodge, weave and lie.
>
>
>>There's also the fact that eating
>>meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>>and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
>>farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
>>who cares about that.
>
>
> That's a rather odd ideology you've got there.
It sure as hell is, and no responsible opponent of
"animal rights"/"veganism" follows it. You're talking,
above, to David Fuckwit Harrison, a loon.
> Couldn't it also be
> said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
> somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
> brought into the world?
Fuckwit's answer: "that's a different subject".
>
>
>>Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
>>contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
>
> I disagree. I don't think that the goal of veganism is to simply
> contribute to the well-being of farm animals.
It isn't, and "vegans" don't pretend it is. Fuckwit
pretends that "vegans" think it is. Fuckwit is not
representative of the informed opponent of "ar"/"veganism".
> Rather, it seems more
> likely that vegans wish to eliminate the entire concept of farm
> animals.
Right. Fuckwit thinks that's bad. Fuckwit thinks that
"vegan" are doing something evil by wanting to
eliminate farm animals.
> I don't know about you, but to me it seems pointess to
> contribute to a system in which you are opposed to.
Right. No responsible opponent of "ar"/"veganism"
suggests that vegetarians "ought" to eat meat. Fuckwit
is not a responsible person.
>
>
>
>> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
>>nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
>>for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
>>life for animals.
>
>
> I don't understand. Can you explain why veganism does nothing to
> improve the lives of animals?
Oh, come on! You aleady addressed it, implicitly, when
you acknowledged that "vegans" want to eliminate farm
animals.
Ray
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:EuNJa.4173$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...
Do you level the term 'Vegan Loon' at ~~Jonnie~~. In his post June 23rd.
16:00, he made similar comments. In fact the honesty of some of ~~Jonnies~~
post was remarkable.
Difficult Eh Rick? You have to either back down or state that ~~Jonnie~~ is
spreading 'lys' and delusions.
Do I detect a split in the camp?
JonahTDB
> JonahTDB wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> >
> >>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
> > except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>
> Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
> honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
> because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
> David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
> "veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
> FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
>
Your problem, Ball-boy, is that you can't tell the difference between
a real argument and an ad-hominem attack. Your claims that these
views are fundamentally dishonest completely disregards and
disrespects those who feel differently. By not even stopping to
consider that perhaps someone has an honest claim to make, you have
removed all chances of you ever listening to them, and therefore, ever
convincing them of their "incorrectness"
> You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
> my attack on it is 100% honest.
Your attack is dishonest, cruel, mean, and filled with little more
than insults. I came to this newsgroup looking for someone to
honestly defend meat eating. I failed miserably.
> It is a ridiculous
> rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
> ethics behind "veganism".
A claim that again loses sight of the beliefs of your adversary. You
have no ground to stand on when you assume things about zir beliefs.
>
> My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
> away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
> opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
> of "veganism" itself.
BB... Why do you even bother to argue with people when all you do is
insult and criticize them? You don't hope to grow through mutual
understanding. You hope to shove your beliefs down other people's
throats and then expect them to listen. If you have any goal in this
newsgroup other than acting like an asshole, you really ought to
change your methods.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF7D8D7...@whitehouse.not>...
>
>>JonahTDB wrote:
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>>
> <SNIP>
>
>>>I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>>>except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>>
>>Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
>>honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
>>because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
>>David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
>>"veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
>>FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
>>
>
>
> Your problem, Ball-boy, is that you can't tell the difference between
> a real argument and an ad-hominem attack.
False.
> Your claims that these
> views are fundamentally dishonest completely disregards and
> disrespects those who feel differently.
You don't feel "differently". You are a typical
"vegan", believing all the sanctimonious rubbish that's
part and parcel of it.
> By not even stopping to
> consider that perhaps someone has an honest claim to make,
What? That your diet is "death free"? That eating so
much as a microgram of animal parts somehow negates the
whole ritual?
Sorry. Those are not honest claims.
> you have removed all chances of you ever listening to them, and therefore,
> ever convincing them of their "incorrectness"
I have listened to them more than enough. They all
sing the same wrong, bitter tune.
>
>
>>You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
>>my attack on it is 100% honest.
>
>
> Your attack is dishonest, cruel, mean, and filled with little more
> than insults.
It isn't. You're just a crybaby.
> I came to this newsgroup looking for someone to
> honestly defend meat eating. I failed miserably.
It doesn't *need* a defense, because the attack on it
from "vegans" is so utterly bankrupt. "vegans" are not
in the moral position they pretend to occupy. The
"vegan" attack on meat consumption is morally incoherent.
>
>
>>It is a ridiculous
>>rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
>>ethics behind "veganism".
>
>
> A claim that again loses sight of the beliefs of your adversary.
No, I have the beliefs firmly in sight. Not even
beliefs; belief, singular: "vegans" believe that they
are more virtuous than everyone else, merely for not
eating meat. That is false. Everything else can be
dismissed on that alone.
> You have no ground to stand on when you assume things about zir beliefs.
I am on solid rock.
>
>
>>My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
>>away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
>>opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
>>of "veganism" itself.
>
>
> BB... Why do you even bother to argue with people when all you do is
> insult and criticize them?
I don't "only" insult them. That's a bonus service.
> You don't hope to grow through mutual understanding.
"vegans" by and large are incapable of growth. These
are people who think they have found The Answer, and
they have embraced it with true-believer religious
zealotry. "veganism" is religion, and for the most
part, "vegans" are immune to reason, as are almost all
zealous religious fundamentalists.
> You hope to shove your beliefs down other people's
> throats and then expect them to listen.
No, little boy, and that's where you make your biggest
mistake. It is "vegans" who want to shove their
beliefs down others throats. That is the nature of
fundamentalist religious zealotry: the believers think
they've seen the light, are more virtuous than others,
and are thereby entitled to force their beliefs on
others.
All I and the other calm, rational opponents of
"ar"/"veganism" are doing is letting you know: you're
not going to do what you want to do, because we see
that your position is bankrupt, and that you are
totalitarians at heart. We will resist.
> If you have any goal in this
> newsgroup other than acting like an asshole, you really ought to
> change your methods.
My goal is to marginalize "vegan" totalitarians:
socially, politically, intellectually and morally. My
goal is to make you feel small and isolated. I believe
my methods are successful.
dh...@nomail.com
>Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
>> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
[...]
>> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
>> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>>
>> > and that fact should
>> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>>
>> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>
>I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
Like what?
>except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
That's my name.
dh...@nomail.com
> There's also the fact that eating
>> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
>> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
>> who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
>> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>>
>>
>> . Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
>> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
>> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
>> life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
>> for animals should NOT become vegans
>
> A diet of meat is the source of animal abuse and animal slaughter by
>callous commercial enterprises. The mass slaughter of cows, chickens, and
>hogs is hideous and revolting.
How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
only live because they are raised by humans?
> Do human beings need meat in their diet?
We know that they don't. Do animals need to be raised so we
can eat them in order for those billions of animals to live? We know
that they do. We also know that no animals are raised so that
people can eat vegetables.
>Some day it is part of our
>evolutionary metabolism, that primitive men were hunters. However, primitive
>man would eat nuts, fruits, seeds, and high-fiber foods most of the time.
>After a hunt, he would gorge, and be full for a few days. Maybe then we are
>so constituted as not to have to eat meat.
> Later men cultivated crops and began to eat vegetables and foods
>higher in carbohydrates, such as bread. Isn't there some question as to
>whether the human body is adapted to this Johnny-come-lately diet?
> But assume people need meat occasionally. Then they could own their
>own cow, chicken, or pig, and slaughter one, perhaps for special occasions.
>Not so long ago people used to do just that.If they lived in a town, perhaps
>they could form a co-op to buy the meat from a rancher, or, for that matter,
>the dairy and egg products.
People can go to local farmers today and buy animal products from
animals they feel have decent lives. That way they could contribute
to decent lives for farm animals. They can't do it by being veg*n. By
eating grass raised beef, people contribute to less deaths than by
eating tofu. By drinking grass raised milk, people contribute to less
deaths than by drinking soy or rice milk.
> So, on that assumption, or on the assumption that people do not need
>meat in that diet, and all slaughter was legally prohibited, what would
>happen to the animals? They couldn't be slaughtered, and it would not be
>profitable for ranchers to feed them and care for them, so breeding would
>have to be drastically reduced, so that there were only a relatively few
>food animals.and . The most humane solution would be to continue to care for
>the animals, but to stop breeding until the population was reduced or even
>eliminated.
PeTA kills more dogs and cats than they find homes for. What makes
you think livestock would be cared for when "ARAs" already kill pets?
The animals are already being cared for, and having *much* more
life than they would if they had none at all. So far your extinction plan
doesn't show any benefit for animals.
>But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a species, so some sort
>of reversionary or evolutionary breeding might take place that would fit the
>surviving animals to live independently in their natural habitats.
What's the point in that? Billions of animals are already living because
humans raise them for food. Some of them have good lives, some have
decent lives, some have terrible lives, just as is true in natural habitats.
Most wild animals don't live to maturity. At least the ones that humans
raise usually don't suffer from starvation, disease or nonhuman predators.
How long do you think an animal would have to live in order for its
life to be worth living? Or do you think that if an animal is killed by a
human, that automatically means that its life was not worth living?
Or what?
>And to
>ensure there are natural habitats, it would make sense to breed the human
>population down to much smaller numbers. This could probably be done
>humanely withsome sort of combination of advanced birth control medication
>and social legislation that would apply to the rich as well as to the poor.
Something will probably have to be done in that regard at some point.
Let's hope that it's not too late when they do it.
> So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
>big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.
Many animals on ranches have decent lives imo, and that is worth
more consideration than the fact that they are killed.
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>>
>> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
>> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
>> along who cares about the fact.
>
>Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
Soy beans, corn, rice, wheat.
>And I hope in doing so
>you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
>agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Paints,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze
http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid
http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC
http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings
http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>> There's also the fact that eating
>> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
>> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
>> who cares about that.
>
>That's a rather odd ideology you've got there. Couldn't it also be
>said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
>somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
>brought into the world?
Not imo. In that case the objective of the rapist is to have sex
with a person who does not want to have sex with him. What
makes most people consider it to be wrong is that the person
being raped doesn't want to have sex, and she gains nothing
from the experience unless she happens to love the child that
results. Even then she didn't want it to begin with, and according
to some people that makes the child's life not worth living. But
then according to others life has never been a benefit for anything
anyway, even to the most loved and wanted children who have
had wonderful lives.
In the case of eating meat the objective is to eat meat. Some
people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
than they would have if they never lived, so as yet the fact that
they are "killed" is outweighed by the fact that they live imo, so
then it comes down to whether or not their life is of a quality
that would make it worth living.
>> Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
>> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
>I disagree. I don't think that the goal of veganism is to simply
>contribute to the well-being of farm animals.
No it sure is not. It is to contribute to *nothing* for farm
animals--to contribute to *no* farm animals.
>Rather, it seems more
>likely that vegans wish to eliminate the entire concept of farm
>animals.
Right.
>I don't know about you, but to me it seems pointess to
>contribute to a system in which you are opposed to.
That's why I said: "People who want to contribute to decent
lives for animals should NOT become vegans, and that fact
should certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups."
>> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
>> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
>> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
>> life for animals.
>
>I don't understand. Can you explain why veganism does nothing to
>improve the lives of animals?
You already did. How could it improve the lives of animals,
when it doesn't contribute to the lives of animals? You're
trying to take credit for something that you not only don't
deserve to take credit for, you're trying to take credit for
something you want to see abolished.
Cole Smith
> news:94faf4a5.0306...@posting.google.com...
> > dh...@nomail.com wrote in message
> news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > > along who cares about the fact.
> >
> > Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
> ----------------------
> the vegan delite of all delights, tofu. vegans will go to great lenghts to
> make it look and taste just like meat. Problem is, the production and
> processing of the soy into tofu causes far more death and suffering than
> eationg grass fed beef or game. I get 100s of 1000s of calories from the
> death of one cow. How many animals do you suppose died to produce 100s of
> a1000s of calories of tofu substitute? far more than one, killer. Besides,
> it's the vegan loon claim that their diet causes no/less/fewer amounts of
> animal death and suffering. A claim that you, not any other vegan has ever
> proven.
There's a problem with this though, which I attempted to address in my
previous post. You're talking as if eating tofu is an inevitable
aspect of being a vegan. This is not true. There is a growing group of
vegans (i'm specifically refering to raw foodists-
www.living-foods.com) who do not eat tofu (or rice) and in fact speak
out against it. A "vegan" is simply somebody who does not eat, use, or
purchase animal products. The term "vegan" has nothing to do with
tofu. You shouldn't have to add these other factors (eating tofu) to
veganism in order for your claim to be accurate.
Also, here are some other baseless assumptions you make in your
message:
1. That I am a vegan
2. That I eat tofu
3. That all tofu is produced in a way that harms animals. I have a
family member who used to grow soy beans and produce small amounts of
tofu at her home. If you claim that the production of tofu causes more
animal deaths than killed by the beef industry (which I find hard to
believe anyway- do you have any factual evidence in support of this?),
then this would have to be inherently true for ALL production of tofu-
since, as my personal example has shown, there are ways of acquiring
tofu which doesn't involve large-scale industrial production.
4. That I am somehow a "killer", as you put it.
> And I hope in doing so
> > you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> > agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> =====================
> Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters. that
> they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That neither
> you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets that
> cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
> closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and delusions,
> but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.
I don't have a problem with your criticisms of tofu or people who eat
it. The problem I have is when you declare that vegans cause a certain
amount of animal deaths because vegans eat tofu. As I explained
earlier, veganism simply means not eating animal products. The
consumption of tofu is an added factor to the term "vegan" that isn't
an inherent aspect of the diet. For example; Stephen Arlin, who is a
co-founder of Nature's First Law, claims to only eat food that he
organically grew himself or that he gathered from the wild. You would
agree that Stephen Arlin is a vegan since he doesn't eat animal
products, correct? So how would this diet of his be causing more
deaths to animals than eating meat does?
K D B
> On 23 Jun 2003 16:53:31 -0700, Jona...@hotmail.com (JonahTDB) wrote:
>
> >Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> >> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> [...]
> >> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> >> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
> >>
> >> Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> > and that fact should
> >> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
> >>
> >> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
> >
> >I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>
> Like what?
Are you really too fucking stupid to figure it out?
>
> >except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>
> That's my name.
No, your name is Jethro Fuckwit. If that's not the name on your
birth certificate, it should be. Now, explain why you think never
being born is a moral loss. You have to believe it, it's a necessary
condition of your "life is a benefit" bullshit. Do you understand
"necessary condition"? I'll put it another way: Life is a benefit 'if
and only if' never being born is a loss. Can you comprehend that? Now
explain your stupid-ass beliefs.
Kevin
rick etter
"Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:bd9hk3$ff0$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
The only thing too difficult is apparently any ability on your part for
comprehension.
snips...
rick etter
You missed the point. Tofu was just one example. Substitute it with any
crop you want. They all involve death and suffering, and I say more than
the one death invovled in grass fed beef or game. Then when you start
ading all the fruits and veggies that you cannot grow in an area you live
in, the importation costs to the environment and animals increases even
more.
You shouldn't have to add these other factors (eating tofu) to
> veganism in order for your claim to be accurate.
>
> Also, here are some other baseless assumptions you make in your
> message:
>
> 1. That I am a vegan
================
You defend the religion, I'll say it like I see it.
> 2. That I eat tofu
==============
Again, just an example.
> 3. That all tofu is produced in a way that harms animals. I have a
> family member who used to grow soy beans and produce small amounts of
> tofu at her home. If you claim that the production of tofu causes more
> animal deaths than killed by the beef industry (which I find hard to
> believe anyway- do you have any factual evidence in support of this?),
====================
I love it. You chastise me for 'assuming' that all soy is grown the same
and that all tofu is processed the same, and then you turn around and make
general statements about the entire 'meat industry'. What a hoot!
> then this would have to be inherently true for ALL production of tofu-
> since, as my personal example has shown, there are ways of acquiring
> tofu which doesn't involve large-scale industrial production.
==============
Yet it still required the growing of crops which destroyed an indiginous
eco-system and replaced it with your monoculture crops. No such conversion
of land takes place for game.
> 4. That I am somehow a "killer", as you put it.
=================
Yes, you are. I am, we all are. It's just that vegans like to pretend that
they are somehow above thedeath and suffering because they substitute the
deaths of animals they do not see with for the deaths of meat animals they
'save'.
>
> > And I hope in doing so
> > > you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> > > agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> > =====================
> > Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters.
that
> > they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That
neither
> > you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets
that
> > cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
> > closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and
delusions,
> > but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.
>
> I don't have a problem with your criticisms of tofu or people who eat
> it. The problem I have is when you declare that vegans cause a certain
> amount of animal deaths because vegans eat tofu.
======================
No, I claim vegans cause death and suffering because they eat, period. It
makes no difference what they eat. Again, substitute the tofu for anything
you want. It was just an example because so many veg*ns go to such lengths
to make it look, feel, taste just like a substance they claim to despise.
As I explained
> earlier, veganism simply means not eating animal products. The
> consumption of tofu is an added factor to the term "vegan" that isn't
> an inherent aspect of the diet. For example; Stephen Arlin, who is a
> co-founder of Nature's First Law, claims to only eat food that he
> organically grew himself or that he gathered from the wild. You would
> agree that Stephen Arlin is a vegan since he doesn't eat animal
> products, correct? So how would this diet of his be causing more
> deaths to animals than eating meat does?
====================
Again, vegan is not a diet, but a supposed way of living to cause the least
amount of death and suffering to animals. But, I'll see your Steve and
raise you a Eustace Conway. Does Stevie live without electric? Without
gas? Eating what he finds and/or grows also, including dead animals. I
doubt that Stevie is in the same league, since he obviously lives in and
enjoys the fruits of the modern consumer driven lifestyle. Having his own
website indicates that truly doing 'all he can' to save animals is just lip
service to his own selfish convenience and entertainment.
JonahTDB
> JonahTDB wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF7D8D7...@whitehouse.not>...
> >
> >>JonahTDB wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> >>>
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >>>I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
> >>>except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
> >>
> >>Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
> >>honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
> >>because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
> >>David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
> >>"veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
> >>FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Your problem, Ball-boy, is that you can't tell the difference between
> > a real argument and an ad-hominem attack.
>
> False.
True.
>
> > Your claims that these
> > views are fundamentally dishonest completely disregards and
> > disrespects those who feel differently.
>
> You don't feel "differently". You are a typical
> "vegan", believing all the sanctimonious rubbish that's
> part and parcel of it.
False.
>
> > By not even stopping to
> > consider that perhaps someone has an honest claim to make,
>
> What? That your diet is "death free"? That eating so
> much as a microgram of animal parts somehow negates the
> whole ritual?
Who makes such arguments? I certainly have never heard them.
>
> Sorry. Those are not honest claims.
Again with your assumptions. You really need to learn respect.
>
> > you have removed all chances of you ever listening to them, and therefore,
> > ever convincing them of their "incorrectness"
>
> I have listened to them more than enough. They all
> sing the same wrong, bitter tune.
>
> >
> >
> >>You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
> >>my attack on it is 100% honest.
> >
> >
> > Your attack is dishonest, cruel, mean, and filled with little more
> > than insults.
>
> It isn't. You're just a crybaby.
>
> > I came to this newsgroup looking for someone to
> > honestly defend meat eating. I failed miserably.
>
> It doesn't *need* a defense, because the attack on it
> from "vegans" is so utterly bankrupt. "vegans" are not
> in the moral position they pretend to occupy. The
> "vegan" attack on meat consumption is morally incoherent.
Not from this perspective. Especially considering that the best
arguments against veganism, online, have come from you, and you're
completely bankrupt when it comes to argumentation.
>
> >
> >
> >>It is a ridiculous
> >>rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
> >>ethics behind "veganism".
> >
> >
> > A claim that again loses sight of the beliefs of your adversary.
>
> No, I have the beliefs firmly in sight. Not even
> beliefs; belief, singular: "vegans" believe that they
> are more virtuous than everyone else, merely for not
> eating meat. That is false. Everything else can be
> dismissed on that alone.
You are basing your beliefs/arguments on a false assumption... or
even better, a false stereotype of the group you are attacking.
>
> > You have no ground to stand on when you assume things about zir beliefs.
>
> I am on solid rock.
Yeah, if your definition of solid rock is "absolutely nothing."
>
> >
> >
> >>My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
> >>away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
> >>opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
> >>of "veganism" itself.
> >
> >
> > BB... Why do you even bother to argue with people when all you do is
> > insult and criticize them?
>
> I don't "only" insult them. That's a bonus service.
No... That's about all you do, really.
>
> > You don't hope to grow through mutual understanding.
>
> "vegans" by and large are incapable of growth. These
> are people who think they have found The Answer, and
> they have embraced it with true-believer religious
> zealotry. "veganism" is religion, and for the most
> part, "vegans" are immune to reason, as are almost all
> zealous religious fundamentalists.
Not so much unlike yourself...
>
> > You hope to shove your beliefs down other people's
> > throats and then expect them to listen.
>
> No, little boy, and that's where you make your biggest
> mistake. It is "vegans" who want to shove their
> beliefs down others throats. That is the nature of
> fundamentalist religious zealotry: the believers think
> they've seen the light, are more virtuous than others,
> and are thereby entitled to force their beliefs on
> others.
The only people I've seen shoving anything down anyone's throat is
you... You should really reevaluate your position.
>
> All I and the other calm, rational opponents of
WAIT WAIT WAIT... You think you're calm and rational!?? *delay long
period of time while I laugh*
> "ar"/"veganism" are doing is letting you know: you're
> not going to do what you want to do, because we see
> that your position is bankrupt, and that you are
> totalitarians at heart. We will resist.
Your blind religious-like belief about the evil of vegans is
astounding. You could teach fundamentalists a thing or two.
>
> > If you have any goal in this
> > newsgroup other than acting like an asshole, you really ought to
> > change your methods.
>
> My goal is to marginalize "vegan" totalitarians:
> socially, politically, intellectually and morally. My
> goal is to make you feel small and isolated. I believe
> my methods are successful.
This statement right here proves me correct. All you care about is
insulting people. And since that seems like all I'm doing to you
right now, this is my last post doing so in this thread.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF86D48...@whitehouse.not>...
>
>>>>Your problem is, you don't know what to do with an
>>>>honest poster, DemonBlower. I oppose "veganism"
>>>>because it is FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest. I *also* oppose
>>>>David Fuckwit Harrison's stupid religious attack on
>>>>"veganism", because it also, in its own way, is
>>>>FUNDAMENTALLY dishonest.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Your problem, Ball-boy, is that you can't tell the difference between
>>>a real argument and an ad-hominem attack.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> True.
No, true, kid. I do not engage in ad hominem. You
don't know the difference. There is a very bright line
between my arguments and my insults. You're too blind
to see it.
>
>
>>>Your claims that these
>>>views are fundamentally dishonest completely disregards and
>>>disrespects those who feel differently.
>>
>>You don't feel "differently". You are a typical
>>"vegan", believing all the sanctimonious rubbish that's
>>part and parcel of it.
>
>
> False.
No, true. True, more than anything has been true in
your empty little shitstained life.
>
>
>>>By not even stopping to
>>>consider that perhaps someone has an honest claim to make,
>>
>>What? That your diet is "death free"? That eating so
>>much as a microgram of animal parts somehow negates the
>>whole ritual?
>
>
> Who makes such arguments? I certainly have never heard them.
You make them.
>
>
>>Sorry. Those are not honest claims.
>
>
> Again with your assumptions. You really need to learn respect.
No, I don't. I already know respect. You are not
worthy of any. You're a liar and a gutless coward.
Either is enough to merit contempt, but you had to pile
it on and do both.
>
>
>>>you have removed all chances of you ever listening to them, and therefore,
>>>ever convincing them of their "incorrectness"
>>
>>I have listened to them more than enough. They all
>>sing the same wrong, bitter tune.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>You don't like what I have to say about "veganism", but
>>>>my attack on it is 100% honest.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your attack is dishonest, cruel, mean, and filled with little more
>>>than insults.
>>
>>It isn't. You're just a crybaby.
You're just a crybaby.
>>
>>
>>>I came to this newsgroup looking for someone to
>>>honestly defend meat eating. I failed miserably.
>>
>>It doesn't *need* a defense, because the attack on it
>>from "vegans" is so utterly bankrupt. "vegans" are not
>>in the moral position they pretend to occupy. The
>>"vegan" attack on meat consumption is morally incoherent.
>
>
> Not from this perspective.
Your perspective is a lie.
> Especially considering that the best
> arguments against veganism, online, have come from you, and you're
> completely bankrupt when it comes to argumentation.
Nope. That's why you don't even try.
>>>>It is a ridiculous
>>>>rule masquerading as "ethics". There is ZERO real
>>>>ethics behind "veganism".
>>>
>>>
>>>A claim that again loses sight of the beliefs of your adversary.
>>
>>No, I have the beliefs firmly in sight. Not even
>>beliefs; belief, singular: "vegans" believe that they
>>are more virtuous than everyone else, merely for not
>>eating meat. That is false. Everything else can be
>>dismissed on that alone.
>
>
> You are basing your beliefs/arguments on a false assumption...
No. I am basing my argument very precisely on the
assumption "vegans" make: all of them.
> or even better, a false stereotype of the group you are attacking.
Nope. "vegans", being an extremely, neurotically
conformist subculture, very assiduously *strive* to
conform to a very well defined stereotype.
>
>
>>>You have no ground to stand on when you assume things about zir beliefs.
>>
>>I am on solid rock.
>
>
> Yeah, if your definition of solid rock is "absolutely nothing."
No, my definition is a very substantial "something":
the truth.
>
>
>>>
>>>>My complaint with Fuckwit is that he is trying to get
>>>>away with a stupid, dishonest trick, and his reason for
>>>>opposing "veganism" is every bit as stupid as the dogma
>>>>of "veganism" itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>BB... Why do you even bother to argue with people when all you do is
>>>insult and criticize them?
>>
>>I don't "only" insult them. That's a bonus service.
>
>
> No... That's about all you do, really.
False.
However, all *you* do is mouth, "am not; did not; no I
don't; waaaaaahhhhhh!" You have never offered ONE
original bit of insight; not a single one.
>
>
>>>You don't hope to grow through mutual understanding.
>>
>>"vegans" by and large are incapable of growth. These
>>are people who think they have found The Answer, and
>>they have embraced it with true-believer religious
>>zealotry. "veganism" is religion, and for the most
>>part, "vegans" are immune to reason, as are almost all
>>zealous religious fundamentalists.
>
>
> Not so much unlike yourself...
The antithesis of myself.
>
>
>>>You hope to shove your beliefs down other people's
>>>throats and then expect them to listen.
>>
>>No, little boy, and that's where you make your biggest
>>mistake. It is "vegans" who want to shove their
>>beliefs down others throats. That is the nature of
>>fundamentalist religious zealotry: the believers think
>>they've seen the light, are more virtuous than others,
>>and are thereby entitled to force their beliefs on
>>others.
>
>
> The only people I've seen shoving anything down anyone's throat is
> you...
Nope. I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. I
forcefully reject the totalitarian attempts of "vegans"
to shove their morally bankrupt values down my throat,
and the throats of all true lovers of freedom.
"veganism" is intrinsically fascist, and we're not
going to be caught napping.
> You should really reevaluate your position.
No. I very carefully evaluated the components of my
position before adopting it.
YOU need to reevaluate the moral basis of your embrace
of "veganism". When you do, if you do it honestly,
you'll find there *is* no moral basis. None.
>
>
>>All I and the other calm, rational opponents of
>>"ar"/"veganism" are doing is letting you know: you're
>>not going to do what you want to do, because we see
>>that your position is bankrupt, and that you are
>>totalitarians at heart. We will resist.
>
>
> Your blind religious-like belief about the evil of vegans is
> astounding. You could teach fundamentalists a thing or two.
Apparently not: YOU are the fundamentalists, and you
are immune to learning.
>
>
>>>If you have any goal in this
>>>newsgroup other than acting like an asshole, you really ought to
>>>change your methods.
>>
>>My goal is to marginalize "vegan" totalitarians:
>>socially, politically, intellectually and morally. My
>>goal is to make you feel small and isolated. I believe
>>my methods are successful.
>
>
> This statement right here proves me correct.
Nope.
> All you care about is insulting people.
Nope. As I said earlier, that's simply a bonus.
> And since that seems like all I'm doing to you
> right now, this is my last post doing so in this thread.
We'll see. I think your raging, sanctimonious ego will
get the better of you.
Jonathan Ball
You're name is Fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit, and you
are such a terrible fuckwit, it's become your name:
Fuckwit.
Jonathan Ball
Your name is Fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit, and you are
Ray
-------------
Come on Rick, you know that is a weak attempt to avoid the issue.
It is not *my* views you dispute, the post was ~~Jonnies~~. Our side have
been posting the same opinions for years and you have come back with your
stock phrases, now your own gaffer leaves you out in the cold. Remember, I
said he would! I don't see him giving you any back-up.
Neither can I see him retracting some of the views he made in support of AR
issues.
Perhaps a little e-mail to ~~Jonnie~~ may help.
>
>
>
>
>
> snips...
>
>
>
>
>
rick etter
I never ask him to, and he has no need to. That you quote him still does
not prove your case and better than when you quote lys, dreck, or anyone
else on usenet. Too bad you can't really discuss the issue, since you have
nothing to offer, eh killer?
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<f14hfv45f86p05v5d...@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Jun 2003 16:53:31 -0700, Jona...@hotmail.com (JonahTDB) wrote:
>>
>> >Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
>> >> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
>> >> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
>> >>
>> >> Non sequitur.
>> >>
>> >> > and that fact should
>> >> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>> >>
>> >> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>> >
>> >I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>>
>> Like what?
>
> Are you really too fucking stupid to figure it out?
>>
>> >except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>>
>> That's my name.
>
> No, your name is Jethro Fuckwit.
That's a lie Brandumbass.
>If that's not the name on your
>birth certificate, it should be.
>
>Now, explain why you think never
>being born is a moral loss. You have to believe it, it's a necessary
>condition of your "life is a benefit" bullshit. Do you understand
>"necessary condition"? I'll put it another way: Life is a benefit 'if
>and only if' never being born is a loss. Can you comprehend that?
No. Explain the stupid idea if you can, but you can't because
it's just another lie.
>Now
>explain your stupid-ass beliefs.
>
> Kevin
That if life is not the benefit which makes all others possible,
then animals can continue to benefit from things after they are
no longer alive, and other things that are not alive can benefit
as well.
JonahTDB
>
> >Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> >> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> [...]
> >> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> >> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
> >>
> >> Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> > and that fact should
> >> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
> >>
> >> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
> >
> >I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>
> Like what?
Well, As you know I disagree with your position, but hardly find your
position laughable or ridiculous like Ball-boy does. Here's a repost
of his post and my thoughts on it:
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>... in a vegan NG?
> >
> >
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
>
> But then, the intelligent and *honest* pro-meat posters
> point out that the *typical* vegetarian diet involves
> much LESS death than the typical meat-including diet.
I agree that the typical vegetarian diet involves much less death than
the typical meat-including diet.
>
> > There's also the fact that eating
> > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>
> There's also the fact that your "fact" has no ethical
> meaning. "Contributing to life for animals" does not
> earn you any ethical credits. You are not considered
> to have done an ethical good deed by causing any
> animals to "get to experience life".
I agree with Ball-boy's statement, but not his attitude. Though I
find your idea of farming *giving* animals life interesting, I still
disagree with it.
>
> > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> > who cares about that.
>
> Anyone who intends to eat meat should be encouraged to
> select types of meat that come from animals who were
> well treated while alive, and humanely slaughtered. NO
> ONE should be encouraged to include meat in their diet,
> merely to cause animals to "get to experience life".
I completely agree with this statement here.
>
> > Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> > contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
> No, it is a MORALLY flawed attempt to eliminate animal
> suffering. It will, however, almost certainly lead to
> *reduced* animal suffering.
Again, I agree that it leads to reduced animal suffering, but disagree
with Ball-boy's attitude.
>
> >
> >
> >>Despite trolling.
> >>
> >>Nothing?
> >
> >
> > No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> > nothing to improve life for animals,
>
> It does do something to reduce animal suffering. It
> doesn't reduce it as much as its proponents say it
> does, but it does reduce it.
Again, I agree that it leads to reduced animal suffering, but disagree
with Ball-boy's attitude.
>
> > promote longer lives for animals,
>
> It doesn't claim to do that.
>
> > and least of all contribute to the experience of
> > life for animals.
>
> It shouldn't attempt to do that. "Contributing to the
> experience of life for animals" is not a morally good deed.
I agree, but I think it has merit as a good idea.
>
> Thanks for the added ammunition, though. As I have
> said all along, Fuckwit, you think that causing animals
> to live _per se_ is a good thing. You're a morally
> bankrupt fuckwit.
Obviously, Ball-boy is acting like an asshole again, and thus leaves
my level of agreement.
>
> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> > and that fact should
> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>
> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
Sigh. I've never seen someone so opposed to the expression and
sharing of attempts to find the truth. have you ever met anyone like
Ball-boy?
>
> >except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>
> That's my name.
Okay. I couldn't quite remember.
Dutch
news:4824e919.0306...@posting.google.com...
> dh...@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<f14hfv45f86p05v5d...@4ax.com>...
> > On 23 Jun 2003 16:53:31 -0700, Jona...@hotmail.com (JonahTDB) wrote:
> >
> > >Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> > >> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> > >> > for animals should NOT become vegans,
> > >>
> > >> Non sequitur.
> > >>
> > >> > and that fact should
> > >> > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
> > >>
> > >> No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
> > >
> > >I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Well, As you know I disagree with your position, but hardly find your
> position laughable or ridiculous like Ball-boy does.
What *is* your position on it then? You don't know, because you're a
confused chump.
> Here's a repost
> of his post and my thoughts on it:
I can hardly wait...
By the way, if you don't like being insulted close this message now, because
I've had my fill of your empty posturing.
>
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:<3EF71721...@whitehouse.not>...
> > dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>... in a vegan NG?
> > >
> > >
> > > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > > along who cares about the fact.
> >
> > But then, the intelligent and *honest* pro-meat posters
> > point out that the *typical* vegetarian diet involves
> > much LESS death than the typical meat-including diet.
>
> I agree that the typical vegetarian diet involves much less death than
> the typical meat-including diet.
Of course "you agree", supports your vegan agenda, that's the only reason.
> > > There's also the fact that eating
> > > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their
deaths,
> >
> > There's also the fact that your "fact" has no ethical
> > meaning. "Contributing to life for animals" does not
> > earn you any ethical credits. You are not considered
> > to have done an ethical good deed by causing any
> > animals to "get to experience life".
>
> I agree with Ball-boy's statement, but not his attitude.
There's no "attitude" in that paragraph, you're a moron.
Though I
> find your idea of farming *giving* animals life interesting, I still
> disagree with it.
Whoopee shit, what does that mean?
> > > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > > farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> > > who cares about that.
> >
> > Anyone who intends to eat meat should be encouraged to
> > select types of meat that come from animals who were
> > well treated while alive, and humanely slaughtered. NO
> > ONE should be encouraged to include meat in their diet,
> > merely to cause animals to "get to experience life".
>
> I completely agree with this statement here.
Why?
> > > Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> > > contribute to anything for farm animals.
> >
> > No, it is a MORALLY flawed attempt to eliminate animal
> > suffering. It will, however, almost certainly lead to
> > *reduced* animal suffering.
>
> Again, I agree that it leads to reduced animal suffering, but disagree
> with Ball-boy's attitude.
What attitude, he's not displaying an attitude, you are. What makes you
think anybody gives a Rat's ass what you think of his "attitude" anyway? You
can barely form sentences, much less coherent philosophical opinions.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Despite trolling.
> > >>
> > >>Nothing?
> > >
> > >
> > > No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> > > nothing to improve life for animals,
> >
> > It does do something to reduce animal suffering. It
> > doesn't reduce it as much as its proponents say it
> > does, but it does reduce it.
>
> Again, I agree that it leads to reduced animal suffering, but disagree
> with Ball-boy's attitude.
I disagree with your attitude, the attitude that you believe that you are
capable of saying anything meaningful, you aren't.
>
> >
> > > promote longer lives for animals,
> >
> > It doesn't claim to do that.
> >
> > > and least of all contribute to the experience of
> > > life for animals.
> >
> > It shouldn't attempt to do that. "Contributing to the
> > experience of life for animals" is not a morally good deed.
>
> I agree, but I think it has merit as a good idea.
Really? In what way?
>
> >
> > Thanks for the added ammunition, though. As I have
> > said all along, Fuckwit, you think that causing animals
> > to live _per se_ is a good thing. You're a morally
> > bankrupt fuckwit.
>
> Obviously, Ball-boy is acting like an asshole again, and thus leaves
> my level of agreement.
blah blah blah
>
> >
> > > People who want to contribute to decent lives
> > > for animals should NOT become vegans,
> >
> > Non sequitur.
> >
> > > and that fact should
> > > certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
> >
> > No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>
> Sigh. I've never seen someone so opposed to the expression and
> sharing of attempts to find the truth. have you ever met anyone like
> Ball-boy?
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit your fucking dick off.
> > >except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
> >
> > That's my name.
>
> Okay. I couldn't quite remember.
You aren't too bright are you?
Jonathan Ball
>>
>>>>except for the disrespect of David or whatever his name is.
>>>
>>> That's my name.
>>
>> No, your name is Jethro Fuckwit.
>
>
> That's a lie Brandumbass.
No. That's how most people here know you.
>
>
>>If that's not the name on your
>>birth certificate, it should be.
>>
>>Now, explain why you think never
>>being born is a moral loss. You have to believe it, it's a necessary
>>condition of your "life is a benefit" bullshit. Do you understand
>>"necessary condition"? I'll put it another way: Life is a benefit 'if
>>and only if' never being born is a loss. Can you comprehend that?
>
>
> No. Explain the stupid idea if you can, but you can't because
> it's just another lie.
It isn't a lie. You're too stupid to understand "if
and only if". You're too stupid to understand anything
except a call to dinner.
>
>
>>Now
>>explain your stupid-ass beliefs.
>>
>> Kevin
>
>
> That if life is not the benefit which makes all others possible,
Life per se is not a benefit.
A benefit is something that moves an existing entity
from a less well off state to a better off state.
There is no existing entity to be in the less well off
state. You, of course, being an irrational fuck, think
the animals exist in some kind of "pre-born" state, but
that's just you.
> then animals can continue to benefit from things after they are
> no longer alive, and other things that are not alive can benefit
> as well.
The second part of that is what you believe. The
animals who "get to experience life" are not alive when
the absurd "benefit of life" is conferred on them, but
you nonetheless think they benefit from the conferral.
That's what's absurd about your fuckwitted belief.
Jonathan Ball
>>>>Non sequitur.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and that fact should
>>>>>certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>>>>
>>>>No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>>>
>>>I'm scared... I actually agree with a lot of what Ball-boy said here,
>>
>> Like what?
>
>
> Well, As you know I disagree with your position, but hardly find your
> position laughable or ridiculous like Ball-boy does.
Fuckwit's position is both laughable *and* ridiculous;
not "or". Fuckwit's position NECESSARILY requires that
animals exist in some kind of "pre-born" state, in
which they can experience benefit and loss. It is
absolutely absurd.
>>>and that fact should
>>>certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups.
>>
>>No, it shouldn't. The "fact" is not a fact.
>
>
> Sigh. I've never seen someone so opposed to the expression and
> sharing of attempts to find the truth.
Fuckwit is not trying to find "the truth". Like you,
Fuckwit is trying to impose his black-hearted religious
beliefs on others.
Michael Voytinsky
news:EuNJa.4173$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...
> Problem is, the production and processing of the soy into tofu causes far
more death and suffering than
> eationg grass fed beef or game.
This is an interesting claim. Could you provide some more specifics?
Maybe some examples, evidence, that sort of thing.
Michael Voytinsky
news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets,
This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly humane
way.
However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never met
anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!
I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
produced meat.
> The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
reasoning here.
Michael Voytinsky
news:o14hfv8u56t4grfpr...@4ax.com...
> How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
> only live because they are raised by humans?
What about it?
For one thing, these lives are not, in most cases, very pleasant.
For another, I could use an identical argument for raising humans for food -
after all, if we did not do so, those humans would not exist.
And, finally, are you saying that if we did not raise cows, chickens, etc.
the space currently devoted to raising them - including the raising of
feed - would be desert, devoid of life?
> By eating grass raised beef, people contribute to less deaths than by
> eating tofu. By drinking grass raised milk, people contribute to less
> deaths than by drinking soy or rice milk.
Uh, how do you arrive at this? To quote many of my math teachers, "show
your work".
Cheers
M
Michael Voytinsky
news:bd6v1e$p...@library2.airnews.net...
> So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
> big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.
My fellow vegetarians frequently piss me off, often by saying things like
the above.
What the corporation-hating people do not realize is that corporations
consist of people. When a corporation goes broke, people are out of work -
often an unpleasant experience.
In effect, you are saying is that you just don't care if people end up
unemployed - which makes you sound like an asshole.
What also pisses me off is that the debate itself is ridiculous.
There is no prospect of people suddenly giving up meat en masse. So far the
process has been gradual, and that is likely to continue.
Increasingly, the same company that sell animal products are also getting
into selling soy milk, tofu dogs, etc. - which makes perfect business sense.
If the consumption of meat continues to go down, fewer people will be
employed in its production - and more in production of tofu and other
products. I do not see this causing a problem.
Michael Voytinsky
news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
> Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> _________________________________________________________
> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
What is the point you are trying to make?
For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).
For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral failing.
If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no way
for me to no use tires.
> people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
> they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
> than they would have if they never lived,
You seem to be treating "not existing" as a form of harm. Unless I
misunderstood you, this seems... well... absurd.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EFA6E92...@whitehouse.not...
> > That if life is not the benefit which makes all others possible,
>
> Life per se is not a benefit.
>
You don't believe that. You believe life IS a benefit.
Dutch
news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
>
> > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > farm animals with their diets,
>
> This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly
humane
> way.
>
> However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
> way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
> vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never
met
> anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!
Yet all agriculture results in massive harm to animals, wildlife like birds,
mice etc.. so the vegan still exacts a toll in death and suffering.
> I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
> humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> produced meat.
What that fact illustrates is that raising animals meat is not categorically
inhumane/unethical as vegans claim.
> > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
>
> Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> reasoning here.
He means that they would never have been born but for the demand for meat.
Derek
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:GbxKa.315277$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
> >
> > Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I
> > follow your reasoning here.
>
> He means that they would never have been born but for the
> demand for meat.
>
be born, because preventing them from experiencing
life is morally bad. The billions of livestock animals
that do get to experience life are a direct result from
this illogical thinking, and although meatarians believe
animals benefit from this experience, they cannot offer
any possible reason how. I contend, that if animals
benefit from being born it would mean they must've
suffered a loss prior to being born, so their reasoning
is illogical because we cannot experience anything prior
to being born. Here are some examples to show you
that there IS evidence which supports this observation.
Meatarians believe that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
David Harrison - 12/09/1999
They believe they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
David Harrison - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
David Harrison - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
David Harrison - 10/19/1999
They believe that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:
*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
David Harrison - 09/04/1999
All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
David Harrison - 12/11/1999
Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
David Harrison - 04/12/2002
But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
David Harrison - 04/20/2002
They believe that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:
People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
David Harrison - 09/13/1999
You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
David Harrison - 01/08/2002
That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
David Harrison - 07/30/1999
Here's some off-Usenet evidence too, to show that
David Harrison is merely expressing a common
view.
[This raises an additional problem with Davis's
argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe
we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or
preference-satisfaction in the world not only by
increasing the happiness of existing animals, but
also by increasing the total population of happy
animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993).
A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal,
it is better to have two happy animals than one.
*In the past, this view has been used to justify the
consumption of meat, since farmed animals would
not exist if not for meat production.*
This argument, sometimes called "The Logic of the
Larder" (Stephen 1896), is rebutted by recognizing
that while a particular animal may have a life worth
living, he or she may harm a number of other animals
and/or prevent other animals from existing. In such
cases, it may be better if that particular animal had
not existed (Gruzalski 1989).] *my emphasis*
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/leastharm.htm
This proves my point in that meatarians do hold the
irrational belief that animals benefit from being born,
and that society must continue to eat animals to
provide that initial life. It's the same irration idea
your helmsman Harrison believes in and promotes:
The Logic of the Larder.
Here's some more evidence:
"What do they do which is cruel? They pen up animals
which should be roaming free. This sounds much like
all stock farming. When you farm cattle, you don't want
them straying. As for the "should", well, *these animals
wouldn't exist were it not for the fur farm,* surely, so
who says what these animals "should" be doing? The
reply is that fur farming is evil." *my emphasis*
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/opinion/furfarm.html
and
"If so, the consequence to others of buying that meat
in the grocery store, rather than asparagus, is good;
*you create farm animals whose lives are worth living.*
And thus the consequence of buying asparagus rather
than meat is, by comparison, bad. So if you, like me,
think your actions are more moral when you do more
good for others, you should agree with me that meat is
moral, and veggies are immoral." *my emphasis*
http://hanson.gmu.edu/meat.html
K D B
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> > products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> > Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>
> What is the point you are trying to make?
>
> For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).
>
> For others, one has to compromise -
To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
I do not see that as a moral failing.
> If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no way
> for me to no use tires.
Walk. Problem solved.
>
> > people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
> > they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
> > than they would have if they never lived,
>
> You seem to be treating "not existing" as a form of harm.
That is EXACTLY what he is doing and it has been pointed out to him
countless times over the past 4+ years. The idiot posting as dh_ld,
better known as 'Jethro Fuckwit' believes that life, in and of itself,
is a "benefit" to farm animals. He has been told that for this to be
true, then never being born MUST be a loss. He argues against this
although it is simply the logical implication of his dumbass "life is
a benefit" claim. Rather than defend his fuckwitted beliefs, the moron
resorts to the only 'argument' he has: accusing all his detractors of
being ARAs. The idiot regularly accuses me of being an ARA although I
raise and slaughter my own livestock and poultry, eat meat regularly,
and hunt and/or fish a minimum of 300 days per year.
Unless I
> misunderstood you, this seems... well... absurd.
Congratulations, you have joined a long list of people who have
tried to point out the absurdity of Jethro Fuckwit's irrational
belief.
Kevin
rick etter
Whta kind would you like?
The use of pesticides?
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
f
power generation and distribution?
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
You can look up some for yourself. Like the millions of animals that are
killed deliberately at storage and processing facilities just to keep your
veggies clean and cheap. Try thinking for a change instead of knee-jerking
your way through life.
Now, care to really compare that to say, a deer? Didn't thing so.
rick etter
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> > products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> > Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>
> What is the point you are trying to make?
>
> For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).
>
> For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral failing.
> If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no
way
> for me to no use tires.
Really? Nice claim. Care to offer some proof? Didn't think so....
rick etter
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
>
> > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > farm animals with their diets,
>
> This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly
humane
> way.
>
> However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
> way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
> vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never
met
> anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!
Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or game.
These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die for
the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.
>
> I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
> humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> produced meat.
>
> > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
>
> Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> reasoning here.
====================
It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid. It does nothing for the many
more animals you may kill to replace those calories.
>
>
>
>
Michael Voytinsky
news:GbxKa.315277$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Yet all agriculture results in massive harm to animals, wildlife like
birds,
> mice etc.. so the vegan still exacts a toll in death and suffering.
Is there a point associated with this statement?
> > I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise
meat
> > humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> > produced meat.
>
> What that fact illustrates is that raising animals meat is not
categorically
> inhumane/unethical as vegans claim.
All vegans claim this? Prof. Peter Singer, in "Animal Liberation" - a book
which is a major influence on ethical veganism/vegetarianism discusses the
possibility of humanely produced meat - and goes on to say that vast
majority of meat is not humanely produced. He suggests that maybe the
question should not be so much "Is it unethical to eat meat?" but rather "Is
it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
knowledge, a vegan.
> > Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> > reasoning here.
>
> He means that they would never have been born but for the demand for meat.
I do not see how causing someone or something to be born "saves" them. It
sounds "non-existence in the first place" sound like a variety of harm -
which is ridiculous.
Michael Voytinsky
news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > For others, one has to compromise -
>
> To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
I did not even know that there was a single, immutable vegan ideology. I am
sure this will be news to many vegans as well.
Michael Voytinsky
> > For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral
failing.
> > If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> > suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no
> > way for me to no use tires.
> Really? Nice claim. Care to offer some proof? Didn't think so....
Proof of what? That there is no realistic way to avoid tire use? Or that
not eating meat prevents death and suffering of animals?
What would you consider acceptable proof? (i.e. What would have to be true
about the world for your beliefs on this to be false.)
Michael Voytinsky
> > This is an interesting claim. Could you provide some more specifics?
> > Maybe some examples, evidence, that sort of thing.
> ====================
> Whta kind would you like?
>
>
> The use of pesticides?
> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
>
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
f
I see a bunch of random URLs, that is all. That is not evidence.
I fail to see an actual point here.
> You can look up some for yourself. Like the millions of animals that are
> killed deliberately at storage and processing facilities just to keep your
> veggies clean and cheap. Try thinking for a change instead of
knee-jerking
> your way through life.
Just one question.
What!?
> Now, care to really compare that to say, a deer? Didn't thing so.
Pronouns are much more effective if they have a referent.
Michael Voytinsky
> Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or game.
Good for them.
> These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die
for
> the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
> diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.
Erm, what are you talking about?
> It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid.
Brilliant, logical argument there.
Derek
"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
argument with a false premise in the hope that it
will weaken the vegan's position.
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented
position, then conclude that the original position
has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails
to deal with the actual arguments that have been
made.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
It's a well known tactic that we're all aware of here
on a.a.e.v.
dustbird
They shouldn't have chosen to be in those businesses to begin with. If
somebody whose business is to wring the heads off live chickens on a
production line is unemployed because people have chosen not to eat meat, or
the same for someone working in a slaughterhouse, or hog farm, or even for
anyone involved in just the book-keeping, or executive work, do I care?
Nope. They probably desderve an "unpleasant experience."
A lot of people gave up cigarettes because they thought it did them harm,
and because the price went sky-high. The same might work for meat.
And the companies who are involved in meat products but also go into tofu
or something because there is a market - well, if the market for tofu
ceased, wouldn't they go back into meat 100%? That is just amoral
expediency.
Jonathan Ball
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:GbxKa.315277$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>>"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>>><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>
> [..]
>
>>>>The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
>>>
>>>Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I
>>>follow your reasoning here.
>>
>>He means that they would never have been born but for the
>>demand for meat.
>>
>
> All meatarians seem to believe that animals should
> be born,
No. First, there is no such word as "meatarian". It
is an artificial swear word coined by angry, defensive
vegetarians.
Second, almost no consumers of meat believe that.
USual sUSpect
Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> All meatarians seem to believe that animals should
>> be born,
>
> No. First, there is no such word as "meatarian". It is an artificial
> swear word coined by angry, defensive vegetarians.
A search of "meatarian" at Google shows the artificiality of the word.
Some of the links on the first page of hits go to Larry Forti's site;
most of the rest show a lack of clear thought in the use of the word. I
think "angry, defensive" is probably too polite. I would add some or all
of the following: stupid, fruity, retarded, amoral, deranged.
> Second, almost no consumers of meat believe that.
I believe I've encountered only one, and you've already singled him out.
Jonathan Ball
> snip afv
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>> All meatarians seem to believe that animals should
>>> be born,
>>
>>
>> No. First, there is no such word as "meatarian". It is an artificial
>> swear word coined by angry, defensive vegetarians.
>
>
> A search of "meatarian" at Google shows the artificiality of the word.
> Some of the links on the first page of hits go to Larry Forti's site;
> most of the rest show a lack of clear thought in the use of the word. I
> think "angry, defensive" is probably too polite. I would add some or all
> of the following: stupid, fruity, retarded, amoral, deranged.
Yes, of course. I was striving for economy of expression.
>
>> Second, almost no consumers of meat believe that.
>
>
> I believe I've encountered only one, and you've already singled him out.
Interestingly, one of Dreck's citations the other day
was to a site for an assistant professor of economics
(oh, the shame!) who says almost exactly the same thing
as Fuckwit: http://hanson.gmu.edu/meat.html Actually,
he isn't a *real* economist. His Ph.D. is in "social
science", not economics ("focusing on Institution
Design and Formal Political Theory"), and his
dissertation title has a distinctly non-economics ring
to it: Four Puzzles in Information and Politics:
Product Bans, Informed Voters, Social Insurance, &
Persistent Disagreement. You can find your way to the
links showing all that by clicking on his name in the
link fuckwitted Dreck provided and that I've reproduced
above.
Hanson says explicitly what Fuckwit is too timid to
say: that one *is* doing great utilitarian good by
causing more animals to "get to experience life". I
have to think Hanson's essay was a self indulgent
exercise in amusing sophistry, probably because some
fuckwitted "vegans" challenged him about his
consumption of meat. Fair enough.
Dreck, however, is claiming that "all 'meatarians'"
believe this crap, but he has no evidence.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EFB188F...@whitehouse.not...
> USual sUSpect wrote:
> >> Second, almost no consumers of meat believe that.
> >
> >
> > I believe I've encountered only one, and you've already singled him out.
>
> Interestingly, one of Dreck's citations the other day
> was to a site for an assistant professor of economics
> (oh, the shame!) who says almost exactly the same thing
> as Fuckwit: http://hanson.gmu.edu/meat.html Actually,
> he isn't a *real* economist. His Ph.D. is in "social
> science", not economics ("focusing on Institution
> Design and Formal Political Theory"), and his
> dissertation title has a distinctly non-economics ring
> to it: Four Puzzles in Information and Politics:
> Product Bans, Informed Voters, Social Insurance, &
> Persistent Disagreement. You can find your way to the
> links showing all that by clicking on his name in the
> link fuckwitted Dreck provided and that I've reproduced
> above.
>
> Hanson says explicitly what Fuckwit is too timid to
> say: that one *is* doing great utilitarian good by
> causing more animals to "get to experience life".
This is what I've been telling Harrison to do for years.
His argument, believe it or not, is the most honest one
you lot have between you.
> I
> have to think Hanson's essay was a self indulgent
> exercise in amusing sophistry, probably because some
> fuckwitted "vegans" challenged him about his
> consumption of meat. Fair enough.
>
> Dreck, however, is claiming that "all 'meatarians'"
> believe this crap, but he has no evidence.
>
Ther logic of the larder is well known. Have you
looked up Salt yet? Now there's one man's hand
I'd like to shake: a real socialist and thinker.
To quote Salt from his own self-penned funeral
address (Henry Salt, Humanitarian Reformer and
Man of Letters).
...when I say I shall die, as I have lived, rationalist,
socialist, pacifist, and humanitarian, I must make
my meaning clear. I wholly disbelieve in the present
established religion; but I have a very firm religious
faith of my own - a Creed of Kinship I call it - a
belief that in years yet to come there will be a
recognition of brotherhood between man and man,
nation and nation, human and subhuman, which will
transform a state of semi-savagery, as we have it,
into one of civilisation, when there will be no such
barbarity of warfare, or the robbery of the poor by
the rich, or the ill-usage of the lower animals by
mankind.
http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/henrystephenssalt.html
Jonathan Ball
No. It's not an ethically coherent position at all,
and it is reactive.
Fuckwit, and this goof Hanson, clearly have formulated
their poorly conceived responses as *reactions* to the
supposed "ethics" of "veganism". The better approach
is to attack the supposed "ethics" of "veganism" head
on, and show that it is a phantom.
Fuckwit's and Hanson's responses are allowing the
"vegans'" false conception of ethics to be taken as
given. They are then trying to play a fuckwitted trick
on "vegans", turning their own argument against them.
It's a mistake: one does not need to take the supposed
"ethics" of "veganism" as a given. "veganism" is an
ethically bankrupt belief.
Meat eating does not need a defense. It is "veganism"
that is in dire need of an ethics. It has none.
K D B
> "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > >
> > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> >
> > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > vegans as well.
The ideas behind veganism can all be narrowed down to one,
simplistic, childish rule. Go away, you don't have enough ammunition
for this.
> >
> Kevin is lying, as usual.
I've never lied, not even once, asswipe. You even admitted just
recently that you've never "caught me" doing anything dishonest.
You're clearly, and irrefutably, the one who is lying.
He and Jonathan Ball have
> invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> will weaken the vegan's position.
False, your own claim that you "live a death free lifestyle" shows
that you believe in this fallacy.
>
> The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
> someone else's position so that it can be attacked
> more easily, knock down that misrepresented
> position, then conclude that the original position
> has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails
> to deal with the actual arguments that have been
> made.
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
You didn't understand it until I told you what it meant, fuckwad. I
did so after you, being a semi-literate fraud, mistaken;y accused
someone of the fallacy. Of course, as is normal for your pansy-ass,
you whined when you got caught not knowing what the fuck you were
talking about. You rarely know what the fuck you are talking about. I
have not committed any fallacy. Give it up. You're a waste of carbon.
>
> It's a well known tactic that we're all aware of here
> on a.a.e.v.
You should be, you've enagaged in the fallacy yourself in most of
your recent posts. Resign Dreck, you wouldn't know logic if it pissed
on your 'blue foot'.
Kevin
K D B
Why don't you start by explaining your ridiculous claim that you
can't live without tires, "realistically" that is?
Kevin
Jonathan Ball
>
> "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > >
> > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> >
> > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > vegans as well.
> >
> Kevin is lying, as usual. He and Jonathan Ball have
> invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> will weaken the vegan's position.
Nope. The "vegan" already has a completely incoherent ethical
position. We need do nothing to weaken it.
All "vegans" believe in the fallacious argument:
If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
I do not eat meat;
Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
*believe* it to be true. Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
premise of the fallacious argument.
The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
this weird, obsessive search. The only logical explanation for
it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
to declare that they do not cause harm to animals.
Clearly, the "vegan" believes, irrationally, that it is the
*consumption* of animal parts, rather than the causation of harm,
that is to be avoided.
"veganism" is plainly not a proper and coherent ethical position.
K D B
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:VOzKa.4294$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> > Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or game.
>
> Good for them.
>
> > These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die
> for
> > the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
> > diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.
>
> Erm, what are you talking about?
Here's some free advice: at least know the topic before entering the
conversation. Otherwise, you'll make it far too easy for some of us to
show that Dreck Nash is a lying buffoon. It's easy enough as it is.
You've done enough, you have just provided more evidence that vegans
follow the fallacious argument:
1) If I eat meat, animals die to provide me with food.
2) I don't eat meat.
Therefore:
3) Animals don't die to provide me with food.
You can deny it, but it's clearly implied by the very fact you
don't even comprehend the discussion you've willingly entered into.
The simple fact is: Animals DO die to provide your food. Animals
are killed in every step of the process. From those killed by the
plowing and harvesting equipment, to the ones intentionally killed by
pesticides, accidental deaths during transportation, as well as pest
control during the storage and processing phases of food production.
Have you ever heard of anyone needing pest control in a meat cooler?
>
> > It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid.
>
> Brilliant, logical argument there.
That really is brilliant, sarcasm from someone who didn't even
understand the conversation. The effect is better when you do know
what you're talking about.
Kevin
Ray
>
> "Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:bdc6hj$mih$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...> > news:kX5Ka.4222$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
> > >
> > > "Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bd9hk3$ff0$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...> > > > news:EuNJa.4173$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Cole Smith" <co...@earthdome.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:94faf4a5.0306...@posting.google.com...> > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net
> > > (cojote)
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less
> > animal
> > > > > > > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > > > > > > along who cares about the fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
> > > > > ----------------------
> > > > > the vegan delite of all delights, tofu. vegans will go to great
> > lenghts
> > > > to
> > > > > make it look and taste just like meat. Problem is, the production
> and
> > > > > processing of the soy into tofu causes far more death and
suffering
> > than
> from
> > > the
> > > > > death of one cow. How many animals do you suppose died to produce
> > 100s
> > > of
> > > > > a1000s of calories of tofu substitute? far more than one, killer.
> > > > Besides,
> > > > > it's the vegan loon claim that their diet causes no/less/fewer
> amounts
> > > of
> > > > > animal death and suffering. A claim that you, not any other vegan
> has
> > > > ever
> > > > > proven.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And I hope in doing so
> > > > > > you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> > > > > > agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> > > > > =====================
> > > > > Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat
> eaters.
> > > > that
> > > > > they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate.
That
> > > > neither
> > > > > you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included
> > diets
> > > > that
> > > > > cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just
shows
> > how
> > > > > closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and
> > > delusions,
> > > > > but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you level the term 'Vegan Loon' at ~~Jonnie~~. In his post June
> 23rd.
> > > > 16:00, he made similar comments. In fact the honesty of some of
> > > ~~Jonnies~~
> > > > post was remarkable.
> > > >
> > > > Difficult Eh Rick? You have to either back down or state that
> ~~Jonnie~~
> > > is
> > > > spreading 'lys' and delusions.
> > > ==========
> > > The only thing too difficult is apparently any ability on your part
for
> > > comprehension.
> >
>
-------------
> >
> > Come on Rick, you know that is a weak attempt to avoid the issue.
> > It is not *my* views you dispute, the post was ~~Jonnies~~. Our side
have
> > been posting the same opinions for years and you have come back with
your
> > stock phrases, now your own gaffer leaves you out in the cold. Remember,
I
> > said he would! I don't see him giving you any back-up.
> ================
> I never ask him to, and he has no need to. That you quote him still does
> not prove your case and better than when you quote lys, dreck, or anyone
> else on usenet. Too bad you can't really discuss the issue, since you
have
> nothing to offer, eh killer?
>
>
> >
> > Neither can I see him retracting some of the views he made in support of
> AR
> > issues.
> >
> > Perhaps a little e-mail to ~~Jonnie~~ may help.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > snips...
Problem over Rick,
~~Jonnie has retracted his statement and given you a good C.V.
He had to enlist the entire population of London to help, but it shows he
cares.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
[..]
>
> > Yet all agriculture results in massive harm to animals, wildlife like
> birds,
> > mice etc.. so the vegan still exacts a toll in death and suffering.
>
> Is there a point associated with this statement?
I thought it rather self-evident. Since the typical vegan supplants his diet
with a lot of calories from row-cropped plant based foods, his dietary
choice is instrumental in some increase of animal death and suffering.
Vegans, almost universally, in typical self-serving fashion, fail to count
this factor when comparing their diet to an omnivorous diet. By
illustration, an omnivorous diet is viewed as immoral, awful, disgusting,
etc.. because of the harm it causes animals. Their own diets are given a
comparatively clean bill-of-health. This strikes me as a highly self-serving
analysis.
> > > I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise
> meat
> > > humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> > > produced meat.
> >
> > What that fact illustrates is that raising animals meat is not
> categorically
> > inhumane/unethical as vegans claim.
>
> All vegans claim this?
No, not all, just the vast majority.
Prof. Peter Singer, in "Animal Liberation" - a book
> which is a major influence on ethical veganism/vegetarianism discusses the
> possibility of humanely produced meat - and goes on to say that vast
> majority of meat is not humanely produced. He suggests that maybe the
> question should not be so much "Is it unethical to eat meat?" but rather
"Is
> it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
> knowledge, a vegan.
Singer's strict utilitarianism is not popular these days. Look to Regan and
Francione, the rights-based AR authors to see the primary basis for vegan
ideology.
>
> > > Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> > > reasoning here.
> >
> > He means that they would never have been born but for the demand for
meat.
>
> I do not see how causing someone or something to be born "saves" them. It
> sounds "non-existence in the first place" sound like a variety of harm -
> which is ridiculous.
I agree, he's a moron.
rick etter
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:cKzKa.4292$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> > > This is an interesting claim. Could you provide some more specifics?
> > > Maybe some examples, evidence, that sort of thing.
> > ====================
> > Whta kind would you like?
> >
> >
> > The use of pesticides?
> > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> > http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
> >
>
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
> f
>
> I see a bunch of random URLs, that is all. That is not evidence.
LOL It's not evidence that animals die in crop production? Man, you
really are whacked out, aren't you killer?
>
> I fail to see an actual point here.
================
Of course you do. It violates your premise that vegan 'save' animals,
therefore you ignore it.
>
> > You can look up some for yourself. Like the millions of animals that
are
> > killed deliberately at storage and processing facilities just to keep
your
> > veggies clean and cheap. Try thinking for a change instead of
> knee-jerking
> > your way through life.
>
> Just one question.
>
> What!?
>
> > Now, care to really compare that to say, a deer? Didn't thing so.
>
> Pronouns are much more effective if they have a referent.
====================
Yep, didn't think you did. Just another on-line checker when you can't add
anything to the discussion, typical.
>
>
rick etter
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:4LzKa.4293$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> > > For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral
> failing.
> > > If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> > > suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is
no
> > > way for me to no use tires.
>
> > Really? Nice claim. Care to offer some proof? Didn't think so....
>
> Proof of what? That there is no realistic way to avoid tire use? Or that
> not eating meat prevents death and suffering of animals?
Millions of people aroung the world don't use tires. Why is it a necessity
for survival? Oh, yeah, your selfishness and convenience.
>
> What would you consider acceptable proof? (i.e. What would have to be
true
> about the world for your beliefs on this to be false.)
=================
Anything that would prove your claim. You made it stupid, now back it up.
>
>
>
>
rick etter
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:VOzKa.4294$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> > Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or
game.
>
> Good for them.
>
> > These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die
> for
> > the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
> > diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.
>
> Erm, what are you talking about?
Are you really this stupid, or do you work at it? What part iof animals
dying in agricultural fields don't you understand?
> > It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid.
>
> Brilliant, logical argument there.
================
And possibly kills 10s or 100s of other animals, you ignorant dolt. How
does that fit with the vegan loon sanctimonious hypocrisy?
>
>
>
Michael Voytinsky
> And possibly kills 10s or 100s of other animals, you ignorant dolt. How
> does that fit with the vegan loon sanctimonious hypocrisy?
I am impressed. You have learned words with more than two syllables in
them.
Maybe one day you will learn to use them to formulate a meaningful
argument - perhaps when you finally finish grade school.
rick etter
Ah, I see you still cannot refute what I say, or prove the deluded claims
you make. Typical.
rick etter
"dustbird" <dust...@cross.wind> wrote in message
news:bderg1$c...@library2.airnews.net...
>
> They shouldn't have chosen to be in those businesses to begin with.
Why? Are they illegal?
If
> somebody whose business is to wring the heads off live chickens on a
> production line is unemployed because people have chosen not to eat meat,
or
> the same for someone working in a slaughterhouse, or hog farm, or even for
> anyone involved in just the book-keeping, or executive work, do I care?
> Nope.
=====================
Of course not. vegans have no compassion. All they have is hate, for
themselves and everyone else.
They probably desderve an "unpleasant experience."
=================
The same as you do? Afterall, your lifestyle causes far more inhumane
deaths than any meat animal suffers. And for no more reason than your
selfish entertainment. I guess with all that hate floating around you, you
just like to cause all that death and suffering. Go to bullfights too, do
you?
> A lot of people gave up cigarettes because they thought it did them
harm,
> and because the price went sky-high. The same might work for meat.
====================
No, what would happen is that the producers would try to make up for any
loses by pushing even more animals through in shorter times. But then,
since it's been determined that you like animal suffering, I guess this
would appeal to you, eh killer?
> And the companies who are involved in meat products but also go into
tofu
> or something because there is a market - well, if the market for tofu
> ceased, wouldn't they go back into meat 100%? That is just amoral
> expediency.
==================
Tofu, now there's a amoral expediancy. Tell us, how many deaths are
involved in say, 100lbs of tofu meat substitute vs 100lbs of beef?
>
>
Michael Voytinsky
> Ah, I see you still cannot refute what I say, or prove the deluded claims
> you make. Typical.
You said:
> > And possibly kills 10s or 100s of other animals, you ignorant dolt. How
> > does that fit with the vegan loon sanctimonious hypocrisy?
It is difficult to refute a stream of mindless insults.
rick etter
LOL Your would know insults if they slapped you in the face stupid. That
you willnot even try to refute the facts says it all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Derek
> >
>
> I've never lied, not even once, asswipe.
You have lied in a number of areas. You lied in
that cowardly web page you authored
http://www.pathwai.org/tpa_loon_o_month.htm
claiming you had put a number to CD, but when
I put it to you that you lied, you made a lame
excuse and kept the lie going on that web page
for quite a considerable time before taking it off
a little while ago. From that page:
[My statement:
The only trouble is, is that it's a next to useless argument
when it comes to challenging our lifestyle. Nobody can put
a number to these deaths, & even though they do exist, are
not our responsibility anyway.
Kevin's reply:
We have put a number to them, and you are responsible for
them.]
I did bring this up with you in a new post;
From: Derek (de...@nash16.freeserve.co.uk)
Subject: Kevin has the number for CD
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals
View this article only
Date: 2002-03-02 07:54:42 PST
but we didn't reach a conclusion. Your comment running
straight after mine as if it were a retort to my statement on
this group is hardly fair. You've never made that comment
at any time on this group and you're not likely to either, so,
as a show of real sportsmanship, could you ameliorate your
loon o the month page, please. You can keep me on there
as long as you like but at least make your comments on
what I say accurate. I know it's only for a laugh and some
of it is quite alright, but do us a favour and make a different
comment.
[end]
You also lied by claiming Jon's premise was a true
premise, but after I forced him into conceding it
was false, you still lied by pretending it was a
true premise. I've never seen you address Jon's
lies on this issue, and I believe it's because
you're a coward who daren't stand against him.
Also, you have at times made posts in your opponent's
name while trying to weaken his position, and that's a
lie in itself. Both of you lost a lot of credibility when you
pulled that prank. It cost you dearly.
> You even admitted just
> recently that you've never "caught me" doing anything
> dishonest. You're clearly, and irrefutably, the one who
> is lying.
>
Obviously I was, or at least I was still willing to give
you the benefit of the doubt, but since your cowardice
over Jon's false premise and the straw vegan you attack
here on a.a.e.v., I've reconsidered my giving you the
benefit of the doubt and now believe you're one of the
most notorious and persistent liars on the group. That
web page and your forgeries prove it, and there's
nothing you can do to regain any lost credibility you
once thought you had. You're finished, Brandon, and
I think you know it too.
> > He and Jonathan Ball have
> > invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> > argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> > will weaken the vegan's position.
>
> False, your own claim that you "live a death free lifestyle" shows
> that you believe in this fallacy.
My claim that I live a death free lifestyle has no
bearing on the deaths caused by farmers during
crop production or the human deaths found in
other industries. I don't kill animals or humans,
and I don't believe that these death tolls are any
reflection on my lifestyle at all. You and Jon
intentionally misinterpret that common claim to
mean that the person making it is denying the
fact that collateral deaths happen. It doesn't
work.
> >
> > The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
> > someone else's position so that it can be attacked
> > more easily, knock down that misrepresented
> > position, then conclude that the original position
> > has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails
> > to deal with the actual arguments that have been
> > made.
> > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
>
> You didn't understand it until I told you what it meant, fuckwad.
You're overestimating yourself. I knew of this fallacy
a long time ago. What makes you think you're so much
smarter than everyone else? You obviously aren't, and
as a result I tend to ignore you because you're only one
step up from Rick and Dutch as far as having raw
intelligence goes. Like them, you follow after Jonathan
carrying HIS arguments for him, and when you get stuck
you wait for HIS response before making a reply of your
own. You're just another ambulance chaser, and an
obvious one at that too.
Michael Voytinsky
> I thought it rather self-evident. Since the typical vegan supplants his
diet
> with a lot of calories from row-cropped plant based foods, his dietary
> choice is instrumental in some increase of animal death and suffering.
It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a very
inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple, n'est
pas?
> > All vegans claim this?
>
> No, not all, just the vast majority.
You have done a poll?
> "Is it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
> knowledge, a vegan.
>
> Singer's strict utilitarianism is not popular these days.
I haven't poll vegans and vegetarians on this, so I do not know what the
popularity of Singer vs. Regan might be.
Certainly the statement "all vegans believe x" is obviously false if Singer
does not believe x.
Michael Voytinsky
> All "vegans" engage in this weird, obsessive search.
Only if you define "vegan" to fit your notions.
USual sUSpect
Derek wrote:
> You have lied in a number of areas. You lied in
> that cowardly web page you authored
> http://www.pathwai.org/tpa_loon_o_month.htm
<snip>
Thanks a million for that link! It has pearl's "inner earth beings" stuff.
"...It was so scary for the members of the secret government to see
their plans of escape that they have prepared for hundreds of years
failed 3 times that they are now working on "Noah's Ark Project and this
is "underground". I beg you not to try to find them or approach them
because you would not live very long or would be taken as a prisoner to
be treated as a slave to do their dirty work. But these are not the
"Inner Earth" people we are talking about on this list, they are our
present world Secret Government, and One World Government Order,
Military Alliances, etc. "surface people" who are planning their escape
when the Light of Almighty God will finally shine on this planet and
"they know" they will have nowhere to go...."
(still roflmao)
dustbird
> Tofu, now there's a amoral expediancy. Tell us, how many deaths are
> involved in say, 100lbs of tofu meat substitute vs 100lbs of beef?
I only eat tofu at bull-fights.
Isn't tofu made from soybeans? How does that cause the death of cattle?
Are you saying that because soybean crops replace grass, or hay, or
something, the cattle no longer have grass or grain to eat, and would starve
to death? Well, then, I see the error of my ways. Can you help me get a job
in a slaughterhouse where I could express my compassion for animals with a
bloody ax?
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EFB2556...@whitehouse.not...
It's a perfect example of your fuckwitted utilitarianism
and rates as contemptible as Singer's infanticide argument,
but there's nothing incoherent about it. I agree that it's a
wholly unethical approach to trumping perfect rights, but
there's nothing incoherent about it. Even Singer agrees
with Harrison, and Dutch wasn't slow in reading that for
himself in this instance (below).
From: Dutch (n...@email.com)
Subject: Re: Ethical Veg for 3 minutes, thinking about stopping...
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Date: 2003-04-21 12:59:54 PST
If you look at Pollan's article, (page 7) he communicated
with Peter Singer about the Polyface "Good Farm".
Singer felt compelled to conclude that "It is better for
those animals to have lived and died than to never have
lived at all."
http://orion.oac.uci.edu/~cohenp/food/animalsplace.pdf
Does THAT sound familiar? It sounds like Singer agrees
with David Harrison. I hardly know what to make of that,
but I'm beginning to feel an awareness of common ground
developing.
[end]
Dutch never did go all the way and explore that line
any further, but it's another good example which
proves the point I'm raising here nonetheless.
> and it is reactive.
>
Does a reactive position necessarilly mean that that
position will always be unethical or incoherent?
> Fuckwit, and this goof Hanson, clearly have formulated
> their poorly conceived responses as *reactions* to the
> supposed "ethics" of "veganism". The better approach
> is to attack the supposed "ethics" of "veganism" head
> on, and show that it is a phantom.
>
Careful, Jon. You nearly slipped up again there. When
using this approach, aren't you aware that instead of
attacking the "supposed ethics of veganism" by showing
it to be a phantom, you are in fact building a phantom
vegan straw man, just as I've been pointing out?
> Fuckwit's and Hanson's responses are allowing the
> "vegans'" false conception of ethics to be taken as
> given.
I knew that rankled you. You'd rather they use
YOUR straw vegan instead because the utilitarian
argument for continuing with current farming practices
can be easily defeated. Look at Page 187 in Regan's
new book.
[Suppose a given act, A, turns out to be morally right
when assessed by preference utilitarianism's standards.
And suppose this moral verdict is rendered on the basis
of calculating the overall preference satisfaction score,
using preferences x, y, z. Given the evil outcomes
utilitarianism can sanction, are we to conclude that A is
right? And given the evil preferences it must count, are
we to say that the preferences x, y, z are all morally
above board?
The answer to both questions clearly is no. To show that
A is right, according to the utilitarian standard, is no
guarantee that A is right; and to count preferences x, y
and z in the utilitarian calculus is no guarantee that there is
nothing morally evil, nothing morally problematic, about
these preferences.
This much acknowledged, the general conclusion toward
which the earlier critique of utilitarianism has been leading
should be clear. Notwithstanding it's many merits, the
position emerges so seriously flawed that it fails to provide
a reliable standard by reference to which moral right and
wrong can be determined. Because it fails to provide such
a standard, utilitarian calculation, while it may be relevent
for some purposes, should play no role whatsoever when
the purpose is to decide what is fundamentally morally right
and wrong.
Rejection of utilitarianism has important consequences
for our moral thinking in general, our thinking about how
animals should be treated in particular. In the case of
animal agriculture, to continue with this example, a careful,
exhaustive analysis of overall consequences would support
one of three conclusions:
1) The current system of animal agriculture leads to better
overall consequences than any alternative.
2) The current system leads to worse overall consequences
than other alternatives.
3) The current system leads to overall consequences that are
equal to those that would flow from other alternatives.
If the first option were shown to be true, nothing would
follow regarding the moral acceptability of the current
system; if the second, nothing would follow concerning the
moral acceptability of the current system; and the same is
true of the third alternative. In short, what ever the overall
consequences happen to be, the central moral question,
"Is the current system morally acceptable?" will remain
unanswered.]
> They are then trying to play a fuckwitted trick
> on "vegans", turning their own argument against them.
I'm very aware of the motive behind this game of theirs,
and it's a useless approach in my opinion because it
ultimately relies on promoting an illogical idea that an
animal benefits from a previous unborn condition by
being alive. What they both fail to have taken into
account is that vegans would rather farm animals never
existed in the first place.
> It's a mistake: one does not need to take the supposed
> "ethics" of "veganism" as a given. "veganism" is an
> ethically bankrupt belief.
>
Veganism is about abstaining from animal products as
best one can in World almost totally dependent on them,
that's all, and maybe a belief that an animal has a right
not to be harmed by us intentionally for our gains. Your
vegan is somewhat different to the real thing, and you
have no valid example showing your hypothetical vegan
even exists.
> Meat eating does not need a defense.
The meatarian's illogical belief that an animal benefits
from being born and eaten does need explaining
because The Logic of the Larder is easily shown to
be false in a number of different ways and can't be
substantiated by any proper reasoning.
> It is "veganism" that is in dire need of an ethics. It has none.
>
The vegan's ethos is easily defended, and you have
no valid argument against it. This is why you use a
straw vegan instead. As I said before, veganism is
merely a goal to abstain from animal products and
a belief that an animal has certain rights. The vegan
you attack carries a false argument YOU threw
together in the hope his position might be more easily
knocked down. You haven't a hope in making any
ground against us by attacking your own straw vegan.
You need a new strategy, because you'll always be
caught out and defeated when using the straw man
approach against us.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3EFC42A8...@even.try...
> snip afv
>
> Derek wrote:
> > You have lied in a number of areas. You lied in
> > that cowardly web page you authored
> > http://www.pathwai.org/tpa_loon_o_month.htm
> <snip>
>
> Thanks a million for that link! It has pearl's "inner earth beings" stuff.
>
looked it weren't there. I mightn't've known if you
hadn't've told me.
> "...It was so scary for the members of the secret government to see
> their plans of escape that they have prepared for hundreds of years
> failed 3 times that they are now working on "Noah's Ark Project and this
> is "underground". I beg you not to try to find them or approach them
> because you would not live very long or would be taken as a prisoner to
> be treated as a slave to do their dirty work. But these are not the
> "Inner Earth" people we are talking about on this list, they are our
> present world Secret Government, and One World Government Order,
> Military Alliances, etc. "surface people" who are planning their escape
> when the Light of Almighty God will finally shine on this planet and
> "they know" they will have nowhere to go...."
>
> (still roflmao)
>
She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
Derek
"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:HjXKa.114$a51...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
here are merely clones of their hypothetical vegan
carrying a crooked argument that isn't ours to begin
with. A rotten tactic from a buch of desperate losers
is what it is.
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:o14hfv8u56t4grfpr...@4ax.com...
> How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
> only live because they are raised by humans?
A logical consequence of your unsupported belief that animals do not
recognize death would be that they also do not recognize LIFE; so your
crackpot propaganda that such a miserable, tortured existence at the hands
of the dead-animal industry is somehow a useful experience for them is
nonsense.
> People can go to local farmers today and buy animal products from
> animals they feel have decent lives. That way they could contribute
> to decent lives for farm animals.
So, being burned by hot branding irons, being dehorned by hot irons,
being a grotesque genetic freak created only for human profit and which
could not survive in the wild, being pumped full of antibiotics and other
drugs necessary to keep them alive because they are so sick, being fed an
unnatural diet, being kept pregnant constantly to produce milk, being
restricted in veal cages, living in feed lots wallowing in their own shit,
being debeaked by hot wires so they don't kill each other, etc. --- all this
is DECENT? Would you think YOU would have a "decent" life if these things
were done to YOU?? Or course, you will not answer this question, as you
refuse to answer other questions that expose the absurdity of your claims
Here is a list of common bovine diseases; is this all part of a "decent"
life??
http://cattletoday.info/diseases/cancereye.htm
Worse, federal regulaters now allow cancerous cattle, pigs, and chickens
to be sold as consumable meat: "new rules reclassifying as safe for human
consumption animal carcasses with cancers, tumors and open sores."
http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/diseased.cfm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/chixpus.cfm
http://www.cobb-vantress.com/cvi/library/pdf/CVI-TNSpec%201_98.pdf
"(because of the high mortality in the breeder females, which may reach an
overall high of 6% per month or higher at its peak). Tumors of various
kinds may be found in up to 60-70% of the dead birds in severely affected
adult flocks Tumor expression and virus shedding appear to be higher during
ALV-J seems to be widespread now in commercial meat-type chickens."
This is characteristic of a "decent" life??
Laurie
They can't do it by being veg*n. By
> eating grass raised beef, people contribute to less deaths than by
> eating tofu. By drinking grass raised milk, people contribute to less
> deaths than by drinking soy or rice milk.
>
> > So, on that assumption, or on the assumption that people do not
need
> >meat in that diet, and all slaughter was legally prohibited, what would
> >happen to the animals? They couldn't be slaughtered, and it would not be
> >profitable for ranchers to feed them and care for them, so breeding would
> >have to be drastically reduced, so that there were only a relatively few
> >food animals.and . The most humane solution would be to continue to care
for
> >the animals, but to stop breeding until the population was reduced or
even
> >eliminated.
>
> PeTA kills more dogs and cats than they find homes for. What makes
> you think livestock would be cared for when "ARAs" already kill pets?
> The animals are already being cared for, and having *much* more
> life than they would if they had none at all. So far your extinction plan
> doesn't show any benefit for animals.
>
> >But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a species, so some sort
> >of reversionary or evolutionary breeding might take place that would fit
the
> >surviving animals to live independently in their natural habitats.
>
> What's the point in that? Billions of animals are already living
because
> humans raise them for food. Some of them have good lives, some have
> decent lives, some have terrible lives, just as is true in natural
habitats.
> Most wild animals don't live to maturity. At least the ones that humans
> raise usually don't suffer from starvation, disease or nonhuman predators.
> How long do you think an animal would have to live in order for its
> life to be worth living? Or do you think that if an animal is killed by a
> human, that automatically means that its life was not worth living?
> Or what?
>
> >And to
> >ensure there are natural habitats, it would make sense to breed the human
> >population down to much smaller numbers. This could probably be done
> >humanely withsome sort of combination of advanced birth control
medication
> >and social legislation that would apply to the rich as well as to the
poor.
>
> Something will probably have to be done in that regard at some point.
> Let's hope that it's not too late when they do it.
>
> > So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers
are
> >big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.
>
> Many animals on ranches have decent lives imo, and that is worth
> more consideration than the fact that they are killed.
>
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
> >> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> >> deaths than some types of veggies, ...
> >Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
> Soy beans, corn, rice, wheat.
That is a totally unsupported fantasy that exists only in your so-called
mind.
How about some scientifically-credible resarch that compares the animal
biomasss killed or displaced per pound of protein produced per acre? Valid
information of this kind would be as HONEST answer.
> http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
Dead link.
> http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
Dead link.
> http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
"Several million cows have been killed in Great Britain and other
European countries during the past 15 years to prevent the spread of two
diseases. One is foot-and-mouth disease, which broke out this past February
on English farms in Cumbria and Devon, leading to a prophylactic mass
slaughter of cows and sheep throughout Britain and France. These days, the
poor beasts seem more pathological than pastoral. The continued slaughter
in Europe has also led to a growing awareness of the problem of disposing of
all that dead livestock. Renderers have worked overtime, and still the
bodies, or what has become of them, pile up because there is no longer any
fit use for them."
Yes, a "decent" life.
> >That's a rather odd ideology you've got there. Couldn't it also be
> >said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
> >somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
> >brought into the world?
> Not imo. In that case the objective of the rapist is to have sex
> with a person who does not want to have sex with him. What
> makes most people consider it to be wrong is that the person
> being raped doesn't want to have sex, ...
Similarely, the cow "doesn't want" to be tortured, abused, drugged,
killed, and finally eaten. As usual, your "logic" is absurd.
> then it comes down to whether or not their life is of a quality
> that would make it worth living.
Does being branded, dehorned, deballed, fed drugs and growth hormones,
somehow enhance the "quality" of their lives?? Does the widespread
occurrance of tumors indicate a "quality" life?? Why don't you have these
things done to you to enhance the quality of YOUR life??
> No it sure is not. It is to contribute to *nothing* for farm
> animals--to contribute to *no* farm animals.
People who stop eating animals and animal products clearly reduce the
market demand for them, and that will reduce the numbers of animals that are
forced to live brutal, painful, diseased lives. Reducing unnecessary animal
suffering is seen as -positive- by rational people, but not by you.
Laurie
Laurie
> There is a growing group of vegans (i'm specifically refering
> to raw foodists- who do not eat tofu ... and in fact speak
> out against it.
There is a considerable body of information available, totally
independent of anyone's particular dietary choices, that indicates that soy
products are not a beneficial human food.
See the soy section at http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> If you [dh] claim that the production of tofu causes more
> animal deaths than killed by the beef industry (which I find hard to
> believe anyway- do you have any factual evidence in support of this?),
I have been challenging him(?) to present some scientifically-credible
data to support his goofy claims for SEVERAL YEARS, and he has produced
nothing but repetition of his personal propaganda.
> ..., veganism simply means not eating animal products.
It means different things to different people.
Some do not -intentionally- eat animals or animal products. Others stop
using animal products in other areas of their lives: clothing, animal-based
soaps, pet-foods, etc. So, there is a -wide and varied spectrum- of
practices considered vegan by different people with different levels of
understanding, philosophy, interest, and commitment.
Mindless meatarian propagandists, like dh and noBalls, INSIST that ALL
vegans have taken an oath never to consume or utilize even one molecule of
animal-derived substances in their lives, and this is simply NOT TRUE.
Because this is impossible, all vegans are then castigated by these idiots
for using automobile tires, glass, computers, ... and claim that vegans that
do so are ethically corrupt.
Laurie
USual sUSpect
> Heck! I thought he'd removed it, because when I last
> looked it weren't there. I mightn't've known if you
> hadn't've told me.
I'm printing it out so I'll always have a copy.
>>"...It was so scary for the members of the secret government to see
>>their plans of escape that they have prepared for hundreds of years
>>failed 3 times that they are now working on "Noah's Ark Project and this
>>is "underground". I beg you not to try to find them or approach them
>>because you would not live very long or would be taken as a prisoner to
>>be treated as a slave to do their dirty work. But these are not the
>>"Inner Earth" people we are talking about on this list, they are our
>>present world Secret Government, and One World Government Order,
>>Military Alliances, etc. "surface people" who are planning their escape
>>when the Light of Almighty God will finally shine on this planet and
>>"they know" they will have nowhere to go...."
>>
>>(still roflmao)
>
> She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
farrell77
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EFB3410...@whitehouse.not...
> >
> > "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > > >
> > > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> > >
> > > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > > vegans as well.
> > >
> > Kevin is lying, as usual. He and Jonathan Ball have
> > invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> > argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> > will weaken the vegan's position.
>
> Nope. The "vegan" already has a completely incoherent ethical
> position. We need do nothing to weaken it.
>
> All "vegans" believe in the fallacious argument:
I've asked for proof of this before and didn't see it. Could you
re-post it? Thanks.
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
>
> The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
> necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
> whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
> true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
> have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
> premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
> *believe* it to be true. ...
How do you know this?
The truth is, Jon, that I don't "*believe*" it and never have
believed it, as you should know, because I've mentioned
the case of roadkill before.
> ...Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
> premise of the fallacious argument.
No they don't. You don't know what you're talking about.
> The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
> obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
> addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
> leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
> this weird, obsessive search. ...
I don't and never have.
> ...The only logical explanation for
> it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
> molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
> to declare that they do not cause harm to animals. ...
There's another logical explanation: that few vegans
think what you claim they do and that your whole
argument is largely one big strawman.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:J_IKa.297009$ro6.7...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > I thought it rather self-evident. Since the typical vegan supplants his
> diet
> > with a lot of calories from row-cropped plant based foods, his dietary
> > choice is instrumental in some increase of animal death and suffering.
>
> It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a very
> inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
Plants don't feel pain, do they?
> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
n'est
> pas?
No. Eating an animal only by necessity kills one animal.
> > > All vegans claim this?
> >
> > No, not all, just the vast majority.
>
> You have done a poll?
Absolutely, by reading the newsgroup a.a.e.v for two years and reading reams
of vegan and AR literature.
>
> > "Is it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
> > knowledge, a vegan.
> >
> > Singer's strict utilitarianism is not popular these days.
>
> I haven't poll vegans and vegetarians on this, so I do not know what the
> popularity of Singer vs. Regan might be.
Utilitarianism is only used as a front argument to support veganism, but
since it is *sometimes* incorrect to say the eating plants is "better", it
is not relied upon.
> Certainly the statement "all vegans believe x" is obviously false if
Singer
> does not believe x.
It's quite glib and easy to deny that "x" (an absolute statement) can't be
correct.
Dutch
The term has strict meaning, a person who seeks to consume no animal
products. In order to fit this mold, vegans engage in this weird obsessive
behaviour.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3EFC7B8...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> > Heck! I thought he'd removed it, because when I last
> > looked it weren't there. I mightn't've known if you
> > hadn't've told me.
>
> I'm printing it out so I'll always have a copy.
>
the correct use of apostrophes in the above sentence?
> >>"...It was so scary for the members of the secret government to see
> >>their plans of escape that they have prepared for hundreds of years
> >>failed 3 times that they are now working on "Noah's Ark Project and this
> >>is "underground". I beg you not to try to find them or approach them
> >>because you would not live very long or would be taken as a prisoner to
> >>be treated as a slave to do their dirty work. But these are not the
> >>"Inner Earth" people we are talking about on this list, they are our
> >>present world Secret Government, and One World Government Order,
> >>Military Alliances, etc. "surface people" who are planning their escape
> >>when the Light of Almighty God will finally shine on this planet and
> >>"they know" they will have nowhere to go...."
> >>
> >>(still roflmao)
> >
> > She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
>
> Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
> believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
>
The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
dork though. She hardly ever produces anything of
her own and just copies everything from the web with
a link attached.
Dutch
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3EFB3410...@whitehouse.not...
> > Derek wrote:
> > >
> > > "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > > > >
> > > > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> > > >
> > > > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > > > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > > > vegans as well.
> > > >
> > > Kevin is lying, as usual. He and Jonathan Ball have
> > > invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> > > argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> > > will weaken the vegan's position.
> >
> > Nope. The "vegan" already has a completely incoherent ethical
> > position. We need do nothing to weaken it.
> >
> > All "vegans" believe in the fallacious argument:
>
> I've asked for proof of this before and didn't see it. Could you
> re-post it? Thanks.
It's clear in the very definition of a vegan. "A person who seeks to consume
no animal products."
The vegan therefore attempts to gets rid of leather shoes and belts,
gelatine capsules etc etc.. in the pusuit of being the perfect vegan, and
therefore ethically pure.
> > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> >
> > I do not eat meat;
> >
> > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
> >
> >
> > The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
> > necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
> > whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
> > true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
> > have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
> > premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
> > *believe* it to be true. ...
>
> How do you know this?
It's clear in the very definition of a vegan.
> The truth is, Jon, that I don't "*believe*" it and never have
> believed it, as you should know, because I've mentioned
> the case of roadkill before.
Roadkill is a diversionary argument. Animal products implies products
containing parts of animals that were "killed" deliberately for those
products, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of animal
products.
> > ...Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
> > premise of the fallacious argument.
>
> No they don't. You don't know what you're talking about.
Yes they do, nobody eats roadkill. Don't play the fool.
> > The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
> > obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
> > addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
> > leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
> > this weird, obsessive search. ...
>
> I don't and never have.
I don't believe you. You've asked what the broth is made of, are there bits
of shrimp in the salad, anchovies in the dressing, etc etc..
> > ...The only logical explanation for
> > it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
> > molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
> > to declare that they do not cause harm to animals. ...
>
> There's another logical explanation: that few vegans
> think what you claim they do and that your whole
> argument is largely one big strawman.
You don't like it because it hits the nail on the head.
USual sUSpect
>>I'm printing it out so I'll always have a copy.
>
> Of what: Lieslie's crap or my fine example illustrating
> the correct use of apostrophes in the above sentence?
The former. Congratulations, too, on the latter.
>>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
>>
>>Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
>>believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
>
> The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
> it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
> dork though. She hardly ever produces anything of
> her own and just copies everything from the web with
> a link attached.
I've already accused her of relying on a revolving circle of sources.
Site A refers to Site B which refers to Site C; of course, Site C
completes the loop by referring back to Site A. I want to find the Site
A for the people of middle, I mean *inner* earth -- and I don't mean
Tolkein.
farrell77
But a person can be a vegan, try to do these things and still
not accept either of the following (false) premises: (1) eating no
meat is required in order to avoid harming animals and (2) eating
no meat is sufficient to avoid causing harm to animals.
> > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> > >
> > > I do not eat meat;
> > >
> > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
> > >
> > >
> > > The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
> > > necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
> > > whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
> > > true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
> > > have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
> > > premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
> > > *believe* it to be true. ...
> >
> > How do you know this?
>
> It's clear in the very definition of a vegan.
>
> > The truth is, Jon, that I don't "*believe*" it and never have
> > believed it, as you should know, because I've mentioned
> > the case of roadkill before.
>
> Roadkill is a diversionary argument. Animal products implies products
> containing parts of animals that were "killed" deliberately for those
> products, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of animal
> products.
It's not a diversionary argument if one claims that *all* vegans
believe that eating meat is *always* unethical. It serves to disprove
that claim.
> > > ...Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
> > > premise of the fallacious argument.
> >
> > No they don't. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Yes they do, nobody eats roadkill. Don't play the fool.
Whether anyone eats it or not is irrelevant. All they have to do
is agree that eating roadkill wouldn't be wrong.
> > > The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
> > > obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
> > > addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
> > > leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
> > > this weird, obsessive search. ...
> >
> > I don't and never have.
>
> I don't believe you. You've asked what the broth is made of, are there
bits
> of shrimp in the salad, anchovies in the dressing, etc etc..
You have me confused with someone else. To the best of
my knowledge, I have never asked these questions. If you
still think otherwise, then please show where.
> > > ...The only logical explanation for
> > > it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
> > > molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
> > > to declare that they do not cause harm to animals. ...
> >
> > There's another logical explanation: that few vegans
> > think what you claim they do and that your whole
> > argument is largely one big strawman.
>
> You don't like it because it hits the nail on the head.
If I understand what you mean by "it" here, then I don't
like "it" because it's false.
Michael Voytinsky
> > It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> > tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a very
> > inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
>
> Plants don't feel pain, do they?
Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
>> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
>> n'est pas?
>
> No. Eating an animal only by necessity kills one animal.
However, if you raised that animal, you need additional infrastructure -
e.g. raising animal feed. This is an obvious point.
> > You have done a poll?
>
> Absolutely, by reading the newsgroup a.a.e.v for two years and reading
reams
> of vegan and AR literature.
And these represent views of every vegan?
>> Certainly the statement "all vegans believe x" is obviously false if
>> Singer does not believe x.
>
> It's quite glib and easy to deny that "x" (an absolute statement) can't be
> correct.
This does not prevent people from making absolute statements about, say, all
vegans.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:fh%Ka.332539$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > > It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> > > tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a
very
> > > inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
> >
> > Plants don't feel pain, do they?
>
> Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
Then it doesn't matter from an ethical standpoint that there is a net
caloric loss in turning cellulose into meat.
>
> >> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
> >> n'est pas?
> >
> > No. Eating an animal only by necessity kills one animal.
>
> However, if you raised that animal, you need additional infrastructure -
> e.g. raising animal feed. This is an obvious point.
Maybe obvious but categorically untrue. It's not necessary to grow "feed" to
eat meat. Livestock is raised in many parts of the world without feed, then
there is wild fish and game. A vegan can *reduce* his collateral impact on
animals by *adding* some fresh fish to his diet. That fact refutes vegan
principles.
> > > You have done a poll?
> >
> > Absolutely, by reading the newsgroup a.a.e.v for two years and reading
> reams
> > of vegan and AR literature.
>
> And these represent views of every vegan?
Every vegan that comes along displays virtually the identical mindset.
> >> Certainly the statement "all vegans believe x" is obviously false if
> >> Singer does not believe x.
> >
> > It's quite glib and easy to deny that "x" (an absolute statement) can't
be
> > correct.
>
> This does not prevent people from making absolute statements about, say,
all
> vegans.
When I describe a typical vegan characteristic vegans always line up to deny
the absolute.
rick etter
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:J_IKa.297009$ro6.7...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > I thought it rather self-evident. Since the typical vegan supplants his
> diet
> > with a lot of calories from row-cropped plant based foods, his dietary
> > choice is instrumental in some increase of animal death and suffering.
>
> It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a very
> inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
No, but by eating the tofu you can sure extract more dead animals. Besides,
the plants that the cows need are are not nutrients for people.
>
> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
n'est
> pas?
=================
Only to your simple minded brainwashed delusion, stupid. It is not that
simple. tell us again how many animals diefor 100lbs of tofu vs 100lbs of
deer.
rick etter
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:fh%Ka.332539$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > > It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> > > tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a
very
> > > inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
> >
> > Plants don't feel pain, do they?
>
> Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
>
> >> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
> >> n'est pas?
> >
> > No. Eating an animal only by necessity kills one animal.
>
> However, if you raised that animal, you need additional infrastructure -
> e.g. raising animal feed. This is an obvious point.
No, it is not, for tyhere is no need to 'raise' animal feed stupid. Why is
that concept so hard for you to understand? Too simple minded, or too
blinded by your delusions? Either way, the only thing obvious is your
ignorance.
rick etter
"dustbird" <dust...@cross.wind> wrote in message
news:bdhj9c$k...@library1.airnews.net...
> ==================
> > Tofu, now there's a amoral expediancy. Tell us, how many deaths are
> > involved in say, 100lbs of tofu meat substitute vs 100lbs of beef?
>
> I only eat tofu at bull-fights.
>
> Isn't tofu made from soybeans? How does that cause the death of
cattle?
Are you that stupid? Where did i say it killed cows? Try to read with even
a small amount of comprehension, dolt. Agian, since you failed to even try
to answer, how many animals die for 100lbs of tofu vs 100lbs of beef or
game? Willing to even make a stab at it, killer?
> Are you saying that because soybean crops replace grass, or hay, or
> something, the cattle no longer have grass or grain to eat, and would
starve
> to death?
==================
Yep, you really are that stupid. What I'm talking about stupid is the other
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians that die to produce your
crops. You don't eat meat, so the only animal you save is a cow, but you
kill many others for no more reasion than your selfish convenience. Why do
you do that, killer?
Well, then, I see the error of my ways. Can you help me get a job
> in a slaughterhouse where I could express my compassion for animals with a
> bloody ax?
===============
sarcasm isn't your strong suit, is it dolt?
rick etter
"Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote in message
news:vfopd5j...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:o14hfv8u56t4grfpr...@4ax.com...
>
> > How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
> > only live because they are raised by humans?
> A logical consequence of your unsupported belief that animals do not
> recognize death would be that they also do not recognize LIFE; so your
> crackpot propaganda that such a miserable, tortured existence at the hands
> of the dead-animal industry is somehow a useful experience for them is
> nonsense.
>
> > People can go to local farmers today and buy animal products from
> > animals they feel have decent lives. That way they could contribute
> > to decent lives for farm animals.
> So, being burned by hot branding irons, being dehorned by hot irons,
> being a grotesque genetic freak created only for human profit and which
> could not survive in the wild, being pumped full of antibiotics and other
> drugs necessary to keep them alive because they are so sick, being fed an
> unnatural diet, being kept pregnant constantly to produce milk, being
> restricted in veal cages, living in feed lots wallowing in their own shit,
> being debeaked by hot wires so they don't kill each other, etc. --- all
this
> is DECENT?
It's only in your ignorant delusions that all farm animals live this way.
try to wake up sometime.
snippage of rest of ignorant drivel....
pearl
<..>
> >>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
You're the nutcase. Posting people's details all over the place,
bringing private conversations into the group and lying about it.
> >>Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
> >>believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
> >
> > The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
> > it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
> > dork though.
'Believe it or not, comparing us on the surface to them, they view us
as still very primitive still using violence and warring, killing each other
to control and manipulate others for financial gain and greed purposes
or sometimes just because of various viewpoints or religious differences.'
Check.
And I don't 'crosspost it all about the place'.
> > She hardly ever produces anything of
> > her own and just copies everything from the web with
> > a link attached.
Interesting that you've asked for my advice in the past, for help
with research, and you will keep on posting results of MY work,
never giving due credit, like again, just today;
> > Also, figures from USDA show that an 800-pound,
> > medium-frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds
> > of dry matter a day of a high-concentrate ration. He
> > will gain about 3.0 pounds a day with daily nutrients
> > in his feed at the level shown here. The balanced daily
> > ration for the 800-pound yearling steer is:
> > Pounds
> > Corn 14.7
> > Soybean meal 0.52
> > Corn silage 10.00
> > Limestone 0.17
> > Total 25.83
> > http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02052.htm
> >
> > So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
> > 3 pounds of flesh we have a feed to weight ration of
> > 8.61:1, but that's not the end of it because the bones
> > etc. have to be removed.
> >
> > On-the-hook:
> > This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed
> > beef carcass. A typical 1200 lb. *Beef Steer* from
> > Geske Farms will yield approximately 500-pounds
> > of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound Choice
> > carcass. *my emphasis*
> > http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E
> >
> > From this we can calculate that only 41.6% of the
> > animal is eaten.
> > If we divide the amount of feed required (8.61) to
> > produce 1pound of steer by the 41.6% of actual
> > beef we get from it ( 8.61 /0.416 ) we arrive at the
> > final feed to beef ratio of 20.69:1
> > It takes 20.7 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound
> > of edible beef.
> >
> > It seems all I do these days is unsnip the evidence
> > I provide here. You all hide away from the truth
> > because it ruins your argument completely.
That'd be the evidence I provided you with, schlemlech.
dustbird
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:gQ1La.4399$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
I guess you're saying that growing crops destroys the natural habitat of
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. So that even if one is a
vegetarian one is not innocent. Is that it? If so, is there someway one
could be a vegetarian, and get around that? Seems to me that might be a
problem that could be solved without resorting to meat-eating.
But maybe that's not what you're saying. If so, I confess my doltiness.
Michael Voytinsky
> > Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
>
> Then it doesn't matter from an ethical standpoint that there is a net
> caloric loss in turning cellulose into meat.
You are missing the point. Plants have no moral standing - but growing
plants for our own purposes does (so the argument goes) cause animal
suffering. So if you are concerned about animal suffering, you need to
minimize amount of plants grown - and the way to do that is to eat them
directly.
> Maybe obvious but categorically untrue. It's not necessary to grow "feed"
to
> eat meat. Livestock is raised in many parts of the world without feed,
then
> there is wild fish and game. A vegan can *reduce* his collateral impact on
> animals by *adding* some fresh fish to his diet. That fact refutes vegan
> principles.
I did not know that there was an immutable set of vegan principles - as I
have said, I am sure this is news to many vegans as well.
Vast majority of meat raised in the West - and much of the meet elsewhere -
is raised using feed. In some parts of the world, grassfed beef is raised
by clearing forests - not really a good approach either.
Yes, maybe it is possible to grow meat without environmental damage or
animal suffering - but the reality is that such meat is not readily
available. It does not help that not everything labelled "free range" is
free range.
So, do you eat only humanely, environmentally safe meat?
> > And these represent views of every vegan?
>
> Every vegan that comes along displays virtually the identical mindset.
They do?
rick etter
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:hV0La.304629$3C2.8...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > > Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
> >
> > Then it doesn't matter from an ethical standpoint that there is a net
> > caloric loss in turning cellulose into meat.
>
> You are missing the point. Plants have no moral standing - but growing
> plants for our own purposes does (so the argument goes) cause animal
> suffering. So if you are concerned about animal suffering, you need to
> minimize amount of plants grown - and the way to do that is to eat them
> directly.
And an even better way is to substitute those plants that you have to grow
with some grass fed beef, or better, game. It's a no-brainer, except to the
ignorant deluded vegan loons.
>
> > Maybe obvious but categorically untrue. It's not necessary to grow
"feed"
> to
> > eat meat. Livestock is raised in many parts of the world without feed,
> then
> > there is wild fish and game. A vegan can *reduce* his collateral impact
on
> > animals by *adding* some fresh fish to his diet. That fact refutes vegan
> > principles.
>
> I did not know that there was an immutable set of vegan principles - as I
> have said, I am sure this is news to many vegans as well.
>
> Vast majority of meat raised in the West - and much of the meet
elsewhere -
> is raised using feed. In some parts of the world, grassfed beef is raised
> by clearing forests - not really a good approach either.
====================
So what? Why does that make all meat worse than any of your veggies?
Again, I doubt that you can answer that, but I'll keep asking anyway,
hypocrite.
>
> Yes, maybe it is possible to grow meat without environmental damage or
> animal suffering - but the reality is that such meat is not readily
> available.
====================
Yes, it is. Anybody that wishes to purchase would have little trouble
finding it.
It does not help that not everything labelled "free range" is
> free range.
=================
Like you believe that everything labeled 'organic' is cruelty-free?
>
> So, do you eat only humanely, environmentally safe meat?
===============
Yes. And it's not injected with hormones or antibiotics. Raised right down
the road, and when the kids were younger used to pet them and feed them
handfuls of grass from the 'other side' of the fence. They live, are
slaughtered, and delivered here all within 5-10 miles their whole lives. No
massive import cost in environmental destruction and animal suffering like
all the fruits and veggies you get from around the world.
>
> > > And these represent views of every vegan?
> >
> > Every vegan that comes along displays virtually the identical mindset.
>
> They do?
==============
Here on usenet? yes.
>
>
>
>
swamp
wrote:
>
>"Cole Smith" <co...@earthdome.com> wrote in message
>news:94faf4a5.03062...@posting.google.com...
>
>> There is a growing group of vegans (i'm specifically refering
>> to raw foodists- who do not eat tofu ... and in fact speak
>> out against it.
> There is a considerable body of information available, totally
>independent of anyone's particular dietary choices, that indicates that soy
>products are not a beneficial human food.
> See the soy section at http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
Site written by an 8th grader.
[snip]
> Laurie
--swamp